j||BectorStrategies
State Toolkit for Developing
Beneficial Reuse Programs
tor Foundry Sand >• x
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protect!
Agency
-------
ny stakeholders were involved in the development of this manual, which
we believe makes this a more valuable resource. The Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) was EPAs partner
in this project. Their members provided ideas for structure and content for the
report, and they offered valuable suggestions for improving earlier drafts. In
particular, Paul Koziar of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and
Ron Hassinger with Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
provided assistance and input that were especially helpful. Elizabeth Olenbush
of Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST) and Amy Blankenbiller of the
American Foundry Society provided input on sources for content and acted as
liaison between EPA and the foundry industry. This document was developed
under the auspices of EPAs Resource Conservation Challenge and EPAs Sector
Strategies Program and demonstrates EPAs ability to collaborate among offices,
regions, and other stakeholders to develop resources for states. In particular,
the EPA Region 5 Pollution Prevention and Program Initiative Section provided
invaluable vision, guidance, and review.
For further information regarding this Toolkit and EPAs partnership with the
metal casting sector, please contact Jeff Kohn (202 566 1407, Kohn.Jeffrey®
epamail.epa.gov) at the U.S. EPA.
This publication was produced by ICF International under EPA contract
#68 W 03 028.
-------
Contents
1 Introduction to the Toolkit 4
Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Program Preferences 7
Program Development 16
Step 1 of the Roadmap: Program Structure 17
Step 2 of the Roadmap: Siting or Location Restrictions 24
Qualification 30
Step 3 of the Roadmap: State Review Needed to Initiate Projects 31
Step 4 of the Roadmap: State Approval for Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands 36
Step 5 of the Roadmap: Initial Sampling and Testing 44
Ongoing Oversight 49
Step 6 of the Roadmap: Periodic and Event-Based Sampl ng, Testing and Report ng 50
6 Appendix A: Current State Program Designs 57
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
1 Introduction to the Toolkit
-------
Introduction to the Toolkit I 5
Background
Every year foundries generate between nine and 13 million tons of sand that is
unfit for continued use in the mold-making process or is excess sand that facilities
did not need. Industry sources estimate that only 10 percent of this sand is currently
beneficially reused outside of the foundries.1 The remainder is discarded in municipal
or industrial landfills or stockpiled on site. However, almost all foundry sand is
nonhazardous and is suitable for use in a number of applications, assuming the
sand meets tests for risks.2
The greatest volumes of foundry sand are currently used in geotechnical
applications such as road bases, structural fills, embankments, general fills
and landfills. The quality of the sand can make it an excellent aggregate for
manufactured products such as Portland cement, flowable fill, asphalts, and
concrete products. In more limited instances, foundry sand is being used in
manufactured soils and other agricultural applications.3
As of 2002, eighteen states had programs that regulated beneficial reuse
activities for foundry sand.4 Existing state programs consist of a variety of methods
to review, approve, and monitor reuse activities. As you develop a beneficial reuse
program, you should be aware of economic and program barriers that could
develop as a result of the program choices you make. These barriers may affect
the success of your program. This toolkit addresses program barriers, but does not
address economic barriers to beneficial reuse.
Purpose of the Toolkit
The toolkit is designed expressly as an assistance tool for states. The goal is
to help you improve an existing beneficial reuse program or develop a beneficial
reuse program that fits your state's needs. In many cases, foundries are interested
in beneficially reusing their sand rather than disposing of it in landfills. As a result,
states are receiving more requests from foundries to consider various beneficial
reuse activities. If your state is receiving an increased number of requests, you may
want to consider improving the efficiency of your decision-making process while
ensuring the environmental and health safety of the proposed reuse activities.
This toolkit builds upon EPAs Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sand: A Review of
State Practices and Regulations. The toolkit provides program options and concrete
examples of a variety of approaches used in states to efficiently conduct beneficial
1 Foundry sand estimates are from Dr. Paul J. Tikalsky of Pennsylvania State University, collated from
FIRST (Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today) data.
2 For additional information on foundry sand and beneficial reuse options, please refer to the FIRST
website (http://www.foundryrecycling.org/index.html) and the Federal Highway Administration's website
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=175). Links current as of July 2006.
3 FIRST website, . July 2006.
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sand: A Review of State Practices
and Regulations. December 2002.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
6 | Introduction to the Toolkit
reuse determinations. Since resource availability is a primary concern for many
states, the toolkit addresses the state agency and industry burdens associated with
program options. In addition, the toolkit discusses how program design options may
affect the level of program participation.
If you would like to review data on the feasibility of reusing foundry sand, please
refer to Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST), a non-profit consortium
focused on market development of sustainable options for recycling and beneficial
reuse of foundry industry by-products. The FIRST website provides links to a
collection of technical, environmental and economic data from industry, university,
and government (United States Department of Agriculture) sources on foundry sand
reuse (http://www.foundryrecycling.org/text/techlibrary.html).
Overview of the Toolkit
As you work through the toolkit, you should consider what your state agency's
capacity is, given the burdens that each program option presents. Each decision
reflects your program preferences, such as level of approval, review, oversight,
and environmental protection. It is important to balance these preferences against
the impact that program design has on resource commitments at the state and
industry levels. This will help you to plan and design a program that fits your state's
ability and preferences. Careful program development can lead to a beneficial reuse
program that both promotes reuse of foundry sands and ensures environmental
protection in your state.
The next section of the toolkit ("Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and
Program Preferences") leads you through a series of questions to determine what
type of program you want to design while also broadly showing the impact of each
decision with regard to your agency's available resources, both for initial program
development and ongoing program maintenance. This section begins with the
"Roadmap for Creating a Foundry Sands Beneficial Reuse Program." This diagram
and the following detailed questions help guide you through the questions in the
outline. The Roadmap illustrates the program development process, including the
decisions you need to make to design a program for your state. For example, the
Roadmap identifies program options that are designed to require significant ongoing
budget and employee resources. Such program options may not be appropriate for
states with year-to-year budget challenges.
The remaining sections of the toolkit correspond to the three Stages (Program
Development, Qualification, and Ongoing Oversight) and each of the Steps in the
Roadmap. The Steps in the Roadmap and the toolkit text lead you through the
program options that are typically found in beneficial reuse programs for foundry
sand. These program option descriptions are supplemented with examples from
states that use the approaches described. In addition, the toolkit provides sample
regulatory language, case studies, and links to state program information. These
resources are current as of July 2006 and may be superceded at any time.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
BeforeYou Start: Identity Your Priorities and
Program Preferences
iwws^^rs'.^.^'i,*-• — < • .
^^SpS*;^'1
• -'^**rfe ••-•'••'?*?(?••• '
,, r ,^'% „ • --, r-Jsj&tffr
, >:'>•«,...-.. -fc-v • •* S^Jfy''
-------
8 | Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences
The questions in this section will assist you in thinking about and formulating
the overall approach of your beneficial reuse program. Your responses will identify
priorities with regard to foundry sand beneficial reuse program components. Once
you answer some basic questions, you can develop a program outline, and then
fill in the details. With this information, you will be able to identify your preferred
program design, given the choices presented in the toolkit.
There are two initial questions that you will need to answer. These questions
relate to the type of material that will qualify for reuse under the program.
Following these initial questions, you will need to answer additional
questions that will help you design your program's framework. The Roadmap for
Creating a Foundry Sands Beneficial Reuse Program illustrates these program
design questions.
Identifying Materials that will Qualify for the
Program
Whether you design your program applicability based on broad waste
classifications or based on specific materials, you should identify some or all of the
materials that your program will address and the types of reuse activities you intend
to allow.
What types of foundry sands will be addressed by your beneficial reuse
program?
• Are you focusing on foundry sands from operations such as iron, steel, and
aluminum, which represent more than 90 percent of foundry sands and the
most studied for reuse applications?
• Are there operations in your state from less common foundry operations that
should also be covered by the program? The remaining foundries may use:
11 Copper
is Brass
Si- Bronze
9i Beryllium
K Cobalt
Zinc
Lead
m. Tin
«i Nickel
K Magnesium
IX Titanium
What types of reuse activities do you want to allow?
• Bound (stabilized): use sands in manufactured products, such as:
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences | 9
Portland cement
Asphalt
Concrete products
• Confined (contained, not stabilized): use sands in geotechnical applications,
such as:
Road bases
Structural fills
Embankments (may be unconfined in some cases)
General fills (may be unconfined in some cases)
Landfills
• Unconfined (not contained or stabilized): use sands in agricultural products,
such as:
Amendments
Compost
Manufactured soil
Top dressing
Roadmap for Creating a Foundry Sands Beneficial
Reuse Program
The remaining questions in this section relate to the "Roadmap for Creating a
Foundry Sands Beneficial Reuse Program." The numbered headings correspond
to the numbered boxes in the Roadmap. The Roadmap does not necessarily
present steps in the order that must be taken; rather it is a way to think about each
component of your foundry sands program. The following definitions should aid you
in understanding the Roadmap:
Approval - A state agency's endorsement of proposed beneficial reuse
activities. This state endorsement may be in written format, although some states
endorse proposed activities without a formal written response to generators or
end-users.
Case-by-case determinations - With this program design option, states
review proposed reuse activities on an individual basis.
Waste classification - With this program design option, states establish
categories that are defined by ranges of contaminant thresholds for specific
reuses and/or waste types. In general, by-products with low concentrations of
constituents of concern are less restricted in their reuse activities. Conversely,
by-products with higher concentrations are more restricted. These categories
standardize the review process for proposed reuse activities, and streamline the
approval process.
Event-based testing - This program design option establishes the
frequency of sampling and testing to confirm that the foundry sand's composition
has not changed. In this case, generators or end-users must test the sand when
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
10 | Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences
Roadmap for Creating a Foundry
What kind of
structure will
your program
have?
Waste
Classification
Hybrid
Should you
impose siting
or location
restrictions?
Case-by-Case
Determinations
Seepage 17
for waste
classification
options
NO
YES
No siting
and location
restrictions
is an option,
but is not
recommended.
Therefore, it is
not discussed
in the toolkit.
What level of
state review
should be
required to
initiate a
reuse project?
Waste
Classification
See page 24
for siting
and location
restriction
options
Hybrid
Case-by-Case
Determinations
See page 31
for waste
classification
options
See
page 35
for hybrid
options
See
page 20 for
case-by-case
determination
options
page 33 for
case by case
determination
options
rogram Development
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences 111
Sands Beneficial Reuse Program
Kftv
agency industry
low burden H low burden
| | medium burden [| medium burden
high burden high burden
Should the
state respond
in writing to
initiate reuse
projects?
NO
YES
See page 38
for options
with no
written
approval
Should initial
sampling and
testing be
required?
I .
NO
No initial
sampling and
testing is
an option,
but is not
recommended.
Therefore, it is
not discussed
in the toolkit.
YES
See page 44
for sampling
and testing
methods
L
Should there
be ongoing
sampling,
testing, and
recordkeeping
requirements?
Periodic and
Event-based
See page 51
for periodic and
event based
sampling,
testing, and
reporting
requirement
options
Event-based
See page 51
for event-based
sampling,
testing, and
reporting
requirement
options
Qualification
Ongoing
Oversight
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
12 | Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences
a specific incident occurs, such as a change in the foundry process generating
the waste sand.
Program Development - Structure
Can you group reuse activities according to the level of agency scrutiny
required?
• If reuse activities can be grouped together, but different groups require different
levels of scrutiny, you should use waste classifications.
• If you believe that all reuse activities should be scrutinized the same way, then
you should choose case-by-case determinations.
• If you know of some groupings that you can create, but they don't include all
reuse activities, you could create a hybrid model.
Can you identify foundry sand beneficial reuse activities that could be
approved with an application and testing data from a generator or end-user
without a review of individual projects?
• If yes, then you may want to consider waste classifications for those reuse
activities.
• If no, then you may want to consider case-by-case determinations.
• If there are certain projects that could be streamlined, but others that require
further scrutiny, you may consider a hybrid approach. Case-by-case reviews
may be conducted for projects that do not conform to the waste classifications
and their allowable reuses.
How much funding will you have for program development versus ongoing
project reviews?
• If you have good funding for program development, but poor funding for
ongoing maintenance, then you may want to consider waste classifications.
• If you have poor funding for program development, but good funding for
ongoing maintenance, then you may want to consider general regulations that
require case-by-case reviews, or you may consider a hybrid approach.
Program Development - Siting or Location
Restrictions
What types of siting standards do you want to establish for beneficial reuse
activities?
• If establishing siting restrictions are established for all reuse activities, consider
that you must commit resources up-front to identify program elements such as:
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences 113
» Environmental resources to be protected (potable wells, groundwater,
surface water, wetlands, floodplains, soil type, critical habitat, residential
areas, aquifers, etc.).
v Type(s) of reuse restriction (bans, minimum distances, hydrology or
hydrogeology, etc.). (High up-front agency resources, low burden to
industry for justification, low ongoing agency burden for review)
• If you believe environmental protection standards should be project specific,
then you should consider case-by-case reviews. (Low up-front resources, high
burden to industry for justification, high ongoing agency burden for review)
Qualification - Level of State Review
Agency Burden: How willing is the state to commit the resources necessary
to review proposed foundry sand beneficial reuse activities?
• Agency does not review the initial sampling and testing results, and instead
requires industry to keep records of this information (no agency burden).
• Agency reviews initial sampling and testing results to ensure that levels are
below pre-established constituent levels (low agency burden).
• Agency reviews initial sampling and testing results on case-by-case basis for
environmental impacts (medium agency burden).
• Agency reviews initial sampling and testing results and additional information
regarding environmental impacts (i.e., potential for groundwater contamination,
off-site releases, air pollution, etc.) (high agency burden).
Qualification - Written Approval
Agency Burden: How willing is the state to commit the resources necessary
to submit written approval for foundry sand beneficial reuse activities?
• Agency does not submit written approval to generators or end-users (no
agency burden).
• Agency submits written approval to generators or end-users for some, but not
all, beneficial reuse activities (i.e., depending on volume of material proposed
for reuse) (low agency burden).
• Agency submits written approval to generators or end-users for all beneficial
reuse activities (high agency burden).
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
14 | Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences
assure
Qualification - Initial Sampling and Testing
Industry Burden: How much responsibility do you want to place with
industry to prove that their reuse activities do not harm human health and
the environment?
• Industry conducts initial sampling and testing and is required to maintain
records (low industry burden).
• Industry conducts initial sampling and testing and reports results to the agency
(medium industry burden).
• Industry conducts initial sampling and testing, reports results to the agency, and
provides additional information regarding environmental impacts (i.e., potential
for groundwater contamination, off-site releases, air pollution, etc.) (high
industry burden).
Do you want to establish sampling and testing method requirements or
require applicants to design and justify their own requirements?
• If you establish sampling and testing method requirements, then you will need
to commit resources up-front to establish the following program elements:
Identify the required testing method, if you plan to specify.
Identify the constituents for which testing will be conducted.
Identify the thresholds that must be met. (High up-front agency resources,
low burden to industry for justification, low ongoing agency burden for
review)
• If you require applicants to design and justify their own requirements, then you
should consider other initial sampling and testing options:
If Allow industry to select the testing method.
IS Allow industry to identify the constituents for which testing will be
conducted.
Allow industry to identify the thresholds that must be met. (Low up-front
resources, high burden to industry for justification, high ongoing agency
burden for review)
Ongoing Oversight - Sampling, Testing and
Recordkeeping
How often do you want assurance regarding the composition of the waste
being reused?
• Industry conducts periodic and event-based sampling and testing (e.g.,
sampling and testing on an annual basis and when a process producing the
foundry sand changes), but does not report the results to the agency unless a
significant change occurs (low industry burden).
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
Before You Start: Identify Your Priorities and Your Program Preferences 115
• Industry conducts event-based sampling and testing and reports the results to
the agency (low industry burden).
• Industry conducts periodic and event-based sampling and testing and reports
the results to the agency (medium industry burden).
• In addition to periodic and event-based sampling and testing and reporting,
industry reports additional information regarding the reuse activities (e.g.,
amount of foundry sand reused and challenges encountered) (high industry
burden).
Are the foundry sand byproducts in your state relatively consistent in their
constituents and concentrations?
• If consistent, then consider less frequent testing.
• If inconsistent, then consider more frequent testing.
• If unknown, then consider more frequent testing until the consistency can be
determined.
What level of state resources are you willing to commit for ongoing reviews
of foundry sand beneficial reuse projects?
• Agency does not review periodic sampling and testing results or environmental
impacts (i.e., groundwater contamination, off-site releases, air pollution, etc.)
(no agency burden).
• Agency reviews sampling and testing results and environmental impacts when
a process producing the foundry sand changes (low agency burden).
• Agency reviews industry's periodic sampling and testing results only (medium
agency burden).
• Agency reviews industry's periodic sampling and testing results and
environmental impacts (high agency burden).
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
3 Program Development
-------
STEP 1: Program Structure 117
When creating a new beneficial reuse program, or redesigning an existing
program, you must consider two basic program development components. The first
component is addressed in Step 1 of the Roadmap: Program Structure. Step 2 of
the Roadmap covers the second component, Siting or Location Restrictions.
STEP 1 OF THE ROADMAP: Program Structure
Step 1 of the Roadmap identifies the types of program structures that you may
consider: waste classification, case-by-case determinations, and a hybrid structure.
However, Step 1 does not stand alone, and the decision you make in Step 1 has
significant resource implications for your state in the short- and long-term. While
Step 1 discusses the short-term burden associated with initial setup of a program
structure, Step 3 explains the ongoing burden for each program option in the
coming years as your agency reviews and approves applications for reuse projects.
To fully consider the overall burden implications of each program structure, you
should review and carefully consider the discussions in Steps 1 and 3 together to
select the appropriate choice given your agency resources now and in the future.
Waste Classification
You may want to develop a beneficial reuse program that establishes standards
that vary by waste classification categories. This type of program requires more
resources for program development, but less for ongoing maintenance without
sacrificing environmental protection. Waste classification categories are defined by
a range of constituent concentration thresholds which are matched with specific
reuses. By establishing this structure, you may tailor the nature and stringency of
restrictions to the risks associated with the foundry sand. For example, many states
place fewer restrictions on using foundry sands for manufacturing certain products
(e.g., cement, asphalt, concrete) that have a very low potential for causing adverse
environmental impacts, while greater restrictions are imposed for foundry sands
used in agricultural soils which could potentially pose a higher environmental risk.
You may also impose restrictions on reuse activities depending on the constituents
of concern in the foundry sand.
There are trade-offs you must confront when deciding whether to establish
a waste classification system for the beneficial reuse of foundry sand. You will
need to commit resources during program and regulatory development to
establish the waste classification structure of the program. However, once the
structure is implemented, it can streamline the process for reviewing and
approving reuse activities. States that develop a waste classification system will
have less flexibility than a case-by-case system to tailor restrictions based on
the specific merits of the projects. To maintain appropriate risk levels in a waste
classification scheme, you will need to establish constituent levels that are stringent
enough to ensure environmental safety of all the possible reuse activities. A hybrid
structure would require a case-by-case review if parameters in the classification
program are exceeded.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
18 | Program Development
Pros
WASTE CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORIES
Can efficiently address a variety
of foundry sand generators
and multiple beneficial reuse
activities, allowing you to tailor
reuse to risks.
Standards are tailored to
potential risks which may result
in lower industry costs because
generators or end-users may have
less uncertainty when applying for
States use different labels for each category of by-product in their waste
classification scheme. These labels are assigned to constituent concentration
thresholds. For example, in Illinois, the waste classification categories and
corresponding maximum allowable leaching concentration thresholds for arsenic
(used as an example) are as follows:
• Beneficially usable - 0.05 mg/L
• Potentially usable - 0.1 mg/L
• Low risk - 0.25 mg/L
• Chemical waste - > 0.25 mg/L
To qualify for any beneficial reuse activity, foundry sands must be categorized
as "beneficially usable." However, foundry sand that falls within the three other
classes must be landfilled, unless the generator files a "Petition for an Adjusted
Standard."
Alternatively, states may use a simple numbering system to classify by-products
that qualify for beneficial reuse. For example, in Indiana, the waste classification
categories and corresponding maximum allowable leaching concentration
thresholds for arsenic (used as an example) are as follows:
• Type I - 5.0 mg/L
• Type II -1.3 mg/L
• Type III - 0.50 mg/L
• Type IV - 0.05 mg/L
Foundry sands that fall within Types III and IV have a variety of reuse options,
as specified under Indiana Statute 1C 13-19-3-7. Type I or Type II sands may be
approved for some use on a case-by-case basis. Any type of foundry sand may be
eligible for use as alternative daily cover at a municipal solid waste landfill.
Balancing Burden and Risk
The upfront burden associated with waste classification categories is high for
agencies because staff will need to develop the system used to categorize waste.
However, over time, this burden is reduced because the reviews of beneficial reuse
activities do not require much staff time because determinations can easily be made
given the waste's composition and the established categorization system.
In terms of determining risk, waste classification categories may not allow for
the same level of scrutiny as case-by-case determinations because decisions are
generally made with less information (i.e., waste composition data). Since there
is less agency and industry burden in terms of project reviews, there may be less
information available to determine risk. Therefore, you may want to consider this
tradeoff when establishing the waste classification categories or allowable reuses.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 1: Program Structure 119
Links to States with Waste Classification
Categories
Current as of July 2006.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)—Waste Management
Programs
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/waste-mgmt/
Program Information:
• http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-121957 (See
§817.105 and §817.106)
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) —Office of Land
Quality
http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/land/
Program Information:
M http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title13/ar19/ch3.htmlSIC13-19-3-7
• http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03290/A00100.PDF (See 329IAC 10-9)
• http://www.in.gov/apps/idem/media/publications/ (Type foundry sand in the
keyword box)
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/
Program Information:
• http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_
view=4&ti=30&pt=1 &ch=335 (See §335.1 (definitions of Class 1, 2, and 3
wastes), §335.505, §335.506, and §335.507)
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources—Waste Management Program
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/solid/beneficial/index.html
Program Information:
• http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr538.pdf (See NR 538.08)
Sample Regulatory Language
The Illinois Administrative Code provides an example of how waste
classifications are incorporated into regulations.
Example excerpted from 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 817, Requirements
for New Steel and Foundry Sand Industry Wastes Landfills, Section 817.105
"a) Wastes ... shall be classified on the basis of leaching potential as
determined by the procedure at Section 817.103.
Cons
WASTE CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORIES
You must dedicate FTEs and
budget up front to develop the
constituent lists, acceptable
concentration levels for each
category, and allowable reuses
for each category. This will be a
resource intensive process for the
agency or their contractor.
You risk unintentionally allowing
a beneficial reuse in a category
that should not be allowed. To
compensate, timely reporting
requirements are recommended.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
20 | Program Development
Pros
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW
Requires limited agency
resources to develop the
regulations and program up front.
Likely to be less resource
intensive in terms of ongoing
project monitoring because
agency personnel would become
familiar with each reuse project,
and uncertainties during the reuse
period would likely be minimal.
A case-by-case approach to
review and approve beneficial
reuse activities may be
appropriate for states that have
few or no active foundries and
who infrequently encounter
requests for beneficial use
approvals.
b) Wastes ... shall fall into one of four classifications:
1) Beneficially usable waste;
2) Potentially usable waste;
3) Low risk waste; or
4) Chemical waste.
c) Maximum allowable leaching concentration (MALC) for the beneficially
usable, potentially usable and low risk classes are presented in the table at
Section 817.106. Wastes exceeding the MALCs for the low risk class shall
be regulated as chemical wastes under 35 III. Adm. Code 811 .Subpart C."
Current as of July 2006.
Your regulations may also include a table with the waste classification limits
for each category and for each constituent. You should consider establishing
constituents and cut-off levels based on your state's own assessments. Generally,
states will include a table in their regulations with the constituents and maximum
concentrations. (See Step 4 of the Roadmap and Toolkit for more details about
how to develop sampling and testing requirements). Two rows from Illinois' table are
presented below.
TABLE 1
Constituent Limits Excerpted from Illinois Waste Classification Regulations
r<:v,,,,,;,r
Arsenic
Barium
>"'.-••"•-'"'•:•< ;.•>'",
0.05
2.0
i '-' .• ;' .• ;••'••' 1 1 ( I >• - '*••• \ -. •.
• ' \ .>''!.."!/ ^ '• - :r ; ..' 1 ' •.
0.1
2.0
i...->v,- >-;>:A iW os ;,...--,
0.25
5.0
Excerpted from 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 817, Requirements for New Steel and Foundry Sand
Industry Wastes Landfills, Section 817.106. Current as of July 2006,
Case-by-Case Determinations
Case-by-case determinations require careful review of beneficial reuse projects
before they are initiated, and usually require significant ongoing agency resources
to maintain the program in an efficient manner. Under this type of program, each
end-user or generator submits an application to the agency describing the intended
beneficial reuse and composition of the foundry sand. The state agency then
examines whether or not the application meets the basic requirements and rejects
or approves it.
To develop a program with case-by-case reviews, you would create a basic set
of standards that all foundry sands must meet to be eligible for beneficial reuse. This
type of program requires limited agency resources during program development.
However, application review and approval may require a large outlay of agency
expertise and time to review each application individually.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 1: Program Structure 121
General Permit Option
To address the potentially lengthy amount of time it could take to review
numerous, similar beneficial reuse applications, some states have implemented
"general permitting" programs. A general permitting scheme has some
characteristics in common with case-by-case reviews. Similar to the case-by-case
reviews, states receive applications from generators and end-users for specific
reuse activities. The difference is that multiple qualified applicants are allowed to
engage in that particular reuse once the general permit is issued.
The advantage of general permits is that you can allow multiple applicants
to engage in specific beneficial reuse activities within one general permit, thus
limiting the number of applications for review. A general permit can be specific to
a byproduct or reuse activity. For example, one general permit might cover green
sands from iron foundries only for use only in road embankments. Alternatively, a
general permit may cover multiple foundry sand byproducts from multiple facilities.
For example, any green (clay bonded) sands from iron, steel, or aluminum foundries
could be used in road embankments.
Balancing Burden and Risk
The upfront burden associated with case-by-case reviews is low for agencies
relative to waste classification categories. Staff need to develop regulations
establishing the program, which is less burdensome than developing both a
regulatory scheme and waste classification system. Over the course of program
development and implementation, there will be greater burden than with a waste
classification program because the case-by-case reviews of beneficial reuse
activities require significant staff time.
In terms of determining risk, case-by-case determinations allow for a high
level of scrutiny because decisions are generally made with detailed information,
as required. Since there is higher agency and industry burden in terms of project
reviews, there is generally more information available to help a state determine risk.
Given these constraints on resources, if you choose to develop a general permitting
program, you should consider developing regulations that are broad enough to
accommodate a wide range of beneficial reuses while still being protective of human
health and the environment.
Links to States with Case-by-Case
Determinations
Current as of July 2006.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.deq.state.la.us/
Program Information
• http://www.deq.louisiana.gOv/portal/Portals/0/planning/regs/title33/33v07.pdf
(See Chapter 11)
Cons
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW
Could restrict beneficial reuses to
a small list that does not reflect
the range of beneficial reuses that
could keep foundry sands out of
landfills.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
22 | Program Development
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml
Program Information
• http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c418.doc (See Section 7)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality—Waste
http://www.michigan.goV/deq/0,1607,7-135-3312—.OO.html
Program Information
• http://www.state.mi.us/orr/emi/admincode.asp?AdminCode=Single&Admin_Nu
m=29904101&Dpt=EQ&RngHigh= (See Ft 299.4114 -4117 and Ft 299.4122)
New York Department of Environmental Conservation—New York State
Solid Waste Management Program
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/sldwaste/index.htm
Program Information
• http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/subpart360_01 .html [See Section
360-1.15(d)]
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—Municipal and
Residual Waste
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1238&Q=463452&l
andrecwasteNav=|310701
Program Information
m http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter287/025 J3287.pdf (Secf/on
287.7)
West Virginia—Office of Waste Management
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=10
Sample Regulatory Language
New York's regulations contain language that is not specific to foundry sands.
Instead, the State uses generic language for the reuse of any solid waste in a
manufacturing process. The following example provides excerpted regulatory
language from New York.
Example excerpted from 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Management
Facilities, Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations,
Section 360-1.15
"(d) Case-specific beneficial use determinations.
(1) The generator or proposed user of a solid waste may petition the
department, in writing, for a determination that the solid waste under
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 1: Program Structure 123
review in the petition may be beneficially used in a manufacturing
process to make a product or as an effective substitute for a
commercial product. Unless otherwise directed by the department, the
department may not consider any such petition unless it provides the
following:
[Specific requirements omitted for brevity.]
(2) The department will determine in writing, on a case-by-case basis,
whether the proposal constitutes a beneficial use based on a showing
that all of the following criteria have been met:
[Specific criteria omitted for brevity.]
(3) The department will either approve the petition, disapprove it, or
allow the proposed use of the solid waste under review subject to
such conditions as the department may impose. When granting a
beneficial use determination, the department shall determine, on a
case-by-case basis, the precise point at which the solid waste under
review ceases to be solid waste. Unless otherwise determined for the
particular solid waste under review, that point occurs when it is used
in a manufacturing process to make a product or used as an effective
substitute for a commercial product or used as a fuel for energy
recovery. As part of its petition, the petitioner may request that such
point occur elsewhere. In such a request, the petitioner must include a
demonstration that there is little potential for improper disposal of the
material or little potential for the handling, transportation, or storage of
the solid waste under review to have an adverse impact upon the public
health, safety or welfare, the environment or natural resources."
Current as of July 2006.
Pennsylvania's regulations provide an example of language used to establish a
general permitting program for the beneficial reuse of foundry sand.
Example excerpted from Chapter 287 of the Pennsylvania Code, Residual
Waste Management - General Provisions, Section 287.7
"(a) Beneficial use. As a term or condition of a general permit for the beneficial
use of residual waste, the Department will make a determination that the
waste which is beneficially used under the permit ceases to be a waste if it
is used in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit and does
not harm or present a threat of harm to public health, safety, welfare or the
environment.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
24 | Program Development
Pros
SITING RESTRICTIONS
Achieve higher level of
environmental protection.
Reduce risk to sensitive
populations or ecosystems
through reuse of foundry sands in
those adjacent areas.
Can increase awareness of other
environmental standards that
may apply to beneficial reuse and
thereby improve overall regulatory
compliance and environmental
protection.
Streamlines approval by avoiding
a situation where industry
proposes reuse activities in
locations that may later be
rejected by the state upon review.
(b) Processing.
(1) As a term or condition of an individual or general permit for the
processing of residual waste, the Department may make a determination
that, subsequent to the processing activity, the processed waste ceases
to be a waste even if it does not meet the requirements for a co-product.
(2) The Department will only make this determination if the applicant
demonstrates the following to the Department's satisfaction:
(i) The waste will be used as an ingredient in a manufacturing or
production process or as a substitute for a commercial product.
(ii) At a minimum, use of the waste will not:
(A) Harm or present a threat of harm to the health, safety or welfare
of the people or environment of this Commonwealth through
exposure to constituents of the waste.
(B) Present a greater harm or threat of harm than the use of the
product or ingredient which the waste is replacing.
(iii) The physical character and chemical composition of the residual
waste contributes to the usefulness of the product, and nothing in the
physical character or chemical composition of the waste interferes
with the usefulness of the product."
Current as of July 2006.
Hybrid Structure
Another available program option combines the structures of waste
classification categories and case-by-case reviews. A hybrid program structure
allows you to establish waste classification categories for beneficial reuse activities,
while allowing generators and end-users to apply for other reuses that do not fall
within the waste classification categories.
Therefore, you can establish a program that has both waste classification
categories and case-by-case reviews. Such a program streamlines the review
process for reuse activities that fall within waste classification categories, while
remaining flexible by considering other reuse activities individually.
STEP 2 OF THE ROADMAP: Siting or Location
Restrictions
States will likely have some areas deemed more sensitive than others due to
environmental protection or public health concerns (such as wetlands). You can
provide extra protection for these areas by establishing siting or location restrictions
for confined and unconfined reuse activities.
The first step in developing siting restrictions is to consider local geography,
geology, hydrology, weather, land use, et cetera, to identify the ecosystems and
environments most susceptible to potential contamination by proper or improper
use of otherwise reusable foundry sands. Using this information, you should then
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 2: Siting or Location Restrictions 125
consider the areas where, and the methods by which, unacceptable contamination
or risks could occur, and identify the types of siting restrictions most appropriate to
your state. For example, land application as a soil amendment over sandy soil with
a shallow aquifer may not be appropriate. Alternatively, this reuse activity might be
appropriate in areas with clay-based soil.
Some other states simply prohibit reuse in areas already listed as deserving
special protection by another government agency.
MAINE
Maine's rules state that a beneficial reuse cannot be located in, on,
or over any protected natural resource. In addition, the reuse cannot be located adja-
cent to, and manipulated in such a manner that materials could be washed into, any
protected natural resource.
ILLINOIS
does not list any specific geographical siting restrictions, but
does require any potential end-user to demonstrate that the proposed activity will not
cause an exceedance of the applicable groundwater quality standards for that area.
Some states have created hybrid systems that require examination of
potentially sensitive sites as part of the permitting process, but allow flexibility in
permitting reuse.
LOUISIANA
i, a state with large swaths of ecologically sensitive wetlands,
requires that applicants submit information on the environmental characteristics of
land within 1,000 feet of the facility perimeter, with a particular emphasis on potable
wells, groundwater, surface water, wetlands, floodplains, soil type, and other critical
habitats. Applicants may receive a permit even if they discover and disclose these
mitigating factors; however, they must meet a separate, more stringent set of restric-
tions.
Another option for developing siting restrictions consists of combining waste
classification categories and siting restrictions. It is possible that another agency
within your state could introduce siting restrictions for projects that use foundry
sands.
INDIANA
Indiana's Department of Transportation has adopted Special
Provisions for foundry sand. These provisions only apply to INDOT projects, and are
therefore not applicable to other projects that involve foundry sand, such as private
projects or local government projects.
Cons
SITING RESTRICTIONS
Requires some agency time and
resources.
Reduces beneficial reuse
opportunities.
If poorly researched and
implemented, may not adequately
protect natural resources in
some situations and may be
unnecessarily restrictive in other
situations.
Balancing Burden and Risk
The upfront burden associated with siting restrictions may be high for agencies
because staff will need to develop the types of siting restrictions that are appropriate
for the state. Over time, this burden is reduced because once the restrictions are
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
26 | Program Development
established, generators and end-users must certify that proposed reuse activities
are compliant with siting restrictions.
In terms of risk, siting restrictions may reduce the risk associated with beneficial
reuse projects. The agency must dedicate some resources upfront to establish the
restrictions, but this investment helps to protect against potential environmental
degradation. This tradeoff is important to consider when establishing the siting
restrictions.
If you do not develop specific siting restrictions, you should consider creating
them on a case-by-case basis, looking at each project on its own merits. While this
provides a low initial burden, it creates a larger agency burden than listed restrictions
over time as the agency must more thoroughly examine every case for potential
siting concerns.
Links to States with Siting Restrictions
Current as of July 2006.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Land Division
http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/LandDivisionPP.htm
Program Information
• http://www.adem.state.al.us/Regulations/Div13/D13Chapter%204.doc
(See Chapter 335-13-4-26)
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.deq.state.la.us/
Program Information
• http://www.deq.louisiana.gOv/portal/Portals/0/planning/regs/title33/33v07.pdf
(See Section 1107)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml
Program Information
m http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c418.doc (See 06-096
Chapter 418 Section 3[E])
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—Municipal and
Residual Waste
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1238&Q=463452&l
andrecwasteNav=|310701
Program Information
M http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter287/025_0287.pdf/See
287.101 (e)(6)]
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 2: Siting or Location Restrictions 127
Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation—Division of Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/swm/
Program Information
• http://tennessee.gov/environment/swm/pdf/SWPolicyManual.pdf (See
page 97)
West Virginia—Office of Waste Management
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm7ssick10
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources—Waste Management Program
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/solid/beneficial/index.html
Program Information
• http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr538.pdf (See NR 538.04)
Sample Regulatory Language
The following regulatory language from Alabama's Solid Waste Program Permit
Requirements does not allow reuse at certain sites under any circumstances.
Example excerpted from Solid Waste Program Administrative Code Chapter
335-13-4-26, Requirements for Management and Disposal of Special Waste
"(3) Disposal requirements for foundry wastes. Foundry waste which exhibits
less than 50 percent of each of the TC Levels for metals as defined by
the USEPAs Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) may be
managed in the following manner:
(a) Foundry waste may be managed in areas other than
1. Flood Plains;
2. Wetlands;
3. Residential zones; or
4. Areas less than 5 feet above the uppermost aquifer."
Current as of July 2006.
Maine's "Solid Waste Management Rules: Beneficial Use of Solid Wastes" (06-
096 Chapter 418) includes the State's siting restriction based on a previous agency
designation.
Example excerpted from 06-096 Chapter 418 Section 3[E]
"A beneficial use activity may not be located in, on, or over any protected
natural resource or be located adjacent to and operated in such a manner
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
28 | Program Development
that material or soil may be washed into any protected natural resource unless
approved pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. Section 480-A et seq."
Current as of July 2006,
Louisiana has two-pronged regulatory language, with one part asking for
detailed information concerning the site of potential reuse, but theoretically allowing
reuse to happen even if sensitive areas are located within 1,000 feet of the facility.
Example excerpted from Title 33, Environmental Quality Part VII, Solid Waste,
Subpart 1. Solid Waste Regulations, December 2004, Section 1107
"A. Location Characteristics. Standards pertaining to location characteristics
are contained in LAC33:VII.1109.A.
1. Area Master Plan. A location map showing the facility, major drainage
systems, drainage flow patterns, location of the 100-year floodplain, and
other pertinent information. The scale of the maps and drawings must be
legible, and engineering drawings are required.
2. Environmental Characteristics. The following information is required:
a. a list of all known recreation areas, designated wildlife management
areas, swamps and marshes, wetlands, habitat for endangered
species, and other sensitive ecologic areas within 1,000 feet of the
facility perimeter or as otherwise appropriate;
b. documentation from the appropriate state and federal agencies
substantiating the recreation areas, designated wildlife management
areas, wetlands, habitat for endangered species, and other sensitive
ecologic areas within 1,000 feet of the facility; and
c. a map showing the locations of all known locations of all public water
systems, industrial water wells and irrigation wells within 1 mile of the
facility."
Current as of July 2006.
However, Louisiana end-users must comply with the following hydrology
provisions:
Example excerpted from Title 33, Environmental Quality Pan VII, Solid Waste,
Subpart 1. Solid Waste Regulations, December 2004, Section 1107
"C. Facility Surface Hydrology. The following standards regarding surface
hydrological characteristics apply to beneficial-use facilities....
4. Wastes shall not be surface-applied within 100 feet of clean water ponds,
lakes, or the 10-year high water mark for streams. In this 100-foot zone
wastes must be injected.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 2: Siting or Location Restrictions 129
5. Wastes shall not be applied within 300 feet of drinking water wells,
irrigation wells, or industrial water supply wells.
[Language omitted for brevity.]
E. Facility Subsurface Hydrology. The following standard applies to subsurface
hydrology for beneficial-use facilities: The facilities shall be located in a
hydrologic section where the historic high water table is at a minimum of a
3-foot depth below the zone of incorporation, or the water table at the facility
shall be controlled to a minimum of a 3-foot depth below this zone."
Current as of July 2006,
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
4 Qualification
-------
STEP 3: State Review Needed to Initiate Projects | 31
This section of the Toolkit addresses program processes that help states
approve and generators or end-users initiate reuse activities. Proposed reuse
activities must meet qualification requirements based on some level of State Review
(Step 3), State Approval (Step 4), and Initial Sampling and Testing (Step 5).
STEP 3 OF THE ROADMAP: State Review Needed
to Initiate Projects
Step 3 of the Roadmap identifies the types of state review processes that you
may consider: waste classification, case-by-case determinations, and a hybrid
review structure. This section of the Toolkit describes these options in detail.
Your choice in Step 3 will directly correlate to the choice you make in Step 1 of
the Roadmap. The burden implications of Step 3, however, are significantly different
from the burden implications of Step 1. When choosing a program structure in Step
1 and associated type of state review in Step 3, you should weigh the initial burdens
of program setup against the ongoing burdens of reuse project review and approval.
For example, the short-term (initial) burdens associated with Step 1 indicate that a
waste classification structure is more burdensome to develop than a case-by-case
determination structure. However, as explained in Step 3, the long-term (ongoing)
implementation of a waste classification structure is less burdensome than the
implementation of a case-by-case determination structure. As you review Step 3,
consider your state's ability to commit the time and resources required for reviews
under each program option. Your decision will have significant implications for your
beneficial reuse program as agency resources are allocated to review reuse projects
throughout the coming years.
Waste Classification
As discussed in Step 1, waste classification categories are defined by a range
of constituent concentration thresholds which are matched with specific reuses.
A program stucture with waste classification categories can streamline the
beneficial reuse project review and approval process. Once the waste categorization
scheme is established during program development (see Step 1 of the Toolkit),
your review of project proposals from generators or end-users may be as simple as
reviewing the constituent concentrations detected in the foundry sand to ensure that
they are within the parameters of the pre-determined category. This less burdensome
review would confirm that the generator or end-user categorized the foundry sand
properly and, therefore, the proposed reuse activities may proceed.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
32 I Qualification
INDIANA
Pros
WASTE CLASSIFICATION
May reduce the timeframe to grant
approvals (addressing a significant
barrier to increased reuse), so
generators and end-users may be
more likely to participate.
Application reviews involve
evaluating initial sampling and
testing data and matching the
foundry sand's constituent
concentrations with the waste
classification categories. This
process is less labor-intensive.
In Indiana, if a generator or end-user proposes reuse activities
for foundry sands that do not meet Type III constituent concentration thresholds,
then the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) reviews the
application on a case-by-case basis. These reviews are authorized under 329 IAC 10-
3-1(16), which states, "Any other use of solid waste approved by the commissioner
based on the commissioner's determination that the use is a legitimate use that does
not pose a threat to public health or the environment." Indiana does not have a regu-
latory definition for legitimate use. Instead, IDEM considers the merits of the reuse
activity and asks questions, such as:
• Is the foundry sand an effective substitute?
• Does the foundry sand meet product/material specifications?
• Is there valid research to support the reuse?
• Are there engineering and project plans?
• What physical tests have been performed?
CASE STUDY 1
State Review of Reuse Projects with Waste Classification
Categories in Wisconsin
In Wisconsin, the generator
of the foundry sand submits
a form with test results to the
Department of Natural Resources
(DNR). The applicant is required
to characterize the foundry sand
according to the initial sampling
and testing requirements outlined in
the regulation. Once the testing is
complete, the generator compares
the results to the waste classification
categories and the corresponding
constituent concentration thresholds
to identify allowable reuse activities.
Then, a short form is submitted to
the DNR with information such as the
name of the generator, the amount of
foundry sand generated, the planned
reuse activities, and the testing
results.
When the Wisconsin DNR
receives the form, a quick review
may be performed. There are five
program staff members, plus one
coordinator, who work in regional
offices around the state. The work
conducted by these six individuals,
however, amounts to 1.25 position
equivalents. While the ongoing
labor resource commitment is
small, Wisconsin spent more time
developing the categories up-
front and ensuring that they are
adequately protective.
Generally, the information
provided by generators is complete
and correct. The DNR does not
submit any written approval to the
generator. If asked by the generator,
they will place a call or send an e-
mail to the generator stating their
approval. The turn-around time is
immediate upon submittal of the
information. The process is self-
certifying for the most part.
Wisconsin's hybrid structure
allows for case-specific reviews when
(1) the proposed reuse activity is
outside the scope of the regulation,
and (2) the source of the foundry
sand is not one that is specified in the
regulation (i.e., aluminum foundry).
Approximately 5 percent of all
approvals conducted by Wisconsin
are case-specific reviews. The
generator has to submit a written
request, which could be as short as
two paragraphs long. This request
includes information such as the
name of the generator, the amount of
foundry sand generated, the planned
reuse activities, and the testing
results. Depending on the complexity
of the proposal, the state may require
additional information, such as a
description of the hydrogeology at
the proposed reuse site. Following a
review of the submitted information,
the state writes up a formal
exemption in response. At the most,
these case specific reviews take 30
business days to complete.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 3: State Review Needed to Initiate Projects | 33
Balancing Burden and Risk
The ongoing burden associated with waste classification categories is low as
compared to case-by-case determinations because the reviews of beneficial reuse
activities do not require much staff time. Waste classification determinations can
easily be made given the waste's composition and the established categorization
system.
In terms of determining risk, waste classification categories may not allow for
the same level of scrutiny as case-by-case determinations because decisions are
generally made with less information (i.e., waste composition data). Since there
is less agency and industry burden in terms of project reviews, there may be less
information available to determine risk.
Links to States with Waste Classification
Categories
Page 19 in Step 1 of the Toolkit lists those states with beneficial reuse
programs that have waste classification categories.
Sample Regulatory Language
Step 1 of the Toolkit provides sample regulatory language from the Illinois
Administrative Code, which is an example of how waste classifications are
incorporated into regulations (see page 19).
Case-by-Case Determinations
As discussed in Step 1 of the Toolkit, case-by-case determinations require
careful review of beneficial reuse projects before they are initiated, and usually
require significant ongoing agency resources to maintain the program in an efficient
manner. Under this type of program, each end-user or generator submits an
application to the agency describing the intended beneficial reuse and composition
of the foundry sand. The state agency then examines whether or not the application
meets the basic requirements and rejects or approves it. This application review and
approval process may require a large outlay of agency expertise and time to review
each application individually.
General Permit Option
To address the potentially lengthy amount of time it could take to review
numerous, similar beneficial reuse applications, some states have implemented
"general permitting" programs. A general permitting scheme has some
characteristics in common with case-by-case reviews. Similar to the case-by-case
reviews, states receive applications from generators and end-users for specific
reuse activities. The difference is that multiple qualified applicants are allowed to
engage in that particular reuse once the general permit is issued. The advantage
of general permits is that you can allow multiple applicants to engage in specific
beneficial reuse activities within one general permit, thus limiting the number of
Cons
WASTE CLASSIFICATION
You risk unintentionally allowing
a beneficial reuse in a category
that should not be allowed. To
compensate, timely reporting
requirements are recommended.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
34 I Qualification
Pros
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEWS
Likely to be less resource
intensive in terms of ongoing
project monitoring because
agency personnel would become
familiar with each reuse project,
and uncertainties during the reuse
period would likely be minimal.
applications for review. The following case sfudy details Pennsylvania's general
permitting program design.
New York
requires written approval on a case-by-case basis for reuse
of foundry sand. The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC)
grants beneficial use determinations (BUDs) on a project-specific basis. To petition
for a BUD for foundry sand, the generator or end-user must submit to DEC:
(1) A description of the waste and the proposed reuse;
(2) A demonstration that the management of the solid waste will not adversely
affect human health and safety, the environment, and natural resources;
(3) A solid waste control plan, including, but not limited to, procedures for
periodic testing of the solid waste and proposed product; and
(4) Assurance that for foundry sand used in a manufacturing process, the
foundry sand must not require decontamination or special handling or processing
before incorporation.
Maine
issues general permits that allow end-users to receive by-products,
like foundry sand, from generators without additional approval from the State.
CASE STUDY 2
State Review of Reuse Projects with General Permits in
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, the generator
of the foundry sand or the proposed
end-user can apply for a general
permit. The applicant is required to
characterize the foundry sand and
suggest constituent concentration
thresholds. When the Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP) receives the
application, one person from a
team of three staff performs an
administrative review to determine
if all required information is
included. If the application is
complete, then the permit request
is published in the Pennsylvania
Bulletin (equivalent to the Federal
Register) to announce that the
application was received by the
state.
Once the bulletin is published,
there is a 60-day public comment
period. During and after the public
comment period, PADEP conducts
a technical review on the chemical
analysis and management plan
submitted by the applicant. Once
this review is done, PADEP makes
a decision to approve or deny the
general permit. PADEP has 160
days to make a decision on the
application.
Once a general permit is
approved, PADEP allows other
generators or end-users to apply
for reuse activities under the
permit. This type of application
by additional generators or end-
users, called a "determination of
applicability," takes less agency
time to review than new permit
applications, but the applicant must
complete the same forms as those
applying for an initial general permit
application. The generator or end-
user must receive written approval
from the State before initiating their
beneficial reuse project, however,
applicants have a higher degree of
certainty that their projects will be
approved.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 3: State Review Needed to Initiate Projects | 35
rCIIHwVI wdllld issues general permits that cover a particular reuse
and any producer of waste material meeting the specified thresholds can apply to
join the permit.
LUUIdldUd In Louisiana, most approvals are on a case-by-case basis,
but a permit can be issued for a specific reuse at multiple locations of waste material
from multiple sources.
Balancing Burden and Risk
For states with case-by-case determinations, the project review and approval
process will result in a greater burden than those states with a waste classification
program. Case-by-case reviews of beneficial reuse activities require significant staff
time because states must collect and review more documentation on the proposed
reuse activities.
In terms of determining risk, case-by-case determinations allow for a high
level of scrutiny because decisions are generally made with detailed information, as
required. However, waste classification systems can be designed with constituent
levels that are stringent enough to ensure that the by-products could not pose a risk
when reused. With appropriate documentation for each by-product waste stream,
the classification system could be tailored to individual waste streams.
Links to States with Case-by-Case
Determinations
Page 21 in Step 1 of the Toolkit lists those states with beneficial reuse
programs that have case-by-case reviews.
Sample Regulatory Language
Step 1 of the Toolkit provides sample regulatory language from New York and
Pennsylvania (see page 22). Both of these states review proposed reuse activities
on a case-by-case basis.
Hybrid Structure
As discussed in Step 1 of the Toolkit, the hybrid review structure combines the
structures of waste classification categories and case-by-case reviews. A hybrid
structure allows you to review certain by-products and reuse activities within a
waste classification scheme, while allowing case-by-case reviews for other reuses
that do not fall within the waste classification categories. This type of structure
streamlines the review process for reuse activities that fall within waste classification
categories, while remaining flexible by considering other reuse activities individually.
Case Study #1 on page 32 explains how Wisconsin implements a hybrid structure in
some cases.
Cons
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEWS
Resource intensive for agencies
during the approval process
because of the time and staff or
contractor expertise needed to
review each permit application on
an ongoing basis.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
36 | Qualification
Pros
WRITTEN APPROVAL
REQUIREMENT
Ongoing compliance monitoring
and enforcement activities may
be less time consuming, because
your agency will gain a better
understanding of proposed reuse
activities during the application
review process.
Reviewing and approving each
application provides a higher level
of oversight.
May allow for a greater variety of
reuse activities if they have the
opportunity to review and approve
each application.
You may be able to tailor
compliance monitoring and
enforcement activities according
to a project's relative "risk."
STEP 4 OF THE ROADMAP: State Approval for
Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands
Step 4 of the Roadmap presents the options for state approval before
generators or end-users initiate reuse projects. This section describes those options
in detail.
Written State Approval
To initiate reuse activities, you may require generators or end-users of foundry
sand to gain written state approval. Several types of program options may require
written approval, such as case-by-case review programs, general permits, and
waste classification categories, as discussed in Steps 1 and 3 of this Toolkit.
When written approval is required, unlike with waste exemptions and prior notice,
generators or end-users may not initiate reuse activities until they receive written
notification back from the state.
As you design your program, you should be cognizant of the amount of time
state approval will take. Your approval will be based on a review of the generator or
end-user's application. These application reviews vary depending on your program
design. A waste classification program typically requires a relatively short review of
the foundry sand's constituent concentration levels to ensure that they fall within
the state's limits. Case-by-case determinations typically require states to conduct a
comprehensive review to evaluate all aspects of the application. The latter example
often takes longer to complete. The length of time it takes a state to complete the
review and approve the reuse activity may affect industry's willingness to participate.
You should consider this factor as you design your state's beneficial reuse program.
Balancing Burden and Risk
This program option results in agency burden due to the staff time required to
respond to beneficial reuse proposals, particularly for programs that require case-
by-case reviews. Since you have the opportunity to review each proposed reuse
activity, the risk associated with reuse activities may be determined. Designing a
program with state approval may be most appropriate for states who want to
closely track and control foundry sand beneficial reuse activities. Also, depending on
the amount of information gathered upfront, you may be able to reduce ongoing
oversight activities because there is less uncertainty, and therefore potential risk,
associated with the reuse activities.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 4: State Approval for Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands | 37
PENNSYLVANIA
In Pennsylvania, once written approval of a
general permit is granted, the state generally does not require periodic monitoring
activities. The applicant simply must certify each year that the process producing the
foundry sand has not changed.
Links to States with Written Approval
Current as of July 2006,
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.deq.state.la.us/
Program Information:
• http://www.deq.louisiana.goV/portal/Portals/0/planning/regs/title33/33v07.pdf
(See Section 1103)
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml
Program Information:
• http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c418.doc (See Section 7)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality—Waste
http://www.michigan.goV/deq/0,1607,7-135-3306_28609—,00.html
Program Information:
• http://www.state.mi.us/orr/emi/admincode.asp?AdminCode=Single&Admin_Nu
m=29904101&Dpt=EQ&RngHigh= (See R 299.4111)
New York Department of Environmental Conservation—New York State
Solid Waste Management Program
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dshm/sldwaste/index.htm
Program Information:
• http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/subpart360_01 .html [See Section
360-1.15(d)]
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection—Municipal and
Residual Waste
http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/landrecwaste/cwp/view.asp?a=1238&Q=463452&l
andrecwasteNav=|310701
Program Information:
m http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter287/025_0287.pdffSee
Section 287.101)
Cons
WRITTEN APPROVAL
REQUIREMENT
Without waste classification
program, may require significant
state resources to review
applications and provide written
approval. These reviews are
labor-intensive, and require
commitments of agency staff time
and expertise.
Will be more successful when
the reviews are conducted
expeditiously. Industry may be
less willing to participate in reuse
activities if the approval process
takes too long.
Depending on the review criteria,
the application process may
require significant resources to
gain state approval for industry.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
38 I Qualification
Stat :
classification
categories,
are in
1 3 of the
Toolkit, are
the prior
notice or waste
West Virginia—Office of Waste Management
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm7ssick11
Sample Regulatory Language
New York, a state with case-by-case determinations for the beneficial reuse of
foundry sand, requires written approval for proposed activities.
Example excerpted from 6 NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Management
Facilities, Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations,
revised November 24, 1999
"(d) Case-specific beneficial use determinations.
(2) The department will determine in writing, on a case-by-case basis,
whether the proposal constitutes a beneficial use based on a showing
that all of the following criteria have been met: [Specific criteria omitted
for brevity.]."
Current as of July 2006.
No Written State Approval
Streamlined approval processes like prior notice and waste exemptions,
discussed below, do not require written state approval before a generator or end-
user can initiate a beneficial reuse project. Streamlined approval options also provide
a shorter and more predictable timeframe for the generator or end-user who wishes
to initiate the beneficial reuse project. In addition, a streamlined approval process
provides added certainty of project acceptance because of the explicit criteria that
are included in regulations. State programs that use waste classification categories,
which are discussed in Steps 1 and 3 of the Toolkit, are often paired with the prior
notice or waste exemption program design options. The absence of written approval
may also reduce the burden on states since they are not required to respond in
writing to generators or end-users.
ALABAMA
In Alabama, prior to reuse, an applicant must "certify" the
foundry waste by submitting a completed Solid/Hazardous Waste Determination
Form and a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analysis for metals.
No response or approval from the state is required.
This program design option, however, does not preclude the state from
requiring reporting on the proposed reuse activities. Under this option, you
may develop a beneficial reuse program which requires the applicant to report
information regarding the proposed reuse activities. In return, you are not required to
send written approval before the generator or end-user initiates the reuse activities.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 4: State Approval for Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands | 39
Wisconsin
has a prior notice approval process. The first step for gen-
erators or end-users who wish to participate in Wisconsin's program is to character-
ize the foundry sands that will be reused. The applicant sends the characterization
results to the Department of Natural Resources and, for most beneficial reuses
allowed under Wisconsin's rule, can immediately proceed with the beneficial reuse
project without written specific departmental approval.
Streamlined approval may be most appropriate for states with foundry
sand byproducts (1) that are relatively consistent in their waste constituents and
concentrations, and (2) will consistently meet risk criteria. One option is to allow
no state approval for safer beneficial reuse activities and require state approval for
borderline risk projects.
Prior notice from generator or end-user
If you are interested in streamlined approval processes, it is recommended
that you also consider a prior notice system. Under this option, states allow
foundry sand beneficial reuse activities to proceed only after the state receives prior
notification detailing the proposed reuse activities. If you were to choose the prior
notice option, typically, the generator or end-user of the foundry sand only needs
to notify you in writing before beneficial reuse activities commence. The prior notice
application is generally a short form that does not require much information. You are
not required to approve the activity and the applicant can initiate beneficial reuse
within a certain period of time if the applicant does not receive a state response.
Prior notice, however, provides you with the opportunity to object, question,
or deny the applicant regarding their reuse plans. This program design option
also allows you to track and document reuse activities from the beginning. If a
proposed reuse activity does not comply with your state requirements, then you
have the option to respond to the generator or end-user and prevent the project
before it begins. Therefore, a prior notice system with no state approval does not
compromise risk determinations; rather, it allows for a streamlined review with the
opportunity to stop projects that are too risky. As a result, you have more upfront
oversight over proposed reuse activities in the state than with the waste exemption
option. Unlike the waste exemption approach, prior notice requires agency or
contractor resources to review each notification within a time constraint. If the
agency's review is not completed before the deadline, then the reuse activities will
commence.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
40 I Qualification
OHIO
Pros
NO WRITTEN APPROVAL
Requires fewer agency and
industry resources for project
initiation than any other program
type.
Initial application or notification
requirements are relatively
minimal and less burdensome on
the generator or end-user.
In Ohio, industrial waste material can be reused to manufacture an-
other product without prior notification if it meets leachate thresholds equivalent to
30 times the state drinking water standards (DWS). In this case, the State does not
even require an application or notification before the generator or end-user initiates
beneficial reuse. However, to be reused in construction of roads and parking lots, the
waste must meet leachate thresholds equivalent to five times the Ohio DWS.
Waste exemption
One streamlined approval process you might consider is a waste exemption
approach, which requires little state involvement for a generator or end-user to
initiate a beneficial reuse project. Under this option, the state would grant an
exemption from non-hazardous industrial waste management requirements when
the foundry sand meets specified, stringent thresholds. Several states provide waste
exemptions under limited conditions.
Waste exemptions for the allowable reuses do not require state resources to
initially review proposed reuse activities. The tradeoff, however, is that the state does
not have a strong oversight position. If you were to choose this type of approval
option, it is likely that you will not be aware of all of the reuse activities underway
in your state. One way to address this situation would be to establish ongoing
recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which are discussed in Step 6 of the
Roadmap and Toolkit. By implementing such requirements, you may monitor a
generator's or end-user's foundry sand reuse activities. Compliance monitoring
and enforcement is an important program component to ensure environmental
protection.
ILLINOIS
In Illinois, if foundry sand meets leachate concentration thresh-
olds, it can be reused without notifying the State. Waste exemptions, however, do not
apply to reuse of the sand in a land application.
Another approach to address the reduced oversight associated with waste
exemptions is to establish waste characteristics (e.g., source and constituent
concentrations) and limit exemptions to specific beneficial reuses (e.g., reuse as a
commercial material). Illinois and Tennessee are examples of states with these types
of waste exemptions.
Balancing Burdens and Risk
As the pros and cons above indicate, a no written approval program results in
very little upfront agency burden; however, you might not have sufficient information
to determine where reuse activities exist and whether they present a risk. This
program design approach may be appropriate for reuse activities that may be
considered consistent and "safe" (i.e., in manufactured products like cement,
asphalt, and concrete products).
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 4: State Approval for Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands | 41
To balance the burden and risk, you may want to develop a program that
requires end-users and/or generators to report their activities to the state. With such
a system in place, you can more effectively track and check on foundry sand reuse
activities around the state.
In addition, you may be more restrictive with regard to allowable reuses under
a streamlined process with no written agency approval. Such restrictions can limit
the program's success in maximizing the amount of reused foundry sand unless
different rules are developed for other planned reuses. If you want to broaden your
program's reuse options, no written prior approval is best combined with written
approvals for higher risk projects.
Links to States with No Written Approval
Current as of July 2006,
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Land Division
http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/LandDivisionPP.htm
Program Information:
m http://www.adem.state.al.us/Regulations/Div13/D13Chapter%204.doc (See
Section 335-13-4-26)
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)—Waste Management
Programs
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/waste-mgmt/
Program Information:
• http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-121957 (See
Section 817.203)
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) —Office of Land
Quality
http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/land/
Program Information:
M http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title13/ar19/ch3.htmWIC13-19-3-7
• http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03290/A00100.PDF (See 329IAC 10-9)
• http://www.in.gov/apps/idem/media/publications/ (Type foundry sand in the
keyword box)
Cons
NO WRITTEN APPROVAL
May require more intensive
ongoing agency work to
compensate for the lack of an
initial agency review.
An ongoing monitoring and
enforcement program is essential
to ensure industry compliance.
This is particularly important with
a waste exemption program,
because the state does not
collect any information about
beneficial reuse activities prior to
project commencement.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
42 I Qualification
Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation—Division of Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/swm/
Program Information:
• http://tennessee.gov/environment/swm/pdf/SWPolicyManual.pdf (See page
97)
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/
Program Information:
• http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_
view=4&ti=30&pt=1 &ch=335
• http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/comm_exec/forms_pubs/pubs/rg/rg-387_202378.
pdf (See page 27)
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources—Waste Management Program
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/solid/beneficial/index.html
Program Information:
• http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr538.pdf [See NR 538.13(1).]
No Written Approval—Sample Regulatory
Language
Illinois' beneficial reuse regulations allow generators or end-users to reuse
foundry sand without gaining state approval (waste exemption).
Example excerpted from 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 817,
Requirements for New Steel and Foundry Sand Industry Wastes Landfills,
Section 817.203(a)
"The generator of wastes ... shall certify that the waste sent to an offsite
beneficial use meets the ... requirements for beneficial waste. A copy of the
certification shall be attached to the Bill of Lading for each shipment."
Current as of July 2006.
Illinois' regulations continue with a requirement that generators submit detailed
information to the State regarding each recipient of the foundry sand. Even though
Illinois has a waste exemption program, this provision gives the State information
needed to oversee reuse activities.
Example excerpted from 35 Illinois Administrative Code Part 817,
Requirements for New Steel and Foundry Sand Industry Wastes Landfills,
Section 817.203(b)
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 4: State Approval for Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sands | 43
"b) The generator of wastes ... shall submit the following information to the
Agency for each new recipient of the waste and for each new use location:
1) A detailed description of the process generating the material;
2) A demonstration that the proposed material handling activity will not
cause a release or threat of release of contaminants to the air or water
that will exceed standards promulgated by the Board or would adversely
affect or impact human health or the environment;
3) A physical description of the waste stream. This description should
include information on size, shape, form, particle size, and volume of the
waste;
4) The analytical results of the leaching test completed pursuant to Section
817.103;
5) A physical analysis of the waste including percent moisture, ignitability,
corrosivity, solubility, and reactivity;
6) Groundwater monitoring data, if available; and
7) A description of the proposed use or reuse activity and site including
location, special handling instructions, and estimated usage timetable."
Current as of July 2006,
Wisconsin's regulations demonstrate the State's prior notice requirements.
Example excepted from Chapter NR 538, Wisconsin Administrative Code,
December 1997, Beneficial Use of Industrial Byproducts, Section NR
538.13(1)
"INITIAL CERTIFICATION. Prior to beneficial use of industrial byproducts
... or the establishment of a storage facility ... each generator, storage facility
operator, or their designee shall submit an initial certification form to the
department that contains the information listed below. An initial certification
form shall be submitted prior to beneficial use in accordance with this chapter
for any industrial byproducts not previously classified, for any industrial
byproduct for which the classification has changed or for the establishment
of a storage facility for industrial byproducts. The initial certification form shall
include the following information:
(a) Name and address of generator or storage facility operator.
(b) Name, address and telephone number of designated generator or
storage facility operator contact.
(c) A description of each industrial byproduct intended for beneficial use
or storage that clearly identifies the process that generated it and an
estimate of the volume that could be made available for beneficial use
on an annual basis.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
44 I Qualification
Pros
INITIAL SAMPLING AND
TESTING
Provides states with a better
understanding of the foundry
sands that will be used in
proposed reuse activities.
For programs with pre-
established initial sampling and
testing: establishes uniform
sampling and testing procedures
for industry to follow.
For programs with pre-
established initial sampling and
testing: your reviews may be
simplified because there is less
need to scrutinize the applicant's
selected technique.
For programs with case-by-
case initial sampling and testing
requirements: reduces upfront
burden on the state since
constituents and concentration
limits do not need to be
developed.
(d) The classification of each industrial byproduct to be beneficially used
or stored for beneficial use.... Documentation, including test results
supporting the classification, shall be included. Storage facilities may
provide the name and address of the generators of the industrial
byproducts to be stored as an alternative to this documentation.
(e) Authorization for Wisconsin department of natural resources staff to
conduct inspections of the facilities generating industrial byproducts
being beneficially used under this chapter or storage facilities for these
industrial byproducts, and collect samples to verify compliance with this
chapter.
(f) Certification by each generator, storage facility operator or their
designee, that the information on the form is true and accurate, and that
the performance standards ... will be met."
Current as of July 2006,
Step 5 of the Roadmap: Initial Sampling and
Testing
A critical component of a beneficial reuse program for foundry sands is initial
sampling and testing of the foundry sand to characterize the materials before a
beneficial reuse project is initiated. Although you have the option to not require initial
sampling and testing, we strongly recommend it. A chemical characterization of the
foundry sand helps to assess the impact of its beneficial reuse on human health
and the environment. If you want to pre-establish testing requirements for industry
to follow, then you will need to decide which constituents to include in testing and
what concentration limits must be met.
States require an initial characterization of the foundry sand to demonstrate
that it qualifies as non-hazardous. To complete the characterization, states generally
require a leachate test, with toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)
being the most frequently specified test. Alternatively, states may use the synthetic
precipitation leaching procedure (SPLP). For example, Florida recommends the SPLP
because they believe it is a better test for leaching conditions in their state. You may
also want to require an analysis of the composition of the waste itself, which entails
a totals analysis. You may require a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) consistent with
EPAs test methods for evaluating solid waste, SW-846. There is significant variation
in testing methods among the states. Some state examples are provided below. Your
selection of an appropriate analytical test method may be one of the most important
issues to consider when developing initial sampling and testing requirements.
There may also be a linkage between the initial sampling and testing and waste
classification categories, which are discussed in Steps 1 and 3 of the Roadmap
and Toolkit. If you decide to establish waste classification categories, you have
the opportunity to establish a range of constituent concentration thresholds to
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 5: Initial Sampling and Testing | 45
correspond to waste categories and the affiliated reuse activity. By testing the
foundry sand, a generator or end-user may determine if the foundry sand meets
constituent concentration thresholds established by the state and therefore is
eligible for certain types of reuse.
The constituents and concentration thresholds may be established by the state.
In some cases, these thresholds are outlined in regulation. States often define their
constituent concentration thresholds according to RCRA toxicity characteristic (TC)
levels. Other states establish thresholds according to state or federal drinking water
standards. For example:
• Alabama sets the threshold at 50 percent of RCRA TC levels,
• Indiana uses variable percentages of RCRA TC levels, in addition to selected
other drinking water constituents, and
• Tennessee's threshold is 10 times the federal drinking water standard.
Alternatively, you may place the burden on industry to identify the constituents
to test for, and to set constituent concentration thresholds on a case-by-case basis.
This option is appropriate for states that have the case-by-case determination
program structure (see Steps 1 and 3 of the Roadmap and Toolkit). Pennsylvania
has such requirements. In their view, the generator or end-user knows the process
generating the foundry sand better than state agency staff and can therefore
propose the most reasonable thresholds. During the application review process,
PADEP can ensure that these thresholds are protective of human health and the
environment. Florida has established a risk standard, and requires generators or
end-users to demonstrate that the proposed reuse activity meets the risk standard.
To help with this determination, Florida issues guidance on how to demonstrate that
the risk standard may be met, but does not require a specific testing method for
this determination.
Cons
INITIAL SAMPLING AND
TESTING
For programs with pre-
established initial sampling
and testing: requires an upfront
commitment of agency time and
expertise to establish testing
methods and thresholds.
For programs with case-by-case
initial sampling and testing:
requires ongoing commitment
of agency time and expertise to
review proposed testing methods
and thresholds.
Balancing Burden and Risk
Programs with pre-established initial sampling and testing methods create an
agency burden because the agency will need to choose constituents to test for and
concentration thresholds. This work will require agency staff resources upfront. This
program component, however, reduces the risk associated with beneficial reuse
activities because it establishes uniform testing requirements with which generators
or end-users must comply. One tradeoff, however, is that you may need to be overly
cautious upfront as you establish constituents and concentration levels. Testing is
very expensive for industry and you may be unintentionally curtailing reuse activities
with extensive testing requirements.
Case-by-case initial sampling and testing provides generators and end-users
with more flexibility, but the application process is highly burdensome to both
industry and the state. There may be less of a burden on industry because they
would only need to test for constituents that are a concern, but they need to expend
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
46 I Qualification
resources to justify their selection of constituents. This option also places a greater
ongoing burden on the state because for each application, the initial sampling and
testing decisions would need to be reviewed for sufficiency.
Links to States with Initial Sampling and Testing
Requirements
All of the states previously identified in the toolkit require initial sampling and
testing of foundry sands. See the previous Steps in the Toolkit for links to specific
state program information.
Sample Regulatory Language
Most states specify initial sampling and testing requirements in their regulations.
For example, Wisconsin's regulations are excerpted in the following example.
Example excerpted from Chapter NR 538, Wisconsin Administrative Code,
December 1997, Beneficial Use of Industrial Byproducts, Section NR
508.06(3)(c) and (d)
"(c) All industrial byproducts which are characterized to determine eligibility
for category 1 to 4 ... shall be analyzed using the most recent revision
of the ASTM D3987 water leach test.
(d) All industrial byproducts which are characterized to determine eligibility
for category 1 or 2 ... shall be analyzed using a total elemental analysis,
unless another analysis method is approved by the department."
Current as of July 2006.
Wisconsin's regulation also contains the constituents and concentration
levels that must be met for each waste category. Table 2 summarizes Wisconsin's
constituents and concentration levels for category 1 -4. Category 5 material, the
"safest" category, is defined separately in Section NR 600.03(98).
The following is a sample of Indiana's regulations for this option.
Example excerpted from Indiana Administrative Code, 329 IAC 10-9-4
"(A) Table 1 lists the maximum levels for constituents using Method 1311,
the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure test described in U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Publication SW-846: Table 1.
Constituents Using Method 1311, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure."
Current as of July 2006.
Indiana's regulation also contains the constituents and concentration levels
that must be met for each waste category. Tables 3, 4, and 5 summarize Indiana's
constituents and concentration levels for Types I-IV.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 5: Initial Sampling and Testing | 47
TABLE 2
Wisconsin's Waste Characterization Standards for Ferrous Foundry Sands
Current as of July 2006
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium, Hex.
Chromium, total
Copper
Total Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phenol
Selenium
Sulfate
Thallium
Zinc
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(ghi)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Chrysene
Dibenz(ah)anthracene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
lndeno(123-
1 -methyl naphthalene
2-methyl naphthalene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Pyrene
Total PAHs
6.3
0.042
0.014
14.5
1.3
900
8.8
5000
0.088
0.0088
0.088
0.88
0.88
8.8
0.0088
600
600
0.088
8.8
8.8
600
0.88
500
1.5
0.0012
0.005
0.4
0.0004
0.0005
0.010
0.130
0.040
0.8
0.15
0.0015
0.025
0.0002
0.020
1.2
0.010
125
0.0004
2.5
21
7
X
X
X
44
4.4
44
X
X
X
4.4
X
X
44
X
X
X
X
X
100
15
0.012
0.05
4.0
0.004
0.005
0.10
8.0
1.5
0.015
0.25
0.002
12
0.10
10
0.025
3
0.075
0.01
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
48 I Qualification
TABLE 3
Indiana's Waste Classification Thresholds
for Constituents Using Method 1311, TCLP (in mg/L)
Current as of July 2006
p.r.-.-iiir.M.i.-.
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
5.0
100
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
1.0
5.0
!'V,-'"? I!
1.3
25
0.25
1.3
1.3
0.05
0.25
1.3
IV,-."? II!
0.50
10
0.10
0.50
0.50
0.02
0.10
0.50
'i'V ;„" IV
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.002
0.01
0.05
TABLE 4
Indiana's Waste Classification Thresholds
for Constituents Using the Neutral Leaching Method Test (in mg/L)
Current as of July 2006
r'"*r.:!mc!'.r
Barium
Chlorides
Copper
Cyanide, total
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Phenols
Sodium
Sulfate
Sulfide
Total dissolved solids
Zinc
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
25
6,300
6.3
5
35
*
*
5
7.5
6,300
6,300
13
12,500
63
10
2,500
2.5
2
14
15
.5
2
3
2,500
2,500
5
5,000
25
TV.MC IV
1
250
.25
.2
1.4
1.5
.05
.2
.3
250
250
1
500
2.5
1 Testing not required.
TABLE 5
Indiana's Acceptable Range for pH (in Standard Units)
Current as of July 2006
PH
4.0-11.0
5.0-10.0
6.0-9.0
'Testing not required.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
5 Ongoing Oversight
-------
50 | Ongoing Oversight
Once reuse activities have commenced, you may be interested in tracking
these activities over time. The final topic, Step 6, addressed in the Roadmap is
Ongoing Oversight. This section of the Toolkit discusses the types of ongoing
sampling, testing, and recordkeeping that you may adopt as part of your state's
beneficial reuse program.
STEP 6 OF THE ROADMAP: Periodic and Event-
Based Sampling, Testing, and Reporting
If you wish to ensure that foundry sands are falling within acceptable
parameters throughout the entire beneficial reuse period, you should require
ongoing sampling and testing of reused foundry sand and reporting of those test
results. Ongoing sampling and testing may be periodic, which takes place on a
specified frequency (e.g., annually), or it may be event-based, which is required
anytime there is a change in the materials or processes that may affect the
composition of the foundry sands.
Under this program option, states request that the generator or end-user in
question submit to a new round of testing in order to show that the new process
does not bring constituent concentrations above state limits.
MICHIGAN
I, a state with an extremely large and varied foundry industry
due to the heavy presence of the automotive industry, mandates annual sampling and
testing and submission of these results to the Michigan Department of Environmen-
tal Quality (DEQ). The DEQ also reserves the right to demand additional and more
frequent testing if it feels the characteristics of the material can vary significantly.
Frequency of Periodic Sampling and Testing
Frequency of periodic sampling, testing, and reporting can vary according
to foundry circumstances. If foundry sands are likely to be made up of consistent
waste constituents and concentrations, then you may be comfortable with
significant periods of time between sampling and testing events. Some states, such
as Indiana, allow up to five years between retesting as long as the waste material
shows no signs of significant change.
WISCONSIN
uses its waste classification categories to dictate sam-
pling, testing, and reporting requirements. For the most volatile reusable sands,
Wisconsin requires an annual submission of test results, with reporting frequency
decreasing as the volatility of materials decreases. The "safest" category, Category
5, only requires event-based ongoing testing.
Alternatively, more frequent sampling, testing and reporting is more helpful if
your state has a wide variety of foundries producing sands that, over time, vary in
waste content and constituent concentrations.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 6: Periodic and Event-Based Sampling, Testing, and Reporting | 51
If your state chooses periodic sampling and testing, then you will need to
decide what frequency is sufficient. To make this decision you may need to weigh
the tradeoffs. As the frequency increases, you will need to commit more resources
to reviewing the sampling and testing reports. If you require frequent reporting,
though, you will reduce the uncertainty regarding the risk associated with reuse
activities.
WEST VIRGINIA
The West Virginia Office of Waste Management,
Solid Waste Management Section requests a minimum of annual testing for contin-
ued beneficial reuse. In addition, applicants should submit test results at any point
when the production process or raw materials used in that process change.
Event-based Sampling and Testing
Your state may not have the resources to review periodic sampling and testing
results or may not wish to require it from end-users. Some state agencies may feel
more comfortable with the consistency of their industry's foundry sands. Other
states may philosophically agree with the idea that if the process which affects the
foundry sands does not change, then most likely the constituent concentrations
of the foundry sands will not change either. Agencies interested in an event-based
testing only regulatory regime might look at Texas' Commission on Environmental
Quality requirement that the potentially reusable material only be retested when
there is a change in the foundry process generating the waste sand.
Combining Periodic and Event-based Sampling
and Testing
You may decide that both periodic and event-based sampling and testing is
preferable for your state. In this case, you would require a generator or end-user to
test reused foundry sands on a regular basis (e.g., annually), and anytime there is a
change in the materials or processes that may affect the composition of the foundry
sands. Although this approach imposes a greater burden on the state and industry,
it provides a consistent flow of information to the state regarding the make-up of
reused foundry sands.
Reporting
After deciding on the frequency of sampling and testing, you should then
examine how you want the industry to report these results to the state. Agencies
can choose from a variety of options with varying burdens to both the state and
industry. You can achieve the highest level of assurance by requiring both periodic
and event-based sampling and testing and require reporting of all results. This
approval ensures that in addition to periodic oversight, you are notified when there
might be a need for re-evaluation of the beneficial reuse. If your state does not have
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
52 | Ongoing Oversight
Pros
PERIODIC AND EVENT-BASED
SAMPLING, TESTING, AND
REPORTING
Periodic only: In states with a
wide variety of byproduct types
and consistencies, you benefit
from more oversight and control.
Event-based only: Decreases
the burdens placed on you
and generators or end-users,
relative to more frequent testing,
sampling and reporting.
Combined: Provides highest level
of oversight of reused foundry
sand composition.
the resources to consistently review the sampling and testing results when they are
submitted, you may still require the generator or end-user to submit the records.
Rather than review them immediately, these records can be kept on file for reference
and record-keeping purposes.
Balancing Burden and Risk
As a state, you gain important information about ongoing reuse activities from
frequent sampling, testing, and reporting requirements. Specifically, regular testing
updates may help you track the environmental safety of reuse activities. This benefit,
however, does create ongoing burdens for the agency and industry. These burdens
are warranted if there is uncertainty regarding the ongoing risk of foundry sand. For
example, if the foundry sands could be inconsistent in composition over time, then
it may be prudent to adopt periodic, as well as event-based, sampling, testing, and
reporting.
Alternatively, if a state is confident in the long-term consistency and safety of its
foundry sand byproducts, then it may feel the additional costs associated with more
frequent and event-based sampling, testing, and reporting work to the detriment
of a successful beneficial reuse program. You must also consider the compliance
issues that may occur if your state adopts only event-based sampling, testing, and
reporting. Without the burden of periodic sampling, testing, and reporting there
is the risk that the composition of reused foundry sand will change and not be
detected if industry does not report the change to the state. By requiring periodic
sampling, testing, and reporting, you may reduce this risk because generators or
end-users must regularly submit testing results to you.
Therefore, you must strike a balance between the burden (both agency and
industry) associated with frequent sampling, testing, and reporting and the risk
associated with infrequent or event-based sampling, testing, and reporting. You
must determine what combination and frequency of periodic and event-based
sampling, testing, and reporting is satisfactory for your state.
Links to States with Periodic, Event-Based, and
Combined Sampling, Testing, and Reporting
Current as of July 2006
Below are those states with beneficial reuse programs that require only periodic
sampling, testing, and reporting.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality
http://www.deq.state.la.us/
Program Information:
• http://www.deq.louisiana.gOv/portal/Portals/0/planning/regs/title33/33v07.pdf
[See Section 1109(f])
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 6: Periodic and Event-Based Sampling, Testing, and Reporting | 53
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
http://www.maine.gov/dep/index.shtml
Program Information:
• http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c418.doc (See Section 8)
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Division
http://www.michigan.goV/deq/0,1607,7-135-3306_28609—,00.html
Program Information:
• http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wmd-swp-pt115rls.pdf (See
R299.4118(4))
Below are those states with beneficial reuse programs that require only event-
based sampling, testing, and reporting.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/
Program Information:
• http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.ViewTAC?tac_
view=4&ti=30&pt=1&ch=335 (See Section 335.513)
Below are those states with beneficial reuse programs that require both
periodic and event-based sampling, testing, and reporting.
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Land Division
http://www.adem.state.al.us/LandDivision/LandDivisionPP.htm
Program Information:
m http://www.adem.state.al.us/Regulations/Div13/D13Chapter%204.doc [See
335-13-4-26(3)(c)]
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)—Waste Management
Programs
http://www.epa.state.il.us/land/waste-mgmt/
Program Information:
• http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-121957 (See
Section 817.104)
Cons
PERIODIC AND EVENT-BASED
SAMPLING, TESTING, AND
REPORTING
Periodic only: You must dedicate
resources to reviewing reports on
a frequent basis.
Periodic only: Industry faces a
higher burden as they must test
and report to the state more
frequently.
Event-based only: Less ongoing
assurance and oversight.
Event-based only: Risk that
changes in the reused foundry
sand will occur and not be
detected in a timely fashion, thus
compromising environmental
protection.
Combined: Imposes greatest
burden on generators or end-
users and agency staff due to
ongoing resource requirements.
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
54 | Ongoing Oversight
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) —Office of Land
Quality
http://www.in.gov/idem/programs/land/
Program Information:
m http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title13/ar19/ch3.htmlSIC13-19-3-7
• http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/T03290/A00100.PDF (See 329IAC 10-9)
• http://www.in.gov/apps/idem/media/publications/ (Type foundry sand in the
keyword box)
West Virginia—Office of Waste Management
http://www.dep.state.wv.us/item.cfm?ssid=11
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources—Waste Management Program
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/wm/solid/beneficial/index.html
Program Information:
• http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr538.pdf (See NR 538.06)
Regulatory Language
Michigan's statute provides an example of how a state can mandate periodic
testing. The passage requires that applicants retest the material intended for reuse at
least annually, and leaves the agency discretion in increasing the frequency of testing.
Example excerpted from Part 115 of 1194 PA 451, R299.4118 (4), Petitions to
Classify Wastes
"(4) Material that is classified by the director based on a petition under this rule
shall be retested to confirm the classification not less than annually using
procedures specified in this rule. The test results shall be submitted to the
director. The director shall specify a more frequent schedule for testing if the
characteristics of the material may vary significantly."
Current as of July 2006,
Wisconsin's regulation combines periodic and event-based sampling and
testing. The frequency of periodic sampling and testing varies based on Wisconsin's
waste classification system.
Example excerpted from Chapter NR 538, Wisconsin Administrative Code,
December 1997, Beneficial Use of Industrial Byproducts
"(4) RECHARACTERIZATION.
(a) Industrial byproducts that are beneficially used under this chapter
shall be recharacterized after the initial characterization in accordance
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
STEP 6: Periodic and Event-Based Sampling, Testing, and Reporting | 55
with this section, unless the department approves an alternative
recharacterization method. A representative sample of each industrial
byproduct shall be recharacterized whenever there is a change in the
process that produces the industrial byproduct that could result in a
change of the category of the industrial byproduct.
(b) A representative sample of each category 1 industrial byproduct shall
be recharacterized in the same manner as specified for the initial
characterization once each year. Recharacterization is not required for
any category 1 industrial byproduct of which less than 1000 cubic yards
were beneficially used or stored for beneficial use in the previous year.
(c) A representative sample of each category 2 industrial byproduct shall
be recharacterized in the same manner as specified for the initial
characterization once every 2 years. Recharacterization is not required
for any category 2 industrial byproduct of which less than 2000 cubic
yards were beneficially used or stored for beneficial use during the
previous 2-year period.
(d) A representative sample of each category 3 industrial byproduct shall
be recharacterized in the same manner as specified for the initial
characterization once every 3 years. Recharacterization is not required
for any category 3 industrial byproduct of which less than 3000 cubic
yards were beneficially used or stored for beneficial use during the
previous 3-year period.
(e) A representative sample of each category 4 industrial byproduct shall
be recharacterized in the same manner as specified for the initial
characterization once every 5 years. Recharacterization is not required
for any category 4 industrial byproduct of which less than 5000 cubic
yards were beneficially used or stored for beneficial use in the previous
5-year period."
Current as of July 2006.
Texas' regulations contain a provision requiring event-based testing, sampling
and reporting. Specifically, documentation and reporting are only required when
there is a change in waste composition, waste management methods, facility
engineering plans and specifications, or the geology where the facility is located.
Example excerpted from Title 30 Environmental Quality, Chapter 335
Industrial Solid Waste and Municipal Hazardous Waste, §335.513
"(b) Any person who stores, processes, or disposes of municipal hazardous
waste or industrial solid waste shall have the continuing obligation to
immediately provide notice to the executive director in writing or using
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
56 | Ongoing Oversight
electronic notification software provided by the executive director, of any
changes or additional information concerning waste composition, waste
management methods, facility engineering plans and specifications, or the
geology where the facility is located to that reported in subsection (a) of this
section, authorized in any permit, or stated in any application filed with the
Current as of July 2006,
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
6 Appendix A: Current State Program Designs
-------
CO
CO
T3
c
Z3
O
IS
c
m
CO
C
O3
"8
Q
CO
O3
O
Q_
_CD
CO
"c
CD
O
Q
z
LU
Q_
Q_
8
c
0)
I
UJ
I
CQ
O
QC
C
o
I
o
o
co
&
•*•*
SO
fc-
••P •- 03
Pllf
O O Qg
c1 5
O tt
_c
m "o. o>
Q. E .E
?
£
To
1
•* Q.
Q. 0-
UJ <
CO 0)
'Z
1
>
0)
Q. *^
LU £
t- 55
co _
0
"5
>
0)
~"
c
o
STEP 2
Siting and Local
Restrictions
&
o
Q. 55
u w
H £
CO TO
O3
Q
a.
'TO
55
T3 T3
§ 03
.2 ^
E^
-s s
Q. LU
03
0
•a
Wetlands, FloodpI
and Residential
T3 T3
§ 03
.2 ^
E^
-s s
Q. LU
03
0
fication
03
ctt
0
5
CO
5
c
0
a
it
03
73
3
Co
5
T3 T3
§fl)
03
.2 ^
E^
-s s
Q. LU
03
0
;u
•^
I
•c
^
I
0
1
CD
Q.
03
1
fication
03
03
0
5
CO
5
T3
§ CD •§
Potable wells, Gro
water, Surface wa
Wetlands, FloodpI
c
0
0
It
03
73
.2
Co
g
0
1
CD
Q_
03
03
O
i
>>
cb
G3
0
T3 -
§ a; •=
Potable wells, Gro
water, Surface wal
Wetlands, FloodpI
Soil Type, Critical
Habitat
1
fj
i,
cb
03
o
O3
o
CL
CD
co
Z3
CD
cc
CD
m
O3
c
"o.
_o
CD
>
CD
Q
o
^
_CD
s
CO
-------
o>
«
CO
c
g>
"co
CD
Q
O)
o
CL
_CD
"to
CO
O
<
X
Q
LU
Q_
Q_
<
It
* ,2 g-f
LU TO ^ o
«•-!§"
c? S
O tt
_c
10 "5. o>
Q. E .E
|7
STEP 4
ritten Approval
5
1
0)
o 'Jj
Q. *-
&52
0
"5
0)
~"
c
STEP 2
Siting and Locatio
Restrictions
&
o
Q. 55
|— £
CO TO
Q)
2
Q.
'TO
co
0
E
CD
Q_
V)
V)
CO
1
>>
d>
(§
0
T3
Potable wells, Groun
water, Surface water,
Wetlands, Critical
Habitat
CO
Q
i,
d>
03
o
CO
CO
CO
1
>>
d>
(§
0
CO
Q
i,
d>
03
o
0
E
fl)
Q.
CO
1
r
0
11
It
ro
0
<8
s
r
0
a
it
CO
73
£
Co
5
0
E
CD
Q_
CO
Yes
or some uses)
;u
•P
I
•c
.Q
I
CO
CO
CO
1
>>
d>
05
0
CO
Q
i,
d>
03
o
0
E
CD
Q_
CO
No
3 out of 4 waste
categories)
£
c
0
3
it
1
0
5
flj
5
Q) (0
Potable wells, Surfac
water, Wetlands,
Floodplain, Resident
c
0
0
It
CO
73
5
ro
g
CO
1
CO
0
5>»
03
o
0
E
m
Q.
CO
CO
CO
1
>>
d>
(§
0
CO
o
i,
d>
03
o
T3
C
O
O)
o
Q_
CD
CC
1
O
4=
CD
C
CD
CO
O)
c
"o.
_o
CD
Q
.2
IS
(X)
-------
CO
CO
T3
c
Z3
O
n
to 5. ?
'a. & a> t
4) O) "^ O
53 Ifl
8 a
i1
&tf
!s *~
jp
i _
IS TO
k. >
5 1
v>
1
0)
cc
CO fl)
^ ^B
55 !2
0
"5
0)
Step 2
ing and Location
Restrictions
co
21
^
o
-2
Q. CO
55 m
O)
2
Q.
'TO
*j
co
w
_§
1
LU
If)
0
C
.0
"frt
O
W
(8
0
tfi
«
g
C
o
1
it
05
73
5
ra
1
CO 03
.2 5
T3 '
0 £
Z
Q. LU
If)
V)
£
0)
<§
1
_£•
,
i
03
o
S w
.2 5
T3 '
0 ^
Z
Q. LJJ
v>
0
~
•Q
I
nd water, Surface
r, Wetlands,
:al habitat
3 0) .i±
s ts •=
o g o
^
.Q
I
O)
o
CL
CD
CO
Z3
CD
cc
CD
m
O)
C
"a.
_o
CD
>
CD
Q
O
£
_CD
§
CO
-------
NOTES
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
NOTES
State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand
-------
-------
------- |