United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
______
Office Of Policy
12128!
WasSiington DC 20460
Region 2
DEPP
New York, 10007-1866
             May 1999
Promoting Chemical Recycling:
Resource Conservation In
Chemical Manufacturing
                of '

-------
    PROMOTING CHEMICAL RECYCLING:
Resource Conservation in Chemical Manufacturing
     Lessons from the New Jersey Chemical Industry Project
                Materials Recycling Team

           Scenarios and Regulatory Interpretations
                      June, 1999

-------
                                                                              PREFACE
       The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Policy is working with the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP), EPA Region 2, and a Stakeholder
group made up of industry, environmental group, union, and community representatives on a project
involving the batch chemical industry in New Jersey.  This project, named the New Jersey Chemical
Industry Project, is an effort to assess current environmental protection strategies on a sector basis
and develop better approaches.

       The  project started by asking what inspires companies to achieve-or  keeps them from
achieving—better  environmental performance.   From  this information, the Stakeholder group
developed a list of 45 issues for possible pilot projects to test  new environmental protection
strategies.  The Materials Recycling Pilot was one of four pilot projects selected by the Stakeholder
group.  The other pilots selected by the group include:  effluent trading of local limits between
indirect dischargers, compliance assistance, and flexible track for good environmental performers.

       A subset of the Stakeholder group formed the Pilot Team for the Materials Recycling Pilot,
along with several additional facility and regulatory experts who were invited to participate.  The
Pilot  Team  worked together to identify and define five materials recycling scenarios that are
potentially applicable to many batch chemical manufacturers. NJ DEP and EPA staff reviewed the
scenarios and determined how the recycling activities envisioned in the scenarios relate to current
regulations.  Since New Jersey hazardous waste regulations are the same as federal hazardous waste
regulations, the information presented here is applicable to facilities in other states where the federal
hazardous waste regulations also apply.   The Pilot Team anticipates  that these scenarios and
responses will provide useful information to chemical facilities and other manufacturing facilities
that have similar materials recycling opportunities.

       Two facilities on the Pilot Team have already implemented  one of the scenarios. The Pilot
Team has documented the economic and environmental benefits of the scenario in Appendix A.
Another facility is currently trying to identify trading partners for implementing a second scenario.

       In addition to this report, the New Jersey Chemical Industry Project has prepared reports on
the work of the Effluent Trading Pilot Team and the Compliance Assistance Pilot Team.  The
Effluent Trading report describes the Pilot Team's experience in implementing the first-ever trade
of local pretreatment limits among indirect dischargers.  It also provides guidance on how trading
of local limits can be established at other publicly-owned treatment works.  This report is titled
Sharing the Load: Effluent Trading for Indirect Dischargers (EPA-23 l-R-98-003, May,  1998).

       The  Compliance Assistance report describes how the Pilot Team developed compliance
assistance materials for New Jersey companies as an Industry-Government Team.  The materials
include plain language descriptions of many NJ state  environmental regulations and  NJ DEP

-------
compliance assistance activities, applicability flowcharts for six key regulations, and an extensive
bibliography of compliance assistance resources. The cooperative approach allowed the Pilot Team
to develop materials that were targeted to industry needs, used less agency resources, and improved
relationships between industry and regulators.  The report is titled Inspiring Performance: The
Government-Industry Team Approach to Improving Environmental Compliance (EPA-231-R-99-
002, May 1999). The compliance assistance materials that were developed can be viewed on the
Internet, at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/enforcement/home.htm.

       The Pilot Team for the final pilot, Flexible Track, is working with EPA and NJ DEP to
develop a program that provides incentives to facilities that are good environmental performers. NJ
DEP anticipates announcing the project and accepting applications in the fall of 1999. The Pilot
Team is also working with EPA and NJ DEP to develop future enhancements for the Flexible Track
program.

       For more information about the New Jersey  Chemical Industry Project, the Materials
Recycling Pilot, or any of the other Pilots, or to obtain a copy of any of the New Jersey Chemical
Industry Project reports, please contact:

                           Catherine S. Tunis
                           EPA Office of Policy
                           401 M Street SW (2128)
                           Washington, DC 20460
                           telephone: 202-260-2698
                           tunis.catherine@epamail.epa.gov

-------
                                                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
       This project benefitted from the dedication, enthusiasm, creativity, and technical knowledge
of the participants on the Materials Recycling Pilot Team of the New Jersey Chemical Industry
Project. Through the efforts of the Pilot Team, the expertise and perspectives of both industry and
regulatory  agencies have been incorporated  throughout the  definition,  implementation, and
documentation of this pilot project.

       Each of the Pilot Team members listed on page iii contributed to the preparation of this
document.  This includes Barry Bochner, Fabricolor, Inc.; Shih Chang, New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection; Joseph Gentile, CasChem, Inc; Dorothy Kelly, Ciba Specialty Chemicals;
Richard Klawunn, Tosco; Mitchell Press, E.I.  DuPont; Sharon Sexton, Infineum USA L.P.; and
Sarah Henricks Holtz, Joshua Levine, and Eric Ruder, Industrial Economics. We would also like
to thank the EPA staff members who contributed to this report. This includes staff from the Office
of Policy, who helped  draft the scenarios and staff from Region 2 Division of Environmental
Planning and Protection, who helped prepare scenario responses.  The team would like to extend a
special thank you to the  staff from the Office of  Solid Waste, who reviewed the document to ensure
consistency with Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations.
                                                                                      in

-------
                                                         PILOT TEAM MEMBERS
Participant



Andrew Bellina



M. Barry Bochner



Shih Chang



Joseph W. Gentile



Sarah Henricks Holtz



Dorothy Kelly



Richard Klawunn



Joshua Levine



Mitchell Press



Eric Ruder



Sharon Sexton



Catherine S. Tunis
Affiliation



US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Region 2



Fabricolor, Inc.



New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection



CasChem, Inc.



Industrial Economics, Incorporated



Ciba Specialty Chemicals



Tosco



Industrial Economics, Incorporated



E.I. Dupont



Industrial Economics, Incorporated



Infmeum USA L.P.



US EPA, Office of Policy
                                                                                 IV

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS







PREFACE 	i




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	  ii




PILOT TEAM MEMBERS	iii




INTRODUCTION	CHAPTER 1




DEFINITION OF TERMS	CHAPTER 2




SCENARIO 1: TRADING NEUTRALIZATION CHEMICALS  	CHAPTER 3




SCENARIO 2: WASTEWATER ALCOHOL REUSE 	CHAPTER 4




SCENARIO 3: CHARACTERISTIC BY-PRODUCT RECYCLING 	CHAPTER 5




SCENARIO 4: ON-SITE RECLAMATION OF SPENT SOLVENTS	CHAPTER 6




SCENARIO 5: OFF-SITE RECLAMATION OF SPENT SOLVENTS 	CHAPTER 7







APPENDICES




Appendix A: Benefits of Implementing the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario




Appendix B: Overview of Proj ect XL




Appendix C: Letter from EPA Office of Solid Waste Describing Legitimate Recycling Activities




Appendix D: Overview of Standardized Permit Rule

-------
INTRODUCTION                                                           CHAPTER 1
Background

       The New Jersey Chemical Industry Project Stakeholder group established the Materials
Recycling Pilot project to promote safe and economical recycling of materials produced by batch
chemical manufacturing  processes.  The group saw opportunities for improving environmental
quality and reducing costs by recycling materials that were being treated and disposed.  Some
facilities sent "non-product output" materials to hazardous waste sites rather than recycling them
because of the regulatory requirements that facilities believed recycling would entail. Other facilities
transported and used virgin raw materials by the truckload to neutralize the pH of process effluent
before discharging it into  a sewer rather than reusing other process streams as  neutralization
chemicals.

       The Stakeholders realized that significant environmental as well as economic benefits could
be reaped if some of these practices could be changed so that certain materials were safely recycled
within a facility or at another facility.  These benefits would accrue from:

       •      Reducing the amount of chemicals shipped off-site for treatment or disposal,
       •      Reducing the need for facilities to purchase new solvents and other raw materials
              (thereby reducing the environmental costs of the manufacture and transport of these
              materials), and
       •      Reducing the associated financial costs of these activities.
The Materials Recycling Pilot Project

       The goal of the Materials Recycling Pilot is to conserve raw materials and improve resource
use and process efficiency by facilitating safe and efficient recycling of materials.  We define
materials recycling as an activity in which non-product output from one process is used productively
and safely as an input for the same or a different process. Recycling activities can be performed at
a single industrial facility or can be an exchange of materials with other facilities.  The Pilot Team

                                                                             October 18, 1999
                                                                         Introduction — Page 1

-------
hopes  that the information in this report will
encourage  chemical and other manufacturing
facilities   to   explore   materials   recycling
opportunities.

       The Pilot Team prepared a series of five
scenarios that represent a range of likely materials
recycling scenarios for the batch chemical industry.
The five scenarios are:
       Scenario 1:
       Chemicals
Trading    Neutralization
The Materials Recycling Pilot Team
prepared this document to encourage
innovative thinking about recycling
activities. Even if your operations do
not fully match those presented  in
these   scenarios,    we    strongly
encourage   facilities  to   discuss
opportunities for recycling with the
appropriate state or federal agency.
•      Scenario 2:   Wastewater Alcohol Reuse

•      Scenarios:   Characteristic By-Product Recycling

•      Scenario 4:   On-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents

•      Scenario 5:   Off-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents

       For each scenario, the Pilot Team aimed to clearly delineate the conditions under which the
proposed activities are permissible. The Pilot Team felt this was particularly important for facilities
in New Jersey, since the State's hazardous waste rules were changed in 1996 to be consistent with
the federal rules, and therefore facilities may be confused about how the new rules apply.  Each
scenario  contains a description of the process that is currently in place, the proposed recycling
activities that would be beneficial for a facility to undertake, and a series of questions and responses
that specify the conditions under which regulatory requirements apply or do not apply. The scenarios
and responses were prepared by various members of the Pilot Team and refined through a series of
discussions.

       For three of the scenarios - Trading Neutralization Chemicals, Wastewater Alcohol Reuse,
and Characteristic By-product Recycling — the proposed  materials recycling activity  may be
undertaken without triggering hazardous waste management requirements  as long as certain
conditions are met. For the other two scenarios, hazardous waste management requirements would
be triggered under most conditions. The conditions that would trigger hazardous waste management
requirements in each of the five scenarios are identified in the scenario descriptions that follow.

       Two facilities on the Pilot Team have already implemented the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse
scenario,  and we have summarized the associated environmental  and economic benefits in Appendix
A of this report. Another facility is currently trying to identify a trading partner for the  Trading
Neutralization Chemicals scenario.
                                                                          October 18, 1999
                                                                      Introduction — Page 2

-------
Regulatory Background Information for Interpreting the Scenarios

       The discussion  for  each scenario is intended to explain how the  current Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste management regulations apply to the
scenario. The majority of the regulatory citations in this report refer to the federal RCRA hazardous
waste management regulations found in Title 40 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR).

       Note that this report focuses on the federal hazardous waste management regulations. Most
states are authorized to implement the federal regulations, and individual state regulations may be
more stringent than the federal regulations.  In  authorized states, the state regulations  apply to
facilities in lieu of the federal regulations. Anyone interested in the specifics of the application of
the federal hazardous waste regulations to a particular facility should contact the appropriate state
environmental agency.

       It is important to recognize that in order to make this report usable, the descriptions of the
scenarios and the regulatory discussions are brief and somewhat generalized.  These descriptions do
not include all of the information that would be necessary to accurately determine, in detail, how the
hazardous waste regulations would apply to a particular case.  All possible  variations  of these
scenarios are also not included. It is anticipated that members of the regulated community would
work with representatives of the appropriate state or federal regulatory agency to discuss the details
of any particular situation.

       This report  is not intended to change any aspect of the current federal hazardous waste
regulations. Its goal is to aid in the application  of these regulations for facilities that encounter
opportunities similar to those  outlined in the scenarios presented here.  Please note the date this
report was prepared, indicated at the bottom  of each page.  Any future changes to the federal
hazardous waste regulations made after this date may supercede the discussions presented in this
report.
Introduction to the Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations Discussed in the Scenarios

       All of the scenarios in this report discuss the application of the federal hazardous waste
regulations to a recycling activity.   These regulations are published in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), which is available in many law libraries. The CFR is also available at:

                      http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html

A brief introduction to these regulations is presented below.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                                        Introduction — Page 3

-------
       Very generally, a secondary material is regulated if it is disposed.  Whether a secondary
material is regulated as a solid and hazardous waste when recycled depends largely on three things:

1)     Whether treatment or processing is required prior to reuse.  Secondary materials that are
       reused directly without reclamation (processing or treatment) may be excluded from being
       regulated as a solid or hazardous waste if certain conditions are met (40 CFR 261.2(e)).

2)     The type of recycling activity. Secondary materials that are recycled in certain ways are
       regulated as solid and hazardous wastes.  These include materials that are speculatively
       accumulated (stored for long periods of time without recycling), burned for energy recovery,
       or used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., used by being placed on the land).

3)     The type of material recycled. Of those secondary materials that are reclaimed, listed
       wastes and all spent materials are regulated as solid  and hazardous wastes.  However, by-
       products and sludges that are hazardous only due to exhibiting a characteristic of hazardous
       waste are not regulated as solid and hazardous wastes.

There are also numerous exclusions, exemptions, and special  regulations that address the regulatory
status of many specific recycling activities.

       All  exclusions and exemptions for recycled materials are applicable only if the recycling is
legitimate,  and not sham, recycling. Whether a recycling  activity is legitimate depends on the
individual recycling activity.  To encourage recycling, EPA subjects recycling activities to  reduced
regulation.  Some facilities, however, may claim that they are "recycling" a material in order  to avoid
being subject to RCRA regulation,  when in fact the activity is not legitimate recycling. Therefore,
EPA has established guidelines for what constitutes legitimate recycling and has described activities
it considers to be "sham recycling."

       Considerations used in determining whether  an activity is legitimate recycling include but
are not limited to:  how the material is used to make a marketable product, how the material is
stored/managed to minimize loss, the time until the  material is actually recycled, and the record-
keeping practices used by the facility to track the material. For additional  guidance on how this
determination is made, see the April 26, 1989 Office of Solid Waste memorandum from Sylvia K.
Lowrance, Director, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regions I - X Hazardous
Waste Management Division Directors, which is included  as Appendix C to this report.  It is
assumed that all of the recycling scenarios described in this report have been determined to be
legitimate recycling.

       Under CFR 261.2(f), facilities claiming that  materials are excluded from the definition of
solid  waste or conditionally exempted from the hazardous waste regulations must be able to
document that the terms of the exclusion or exemption are met.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                                        Introduction — Page 4

-------
       In each of the scenarios, it is also assumed that generators are regulated large- or small-
quantity generators.1  However, the requirements might be different from those presented here for
conditionally exempt  small quantity generators (generators who generate 100 kg of hazardous waste
per month or specified small quantities of acutely hazardous waste).

       Generators of regulated hazardous waste generally can store and treat the hazardous waste
on-site within either 90, 180, or 270 days without a RCRA permit depending upon the quantity of
waste and several other conditions specified in 40 CFR 262.34. However, management standards
do apply. In many cases, the recycling unit itself is exempt from RCRA regulations (see 40 CFR
261.6(c)). The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) requirements of 40 CFR part 268 generally apply
to the management of any material that is  determined to be hazardous waste. For generators of
recycled  hazardous  waste, the requirements may largely consist  of notification  and  proper
management of residues.

       While it is not addressed in detail in this report, there is also a Closed Loop Exclusion in the
regulations (40 CFR 261.4(a)(8)) that is available to encourage on-site recycling of process materials.
       1  For guidance on the hazardous waste rules for small quantity generators, see U.S. EPA's
Understanding the Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Rules: A Handbook for Small
Businesses - 1996 Update (EPA 530-K-95-001).

                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                                       Introduction — Page 5

-------
DEFINITION OF TERMS                                                  CHAPTER 2
Spent Material

       As defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(l), a spent material is "any material that has been used and
as a result of contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without
processing."
Solvent/Spent Solvent

       A solvent is a chemical that does not participate in the chemical reaction(s) and does not
change its chemical structure throughout the chemical reaction process. It is neither a reactant nor
a product of the reaction.  A spent solvent is a solvent that has been used, and as a result of
contamination can no longer serve its solvent purpose without processing.  If a contaminated solvent
continues to be used directly as a solvent, it is not a spent solvent.  See 50 FR 53316, December 31,
1985, for additional discussion of solvents and solvent uses.

Listed Waste

       A listed waste is a secondary material that is specifically listed in CFR 261 as a hazardous
waste.

Reactant

       A reactant is a chemical that reacts with other chemicals (reactants) to form products that are
chemically different from the original reactant molecules.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                                   Definition of Terms — Page 1

-------
By-product

       As defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(3), a by-product is "a material that is not one of the primary
products of a production process and is not solely or separately produced by the production process.
Examples are process residues such as slags or distillation column bottoms." By-products include
materials, generally of a residual nature, that are not produced intentionally or separately, and that
are unfit for end use without substantial processing (50 FR 625, January 4, 1985).

       A characteristic by-product is not specifically listed in CFR 261 but exhibits one or more
hazardous waste characteristics, i.e., it is ignitable, EP toxic, corrosive, and/or reactive.

Co-Product

       While there is not a separate regulatory definition for the term "co-product," it is described
in the regulations as a material "that is produced for the general public's use and is ordinarily used
in the form it is produced by the process" (40 CFR 261.1(c)(3)). EPA has provided some further
clarification as to what would be considered a co-product, as distinct from a by-product. Generally,
co-products are "materials produced intentionally, and which in their existing  state are ordinarily
used as commodities in trade by the general public " (50 FR 625, January 4, 1985).
Effective Substitute for a Commercial Product

       Whether a material can be used as an "effective substitute" (40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(ii)) must be
decided on a case-by-case basis, and depends on the individual situation where the substitute is used.
Generally, the material  should be something that can be used as a functional replacement for a
commercial product and that a user would consider buying. Other considerations include: 1) the
amount and effect of toxic constituents in the effective substitute that are not found in a commercial
grade material, 2) whether it is more or less cost  effective to use the material in question or a
commercial product, and 3) whether actual use of the effective substitute as compared to the
commercial grade material is more or less operationally effective in producing the intended product.
For additional guidance on how this determination is made, see the attachment to an April 26, 1989
Office of Solid Waste memorandum from  Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, to EPA Regions I - X
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors, which is included as Appendix C
to this report.
       Additional definitions may be found in the RCRA regulations under 40 CFR 260.10 and 40
CFR261.1(c).
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                                   Definition of Terms — Page 2

-------
SCENARIO 1:  TRADING NEUTRALIZATION CHEMICALS               CHAPTER 3


Scenario Description

Overview

       A manufacturing facility would like to trade acidic and alkaline process streams with other
facilities as an alternative to purchasing fresh chemicals for their  neutralization systems.  For
example, a dye manufacturer produces an acidic process stream that contains sulfuric acid produced
from oleum.  The facility, which normally uses fresh ammonia to neutralize its process streams
before discharging to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW),  would like to trade its acidic
process stream to a facility needing acid for neutralization of its process streams.  Alternatively, the
facility would like to receive an alkaline process stream from another facility to neutralize its process
stream.  In either case, the traded material would be combined with the receiving facility's process
stream to neutralize the pH, then discharged into the sewer to a POTW. These process streams have
been classified as by-products  under the RCRA  hazardous waste regulations.  (See Chapter 2,
Definition of Terms.)


Benefits

       This scenario would benefit the environment by reducing the use and discharge of fresh
corrosive neutralization chemicals.   This could also reduce the demand for production  of these
neutralization chemicals. In addition, it would decrease the risk of release during transportation if
the distance  between the trading facilities is less than the total distance between each of the trading
facilities and the manufacturers  of the neutralization chemicals they use to neutralize their process
streams.

       The  facility receiving the acid or alkaline process stream would benefit as long as the cost
of identifying a trading partner and its share of the transportation costs are less than the cost of
purchasing fresh neutralization chemicals.  The facility trading away the acid or alkaline stream
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                        Trading Neutralization Chemicals — Page 1

-------
would also benefit as long as the cost of identifying a trading partner and  its share of the
transportation costs are less than the cost of neutralizing and disposing of its process stream.
Other Issues

       During trading, a facility may receive a process stream containing materials (e.g., copper and
organic chemicals) that are not currently present in its waste. By receiving this process stream, the
facility's discharges may be subject to categorical and/or local discharge limits for the new materials.
Similarly, a process stream traded to the recipient facility may contain materials in quantities that,
together with the quantities in the facility's current waste, exceed the applicable limits. These issues
would have to be discussed and resolved with the receiving POTW. If the two facilities discharge
to the same POTW, the trading framework could be constructed to allow the water discharge permit
limits for each facility to apply across trading partners if their combined discharges to the POTW do
not exceed the applicable limits for all permitted substances. These aspects of the trade would have
to be approved by the POTW.
Additional Information

       •      Handling of Traded Materials vs. Analogous Raw Materials. The traded
              materials would be handled similarly to analogous raw materials, in a tank
              wagon, drums, or totes.

       •      Are there  Hazardous Constituents or Characteristics  in  the Traded
              Materials not Found in Analogous Raw Materials? In this example, the
              acidic traded materials would contain copper, while analogous raw materials
              would not. Although copper is not a RCRA hazardous constituent, it is a
              Clean Water Act priority pollutant.  We assume that the alkaline process
              stream does not contain any additional hazardous constituents.  The process
              streams, which have a pH of <2 or >12.5, would be hazardous wastes because
              they exhibit the characteristic of corrosivity. These process streams are not
              listed wastes, do not contain any listed wastes, and do not exhibit any other
              characteristics of hazardous waste that would not be found in analogous raw
              materials (e.g., they do not exhibit the characteristic of toxicity (TC)).

       •      How are the Process Streams Treated? It is not known if the alkaline
              process  stream  would receive any treatment.  The  acidic process stream
              would be managed on-site before the material is traded in one of three ways:

              Scenario a:  The material is partially neutralized (but is still corrosive) by
              adding gaseous ammonium or caustic  soda or other neutralization chemicals.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                        Trading Neutralization Chemicals — Page 2

-------
             It is also treated to remove the copper either by ion exchange, electro winning
             or reverse osmosis.

             Scenario b: The material is not neutralized but is treated to remove the
             copper by either ion exchange, electro winning or reverse osmosis.

             Scenario c:  The  acidic material is not neutralized and is not treated to
             remove the copper. In this case, the copper concentrations would either be
             below the POTW local  limits or  a  POTW-approved effluent  trading
             agreement with another facility would be in effect.  This agreement would
             raise the facility's permitted copper limit so that the copper concentrations
             would be within the facility's permitted limit, although above the local limit
             (see the discussion under "Other Issues," above).
Relevant Regulations, Permits, and Guidance

       •     N.J.A.C. 7:26G-5,6, and 7
       •     Draft Framework for  Watershed-Based Trading (EPA 800-R-96-001, May
              1996)
       •     Sharing the Load:  Effluent Trading for Indirect Dischargers (EPA 231 -R-98-003,
             May 1998)
       •     Relevant Effluent Guidelines
       •     Relevant POTW Regulations and Guidance
       •     Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261)

Questions and Regulatory Response

General Comments

       The regulatory status of the traded materials under the RCRA hazardous waste regulations
could be different depending on whether the materials are spent materials or by-products (see
definitions).  Based on the specifics of the facilities under consideration in this Pilot, both the acidic
and alkaline process streams have been determined to be by-products.

Questions and Answers

1.      What would be the regulatory status of the acidic process stream that is traded from the dye
       manufacturer to another facility under New Jersey state and federal hazardous waste
       regulations under Scenario a? Scenario b? Scenario c?
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                      Trading Neutralization Chemicals — Page 3

-------
       Answer:  The New Jersey state regulations are the same as the federal regulations. The
       acidic process stream is a characteristic by-product.  For Scenarios a and b, if the acidic
       process stream is reclaimed prior to use (e.g., copper is removed), it is not a  solid or
       hazardous waste and its management is  not subject to  the RCRA hazardous  waste
       regulations. This is because characteristic by-products that are reclaimed are not solid wastes
       under 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3). Note that the material may not be used in a manner constituting
       disposal (e.g., used by being placed on land), burned for energy recovery, or speculatively
       accumulated.

       For Scenario c, if the acidic process stream is legitimately used directly (without reclamation)
       as an effective substitute for a neutralization product, it is not a solid or hazardous waste and
       is not subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations as long as it is not used in a manner
       constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery, or speculatively  accumulated.  (40 CFR
       261.2(e)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)).

       Once reclaimed (or if the process  stream does not need reclamation), the acid would be
       considered an effective substitute for a commercial product and is not a solid or hazardous
       waste as long as it is not used in a manner constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery,
       or speculatively accumulated.  (40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)).

2.      What would be the regulatory status of the alkaline process stream under current New Jersey
       state and federal regulations?

       Answer:  For the potential trading partner identified, the alkaline process stream is also a
       characteristic by-product, thus the answers are the same as in 1, above. For other facilities,
       the alkaline (or acid) process stream may be a spent material or a characteristic by-product,
       depending on how it is produced.

3.      Would the RCRA regulatory status of the process streams change if the facilities were direct
       dischargers instead of dischargers to a POTW?

       Answer: No, the RCRA regulatory status does not change.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                        Trading Neutralization Chemicals — Page 4

-------
SCENARIO!: WASTEWATER ALCOHOL REUSE                        CHAPTER 4


Scenario Description

Overview

       A chemical manufacturing facility and a refinery are co-permittees of a private wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). Discharges from the refinery to the WWTP contain organics, including
alcohols and other hydrocarbons. These organics are used by the WWTP as a food source (substrate)
for the microbes that biodegrade wastewater. The microbes must have a sufficient level of substrate
to maintain proper operation of bio-treatment processes  at the WWTP. During scheduled and
unscheduled downtimes for the refinery, the substrate necessary for bio-treatment must be obtained
from  other sources  because the refinery  does not discharge sufficient organics to support the
microbial population. Food supplements are also necessary to support the microbial population at
other times of the year, for example, during cold weather.

       The chemical manufacturer produces alcohols from the manufacture of lubricating oil
additives.  The manufacturer currently manages these alcohols by phase separating alcohol from
wastewater, placing the alcohol into a tank  and shipping it offsite to fuel blending operations. The
chemical manufacturer would like to send these alcohols to the WWTP, where they could help to
maintain a healthy microbial operation and  enhance biodegradation of chemical compounds during
downtimes for the refinery and  other times when food for the microbes is limited.

       The alcohols would not require any treatment or processing prior to their use in the WWTP,
other than phase separation from the wastewater.  The alcohol/waste water would not be stored for
a long enough period of time to be speculatively accumulated (40 CFR 261.1(c)(8)).

       The alcohols have  been classified as by-products under the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations (See Chapter 2, Definition of Terms).

       This scenario has already been implemented by two industry members of the Materials
Recycling Team. The environmental and economic benefits of this scenario are described in more
detail in Appendix A.

                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                            Wastewater Alcohol Reuse —Page 1

-------
Benefits

       This scenario would benefit the environment by reusing, rather than discarding, the
wastewater alcohols; reducing the use and therefore demand for production of fresh alcohol to help
sustain microbes; and improving the functioning of the microbes and the quality of discharges from
the WWTP.  Both the manufacturing plant and WWTP would also benefit financially — the
manufacturing plant would benefit from avoided treatment and disposal costs for the alcohol, and
the WWTP would benefit from avoided purchases of fresh alcohol.

Additional Information

       •     What is the composition of the  alcohol/wastewater mixture from the
             chemical manufacturer?  The alcohol  composition changes  based on
             production requirements for the plant.   However, ethanol  accounts for
             approximately 50 percent of the alcohol at all times. Other alcohols include
             isoamyl alcohol, isobutanol, isopropanol, and methyl isobutyl carbinol.

       •     Does the alcohol/wastewater mixture contain any hazardous constituents
             or exhibit any hazardous waste characteristics? The alcohol/wastewater
             mixture may exhibit the characteristic of ignitability, and contains zinc
             (which is not a RCRA hazardous constituent).

       •     How is the alcohol transferred from the facility to the WWTP? Alcohols
             would be initially transferred to the WWTP through a discharge pipe or in
             tank wagons.

Regulations Involved

       •     Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261)
Questions and Regulatory Response

General Comments

       The answers for this scenario are based on the assumption that the alcohol/wastewater
mixture is a by-product, as defined in 40 CFR 261.1(c)(3)

       Assuming the alcohol/wastewater by-product from the lube oil additive manufacturing
process is a characteristic by-product (see definitions), it would not be considered a RCRA solid
waste when reclaimed by being phase-separated, pursuant to 261.2(c)(3), provided that the by-

                                                                          October 18, 1999
                                                            Wastewater Alcohol Reuse — Page 2

-------
product wastewater/alcohol stream: (1) is truly a by-product and not a spent material, (2) is not a
listed hazardous waste, and (3) is not used in a manner constituting disposal, burned for energy
recovery, or accumulated speculatively.

       Once the secondary material is reclaimed (or if the material did not need reclaiming), it is not
a solid  or hazardous waste  if it is  an effective  substitute for a commercial product (40 CFR
261.2(e)(l)(ii)) as long  as it is not used in  a manner constituting disposal, burned for energy
recovery, or speculatively accumulated. (40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)).
Questions and Answers

1.      Under the current RCRA regulations, can the reclaimed alcohol be used in the WWTP
       without being regulated as a hazardous waste?

       Answer:  Yes, if the reclaimed alcohol is an effective substitute and is not used in a manner
       constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery, or speculatively accumulated. (40 CFR
       261.2(e)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR 261.2(e)(2)).

2.      Would the regulatory requirements change if it were found that some of the reclaimed
       alcohols were more beneficial than others in promoting a healthy microbial population?

       Answer: No, as long as the reclaimed alcohols are determined to be an effective substitute
       for commercial alcohols, the regulatory analysis does not change.

3.      Would the regulatory situation change if the reclaimed alcohol proved to be a slightly less
       effective nutrient for WWTP microbes than a specific, purchased alcohol?

       Answer:  As long as the reclaimed alcohols used are determined to be an effective substitute
       for a commercial product, the regulatory analysis would not change. Since generators who
       raise a claim that a certain material is not a solid waste must demonstrate that there is a
       known market for the material and that they meet the terms of the exclusion or exemption,
       it is important to document, including testing results, that the alcohol mixture is an effective
       substrate for enhancing the microbial population or  enhancing biotreatment  (40 CFR
       261.2(f)).

4.      Would the regulatory requirements change if the reclaimed alcohols were supplied from
       another facility, not a co-permittee of the WWTP, and all other factors remained the same?

       Answer: No, the hazardous waste regulatory analysis does not  depend on the location of
       generation or use of the material, and thus would not change. The sending facility would
       need to ensure that the by-product use would be approved by the WWTP.
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                             Wastewater Alcohol Reuse — Page 3

-------
5.      Does the regulatory status of the reclaimed alcohols change for any of the above questions
       if they were transferred to the WWTP via mobile tank truck instead of being hard-piped?

       Answer: No, the regulatory analysis does not depend on the mode of transport and thus
       would not change.

6.      Does the regulatory  status of the reclaimed alcohols depend on whether they are used to
       augment the organic levels at the WWTP during normal operations or whether they are only
       used as a substitute for alcohols that would be purchased by the WWTP during downtimes
       for the refinery?

       Answer: No, it does not matter when the alcohols are used.   The key to the regulatory
       analysis is their use as an effective substitute.

7.      Would the regulatory requirement change if the WWTP paid for or did not pay for  the
       reclaimed alcohols?

       Answer: The regulatory determination would be the same regardless of whether the WWTP
       pays for the reclaimed alcohols, as long as the activity is legitimate recycling. In determining
       whether an activity is legitimate recycling, the Agency may take into consideration factors
       such as the similarity of the secondary material to an analogous raw product, as well as  the
       economic value of the material and the economics of the recycling process (Memo, Lowrance
       to Regions; April 26, 1989, see Appendix C). Thus, the economic value of the material is
       considered in the determination of whether the recycling and/or reuse are legitimate recycling
       and, thus, whether the recycling/reuse exclusions discussed are available for this activity.

8.      Would the regulatory situation change if the WWTP  only used a small amount  of  the
       reclaimed alcohols?

       Answer: No, provided that the alcohols are determined to be used as effective substitutes.

9.      Under what conditions would the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) apply to this alcohol
       reuse scenario?

       Answer:  If the alcohol/wastewater mixture and the reclaimed alcohols are determined  not
       to be solid and hazardous wastes from the point of generation due to the manner in which
       they are recycled, they are not regulated hazardous wastes and the LDRs do not  apply.
       However, if they are determined to be solid and hazardous wastes, the LDRs may apply.
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                            Wastewater Alcohol Reuse — Page 4

-------
SCENARIO 3:  CHARACTERISTIC BY-PRODUCT RECYCLING         CHAPTER 5



Scenario Description

Overview

       A specialty chemical manufacturer uses an alkyl hydroperoxide as a reactant. The reaction
produces a process stream containing alkyl alcohol. The facility currently incinerates this process
stream, but would like to instead purify the alkyl alcohol.  The facility would like to sell the purified
alcohol, since it does not use it as a raw material in any of its processes. The manufacturing facility
believes the process stream is either a co-product or a characteristic by-product.


Benefits

       This scenario would benefit the environment by avoiding the emissions associated with
incineration of the process stream and reducing the use and therefore the demand for production of
fresh alkyl alcohol. The manufacturing facility would also benefit as long as the revenue earned
from the sale of the purified alcohol is greater than the cost of purifying,  storing, marketing, and
selling it. If the cost is greater than the revenue earned, the facility would still benefit as long  as the
net cost of selling the alcohol is less than the cost of incinerating the process stream.


Additional Information

•      Are there hazardous constituents or characteristics in the alkyl alcohol not found  in the
       analogous raw material?  The alkyl alcohol exhibits the characteristic of ignitability, as
       would commercial alkyl alcohol.  There are no hazardous constituents that would not be
       found in an analogous commercial alkyl alcohol.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                      Characteristic By-Product Recycling — Page 1

-------
Regulations Involved

       •      Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261)

Questions and Regulatory Response

General Comments

       In order to determine the RCRA hazardous waste regulatory status of a recycled material it
must be classified as one of several types of materials (e.g., by-product, co-product, spent material,
etc.).  (See Chapter 2, Definition of Terms, 40 CFR 261. l(c), and 40 CFR 261.2, Table 1.) In this
scenario,  the most likely classifications for the process stream appear to be by-product, or co-
product.  While there is not a separate regulatory definition for the term "co-product," it is described
in the regulations as a material "that is produced for the general public's use and is ordinarily used
in the form it is produced by the process." (40 CFR 261.1(c)(3)) EPA has provided some further
clarification as to what would be considered a co-product, as distinct from  a by-product.  Generally,
co-products are "materials produced  intentionally, and which in their existing state are ordinarily
used as commodities in trade by the general public. "  (50 FR 625, January 4, 1985).

       A by-product is defined as "a material that is not one of the primary products of a production
process and is not  solely or separately produced by the production process.  Examples are process
residues such as slags or distillation column bottoms.  The term does not include a co-product..."
(40 CFR 261.1(c)(3))  By-products include materials, generally of a residual nature, that are not
produced intentionally or separately, and that are unfit for end use without substantial processing (50
FR 625, January 4, 1985).

       Based  on the general information in this  scenario it seems likely that the alkyl alcohol
containing process stream would be  classified as  a by-product. However, this is a case-specific
determination that would require further information about the individual situation. In addition, such
a determination should be reviewed with the appropriate EPA or state regulatory agency.

Questions and Answers

1.     What is the regulatory status of the alkyl alcohol process stream before purification if it is
       a co-product?

       Answer: A co-product is an intended result of a manufacturing process, which is not a solid
       or hazardous waste.

2.     What is the regulatory status of the alkyl alcohol process stream before reclamation if it is
       a characteristic by-product?
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                      Characteristic By-Product Recycling — Page 2

-------
       Answer: By-products that are destined for reclamation and are hazardous only because they
       exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic are not solid or hazardous wastes as long as they are
       not speculatively accumulated, burned for energy recovery, or used in a manner constituting
       disposal (40 CFR 261.2 Table  1). If the process stream is classified as a characteristic by-
       product, it is not a solid or hazardous waste if it is legitimately reclaimed under 40 CFR
       261.2(c)(3).

3.      What is the regulatory  status of the purified alkyl alcohol after purification if the alkyl
       alcohol process stream was determined to be a co-product?

       Answer: The alkyl alcohol after purification would continue to be considered a co-product,
       which is not a solid or  hazardous waste. Co-products are products and are regulated by
       RCRA only when they are discarded.  RCRA regulations do not place requirements on either
       the manufacturing process or the use of co-products.

4.      What is the regulatory  status of the purified alkyl alcohol after purification if the alkyl
       alcohol process stream was determined to be a by-product?

       Answer:  The alkyl alcohol after purification would  not be a solid or hazardous waste as
       long as it is an effective substitute and is not used in a  manner constituting disposal, burned
       for energy recovery, or speculatively accumulated.  (40 CFR 261.2(e)(l)(ii) and 40 CFR
       261.2(e)(2)).  In addition, if the reclaimed characteristic by-product is discarded, it is subject
       to RCRA regulations (40 CFR 261.2(a)(l)).

  5.    Does the regulatory status for either the co-product alkyl alcohol or reclaimed characteristic
       by-product alkyl alcohol depend on whether the alkyl alcohol is reused by the manufacturing
       facility or sold off-site?

       Answer:  No, the hazardous waste regulatory analysis does not depend on who uses the
       material and thus does not change.
                                                                             October 18, 1999
                                                      Characteristic By-Product Recycling — Page 3

-------
SCENARIO 4:  ON-SITE RECLAMATION OF SPENT SOLVENTS        CHAPTER 6



Scenario Description

Overview

       A facility uses a commercial xylene solvent to clean its reactor system.  After a certain
number of uses, the solvent is considered spent because it can no longer be used for its original
purpose due to build-up of polymeric, non-hazardous solids and lower xylene concentrations.  The
facility now sends the spent solvent off-site to be incinerated. The facility would like to clean this
spent solvent to remove the solids and reuse it in the same cleaning process.  Between uses, the
reprocessed solvent may be stored in  55-gallon drums or a storage tank until it can be added to the
next batch or until the next time that product is produced. Records of solvent reclamation and reuse
are maintained.

Benefits

       Reprocessing and reusing the  spent solvent would benefit the environment by reducing the
use and therefore the demand for production of fresh solvent. There would also be a decrease in the
disposal of spent solvent.  Assuming  the same level of safety precautions are used, there would be
less transportation risk  because there would be less transportation of fresh solvent  and no
transportation of spent solvent to a disposal site.  The facility would also benefit as long as the cost
of reprocessing  the spent solvent is less than the cost of disposing of the spent solvent  plus
purchasing new solvent.


Additional Information

       •      Percent of Raw Material that is Reclaimed. 40 to 50 percent of the spent
              solvent is recoverable for use as a new cleaning solvent.
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                    On-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 1

-------
             How would the Reclamation Process Differ from the Current Disposal
             Process?  The reclamation process would likely be either distillation or
             filtration. The current disposal process is incineration.

             Is the Spent Solvent a Listed Hazardous Waste?  Yes.  If the solvent
             product before use meets the volume description for F003 mixtures in 40
             CFR 261.31, the spent solvent would meet the F003 listing for spent non-
             halogenated solvents including xylene.

             Are  there Hazardous Constituents or Characteristics  in the Spent
             Material not Found in Analogous Raw Materials?  Although the spent
             xylene would be ignitable (as would an analogous xylene product), it does not
             exhibit any other hazardous waste characteristics and does not include  any
             other hazardous constituents not found in virgin xylene.

             Handling of Spent and Treated Materials vs. Analogous Raw Materials:
             Both the spent and treated solvent, as well as the analogous raw material (i.e.,
             virgin xylene), would be handled in drums or tanks.
Regulations Involved
             Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261)
             Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 262)
             N.J.A.C. 7:26G-5,6, and 7
Questions and Regulatory Response

General Comments

       A solvent that is used as a cleaning agent would be considered a spent material once it is no
longer to be used for its solvent properties. See the definitions of spent material and spent solvent
in Chapter 2, Definition of Terms.


Questions and Answers

1.      What is the regulatory status of the spent xylene that is to be reclaimed and reused on-site?

       Answer:  Because the spent xylene is a spent material that is to be reclaimed, it is a regulated
       solid and hazardous waste and must be managed following the hazardous waste management
       regulations (40 CFR 261.2(c)(3)).  Since it is managed on-site, the generator may choose to

                                                                          October 18, 1999
                                                   On-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 2

-------
       manage it under the generator accumulation provisions of 40 CFR 262.34 (e.g., the 90-day
       accumulation provisions for large-quantity generators).  Note that the recycling process itself
       may be exempt from regulation pursuant to 40 CFR 261.6(c)(l).

2.      What is the regulatory status of the reclaimed solvent?

       Answer:  After it is reclaimed, assuming the reclaimed solvent is beneficially used as a
       legitimate product (and is not burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting
       disposal), it is not a solid or hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).1

3.      Does the regulatory status of the spent or reclaimed solvent depend on the specific type of
       reprocessing activity (e.g., whether it is distilled, filtered, or treated by some other means)?

       Answer: No, as long as the reprocessing is legitimate recycling.

4.      What is the regulatory status of the removed solids? Does this depend on the method of
       removal?

       Answer: If the recycling process is distillation, the residues would be the listed waste F003,
       which includes distillation column bottoms.  Residues from other treatment processes would,
       in many cases,  also be  considered the listed waste F003,  since they would be derived-from
       treatment of F003 (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)). There may be some cases in which the residues
       are no longer considered F003 and may not be a hazardous waste.  This is a case-specific
       determination  that depends  on the details of the individual situation. Facilities with
       questions regarding their situation should talk to the appropriate state agency or EPA.

5.      Does the regulatory status of the spent xylene change for any of the above questions if it had
       been used for another purpose rather than as a cleaning solvent?

       Answer:  To determine the regulatory status of a  recycled secondary material it must be
       classified as one of several types of materials (e.g., spent material, by-product, sludge). See
       Chapter 2, Definition  of Terms, and 40 CFR 261.1(c).  A solvent that has been used as a
       cleaning solvent is considered a spent material once it is no longer  to be used for that
       purpose.  If, however, the solvent  had been used for  some other purpose, in order to
       determine its  regulatory status it would have to be classified in the  proper category,
       depending on the nature of the material. For example, a residue remaining from use of a
       solvent as a reactant would likely be considered a by-product rather than a spent material.
       However, this is  a case-specific  determination that will  depend on the details  of the
       1  See "The Status of Reclaimed Products," Federal Register', Vol. 50., No. 3, Friday
January 4, 1985 p. 634 for further discussion of the regulatory status of products reclaimed from
hazardous waste.

                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                    On-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 3

-------
       individual situation. Once the type of material is determined, the regulatory status can be
       determined depending on the recycling scenario.  See 50 FR 53316, December 31, 1985, for
       further discussion of the types of uses of solvents.

6.      Does the regulatory status of the reclaimed solvent change if the secondary material from
       which it is derived is not a spent cleaning solvent?

       Answer: No.  Once it is reclaimed, the solvent is not a solid or hazardous waste as long as
       it is used beneficially as a legitimate product under 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i) and is not burned
       for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal.

7.      Does the regulatory  status of the spent solvent prior to reclamation depend on whether the
       reclaimed solvent is hard-piped back to the original process in which it was generated?

       Answer: If a material is reclaimed and returned to the original process or processes in which
       it was generated where it is reused, it may not be a solid and hazardous waste under the
       closed-loop tank exclusion of 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8).  To meet this exclusion:  1) only tank
       storage may be involved; 2) the entire process through completion of reclamation must be
       closed  by being entirely connected with  pipes or other comparable enclosed means of
       conveyance; 3) the  reclamation must not involve  controlled flame combustion; 4) the
       materials must  not be accumulated in the tanks for over twelve months  without being
       reclaimed; and  5) the reclaimed material  must not be used to produce a fuel, or used to
       produce products that are used in a manner constituting disposal.  See 40 CFR 261.4(a)(8).
       Accordingly, if the spent xylene in  this  scenario is reclaimed and returned to the original
       process in which it was generated, and all of the conditions of the closed-loop tank exclusion
       are met, then the spent xylene would not be a solid or hazardous waste and its management
       would not be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste management regulations (other than the
       conditions listed above).

8.      Would EPA and DEP consider granting flexibility for a pilot  project through which
       spent solvents are reprocessed as described above?

       Answer: Facilities wishing regulatory flexibility for a project similar to what is outlined in
       this scenario could consider making a proposal through EPA's Project XL, which is described
       in Appendix B  of this report.  In the future, the Standardized  Permit Rule may also be
       available, as described in Appendix D of this report.
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                    On-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 4

-------
SCENARIO 5:  OFF-SITE RECLAMATION OF SPENT SOLVENTS         CHAPTER 7



Scenario Description

Overview

       A facility uses a commercial xylene solvent to clean its reactor system.  After a certain
number of uses, the solvent is considered spent because it can no longer be used for its original
purpose due to build-up of polymeric, non-hazardous solids and lower xylene concentrations. The
facility now sends the spent solvent off-site to be incinerated.  The facility would like to send this
spent solvent off-site to a facility that will reprocess it and either use it, sell it, or return it.


Benefits

       Reprocessing and reusing the spent solvent would benefit the environment by reducing the
use and therefore the demand for production of fresh solvent.  There would also be a reduction in
the disposal of spent solvent.  In addition, there would be decreased  transportation risk if the
recipient facility is closer than the disposal site, assuming that the same level of transportation safety
precautions are used.

       If the solvent is sent from the generating facility to a second facility that uses the solvent as
an input, the generating facility would benefit as long as the cost of identifying the recipient facility
and transporting the solvent is less than the cost of treating and disposing of the material. Likewise,
the recipient facility would benefit if the cost of identifying the facility generating the solvent and
reprocessing it for use is less than the cost of purchasing fresh solvent. Similar benefits would also
accrue if the second facility sells or returns the solvent.
                                                                             October 18, 1999
                                                     Off-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 1

-------
Additional Information
             Percent of Raw Material that is Reclaimed. 40 to 50 percent of the spent
             solvent is recoverable for use as a cleaning solvent.

             How would the Reclamation Process Differ from the Current Disposal
             Process? The reclamation process would likely entail either distillation or
             filtration. The current disposal process is incineration.

             Is the Spent Solvent a Listed Hazardous Waste?  Yes.  If the solvent
             product before use meets the volume descriptions for F003 solvent mixtures
             in 40 CFR 261.31, the spent solvent would meet the F003 listing for spent
             non-halogenated solvents including xylene.

             Are there Hazardous  Constituents or Characteristics  in the Spent
             Material not Found in Analogous Raw Materials? Although the spent
             xylene would be ignitable (as would an analogous xylene product), it does not
             exhibit any other hazardous waste characteristics and does not include any
             other hazardous constituents not found in virgin xylene.

             Handling of Traded Material vs. Analogous Raw Materials. Like the
             analogous raw material, the spent solvent and the reprocessed solvent would
             be handled in drums or tanks.
Regulations Involved
             Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 261)
             Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 262)
             Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous Waste (40 CFR Part 263)
             N.J.A.C. 7:26G-5 6 and 7
Questions and Regulatory Response

General Comments

       A solvent that is used as a cleaning agent would be considered a spent material once it is no
longer to be used for its solvent properties. See the definitions of spent material and spent solvent
in Chapter 2, Definition of Terms.
                                                                          October 18, 1999
                                                   Off-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 2

-------
Questions and Answers

1.      What is regulatory status of the spent xylene as it is being sent to a recipient facility for
       reprocessing?

       Answer:   Because the spent xylene is a spent material that is to be reclaimed, it is a
       regulated solid and hazardous waste and must be managed following the hazardous waste
       management regulations (40 CFR 261.2(c)(3)).  Thus the generating facility must comply
       with 40 CFR Part 262, the transporter with 40 CFR Part 263, and the receiving facility with
       40 CFR 261.6(c) - (d). Note that the recycling process itself may be exempt from regulation
       pursuant to 40 CFR261.6(c)(l). (See 40 CFR261.6(a) - (d).)

2.      Does the regulatory status of the spent solvent  depend on  whether or not it is sold to the
       processing facility?

       Answer: In determining whether an activity is  legitimate recycling, the Agency may take
       into consideration factors including the economic value of the material and the economics
       of the recycling process (Memo, Lowrance to Regions; April 26, 1989, see Appendix C).
       Thus, this factor could  affect the determination  as  to whether the solvent recycling is
       legitimate recycling.  In this case, however, it would not affect the regulatory status of the
       spent solvent since it is  already a solid and hazardous waste even when recycled.  It could,
       however, affect which regulations apply to  management of the  material (recycling
       requirements or treatment/disposal requirements).

3.      What is the regulatory status of the reclaimed solvent?

       Answer: After it is reclaimed, assuming the reclaimed solvent is used beneficially as a
       legitimate product (and  is not burned for energy recovery or used in a manner constituting
       disposal), it is not a solid or hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).1

4.      What is the regulatory status of the removed solids? Does this depend on the method of
       removal?

       Answer: If the recycling process is distillation, the residues would be the listed waste F003,
       which includes distillation column bottoms. Residues from other treatment processes would,
       in many cases, also be considered the listed waste F003, since they would be derived-from
       treatment of F003 (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)).  There may be some cases in which the residues
       1  See "The Status of Reclaimed Products," Federal Register', Vol. 50., No. 3, Friday
January 4, 1985 p. 634 for further discussion of the regulatory status of products reclaimed from
hazardous waste.

                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                   Off-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 3

-------
       are no longer considered F003 and may not be a hazardous waste.  This is a case-specific
       determination that depends on the details of the individual situation.  Facilities with
       questions regarding their situation should talk to the appropriate state agency or EPA.

5.      Does the regulatory status of the spent or reclaimed solvent depend on the specific type of
       reprocessing activity that occurs at the recipient facility (e.g., whether it is distilled, filtered,
       or treated by some other means)?

       Answer: No, as long as the reprocessing is legitimate recycling.

6.      How does the regulatory status of the spent solvent, reprocessed solvent, or the removed
       solids change if the reprocessed solvent is used by the treating facility? If it is returned to
       the sending facility for reuse? If it is sold to a third party?

       Answer: The status would not change.  Note that if the sender is a Small Quantity Generator
       (SQG) and the reclaimed  solvent is returned to  the sender,  there is an exemption from
       manifesting under 40 CFR 262.20(e) that may apply if certain conditions are met (e.g., a
       certain form of contractual agreement is in place).

7.      Does the regulatory status of the spent xylene change for any of the above questions if it had
       been used for another purpose rather than as a cleaning solvent?

       Answer: To determine the regulatory status of a recycled secondary material it must be
       classified as one of several types of materials (e.g., spent material, by-product, sludge). See
       Chapter 2, Definition of Terms, and 40 CFR 261.1(c). A solvent that has been used as a
       cleaning solvent is considered a spent material  once  it  is no longer to be used for that
       purpose. If, however, the solvent had been used for some other purpose,  in order to
       determine its  regulatory status it would have to be  classified in the proper  category,
       depending on the nature of the material. For example, a residue remaining from use of a
       solvent as a reactant would likely be considered a by-product rather than a spent material.
       This is  a case-specific determination that will depend  on the  details  of the individual
       situation. Once the type of material is determined, the regulatory status can be determined
       depending on the recycling scenario.  See 50 FR 53316, December 31, 1985, for further
       discussion of the types of uses of solvents.

8.      If the spent solvents or removed solids would be regulated as hazardous wastes under any
       of the scenarios described in Questions 1-6, are there any changes that could be made that
       would allow them to  avoid a hazardous waste designation?

       Answer:  The handler could petition for a potential delisting of a listed waste if:  1) the
       handler could show that the waste does not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was
       listed; and,  2) if there are any other factors which could cause the waste to be  a hazardous
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                    Off-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 4

-------
waste, the handler could show that those additional factors do not warrant retaining the waste
as a hazardous waste (40 CFR 260.22).

Would EPA and DEP consider granting some regulatory flexibility for a pilot project through
which spent solvents are treated for reuse under any of the above conditions?

Answer:  Facilities wishing regulatory flexibility for a project similar to what is outlined in
this scenario could consider making a proposal through EPA's Project XL, which is described
in Appendix B of this report.
                                                                      October 18, 1999
                                              Off-Site Reclamation of Spent Solvents — Page 5

-------
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THE                                   APPENDIX A
WASTEWATER ALCOHOL REUSE SCENARIO
       A batch chemical manufacturer and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) implemented the
Wastewater Alcohol Reuse scenario for five days in October 1998 when microbial activity at the
WWTP was low.  During this initial  test of the  scenario, the chemical manufacturer sent
approximately 1,000 gallons of wastewater alcohols to the WWTP instead of disposing of them off-
site. The WWTP used these alcohols to stimulate microbial activity instead of purchasing fresh
methanol for this purpose.

       The chemical manufacturer and WWTP plan to implement this scenario on a broader scale
in the future. This includes implementing the scenario during additional periods when microbial
activity at  the WWTP  is low, and during  month-long shutdowns at the refinery  known  as
"turnarounds."

       Implementation of the scenario benefits the environment, the WWTP, and the chemical
manufacturer.  The environment benefits from a reduction in the transportation and off-site disposal
of wastewater alcohol, and a reduction in the use and demand for production of fresh methanol. The
WWTP and chemical manufacturer both accrue cost savings; the WWTP from avoided purchases
of fresh methanol, and the chemical manufacturer from avoided transportation and off-site disposal
of the wastewater alcohols.  These benefits are summarized in Exhibit A-l and described further in
this appendix.

       In addition to the facilities that have already tested the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse scenario,
implementation of the scenario would likely benefit other chemical manufacturers, WWTPs, and
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Chemical manufacturers most likely to benefit from the
scenario are those that are currently sending wastewater alcohols off-site for disposal. Wastewater
treatment plants and POTWs most likely to benefit from the scenario are those that purchase alcohol
to stimulate microbial activity and/or those that rely on wastewater alcohols from chemical or other
manufacturers as a food source for microbes.
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                               Benefits of Implementing the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario — Page 1

-------
                                      Exhibit A-l
                                 BENEFITS OF THE
                             WASTEWATER ALCOHOL
                                 REUSE SCENARIO
        ENVIRONMENTAL
            BENEFITS

        Avoided transportation and
        disposal of wastewater
        alcohol.
        Reduction in use and
        demand for production of
        fresh methanol.
  BENEFITS TO THE
     CHEMICAL
  MANUFACTURER

Avoided cost of transporting
and disposing of alcohols off-
site.
  BENEFITS TO THE
   WASTEWATER
 TREATMENT PLANT

Avoided cost of purchasing
fresh methanol.
       As explained in Chapter 4 of this document, there are several conditions that must exist in
order for facilities to implement the scenario without triggering RCRA hazardous waste regulations.
For example, the wastewater alcohols must be a by-product, must not be a listed hazardous waste,
and must be used as an effective substitute for a commercial product.  Prior to implementing the
scenario, facilities are encouraged to discuss the details of their situation with representatives of the
appropriate state or federal regulatory agency.

       The remainder of this appendix first provides a summary of the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse
scenario.  This is followed by a description of the benefits that accrued to the environment, the
WWTP, and the chemical manufacturer during the October 1998 implementation of the scenario,
and a discussion of the  potential  benefits from broader implementation of the  scenario at the
participating facilities.
How the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario Works

       The Wastewater Alcohol Reuse scenario involves a chemical manufacturer, a refinery, and
a wastewater treatment plant.  The chemical manufacturer and refinery are co-permittees of the
WWTP.  Although the chemical manufacturer discharges some of its wastewaters to the WWTP for
treatment and disposal, it does not discharge its wastewater alcohols from the manufacture  of
lubricating oil additives. The manufacturer instead transports these wastewater alcohols off-site for
disposal.  The refinery also discharges wastewaters to the WWTP.  Some of these wastewaters
contain organics that act as a substrate for the microbes that biodegrade wastewater.
                                                                             October 18, 1999
                                Benefits of Implementing the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario — Page 2

-------
       The WWTP must sustain a sufficient level of microbial activity and a healthy population of
microbes for biological treatment processes to work effectively. When microbial activity is low, the
WWTP typically purchases fresh methanol  to increase microbial activity.  The WWTP also
purchases fresh  methanol as a supplemental substrate when there is not enough  substrate in
wastewaters entering the plant to maintain a healthy population of microbes.

       The chemical manufacturer and WWTP can benefit from implementing the Wastewater
Alcohol Reuse scenario under two different circumstances.  The first is when microbial activity at
the WWTP is low, which was the rationale for implementing the scenario in October 1998.  Under
the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse scenario, the chemical manufacturer discharges wastewater alcohols
to the WWTP. The WWTP uses these wastewater alcohols to stimulate microbial activity instead
of purchasing fresh methanol. The facilities anticipate that each time they implement the  scenario,
the chemical manufacturer will discharge 1,000 gallons of wastewater alcohols to the WWTP and
the WWTP will avoid purchasing 1,000 gallons of fresh methanol.

       The chemical manufacturer and WWTP are also planning to implement the Wastewater
Alcohol  Reuse scenario during turnaround  times at the refinery.  During these turnarounds,
operations at the refinery shut down and it does not discharge any wastewaters to the WWTP. The
WWTP can use wastewater alcohols from the chemical manufacturer to act as the primary  substrate
for the microbes instead of purchasing fresh methanol. The chemical manufacturer anticipates
discharging approximately 30,000 gallons of wastewater alcohols to the WWTP during a turnaround
(1,000 gallons per day),  allowing the WWTP to avoid purchasing an equivalent quantity of fresh
methanol.

       Please see Chapter 4 of this document for a more detailed description of the scenario.
Benefits of Implementing the Scenario

       In October of 1998, the chemical manufacturer and WWTP implemented the Wastewater
Alcohol Reuse scenario when cold weather resulted in low microbial activity at the WWTP.  The
section below describes the observed environmental benefits and cost savings associated with this
test scenario.  It also presents benefits that would accrue from broader implementation of this
scenario at these facilities.
Environmental Benefits

       Implementation of the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse scenario benefitted the environment in
several ways. Because the WWTP used the wastewater alcohols to stimulate microbial activity in
place of methanol, use and therefore demand for production of fresh methanol decreased. This
benefitted the environment by reducing the resources used to manufacture methanol and transport
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                               Benefits of Implementing the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario — Page 3

-------
it to the WWTP. Reusing the wastewater alcohols also benefitted the environment by decreasing
the amount of waste transported from the chemical manufacturer and disposed off-site.

       Expanded implementation of the scenario will result in the same environmental benefits.
Because the magnitude of these benefits depends upon the quantity of wastewater alcohol reused,
the benefits will be significantly larger when the scenario is implemented during turnarounds than
when it is implemented to stimulate low microbial activity.
Cost Savings

       Exhibit A-2 and the description below present the chemical manufacturer's and WWTP's cost
savings from the October 1998 test of the scenario.  The WWTP saved $505 from avoiding the
purchase of 1,009 gallons of fresh methanol.  The chemical manufacturer saved $807 in avoided
transportation and disposal of 1,009 gallons of wastewater alcohol. Because it incurred an additional
$40 to  monitor the transfer of the wastewaters to the WWTP, net savings to the  chemical
manufacturer were $767.
Exhibit A-2
ACTUAL COST SAVINGS FROM TESTING THE
WASTEWATER ALCOHOL REUSE SCENARIO
October 1998

WWTP
Chemical
Manufacturer
Total
Quantity
Avoided purchase of
1,009 gallons of fresh
methanol
Avoided transportation
and disposal of 1,009
gallons of wastewater
transferred to WWTP

Cost Savings
$.50 per gallon*
1,009 gallons = $505
$.80 per gallon for
avoided
transportation and
disposal * 1,009
gallons = $807
$1,312
Costs Incurred
None
$8.00 per day for
monitoring transfer of
wastewater alcohols to
WWTP * 5 days =
$40
$40
Net Savings
$505
$767
$1,272
       The chemical manufacturer and WWTP plan to implement this scenario on a similar scale
four times per year.  Thus, the anticipated annual cost savings for the WWTP  and chemical
manufacturer are approximately $2,000 and $3,040, respectively.

       The chemical manufacturer and WWTP also plan to implement the scenario during month-
long turnaround periods for the refinery.  As shown  in Exhibit A-3, potential cost savings for the
                                                                          October 18, 1999
                               Benefits of Implementing the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario — Page 4

-------
WWTP are $15,000 from the avoided purchase of 30,000 gallons of fresh methanol during the
refinery turnaround.  Potential cost savings for the chemical manufacturer are $24,000 from the
avoided transportation and disposal of 30,000  gallons of wastewater alcohol minus  $240 for
monitoring the transfer, a net savings of $23,760.
Exhibit A-3
POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM IMPLEMENTING THE
WASTEWATER ALCOHOL REUSE SCENARIO
30-Day Turnaround at the Refinery

WWTP
Chemical
Manufacturer
Total
Quantity
Avoided purchase of
1,000 gallons of fresh
methanol per day * 30
days = 30,000 gallons
Avoided transportation
and disposal of 1,000
gallons of fresh
methanol per day * 30
days = 30,000 gallons

Cost Savings
$.50 per gallon*
30,000 gallons =
$15,000
$.80 per gallon for
avoided
transportation and
disposal * 30,000
gallons = $24,000
$39,000
Costs Incurred
None
$8.00 per day for
monitoring transfer
of wastewater
alcohols to WWTP *
30 days = $240
$240
Net Savings
$15,000
$23,760
$38,760
       These cost savings are realized only during turnarounds, which occur an average of once
every four years.  On an annualized basis, the potential cost savings of reusing the wastewater
alcohols during turnarounds are $3,750 for the WWTP and $5,940 for the chemical manufacturer.

       If these facilities implemented this scenario fully, including four times per year to stimulate
microbial activity and once every four years during turnarounds, total anticipated annual cost savings
would be  $5,750 for the WWTP and $8,980 for the chemical manufacturer.  The potential cost
savings for other facilities implementing this scenario depend on  how  frequently they reuse
wastewater alcohols and the quantities that are reused.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                               Benefits of Implementing the Wastewater Alcohol Reuse Scenario — Page 5

-------
OVERVIEW OF PROJECT XL                                           APPENDIX B
       Project XL, which stands for "excellence and Leadership," is a national initiative that tests
innovative ways of achieving better and more cost-effective public health and environmental
protection.  The information and lessons learned from Project XL will be used to assist EPA in
redesigning its current regulatory and policy-setting approaches. Project XL encourages testing of
cleaner, cheaper, and smarter ways to attain environmental results than those achieved under current
regulations and policies, in conjunction with greater accountability to stakeholders.  Lessons learned
from successful XL projects will improve EPA policies, regulations, and programs.

       A number of companies have already used XL to test innovative approaches that save money
and reduce paperwork while increasing environmental protection in and around their plants. As of
April 1998,  seven pilot experiments are being implemented  and twenty additional projects are
currently being developed.

       If you are interested in initiating an XL project, please contact the XL coordinator in your
EPA region:

Region 1      Boston, MA (ME, NH, MA, VT, RI, ci)
                    Anne Kelly                                     617/565-9301
                    George Frantz                                   617/565-2752

Region 2      New York, NY (NY, NJ, PR, vi)
                    Aleksandra Dobkowski                           212/637-3676

Region 3      Philadelphia, PA (MD, VA, WVA, DC, DE, PA)
                    David Byro                                     215/814-5563
                    Mindy Snoparksi                                215/814-3316
                                                                           October 18, 1999
                                                               Overview of Project XL — Page 1

-------
Region 4     Atlanta, GA (TN, NC, sc, AL, GA, FL, KY, MS)
                    Michelle Glenn

Region 5     Chicago, IL (MN, wi, MI, IL, IN, OH)
                    Linda Martin

Region 6     Dallas, TX (NM, TX, OK, AR, LA)
                    Adele Cardenas

Region 7     Kansas City, KS (NE, KS, IA, MO)
                    Dick Sumpter

Region 8     Denver, CO (MT, WY, ND, so, UT, co)
                    Mary Byrne

Region 9     San Francisco, CA (CA, NV, AZ, GU, AS, HI)
                    Mark Samolis

Region 10    Seattle, WA (OR, WA, ID, AK)
                    Bill Glasser
404/562-8674
312/353-9486
214/665-7210
913/551-7661
303/312-6491
415/744-2331
206/553-7215
For more information on Project XL or for an application:

•      Visit our Website at: www.epa.gov/projectXL;

       Call Project XL's fax-on-demand line at 202-260-8590;

•      Call Project XL's Information Line at 202-260-5754; or

•      Contact at EPA Headquarters in Washington DC: Chris Knopes  (202)260-9298
                                                                          October 18, 1999
                                                              Overview of Project XL — Page 2

-------
                                APPENDIX C

               UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
                                                 OFFICE OF
                                         SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                           APR 26 1989
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:  F006 Recycling

FROM:     Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
          Office of Solid Waste  (OS-300)

TO:       Hazardous Waste Management  Division Directors
          Regions I-X

     It has come to the attention of EPA Headquarters that many of
the  Regions  and authorized States  are being  requested  to  make
determinations  on  the regulatory status  of  various  recycling
schemes for F006 electroplating  sludges.  In particular,  companies
have claimed that  F006 waste is being recycled by  being used as:
(1)  an  ingredient  in  the  manufacture  of  aggregate,  (2)  an
ingredient in the  manufacture  of cement, and  (3) feedstock  for a
metals recovery smelter. The same company may make such requests of
more than one Region and/or State.  Given  the complexities of the
regulations governing recycling  vs.  treatment and the definition of
solid waste,  and the possible ramifications of determinations made
in  one  Region  affecting  another  Region's  determination, it  is
extremely important  that  such determinations are consistent  and,
where possible, coordinated.

     Two issues  are presented.   The  first  issue is  whether  these
activities are  legitimate  recycling,  or rather just  some form of
treatment called  "recycling" in an attempt to evade  regulation.
Second,  assuming the activity is not  sham  recycling,  the issue is
whether the  activity  is a  type of recycling that  is  subject  to
regulation under sections  261.2 and 261.6 or is it  excluded  from
our authority.

     With respect  to  the  issue of whether  the activity  is  sham
recycling,  this question involves assessing  the intent of the owner
or  operator  by  evaluating  circumstantial  evidence,  always  a
difficult task.   Basically,  the determination rests  on whether the
secondary material  is "commodity-like."   The main  environmental
considerations  are  (1) whether  the  secondary material  truly has

                                                        October 18, 1999
                                           Legitimate Recycling Activities —page 1

-------
value as a raw material/product  (i.e., is it likely to be abandoned
or mismanaged  prior  to reclamation rather than  being  reclaimed?)
and (2)  whether the recycling process  (including ancillary storage)
is likely to  release  hazardous constituents  (or otherwise  pose
risks to human health and the environment)  that are different from
or   greater   than   the   processing   of   an   analogous   raw
material/product.   The  attachment to  this memorandum sets  out
relevant factors in more detail.

     If the activity is not  a sham, then the question is whether it
is regulated.   If F006 waste is used as an ingredient  to  produce
aggregate, then such aggregate would  remain a  solid  waste  if used
in a manner constituting disposal (e.g.,  road-base material) under
sections  261.2(c)(l)  and 261.2(e)(2)(i)or if  it is  accumulated
speculatively under section 261.2(e)(2)(iii).   Likewise,  the F006
"ingredient" is subject to regulation from the point  of generation
to the  point  of  recycling. The aggregate product  is,  however,
entitled to the exemption under 40 CFR 266.20(b), as amended by the
August  17,  1988,  Land Disposal  Restrictions  for  First  Third
Scheduled  Wastes  final  rule   (see  53   FR   31197   for  further
discussion) . However,  if the aggregate  is  not used on  the land,
then the materials used to produce it would not be solid wastes at
all,  and therefore neither those materials nor the aggregate would
be regulated  (see section 261.2(e) (1) (i)) .

     Likewise,  cement  manufacturing  using   F006   waste   as  an
ingredient would yield  a product that remains  a solid  waste if it
is used in a manner constituting disposal,  also subject to section
266.20(b). There  is  an additional question of whether  the cement
kiln dust  remains subject  to the Bevill exclusion.  In order for
the cement kiln dust to remain excluded from regulation, the owner
or operator  must  demonstrate that the use of F006 waste  has not
significantly affected the character of the cement kiln dust (e.g.,
demonstrate  that the  use  of  F006  waste has  not  significantly
increased  the  levels  of Appendix VIII constituents  in  the cement
kiln dust leachate).  [NOTE:  This  issue will be addressed more fully
in the upcoming supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial
Furnace rule, which is pending Federal Register publication.]

     For  F006  waste  used  as  a feedstock in  a metals  recovery
smelter, the Agency  views  this  as a recovery process  rather than
use as  an  ingredient  in an  industrial  process and,  therefore,
considers  this  to be  a  form of treatment  that is not  currently
regulated  (see  sections 261.2 (c)  and 261.6(c) (1) ) .  Furthermore,
because  this  is  a  recovery  process rather  than  a  production
process,  the  F006 waste remains a hazardous  waste  (and  must  be
managed as such prior to introduction to the process), and the slag
from this  process would normally be  considered a "derived from"


                                                        October 18, 1999
                                           Legitimate Recycling Activities —page 2

-------
F006  waste.    However,  for primary  smelters,  the  slag  may  be
considered subject to the Bevill exclusion provided that the owner
or operator  can demonstrate that  the use of  F006 waste has  not
significantly  affected the hazardous  constituent content  of  the
slag  (i.e.,  make a demonstration similar to the one discussed above
for the cement kiln dust).   [NOTE:  In the supplemental proposal of
the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule noted above, the Agency will
be  proposing  a  definition of "indigenous  waste"  based  on  a
comparison  of  the  constituents   found   in   the  waste  to  the
constituents found in  an analogous  raw material.   Should the F006
waste meet the definition of an  "indigenous waste," the waste would
cease to  be  a waste when  introduced  to  the  process  and  the slag
would not be derived from  a hazardous waste.]

     Also, you  should  be aware  that OSW  is currently reevaluating
the regulations concerning recycling  activities,  in conjunction
with  finalizing  the  January  8,   1988   proposal  to  amend  the
Definition of Solid Waste.  While any major changes may depend on
RCRA reauthorization,  we are considering  regulatory amendments or
changes in regulatory  interpretations that will  encourage on-site
recycling, while  ensuring  the  protection of human  health  and  the
environment.

     Headquarters  is  able  to   serve  as  a clearinghouse to  help
coordinate determinations on whether a specific case is "recycling"
or   "treatment"  and   will   provide  additional  guidance   and
information,   as   requested.       Ultimately,    however,    these
determinations  are made by the  Regions  and  authorized  States.
Attached  to this  memorandum is a list of criteria  that  should be
considered in evaluating the recycling scheme.   Should you receive
a request for  such a determination, or should you  have  questions
regarding the  criteria used to evaluate  a specific  case,  please
contact Mitch Kidwell, of  my staff, at FTS 475-8551
Attachment
                                                        October 18, 1999
                                           Legitimate Recycling Activities —page 3

-------
    CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING WHETHER A WASTE  IS  BEING RECYCLED

The  difference  between  recycling  and  treatment  is  sometimes
difficult to distinguish.  In some cases, one is trying to interpret
intent  from circumstantial  evidence  showing  mixed  motivation,
always a  difficult proposition. The potential  for abuse  is  such
that great  care  must be used when  making a determination that a
particular recycling activity is to go unregulated  (i.e., it is one
of those activities which  is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction).
In  certain cases,  there  may   be  few  clear-cut  answers  to  the
question of whether a  specific  activity is this type  of excluded
recycling  (and, by extension,  that  a secondary material  is  not a
waste,  but rather a raw material or effective substitute); however,
the  following  list  of criteria  may be  useful in focusing  the
consideration of  a specific activity. Here  too,  there may  be no
clear-cut  answers  but, taken  as a  whole,  the  answers to  these
questions should help  draw the distinction between recycling and
sham recycling or  treatment.

(1)  Is the secondary material similar to an analogous raw material
     or product?

     o  Does it contain Appendix VIII constituents not found in the
        analogous  raw  material/product  (or  at  higher levels)?

     o  Does  it   exhibit  hazardous  characteristics   that   the
        analoqous  raw  material/product would not?

     o  Does it contain levels  of recoverable  material similar to
        the analogous  raw  material/product?

     o  Is  much  more of the secondary  material used  as  compared
        with the  analogous raw material/product it replaces? Is
        only a nominal amount of it used?

     o  Is the secondary material as effective as the raw material
        or product it  replaces?

(2)  What degree of processing  is  required to produce  a finished
     product?

     o  Can the secondary material be fed directly into the process
         (i.e.,  direct  use) or  is  reclamation  (or pretreatment)
        required?

     o  How much value does final reclamation  add?
                                                        October 18, 1999
                                           Legitimate Recycling Activities —page 4

-------
(3)  What is the value of  the  secondary material?

     o  Is  it  listed  in industry  news letters,  trade journals,
        etc.?

     o  Does the secondary material have economic value comparable
        to the raw material  that normally enters the process?

(4)  Is there a guaranteed market for the end product?

     o  Is  there  a  contract in  place  to purchase  the "product"
        ostensibly produced from the hazardous secondary materials?

     o  If  the  type of  recycling is reclamation,  is  the product
        used by  the reclaimer? The  generator?  Is  there  a batch
        tolling agreement? (Note that since reclaimers are normally
        TSDFs, assuming  they store before reclaiming,  reclamation
        facilities present fewer  possibilities of systemic abuse).

     o  Is the reclaimed product a recognized commodity?  Are there
        industry-recognized quality specifications for the product?

(5)  Is the secondary material handled  in a manner consistent with
     the raw material/product  it replaces?

     o  Is the secondary material stored on the land?

     o  Is the secondary material stored in a similar manner as the
        analogous raw material (i.e., to prevent loss)?

     o  Are adequate records regarding the recycling transactions
        kept?

     o  Do the companies involved have a history of mismanagement
        of hazardous wastes?

(6)  Other relevant  factors.

     o  What are the economics of the recycling process?  Does most
        of the revenue come  from charging generators for managing
        their wastes or  from the sale of the product?

     o  Are  the  toxic  constituents  actually  necessary  (or  of
        sufficient use)  to the product  or are  they just "along for
        the ride."

These criteria are drawn  from 53 FR at 522  (January 8, 1988); 52 FR
at 17013 (May 6,  1987);  and  50 FR at 638 (January 4, 1985).

                                                        October 18, 1999
                                           Legitimate Recycling Activities —page 5

-------
OVERVIEW OF STANDARDIZED PERMIT RULE                       APPENDIX D
       EPA is currently drafting the Standardized Permit Rule, which would provide streamlined
permitting procedures for  facilities  that generate wastes and  manage  them on-site  in  tanks,
containers, or containment buildings. The Agency believes that the risk of managing waste in these
types of units is sufficiently low that this management can be satisfactorily addressed through a
standardized  process.  The primary  purpose of the rule is to promote  recycling and reuse of
hazardous waste by decreasing the regulatory requirements for facilities involved in these activities
while ensuring adequate environmental protection.

       Facilities that receive waste from off-site sources will not be eligible for the standardized
permit.  In  addition, waivers and variances under the current permitting system will  not be
incorporated into the rule due to the level  of communication required between the permittee and the
permitting agency during the review of waiver and variance requests.
For additional information on the Standardized Permit Rule, please contact Vernon Myers, US EPA
Office of Solid Waste, 703-308-8660.
                                                                            October 18, 1999
                                                    Overview of Standardized Permit Rule — Page 1

-------