United Stales
Environmental Protection
Healthcare Environmental Assistance Resources
Pollution Prevention and Compliance Assistance
for Healthcare Facilities
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Prevention, Pesticides
And Toxic Substances
(7508W)
EPA-738-F-95-010
APRIL 1998
R.E.D. FACTS
Pesticide
Reregistration
DEBT
All pesticides sold or distributed in the United States must be registered
by EPA, based on scientific studies showing that they can be used without
posing unreasonable risks to people or the environment. Because of advances
in scientific knowledge, the law requires that pesticides which were first
registered before November 1, 1984, be reregistered to ensure that they meet
today's more stringent standards.
In evaluating pesticides for reregistration, EPA obtains and reviews a
complete set of studies from pesticide producers, describing the human health
and environmental effects of each pesticide. The Agency develops any mitiga-
tion measures or regulatory controls needed to effectively reduce each pesti-
cide's risks. EPA then reregisters pesticides that can be used without posing
unreasonable risks to human health or the environment.
When a pesticide is eligible for reregistration, EPA explains the basis for
its decision in a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) document. This fact
sheet summarizes the information in the RED document for reregistration case
0002, N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide and other isomers (DEET).
Use Profile
Regulatory
History
N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide (DEET) is an insect repellent used in
households/domestic dwellings, on the human body and clothing being worn,
on cats, dogs, horses and pet living/sleeping quarters. There are no food uses.
It is used to control biting flies, biting midges, black flies, chiggers, deer flies,
fleas, gnats, horse flies, mosquitoes, no-see-ums, sand flies, small flying insects,
stable flies, and ticks. Formulations include liquids, pressurized liquids, ready-
to-use formulations and impregnated material. DEET is applied by aerosol
can, by hand, non-aerosol pump sprayer, package applicator, and pump spray
bottle.
DEET was first registered in the U.S. in 1957 after first being developed
by the U.S. Army in 1946 for use by military personnel in
insect-infested areas. A Registration Standard for DEET was issued in De-
cember, 1980 (PBS 1-207722), and a subsequent Data Call-In (DCI)
for DEET (issued September, 1988) required additional animal and avian
toxicity data.
Currently, 225 DEET products are registered. DEET products that are
applied directly to the skin and/or clothing are available in numerous formula-
-------
tion types (e.g. aerosol and non-aerosol sprays, creams, lotions, sticks, foams,
and towelettes). Product concentrations range from «4% a.i. to 100% a.i.
Human Health
Assessment
Environmental
Assessment
Toxicity
In studies using laboratory animals, DEBT generally has been shown to
be of low acute toxicity. It is slightly toxic by the eye, dermal and oral routes
and has been placed in Toxicity Category III (the second lowest of four
categories) for these effects.
[NOTE: For acute oral, dermal, ocular and inhalation toxicity:
Category I = very highly or highly toxic
Category II = moderately toxic
Category III = slightly toxic
Category IV = practically non-toxic]
Dietary Exposure
Because of its use pattern, people are not exposed to residues of DEET
through the diet.
Occupational and Residential Exposure
Based on DEET's indoor/residential use pattern, handlers (mixers,
loaders, and applicators) are not exposed to DEET.
Human Risk Assessment
DEET generally is of low acute toxicity, and, based on the available
toxicological data, the Agency believes that the normal use of DEET does not
present a health concern to the general U.S. population (the Agency's human
risk assessment has identified no lexicologically significant effects in animal
studies.) DEET has been classified as a Group D carcinogen (not classifiable
as a human carcinogen.)
Although DEET's use has been implicated in seizures among children,
the Agency believes that the incident data are insufficient to establish DEET as
the cause of the reported effects. However, because of DEET's unusual use
pattern (direct application to human skin and clothing) and its association with
seizure incidents, the Agency believes it is prudent to require clear, common
sense use directions and improved label warnings and restrictions on all DEET
product labels.
Environmental Fate
Because of its limited use pattern, the only environmental fate study
required for DEET was hydrolysis. From that data, it was concluded that
DEET is stable to hydrolysis at pH levels found in the environment.
Ecological Effects
Because DEET is only applied directly to the human body/clothing, cats,
dogs, pet quarters and household/domestic dwellings, it is considered to be an
"indoor residential" use. A limited set of toxicity data for indoor-use pesticides
-------
Risk Mitigation
is required to determine precautionary label statements and for assessing
environmental hazards in case of spills. The available data characterize DEBT
as slightly toxic to birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates and as practically
nontoxic to mammals.
Ecological Effects Risk Assessment
Ecological risk assessments are not conducted for pesticides with
exclusively indoor use patterns. Application of DEET to the human
body/clothing, cats, dogs, pet quarters, and household/domestic dwellings, is
not likely to adversely affect terrestrial wildlife or aquatic organisms.
DEET is a personal insect repellent that is widely used among the U.S.
population, including children, and is one of the few residential-use pesticides
that is applied directly to the skin. Although the available toxicological data to
not indicate a health concern under normal use conditions, DEET's use has
been associated with possible adverse effects. For all of these reasons, the
Agency believes it is prudent to require improved label warnings and product
restrictions. A listing of the required labeling statements for DEET
formulations is included in the RED, Section V. The Agency had deferred its
decision on the combination DEET/sunscreen products until it has solicited the
views of various governmental agencies and other groups. Sunscreen products
are intended for frequent, generous use, and DEET products are intended for
spare, infrequent use. The Agency is concerned that use of the combination
products may promote greater use of DEET than is needed for pesticidal
efficacy and thus pose unnecessary exposure to DEET. In addition, child-
safety claims must be removed from all end-use product labels in order to be
reregistered. Child-safety claims are misleading and irreconcilable with the
intended use and pesticidal ingredients of DEET products. From the
toxicological data reviewed by the Agency for DEET, and from DEET incident
data, there appears to be no correlation between the percent active ingredient
in the product and its safety. Therefore, the Agency does not believe that
certain DEET formulations are inherently safer for children. DEET
uses/formulations with labels that make cosmetic claims must be labeled such
that label statements and use directions regarding insect repellency appear first
and more prominently on the label.
Additional Data
Required
Product Labeling
Changes Required
EPA is not requiring additional generic studies for DEET to confirm its
regulatory assessments and conclusions.
The Agency is requiring product-specific data including product
chemistry and acute toxicity studies, product efficacy data, revised Confidential
Statements of Formula (CSFs), and revised labeling for reregistration.
All DEET end-use products must comply with EPA's current pesticide
product labeling requirements and with those labeling requirements imposed in
-------
Regulatory
Conclusion
this RED. For a comprehensive list of labeling requirements, please see section
V. of the DEBT RED document.
1. All products must incorporate a series of 14 statements informing the
consumer on the method of application, special precautions for children, and
directions for medical attention.
2. For aerosol and pump spray formulations: labels must direct the consumer
not to spray in enclosed areas, avoid direct spraying on the face and must be
packaged in containers which will ensure the product will not be inadvertently
sprayed in the eyes.
3. Other labeling requirements include: specifying percent active ingredient in
terms of DEET; use of the term "first aid"; addition of a toll-free number for
consumer support; requirement to use permanent labels; all cosmetic claims
must be less prominent that the term "Insect repellent"; and all direct or
indirect claims of child safety must be removed.
With the exception of products/formulations that combine DEET and
sunscreen, all uses/formulations of DEET are eligible for reregi strati on
provided all labels are amended as specified in the RED. The use of currently
registered products containing DEET in accordance with approved labeling
will not pose unreasonable risks or adverse effects to humans or the
environment. Therefore, all uses of these products are eligible for
reregistration. The Agency will defer its decision regarding the reregi strati on
eligibility of products/formulations that combine DEET and sunscreen until the
Agency has solicited the views of various governmental agencies and other
groups. Additionally, the Agency will not act on any pending registration
applications under section 3 until that time.
DEET products will be reregistered once the required product-specific
data, including efficacy data, revised Confidential Statements of Formula, and
revised labeling are received and accepted by EPA. Products which contain
active ingredients in addition to DEET will be reregistered when all of their
other active ingredients also are eligible for reregistration.
For More
Information
EPA is requesting public comments on the Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) document for DEET during a 60-day time period, as
announced in a Notice of Availability published in the Federal Register. To
obtain a copy of the RED document or to submit written comments, please
contact the Pesticide Docket, Public Response and Program Resources
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP), US EPA, Washington, DC 20460, telephone 703-305-5805.
Electronic copies of the RED and this fact sheet can be downloaded
from the Pesticide Special Review and Reregistration Information System at
703-308-7224. They also are available on the Internet on EPA's gopher
-------
server, GOPHER.EPA.GOV, or using ftp on FTP.EPA.GOV, or using WWW
(World Wide Web) on WWW.EPA.GOV.
Printed copies of the RED and fact sheet can be obtained from EPA's
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
(EPA/NCEPI), PO Box 42419, Cincinnati, OH 45242-0419, telephone 513-
489-8190, fax 513-489-8695.
Following the comment period, the DEET RED document also will be
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port
Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161, telephone 703-487-4650.
For more information about EPA's pesticide reregi strati on program, the
DEET RED, or reregi strati on of individual products containing DEET, please
contact the Special Review and Reregi strati on Division (7508W), OPP, US
EPA, Washington, DC 20460, telephone 703-308-8000.
For information about the health effects of pesticides, or for assistance in
recognizing and managing pesticide poisoning symptoms, please contact the
National Pesticides Telecommunications Network (NPTN). Call
toll-free 1-800-858-7378, between 9:30 am and 7:30 pm Eastern Standard
Time, Monday through Friday.
-------
9433.195'
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
5. Appealing a Petition Denial
A generator submitted a petition under §260.22 to amend Part 261 to
exclude a hazardous waste produced at. a particular facility, but
the Agency's final decision was to deny the petition. What options
does the generator have for appealing the Agency's decision to deny
the petition?
A generator who has had his petition denied by the Agency nay
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia
Circuit, pursuant to §7006(a)(l) of RCRA.
The generator tray also wish to petition the Agency for
reconsideration of the decision. Denial of a delisting petition
is a final Agency action, however, and a petition for
reconsideration does not extend the tine to file suit in court.
Source: Steven Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research: Joe Nixon (202) 382-3112
-------
EPA530-R-02-0051
RCRA, SUPERFUND & EPCRA CALL CENTER MONTHLY REPORT
September 2002
1. Broken Batteries as Universal Wastes
The universal waste management standards in 40 CFR Part 273provide streamlined
provisions for managing certain hazardous wastes. These standards are designed to
promote recycling and facilitate handling of large volume, multi-source wastestreams,
such as thermostats, pesticides, lamps, and batteries. Section 273.9 defines a battery as a
device consisting of one or more electrically connected electrochemical cells, which
receives, stores, and delivers electric energy. May a handler of universal waste manage
broken or damaged batteries as universal wastes?
A handler of universal waste may only manage broken or damaged hazardous waste
batteries as universal wastes if the breakage or damage does not constitute a breach in the
cell casing. The definition of battery in Section 273.9 does not explicitly state that all
batteries must be whole; however, the definition includes an intact, unbroken battery
from which the electolyte has been removed (60 FR 25492, 25504; May 11, 1995).
Additionally, the requirements for handlers of universal waste allow certain management
activities, such as sorting and mixing batteries, provided the batteries or cell casings are
not breached and remain intact (Sections 273.13(a)(2) and 273.33(a)(2)). Therefore,
universal waste batteries are intended to be intact (i.e., where the casing of each
individual battery cell is not breached).
EPA recognizes that batteries may become damaged or broken during handling.
Therefore, the requirements for handlers of universal waste require that they contain any
universal waste battery that shows evidence of leakage, spillage, or damage that could
cause leakage under reasonably foreseeable conditions in a container (Sections
273.13(a)(l) and 273.33(a)(l)). The container must be closed, structurally sound,
compatible with the battery's contents, and capable of enclosing potential releases. For
example, the container should have no structural defects, severe rusting, or deterioration
(60 FR 25492, 25522; May 11, 1995). Universal waste handlers should contact the
appropriate implementing agency to inquire about any additional or more stringent
requirements that may apply.
FB 14634
-------
Page 1 of 5
Faxbackll958
9451.1996(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
July 12, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary F. Toro, Compliance Officer
Consumer Product Safety Commission
From: Gregory Helms
Office of Solid Waste
Re: Management and Disposal of Waste Vinyl Mini blinds
We have received your questions about management and disposal
of lead-bearing vinyl mini blinds that are being discarded by
homeowners or retailers in connection with your recommendations
that they be replaced due to their potential to cause lead
poisoning. The attachment to this memo restates and answers each
of your questions.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) only
applies when blinds become a waste, i.e., they are being discarded
or disposed; any blinds being sent back to a manufacturer for sale
in other markets (e.g., for export) would not be regulated under
RCRA. However, given the health concerns about the blinds CPSC has
identified, we hope you will encourage those with stocks of blinds
not to export these products. Key points in managing and disposing
of waste blinds are: 1) waste blinds from households or other
residential buildings may be disposed of as ordinary household
trash (i.e., they are exempt from Federal hazardous waste
regulation under RCRA); 2) whoever discards blinds from sources
other than households or residential buildings is responsible for
determining whether they contain enough lead to be considered a
hazardous waste, although such a determination can make use of
information from other reliable sources; 3) management and
disposal requirements for hazardous waste blinds vary depending on
the volume of waste being disposed; 4) there is a federal minimum
set of management requirements, but states may have additional
requirements, and should be consulted in planning management and
disposal of waste blinds.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3343F0383645D9A8852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 5
QUESTIONS ON LEAD-BEARING MINIBLINDS
1. What is the appropriate disposal method that consumers should
be using for their lead-bearing vinyl miniblinds?
EPA's regulations state that wastes from households (i.e,
garbage and trash) are not regulated as hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l)).
Therefore, consumers may dispose of their miniblinds in the same
manner that they discard ordinary household trash. They may put
the blinds out with the garbage, or they may contact a commercial
trash hauler.
2. If consumers have numerous miniblinds in their homes to dispose
of, e.g., if a household had 15 miniblinds for disposal, would
this be treated differently than a household that had only one or
two miniblinds?
No. EPA's regulations provide that wastes from households
are not regulated as hazardous, and there are no limitations on
the quantity of the wastes.
3. What is the appropriate disposal method for apartment
complexes, hotels, military bases and hospital facilities that
house many people and may have over 1,000 lead-bearing miniblinds
to dispose of?
EPA's regulations provide that wastes from single and
multiple residences, hotels, motels, bunkhouses, crew quarters,
and ranger stations are considered household wastes and are not
regulated as hazardous under RCRA (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)). These
facilities may therefore dispose of the blinds in the same manner
that they discard other trash or garbage.
However, hospitals and other non-residential buildings are
not considered generators of household wastes. They are subject to
the same disposal requirements that apply to retailers, which are
described in the answer to question #4 below. Therefore, waste
blinds generated from military base housing units would be exempt,
while waste blinds generated from offices, day care centers, and
other buildings would not be exempted as household waste.
4) How should retailers dispose of the miniblinds they have in
inventory if they decide to dispose of them and not return them to
the place of manufacture? Retailers may have tens of thousands of
blinds in inventory.
Once a retailer decides to dispose of the miniblinds, he
must 1) determine whether they are a hazardous waste (see 40 CFR
262.10 and #6 below), and if they are hazardous, 2) determine his
size status as a generator, because requirements vary depending on
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3343F0383645D9A8852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 5
the quantity of a hazardous waste generated. He should then
contact his state hazardous waste agency for more information on
management and compliance in his state because states may have
their own regulations governing hazardous waste.
The retailer can determine his generator status by
calculating how much hazardous waste he or she generates in a
calendar month (40 CFR 262.10(b) and 261.5(b) and (c)). If the
retailer generates less than 100 kg of hazardous waste
(mini-blinds plus any other hazardous waste generated on site)
then the retailer would be classified as a Conditionally Exempt
Small Quantity Generator (CESQG). A retailer who generates between
a 100 kg and 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a calendar month would
be classified as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG); and a retailer
who generates more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste in a single
calendar month is classified as a Large Quantity Generator (LQG).
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators have minimal
requirements for handling hazardous waste (40 CFR 261.5), and may
dispose of waste blinds in non-hazardous waste facilities,
although disposal must be in state approved facilities. Some
states have additional requirements for CESQGs beyond the Federal
minimum, so retailers should always contact their state hazardous
waste agency for complete information on applicable requirements.
Both SQGs and LQGs are required to handle hazardous waste
under EPA's hazardous waste regulations (40 CFR 262 - 270), and
ultimately ensure their disposal in regulated hazardous waste
disposal facilities. The requirements for SQGs are similar but
less stringent than those for LQGs. Both SQGs and LQGs may be
required to:
? obtain an EPA identification number (40 CFR 262.12)
? prepare the hazardous waste for shipment (package, label,
mark, placard) (40 CFR 262.30 - 262.33)
? manifest the waste for shipment to a hazardous waste
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling facility (40 CFR
262.20 - 262.23, 262.42)
? manage the hazardous waste on site in an environmentally
sound manner (40 CFR 262.34)
? do record keeping and/or reporting (40 CFR 262.40 - 262-41)
? ensure the waste meets treatment standards before land
disposal (40 CFR 268)
? comply with export and import requirements when necessary
(40 CFR Subparts E and F).
Again, some state requirements may vary from the minimum
federal requirements, so contacting the state regulatory agency is
important.
5. Should retailers treat consumer returned merchandise
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3343F0383645D9A8852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 5
differently than inventoried products?
As state regulations vary, generators of hazardous waste
should always check with their state hazardous waste authority for
more information on management and compliance.
Assuming the blinds are a hazardous waste, generally,
retailers may dispose of miniblinds returned from consumers and
those from inventoried stock either separately or together. A
retailer who chooses to handle them separately may take advantage
of the household waste exclusion for the blinds returned from
households (see questions 1, 2, and 3). However, the inventoried
stock must be managed as described in the response to question 4.
Because only miniblinds generated in a household (as defined in 40
CFR 2661.4 (b)(l)) are eligible for the household waste exclusion,
the retailer must be certain that miniblinds returned from other
regulated sources such as businesses and commercial facilities are
not mixed with those from households. The miniblinds returned from
sources other than households should be handled along with the
inventoried stock as a regulated hazardous waste.
If a retailer does not wish to segregate different groups of
blinds, or if he wishes to adopt the most environmentally
conservative approach, he may handle both groups together as
described in the response to question 4.
6. Does EPA require testing to determine that waste is hazardous?
Once the retailer (or manufacturer) decides to dispose of
the miniblinds, he is required to determine whether they are a
hazardous waste. This means the retailer must either test a
representative sample of the miniblinds to see if they are
considered a hazardous waste (see #7 below), or the retailer or
manufacturer may also rely on knowledge of the composition and
properties of the blinds in making this determination (40 CFR
261.10(a)(2)). If the retailer does not want to test the
miniblinds, the most conservative approach is to handle all of the
miniblinds as if they were hazardous waste. Although testing is
not required, if subsequent testing by EPA or others demonstrates
that the waste was hazardous, an incorrect determination made
based on knowledge would leave a waste generator (the retailer or
manufacturer) vulnerable to enforcement action.
7. What test method does the EPA recommend to retailers to
determine whether their inventory is hazardous? Are there
certified laboratories that can conduct these tests?
The toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP;
Method-1311) test would be used to determine whether lead-bearing
vinyl mini-blinds are a hazardous waste when disposed. EPA does
not certify laboratories that perform the TCLP test. However, many
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3343F0383645D9A8852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 5
reputable commercial laboratories are capable of performing the
test. Testing labs can be identified by contacting the
International Association of Testing Labs, at 703-739-2188, or
ACIL, at 202-887-5872.
8. Where can retailers get a copy of the test method?
Retailers will generally want to rely on a testing lab to
understand the test method details. Copies of the TCLP test
method are available as a part of the EPA analytic methods manual,
SW-846 (through NTIS, 703-487-4650), or from the analytical
methods information communication exchange (MICE) hotline, at
703-821-4690.
9. What level of lead is hazardous for purposes of disposal?
The TCLP test uses a sample of the waste and a leaching
solution (in a ratio of 1:20). After mixing the waste with the
leaching solution, the leaching solution is tested for hazardous
constituent concentration. If lead in the leaching solution is
present at a concentration higher than 5 mg/1 (or ppm), the waste
would be considered to be hazardous, and would be required to be
managed and disposed as a hazardous waste.
10. Is there a contact person at EPA that can offer retailers
guidance on disposal if their inventory is determined to be
hazardous?
For further assistance in understanding the applicable
hazardous waste regulations, the retailer should contact the
hazardous waste agency in his or her state. Other assistance
resources include the EPA Resources Centers, the RCRA hotline
(800/424-9346 or 703/412-9810), or the EPA Regional office.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3343F0383645D9A8852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.1987(32)
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline Monthly Report Question
April 1987
3. Multiple Generator Location and Consolidation
A company owns several small factories in different
counties. Each factory generates less than 100 kilograms
of hazardous waste per month, and is subject to reduced
regulation under _261.5. Options for disposal of waste
from conditionally exempt generators are provided in
_261.5(f)(3). (a) May the conditionally exempt generators
transport waste to one of the company's facilities for
consolidation and subsequent shipment to a RCRA disposal
facility? (b) Does the facility of the generator who is
consolidating the waste qualify as a "transfer facility"?
(c) Does the generator who consolidates the waste become
a full quantity generator if he ships more than 1000 kg
of hazardous waste from his site per month? (or a
100-1000 kg/mo generator if he ships between 100 and 1000
kg of waste per month?)
(a) Under _261.5(f)(3) in order to remain exempt from certain
regulations, a conditionally exempt small quantity generator may
ensure delivery of his hazardous waste to a storage, treatment, or
disposal facility that is one the following types of facilities:
(i.) permitted under Part 270 of 40 CFR; or
(ii.) in interim status under Parts 265 and 270 of 40
CFR; or
(iii.) authorized to manage hazardous waste by a state
with a hazardous waste management program approved under
Part 271 of 40 CFR; or
(iv.) licensed, registered or permitted by the state to
manage municipal or industrial solid waste; or
(v.) beneficially uses, reuses or reclaims the waste.
In order for one of the generators to serve as a central collection
point for the other generators, he would have to qualify as one of
the above mentioned facilities. Realistically, the easiest approach
Booz Allen & Hamilton
Faxback 12894
-------
would be for the generator to receive State approval to manage the
consolidated waste shipments.
(b) If the generator does not receive authorization from his
State, he may still receive and store the waste for a
period of time if he qualifies as a transfer facility.
Under _263.12, waste may be stored at a transfer facility
for ten days or less without requiring interim status or
a permit. The December 31,1980 Federal Register (45 FR
86966) defines the term transfer facility to refer to
transportation terminals (including vehicle parking
areas, loading docks and other similar areas), break-bulk
facilities or any other facility commonly used by
transporters to temporarily hold shipments of hazardous
waste during transportation. It is possible that this
generator facility may qualify as a transfer facility, as
long as the waste is not stored on-site for more than 10
days.
(c) If the waste is not sent to a facility specified under
_261.5(9)(3)(1)-(V), it is no longer conditionally exempt
waste, and each generator must comply with applicable
regulations. Thus, if the generator cannot receive state
approval nor qualify as a transfer facility, he must
obtain a permit for storage of hazardous waste.
Booz -Allen & Hamilton
Faxback 12894
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
June 14, 1990
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Waste Classification of Laboratory Standards
FROM: David Bussard, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
Environmental Health and Safety Division (PM-273)
This is in response to your memorandum of March 1, 1990, in which you requested that we
provide clarification for the classification of wastes generated in laboratories. Specifically, you presented
examples relevant to the preparation of laboratory standards using substances regulated under 40 CFR
261.33(e) and (f) (the P and U lists).
1) QUESTION: In the preparation of performance evaluation (PE) samples containing P or U-
listed chemicals, an aliquot of the sample is taken and diluted 100 - 1000 fold to a final volume of one
liter of water or solvent before analysis. The first question related to this scenario is whether the PE
sample is a commercial chemical product (CCP) or is eligible for exclusion as a sample. Second, if the
PE sample is indeed considered a commercial chemical product, you inquired whether the dilution of the
PE sample before analysis is considered "use."
For example, organic semi-volatile PE samples to be analyzed for SDWA and NPDES
certification will contain toxaphene (P123). Would the disposal of excess analytical solution be
considered P123, D015 (if over 0.5 mg/L),D002 (if pH < 2), or a combination of the above?
ANSWER: Such samples are regulated as commercial chemical products provided that they
have only one active ingredient. In the example you provided, the formulation consists of water
plus the CCP as the sole active ingredient and, therefore, the excess analytical solution is
correctly classified as EPA Hazardous Waste No. P123.
(2) QUESTION: In the preparation of laboratory standards, P and U-listed chemicals are mixed
with water, acids, bases, or solvents. The resulting standard solution are disposed of when there is an
-------
excess, when they have exceeded their shelf life, or when they have been contaminated (not through
use). The disposal of these waste standard solutions bring about several waste classification questions.
2A) QUESTION: Are these waste standard solutions P or U-listed wastes in cases in which the
P/U listed solute is dissolved in water, acidic/basic solutions, organic solvents, or homogeneously mixed
in an inert medium such as soil?
ANSWER: The answer in all these situations is "yes." Dissolving or diluting these chemical
products to make laboratory standards (in lieu of buying such solutions) does not constitute use
of these chemicals. The Federal Register notice which describes the sole active ingredient rule
(§261.33 (d)) refers to the fact that many of the compounds listed under §261.33 (e) and (f)
are frequently dissolved in solvents, preservatives, and the like, but this fact does not detract
from the material's meeting the listing description (see 45 FR 78529, November 25, 1980).
Assuming that there is a sole active ingredient (or, in this case, analyte), the mixtures you
describe in your question meet the listing description in 40 CFR 261.33 even if the solvent (s)
used are also listed in §261.33.
2B) QUESTION: If in the preparation of standards an acid or base is used as the solvent for a P or
U-listed chemical and the final solution is corrosive, is the solution, upon disposal, D002 or D004 -
D017 if it exceeds the EP Toxicity criteria, or a P/U-listed waste? For example, the atomic absorption
analysis of arsenic requires the preparation of a standard with arsenic trioxide. Specifically, 1.32 g of
As2O3 (P012)analytical reagent grade) is dissolved in one liter of distilled water, and several milliliters of
concentrated nitric acid are added for preservation. Would the correct waste classification be P012,
D004, or D002 (if pH < 2) or a combination thereof?
ANSWER: This situation is similar to the previous question. The solution you describe definitely
meets the listing description for P012. Even if the waste is classified as a listed waste, waste
generators should furnish information regarding whether the waste also exhibits any hazardous
waste characteristics. There are several reasons for this: 1) safety of personnel at these
facilities; 2) There are restrictions in §5264 and 265 regarding various characteristic wastes
(e.g., reactivity and ignitability) in landfills or surface impoundments; and 3) The Land Disposal
Restrictions program requires such knowledge to comply with Part 268 standards. (See 55 FR
22520 - 22720, June 1, 1990.) Although Federal law does not require that all applicable waste
codes be placed on the hazardous waste manifests, Land Disposal Restrictions regulations will
require that all waste codes be reported for the purposes of meeting LDR provisions. (See 40
CFR 268.7.) In addition, many state agencies may have more stringent rules concerning proper
manifesting of wastes in which listing and characteristic waste codes apply.
2C) QUESTION: In the preparation of quality control solutions, commercial chemical products
(either in liquid or solid form) are dissolved in an organic solvent. Because the organic solvent is used
for its solvent properties (i.e., to solubilize mobilize, or dissolve other chemical substances), any excess
or expired solutions should be disposed of with the spent solvent hazardous waste identification number.
Is this correct?
-------
For example, if a solution of 0.01 g aldrin (P004) and 0.01 g dieldrin (P037) dissolved in 100
mL of methanol is to be disposed of would the waste be classified as F003 and P037 and P004? The
methanol, in this case, is used to solubilize the pesticide constituents, and the waste, therefore, meets the
spent solvent listing.
ANSWER: The above statements are not correct. The answer to these questions is just like
the answer to question 2A. Assuming that there is only one active ingredient (i.e., analyte or
solute), the excess or expired solutions should be given the applicable commercial chemical
product hazardous waste identification number under §261.33 no matter how many solvents are
used (even if the solvents themselves are listed in §261.33). In the above example, more than
one active ingredient exists, therefore the solution does not meet any listing description at this
time. Additionally, when a solvent is used to formulate a compound or product (such a CCP),
neither the solvent nor the formulated product meets the listing description for spent solvents.
(See 50 FR53315, December 31, 1985.) The disposed solution would have to be tested for
hazardous waste characteristics, and would probably fail the ignitability (D001) characteristic.
3) QUESTION: Laboratories prepare many reagents with P and U-listed chemicals. During the
analysis of poly chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, a reagent containing methylene
chloride/methanol/benzene (75:20:5) is used. Upon disposal of excess reagent, would the mixture be
identified as U080 (methylene chloride/CCP), U154 (methanol/CCP), U019 (benzene/CCP), F002
(methylene chloride/solvent), F003 (methanol/solvent), or F005 (benzene/solvent)?
ANSWER: None of the above. If any one P or U-listed chemical is dissolved in this reagent
for the purpose of analysis, the discarded unused reagent would carry the waste code of that
particular solute. (See answers to 2A and 2C.) From the description of the reagent you
provided above, the unused reagent would be hazardous only if it exhibits a hazardous
characteristic. This particular reagent would probably exhibit the characteristic of ignitability
(D001). Please note that this waste also would be EP toxic for benzene when the newly
promulgated organic Toxicity Characteristic becomes effective in September, 1990.
Thank you for your inquiry. If you have any further questions, please contact Ron Josephson of
my staff at 475-6715.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I - X
Susan Bromm, OWPE (OS-520)
FaxBack# 11523
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 25, 1988
Michael Geary
Bio-Ecological Services, Inc.
6525 Morrison Blvd.
P.O. Box 2048
Charlotte, NC 28226
Dear Mr. Geary:
This letter is in response to your March 24, 1988, request for clarification of the status of certain
antineoplastic drug wastes. Your request was for an interpretation of 40 CFR 261.33, with respect to
excess antineoplastic drug formulations which are not needed and thus are discarded.
If an antineoplastic drug is mixed with diluents, such as water or saline solution, the excess
diluted or undiluted amount to be discarded is unused commercial chemical product. If the discarded
unused commercial chemical product is listed in 40 CFR 261.33, the material is a listed hazardous
waste regardless of dilution with water or saline because the product still would be the sole active
ingredient. However, it is not considered a "spent material." Section 261.1 (c) (1) defines & spent
material as 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. The portion antineoplastic drug, if diluted, has
not yet been used for its intended function, nor is it contaminated.
If an antineoplastic drug is mixed with diluents and with other pharmaceuticals for use, the
unused mixed excess portion that is discarded is a solid waste. If the antineoplastic drug is listed in 40
CFR 261.33, the unmixed excess portion is a listed hazardous waste provided the antineoplastic drug is
the sole active ingredient in the mixed formulation. If it is not the sole active ingredient, the mixture
would not be the listed hazardous wastes; he????? the formulation may still be hazardous if it exhibits
any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
In all of the situations you described, the material (if it met the listing in 40 CFR 261.33) would
have to be sent to a permitted or interim status hazardous waste management facility, if the facility
generates more than 1 kg per month of acutely hazardous waste, or more than 100 kg/month of non-
acutely hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.5(f) and (g) for the hazardous waste management options
for conditionally exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
-------
In addition, any State in which you generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of these
formulations may have regulations that are more stringent than the Federal hazardous waste rules. You
therefore should check with the State agencies to determine what regulations, if any, apply to handling
these materials.
If you have further questions regarding the status of wastes containing P-listed or U-listed
commercial chemical products, please contact Wanda LeBleu-Biswas at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
B.E.S.
BIO-ECOLOGICAL SERVICES. INC.
6525 Morrison Blvd. P.O. Box 2048 Charlotte, North Carolina 28226
Telephone (704) 364-1039
800-533-7994
March 24, 1988
U.S. E.P.A.
Office of Solid Waste
Sylvania Lawrence, Acting Director
WH-562A
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Lawrence:
I am in need of clarification involving the de-listing of U-listed antineoplastic drugs used in cancer
treatment wards at hospitals and clinics. Specifically, if a U-listed antineoplastic is mixed for treatment
purposes and the remaining material is sent for disposal, is the material still U-listed?
Please address specifically:
1) Antineoplastics nixed with diluents like water or saline.
a) Is unused portion "spent" or still U-listed?
2) Antineoplastics mixed with diluents and other pharmaceuticals.
a) Is the antineoplastic in the remaining portion still the "sole active component",
thus still maintaining the U-listing?
b) Is the unusual portion "spent" or still U-listed?
I do understand that virgin product, spill material, and offspec product are listed. Are the
antineoplastics mixed for treatment still listed?
If no U-listing remains, then do these materials have to be sent to a hazardous waste incinerator or
treated as hazardous waste?
My concern is due to the fact that there are no published Threshold Limit values or LD50 values
materials. Also that there is no clear definition to determine whether these materials are "spent".
-------
Please clarify these questions in the agencies opinion. The response will be used to determine our
corporate position on matters concerning antineoplastic disposal.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (704) 364-1039.
Sincerely,
BIO-ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.
Michael J. Geary
Manager of Environmental and Compliance
MJG/cbr
FaxBack# 11343
-------
JULY 29, 1988
J. D. Akenhead
Hazardous Waste Specialist
Nevada Small Business Development Center
College of Business Administration
University of Nevada - Reno
Reno, Nevada 8955-0100
Dear Mr. Akenhead:
This is in response to your July 8, 1988, letter concerning the regulatory status of dry cleaners who
recycle spent cartridge filters. You should note that the following is an explanation of Federal rules.
Individual States may adopt more stringent rules under their own authorities.
As explained to you by Mike Petruska in your telephone conversation of July 19, under Federal
rules (40 CFR Section 261.5(c)), a generator should count only that hazardous waste that is subject to
regulation when making the small quantity generator determinations in Section 261.5 or Section 262.34(d).
See 40 CFR 261.5(c). Hazardous waste or minimal regulation that is directly recycled on-site (i.e., without
prior storage) is not counted because presently EPA does not regulate on-site reclamation processes. (See
the preamble discussion of March 24, 1986, 51 FR 10152, enclosed for your information.)
This means that, although the spent filters do in fact contain hazardous waste, a generator need not
count them against the 100 kilogram monthly limit as long as he places the filter in the distillation unit
directly, without intervening storage. Residues from the still would, however, have to be counted. Jf
however, the dry cleaner must store or accumulate the spent cartridge filters before they are recycled, the
"wet" filter when first removed from the unit would have to be counted in calculating the quantity of
hazardous waste generated.
Jf you have further questions in this area, please contact Mike Petruska directly at (202) 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
-------
UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA-RENO
JD Akenhead
Hazardous Waste Specialist
Nevada Small Business Development Center
College of Business Administration
University of Nevada-Reno
Reno, Nevada 89577-0100
(701)784-1717
(800) 882-3233
U.S. E.P.A.
Sylvia Lawrence
Director, Office of Solid Waste
WH-562
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Sylvia:
Here at the Nevada Small Business Development Center, in conjunction with the Nevada Division
of Environmental Protection, we are sponsoring an informational program to educate Small Quantity
Generators on the present RCRA regulations. I confirmed my suspicions of the following problem with g
call to the national RCRA hotline and will request something in writing on EPA policy regarding this
problem:
A drycleaner removes a spent "wet" filter laden with perchloroethylene. He intends to recycle a
large portion of the contained fluid. In terms of hazardous waste generation to be quantified regarding the
drycleaner's status as being conditionally exempt or a SQG, should the weight of the "wet" filter when first
removed be used for the quantification, or should the final weight of the treated filter be used?
I suspect the EPA policy under RCRA is to use the weight of the "wet" filter, this will undoubtedly
qualify a large portion of the area dry cleaners as SQG instead of being conditionally exempt. A
representative of the health department and myself will be presenting a seminar for the dry-cleaning industry
in the beginning of August. Since the industry may not be pleased with their SQG status, I would
appreciate a timely reply so that I can rest assured that I an distributing the right information.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
J.D. Akenhead
Hazardous Waste Specialist
FaxBack# 11359
-------
REVISIONS 1U THE MIXTURE AND DERIVED tKUM RULE Page 1 ot 1
Fact Sheets and Information Papers
Revision to the Mixture ana Otnvcci From Rule
June 2001
BACKGROUND: The mixture and derived-from rules are a part of the RCRA regulations that define which wastes are considered to be hazardous and
therefore subject to RCRA Subtitle C regulations. The mixture rule, located in 40 CFR 261.3(aX2Xiii) and (iv), essentially states that a solid waste becomes
regulated as a hazardous waste if it is mixed with one or more listed hazardous wastes. The derived-from rule, found in 40 CFR 261.3(cX2)(i) stipulates that all
solid wastes generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste remains a hazardous waste. These derived-from wastes include wastes such
as spill residues, sludge, incinerator ash, etc. There are currently 29 waste codes in RCRA listed solely for ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity (ICR). Under
the old regulations, there was an exemption in the mixture rule for these types of listed wastes. Mixtures of solid wastes and wastes listed solely for ICR could
fall out of hazardous waste regulation provided that the resultant mixture did not exhibit any hazardous characteristics. However, there was no similar
exclusion for derived from wastes, or wastes meeting the original listing description as generated. Consequently, these types of wastes were not able to exit
Subtitle C of RCRA, even if they did not exhibit hazardous characteristics. EPA recognized this inconsistency and issued a final rule on May 16,2001 that
expanded the scope of the old mixture rule exclusion: (Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): Revisions to the Mixture and Derived-from Rules; FR
27266). The final rule allows all wastes listed solely for characteristics to be treated identically, whether they are mixtures, treatment residues, or wastes
meeting the original description as generated. All of these types of wastes will now be able to exit Subtitle C of RCRA, provided that they do not exhibit
hazardous characteristics.
SIGNIFICANCE TO THE ARMY: The Army currently generates many of the wastes listed solely for characteristics on a routine basis. These include
unused nitroglycerine, acetone, xylene, and methanol, along with F003, K044, K045 and K047 wastes. Many of these items do not actually exhibit hazardous
characteristics, but are managed as HW because they meet the criteria for the original listing described in 40 CFR 261. For example, liquid nitroglycerine
manufactured for medicinal purposes does not exhibit the reactivity characteristic, but it is required to be managed as a P081 waste when discarded because
there are no other active ingredients present Similarly, still bottoms/residues from methanol and xylene recycling units rarely exhibit the ignitability
characteristic, but must be managed as F003 wastes because of the derived from rule. Prior to mis new rule, the only mechanism for these types wastes streams
to be classified as non-hazardous was for individual generators to formally delist their waste in accordance with 40 CFR 260. The new language in 40 CFR
261 -3(g)( 1) allows these types of wastes to exit RCRA-C if they do not exhibit hazardous characteristics.
LDR APPLICABILITY: Although this issue is not specifically addressed in the new regulatory language, it was mentioned in the preamble to the final rule.
EPA stated that when a waste has been listed for ICR and that waste does not exhibit any hazardous characteristics at the point of generation, then that waste is
not subject to LDR standards. However, if the characteristic were removed subsequent to the point of generation, the waste would be subject to all applicable
requirements in 40 CFR 268 and could not be land disposed until the appropriate standard(s) were met It should be noted that generators taking advantage of
the new exclusion are subject to one paperwork requirement in 40 CFR 268.7(a)(7). Generators must place a one-time notice in their files stating that they have
determined the waste is excluded from the definition of hazardous waste. The notice must include a description of the waste generated, which particular
exclusion is being claimed, and the final disposition of the waste.
RELATIONSHIP TO CONTAINED IN POLICY: EPA's long standing, but never codified "contained-in policy" clarifies the application of RCRA
hazardous waste regulations to environmental media. Contaminated media are not considered solid wastes in the sense of being abandoned, recycled, or
inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in RCRA regulations. However, the environmental media contaminated with listed hazardous wastes must be
managed as hazardous wastes because they "contain" listed waste (until the EPA/State makes a site-specific determination). The new rule does not directly
affect the implementation of the contained-in policy; however, contaminated media are eligible for the exclusion 40 CFR 261.3(g). FR 51234 states that
contaminated media containing a waste listed solely for a characteristic would no longer need to be managed as hazardous waste when it no longer exhibits a
characteristic. EPA also states in the preamble that these decharacterized wastes would remain subject to LDR requirements where applicable. Although this
new language appears to be favorable, it will provide minimal benefit to the regulated community. The decharacterized soils subject to LDRs will still be
required to comply with the ninety percent constituent reduction standard in 40 CFR 268.49.
STATE AUTHORIZATION: The mixture rule and derived from rules predate HSWA authority and are therefore non-HSWA requirements. Since these new
provisions are less stringent than existing Federal requirements, states that have received authorization for the mixture and derived from rules are not required
to modify their programs. As of April 2001, the following states had not received authorization for these rules: AK, AL, AR, CA, CT, CO, DE, GA, HI, IA,
KS, KY, MA, MD, ME, Ml, MN, MS, ND, NE, NH, NM, OH, OR, RI, SD, TN, WA, WI, and the District of Columbia. The new rules will automatically be in
effect in these states on August 15, 2001.
Further questions related to this issue can be directed to Mr. Matt Walter at 410-436-3651 or DSN 584-3651.
-------
Faxback 11457
9444.1989(09)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 89
1. Waste Identification of Discarded Thermometers
A manufacturer of mercury thermometers produces a batch of contaminated
thermometers that must be discarded. If the manufacturer discards the
unused thermometers intact, would the waste need to be managed as U151 or
would the manufacturer need to test the waste to see if it exhibits a
hazardous waste characteristic?
40 CFR Section 261.33 contains a listing of commercial chemical
products that are hazardous wastes if and when they are discarded.
Under Section 261.33(d), the phrase "commercial chemical product is
defined as a chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated
for commercial or manufacturing use ...." Furthermore, according to
the final rule preamble in the November 25, 1980 Federal Register
(45 FR 78541), the Agency did not intend for the phrase commercial
chemical product to apply to manufacturing articles that contain a
chemical listed in Section 261.33. The intent was to regulate only
those commercial chemical products and manufacturing chemical
intermediates that are known by the generic name listed in Sections
261.33(c) or (f). Thus, a thermometer containing mercury is not
itself a commercial chemical product and would not meet the U151
listing. The manufacturer would then need to check the discarded
thermometers for the hazardous waste characteristics, specifically
to see if the waste would exhibit EP toxicity and thus need to be
managed as RCRA hazardous waste D009. Waste not subject to federal
regulations may be regulated under specific state requirements which
are more stringent.
Source: Ron Josephson (202) 475-6715
Research: Mary Beth Clary
-------
Wastes: Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
Page 1 of2
.5. Bn'/Jronr/isnisii
Where You Live
Basic Information
What You Can Do
A to Z Subject Index
Regulations/
Standards
Information Resources
RCRA Online
Educational Resources
Publications/
en Espanol
Glossary
Recent Additions | Contact Us | Print Version Search: lilil
EPA Home > Wastes > Waste Identification > Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes
Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification
and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Conditional
Exclusions from Hazardous Waste and Solid Waste for
Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes; Proposed Rule
- November 20, 2003
EPA is proposing to modify its hazardous waste management regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for certain solvent-contaminated
materials, such as reusable shop towels, rags, disposable wipes and paper towels.
Specifically, EPA is proposing: to conditionally exclude from the definition of
hazardous waste disposable industrial wipes that are contaminated with hazardous
solvents and are going to disposal; and, to conditionally exclude from the definition
of solid waste reusable industrial shop towels and rags that are contaminated with
hazardous solvents and are sent for laundering or dry cleaning (hereinafter referred
to as disposable industrial wipes and reusable industrial wipes, respectively). This
proposal affects contaminated industrial wipes being sent to both landfill and non-
landfill (e.g., laundries and combustion) facilities and is applicable to: industrial
wipes exhibiting a hazardous characteristic (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
toxicity) due to use with solvents; or industrial wipes contaminated with F001-F005
spent F-listed solvents or comparable P- and U-listed commercial chemical
products that are spilled and cleaned up with industrial wipes.
This proposal would resolve, at the federal level, long-standing issues associated
with the management of solvent-contaminated industrial wipes by: facilitating
pollution prevention and waste minimization opportunities, including the recycling of
the spent solvents extracted from contaminated industrial wipes; fostering improved
solvents management by generators and handling facilities; reducing compliance
costs; increasing consistency in the regulations governing solvent-contaminated
industrial wipes across the United States; clarifying existing federal rules; and
creating flexibility for generators to work with industrial laundries, as appropriate, to
ensure compliance with local pretreatment standards established by Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTWs).
Additionally, the proposal contains the Agency's proposed response to rulemaking
petitions filed by the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and the Scott Paper Company.
Background information for this notice is available through EPA's electronic public
docket and comment system, EDQCKET The docket number is RCRA-2003-0004.
Federal Registers:
• Proposed Rule - November 20, 2003
Adobe PDF File [255 KB] || HTML
• Extension of Comment Period - January 30, 2004
Adobe PDF File [41 KB] || HTML
• Notice of Public Hearing and Extension of Comment
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/solvents/wipes.htm
8/18/2004
-------
Wastes: Solvent-Contaminated Industrial Wipes Page 2 of 2
Period - February 24, 2004
Adobe PDF File [38 KB]
EPA Proposes Conditional Exclusions from the Definition of
Hazardous Waste and the Definition of Solid Waste ForSolvent-
Contaminated Wipes [Fact Sheet]
Adobe PDF File [15 KB]
of the documents provided by EPA are Adobe Acrobat PDF
^(Portable Document Format) files. For more information about PDFs,
visit the About PDF page.
EPA Home I Privacy and Security Notice I Contact Us
Last updated on Tuesday, May 11th, 2004
URL: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/solvents/wipes.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/id/solvents/wipes.htm 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY 2, 1988
Honorable Tom Harkin
13 IE. 4th Street
Room314B
Davenport, Iowa 52801
Dear Senator Harkin:
This is in response to the telephone request from Ms. Mary Orr of your staff, to Matthew
Straus, asking for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) definitions of
household waste" and "scrap metal." Both terms have been defined by EPA in regulations issued
pursuant to the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA).
"Household waste" is defined in 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(l) as:
.. .any material (including garbage, trash and sanitary wastes in septic tanks)
derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and
motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds
and day use recreation areas).
This is to make clear that normal household garbage, i.e., waste from residences, is not hazardous waste
under RCRA Subtitle C. However, it should be noted that household-types wastes from other sources
(i.e., commercial facilities, office buildings) are not covered by the household waste exclusion and thus,
would be regulated under the Federal hazardous waste rules if they are identified or listed as hazardous
wastes.
"Scrap metal" is defined in 40 CFR Section 261.1(c) (6), as:
...bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars, turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal
pieces that may be combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators, scrap
automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or superfluous can be recycled.
EPA regulations provide that such metal parts, when recycled, are not regulated under the Subtitle C
regulations. (See 40 CFR Section 261.6(a)(3)(iv).)
-------
I trust this information is useful to you. If I can be of further assistance, please contact me at
(202)382-4627.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
FaxBack# 11347
-------
9441.1986(97)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
16. Dilution of F003 Wastes
May wastes Designated as F003 in §261.31 be treated by dilution?
Yes, although §263.3 of the final rule (See 51 FR 40572)
specifically prohibits the dilution of a restricted waste as a
substitute for adequate treatment as specified in Subpart D of
Part 268, F003 wastes which are listed solely for ignitability
nay be mixed with solid wastes and subsequently avoid regulation
under 3CRA via the "Mixture Rule." This is acconplished pursuant
to 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) which states that "a mixture of a
solid waste and a hazardous waste that is listed in Subpart D
soley because it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wasta identified in Subpart C, unless the resultant
mixture no longer exhibits any characteristics of hazardous
wasta identified in Subpart C" is a hazardous -,«ste. Thus, if
an F003 waste which is listed solely for the .characteristic of
ignitability is mixed with a solid waste such that it no longer
exhibits any characteristic of a hazardous wasta, it is no
longer regulated by RCRA and is, therefore, not subject to the
land disposal restrictions.
It should be noted, however, that under § 261.31 a waste nay be
listed as F003 because it is toxic as well as ignitable.
Dilution will not render such wastes non-hazardous.
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 13718
9444.1994(10)
December 1994
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
3. Epinephrine Residue In A Syringe Is Not P042
A hospital administers the drug epinephrine to patients by
injection with a syringe. After the proper dose is injected, excess
epinephrine and epinephrine residue remain in the syringe.
Epinephrine appears on the P-list of hazardous wastes at 40 CFR
261.33(e) as P042. Is the epinephrine remaining in the syringe a
P-listed hazardous waste when the syringe is discarded?
The epinephrine in the discarded syringe would not be classified as
a listed hazardous waste. The P-list of hazardous wastes applies to
unused discarded commercial chemical products. Commercial chemical
products arc defined as commercially pure grades and technical
grades of the listed chemicals or chemical formulations in which
the listed chemical is the sole active ingredient, which have not
been used for their intended purpose (54 FR 31335, 31336; July 28,
1989). Drug residues often remain in a dispensing instrument after
the instrument is used to administer medication. EPA considers
such residues remaining in a dispensing instrument to have been
used for their intended purpose. The epinephrine remaining in the
syringe, therefore, is not a commercial chemical product and not a
P042 hazardous waste. The epinephrine could be a RCRA hazardous
waste, however, if it exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C12FOEF5CD79CEFC852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12350
PPC 9441.1984(36)
GASES VENTED FROM COMPRESSED GAS CYLINDERS - TREATING OF FLUORINE AND
OTHERS
DEC 17 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Implications of Treating Gases
Vented From Compressed Cylinders
FROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562B)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Region IV
This is in response to your November 28, 1984, memorandum
regarding a facility built to treat fluorine (PO56) and other
gases vented from compressed gas cylinders. You are correct
in you application of the response to the letter to the
Compressed Gas Association from Christopher Capper, dated
November 6, 1981.
According to that letter, customers return cylinders to gas
suppliers for refilling, not for disposal, and no waste is involved.
If the gas supplier decides to discard the contents of the returned
cylinders, any liquid or physically solid waste removed from
the cylinders are subject to RCRA if they are hazardous waste.
Cylinders containing regulated quantities of hazardous waste
would need to be manifested to off-site facilities for treatment,
storage, or disposal. However, the letter goes on to say that
the handling of gaseous residues removed from the cylinders and
neutralization or scrubbing of gases prior to release are not
subject to RCRA regulation. Any liquid or physically solid
wastes derived from the treatment of hazardous compressed gas
is still subject to RCRA regulations, if it is derived from listed
waste or if the residual is hazardous under Part 261 Subpart C
(characteristics).
Therefore, your conclusions are correct. The facility is not
a RCRA treatment facility for any handling of the gases removed
from the cylinders. Any liquid or solid residues derived from
the cylinders or from treatment of cylinder contents that are
listed in 40 CFR 261 Subpart D or are hazardous under Part 261
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/FE24FCFCF81AFC71852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Subpart C are subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Alan Corson or Irene Horner, of my staff, at 382-4770.
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III and V-X
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/FE24FCFCF81AFC71852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11309
9453.1987(09)
DEC 10 1987
Eric J. Dougherty
8409 H. Morven Road
Parkville, MD 21234
Dear Mr. Dougherty:
This is in response to your November 13, 1987 letter to
Robert Scarberry concerning land disposal of solvents. The answers
to your questions are as follows.
First, you are correct that industrial wastewaster discharges
subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA) are excluded from the hazard-
ous waste regulations, and it does not matter how the wastewater
was generated. You should note, however, that only the discharge
is excluded. If hazardous wastewaters are collected, stored,
treated, or disposed of prior to discharge, this prior management
is subject to the hazardous waste regulations (including the land
disposal restrictions of 40 CFR Part 268).
Second, EPA does not have groundwater discharge guidelines
per se. Facilities that have RCRA interim status or that seek a
RCRA hazardous waste facility permit are subject to a number of
requirements designed to protect groundwater in 40 CFR Parts 264,
265, 266 and 268, as well as the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). Facilities that generate
hazardous waste but which are exempt from interim status and
permitting requirements under the accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
Section 262.34 (this is likely the case for the automotive mainten-
ance facilities you asked about) are subject to container and tank
management standards designed to prevent releases to groundwater.
When releases do occur, EPA or the appropriate State agency can
take enforcement action under RCRA Sections 3008(a) and 7003 to
require the facility owner or operator to stop the discharge and to
clean-up contaminated soil and groundwater.
-2-
If you have further questions in this area, please contact
Michael Petruska at 9202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/CBlFEC5D3AAE7748852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Marcia E. Williams
Director,
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/CBlFEC5D3AAE7748852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 11357
9444.1988(13)
JUL28 1988
Mr. T. Wayne Vickers
V.P., Marketing and Sales
Columbus Industries, Inc.
P.O. Box 257
Ashville, Ohio 43103-0257
Dear Mr. Vickers:
I am responding to your letter dated June 27, 1988, in which
you requested information regarding the disposal of paint filters
and our opinion on the veracity of an advertisement for paint spray
booth filters. Specifically, your questions deal with an
advertisement for a styrofoam paint spray booth filter appearing in
the April, 1988 issue of FINISHER'S MANAGEMENT magazine.
We can not comment on the veracity of the advertisement, but we
can offer some information regarding the disposal and hazardous
waste classification of related wastes.
Used paint filters are not a RCRA listed hazardous waste (i.e.,
not listed in 40 CFR 261.31 -33). However, they may be
characteristically hazardous if they exhibit any of the four
hazardous waste characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity - see 40 CFR
261.21-24).
The advertisement claims that the filter is soluble in paint
thinner for easy disposal. If the thinner is one or more of the
solvents covered by the EPA hazardous waste listings, F001-F005, and
the thinner has been used for its solvent properties (i.e., to
solubilize or mobilize another material such as in a cleaning
operation or in dissolving the paint filter), then the resultant
solution of the paint filter and the thinner will become a listed
hazardous waste on disposal.
I hope this information will be useful to you.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/lED8BFC04D38113E852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK12661
PAINTING CONTRACTOR WASTES - SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR
9441.1986(47)
6/2/86
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Honorable Robert S. Walker
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Walker:
Thank you for your letter of May 1, 1986, on behalf of your
constituent, concerning his questions pertaining to three
chemicals which he uses in his trade as a painting contractor.
Specifically, he requests information on any federal regulations
relating to the disposal, sewage treatment, and neutralization
of methylene chloride, muriatric acid, and isocyanates, as well
as information on an health hazards associated with their use.
We are reading the first two chemicals in your letter to
be methylene chloride and muriatic acid. Methylene chloride
is used as a solvent and is a listed hazardous waste - EPA
Hazardous Waste No. F002. The listing includes the following
spent halogenated solvents: tetrachloroethylene, methylene
chloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1,-trichlorothene, 1,1,2-tri-
chloroethane, chlorobenzene, l,l,2-trichloro-l,2,2-trifluoroethane,
ortho-dichlorobenzene, and trichlorofluoromethane. Unused methylene
chloride that is discarded is also defined as a hazardous waste.
Muriatic acid is also likely classified as a hazardous waste
based on its corrosivity (i.e., it likely has a pH less than 2).
The third chemical, isocyanates, is a class of chemicals; thus,
before we can respond to your request, we would need to know
specifically which compound or compounds your constituent is
using in order to address his concerns.
If your constituent generates more than 100 kilograms
(220 pounds) of methylene chloride, muriatic acid, or any other
hazardous waste in a calendar month at his place of work or
at individual work sites, he is classified as a hazardous
waste generator and thereby subject to the hazardous waste
regulations. New regulations were just promulgated for generators
of between 100 kilograms and 1000 kilograms per calendar month
of hazardous waste. (See enclosed brochure and Federal Register
notice. These requirements become effective on September 22,
1986.) If your constituent generates less than 100 kilograms of
waste in a calendar month, good disposal practice would dictate
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4158FACOEB6A5971852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
that he use an off-site hazardous waste storage, treatment, or
disposal facility for his waste, although he may legally dispose
of such waste at any state approved solid waste facility.
Your constituent should contact the organization at the address
listed below for additional information pertaining to small
quantity generators.
Ms. Eleanor W. Winsor, Executive Vice-president
Pennsylvania Environmental Research Foundation
Mezzanine—Lewis Tower Building
225 South 15th Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102
(215)735-0966
With respect to the question relating to neutralization
of these chemicals, it is our opinion that it is not possible
for your constituent to neutralize methylene chloride at his
place of business. Muriatric acid, however, can be neutralized.
With respect to the potential health hazards associated
with methylene chloride and muriatic acid, he should be aware
that methylene chloride is a potential carcinogen. Muriatic
acid, on the other hand, while a corrosive chemical is not
highly toxic. For further information on the proper use and
storage of these chemicals in the workplace, he should
contract the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health (NIOSH) at the address given below.
Dr. James Melius
NIOSH/DSHEFSS
Mail Stop R12
Rm 40A Ridge Bldg.
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati Ohio 45226
(513)841-4428
I also strongly recommend that your constituent contact
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources at the
address listed below to discuss these issues in greater detail.
Depending on the specific nature of his business activities, he
may be subject to more stringent state regulations pertaining
to hazardous waste disposal.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717)787-6239
Please feel free to write me if you have any further
questions.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4158FACOEB6A5971852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4158FACOEB6A5971852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
June 5, 1989
Cynthia V. Bailey
Executive Director
Department of Waste Management
James Monroe Building, Eleventh Floor
101 North Fourteenth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Ms. Bailey:
This letter responds to your March 13, 1989, correspondence regarding the current regulatory
status of hazardous waste residues removed from "empty containers." In your letter, you cited the
August 18, 1982 Federal Register notice that discussed this issue but indicated EPA's need to study the
matter further.
The Agency has not yet amended 40 CFR 261.7 to include regulatory language addressing
residues removed from empty containers. The Agency does not plan to promulgate such amendments
at this time, pending the acquisition of additional data. Unfortunately, our further study of the issue has
been deferred because of other priorities.
Section 261.7 provides that residues remaining in an "empty" container are exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C as a hazardous waste. As you are aware, the Agency has interpreted 40
CFR 261.7 to also exempt residues removed from "empty" containers from hazardous waste
regulations (see 45 FR 78524, November 25, 1980 and 47 FR 36092, August 18, 1982). Residues
removed from "empty" containers are subject to full regulation under Subtitle C, however, if the removal
or subsequent management of the residues generates a new hazardous waste that exhibits any of the
characteristics identified in Part 261, Subpart C (for example, by incineration of both a container and its
contents).
As an authorized State, the implementation of certain RCRA hazardous waste regulations has
been delegated to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Pursuant to 40 CFR 271.1(1), Virginia may enforce
requirements that are more stringent, more extensive, or greater in scope than those required under
Subtitle C of RCRA. You are certainly within your authority to interpret the authorized State equivalent
to section 261.7 more stringently.
EPA appreciates your concern regarding this issue. Although there are no definite plans to
address this issue in the near future, the Agency continually reviews its regulations to identify changes
FaxBack* 11431
-------
necessary to ensure protection of human health and the environment. I would encourage you to submit
any data or information on this issue to Bob Bellinger, of the Waste Characterization Branch, Office of
Solid Waste. Also, if you should have any additional questions or comments on this issue, please
contact me or have your staff contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 382-4805.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
FaxBack* 11431
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll437
9444.1989(03)
JUN28 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Solvent and Commercial Chemical
Product Waste Streams
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division (OS-330)
TO: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Program
Environmental Health and Safety Division (PM-273F)
This memorandum is in response to an inquiry you sent to
Ron Josephson of my staff, dated June 8, 1989, and to questions
presented at a meeting on June 14, 1989. Specifically you
request a definitive classification of solvent-contaminated
wastestreams in order to prepare a guidance document for EPA
laboratories. We will answer each of your concerns point by
point in order to ensure clarify.
1) During organic liquid-liquid extractions, solvents
(e.g. methylene chloride) are used, which are minimally (<2%)
soluble in water. Thus, after the extraction, the aqueous
phase contains trace amounts of solvent. Does this aqueous
phase need to be disposed of as F002 spent solvent, since the
"before use" solvent concentration was greater than 10%?
The aqueous phase from this separation is considered to be
analogous to a process stream which has become
contaminated with solvent constituents; this waste is not
a spent solvent stream and would therefore not be
classified as F002.
2) In other analyses, the extraction of an organic
analyte is performed with solvents contained only in the F003
listing, such as methanol. Should the aqueous waste be
classified as F003 spent solvent even if it not ignitable?
Again, the scope of the listing did not include aqueous
process waste streams contaminated with solvent
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/37ElA08ABOD6E391852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
-2-
3) In a memorandum dated December 6, 1988, the Agency
states that solvent-contaminated aqueous streams resulting from
liquid-liquid extractions are not spent solvent and need be
managed as a hazardous waste only if they exhibit one off the
four characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21-261.24. Is
this still true and is this applicable to the above situations?
Yes. The memorandum you reference pertained to processes
at a pharmaceutical production facility. However,
sufficient analogies exist among these situations that the
process waste interpretation may be used in these cases.
4) A laboratory buys a commercial chemical product in
order to formulate standards for quality assurance (QA)
purposes. The QA standards are then sent to other laboratories
for analysis. If excess standard solutions existed which were
not needed for analysis but need to be disposed, would these
formulations be considered commercial chemical product wastes
under 40 CFR 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Dilution of a commercial chemical product with water
is not considered use of a commercial chemical product in
this case. Thus, the excess QA standards intended for
disposal would be listed hazardous wastes under 40 CFR
261.33.
5) A laboratory synthesizes a chemical to be used as a QA
standard. The lab then distributes this chemical (or diluted
QA standards) to other laboratories for analysis. Would excess
quantities of these materials be considered hazardous wastes
under section 261.33 (assuming that there is a sole active
ingredient)?
Yes. Materials synthesized in a laboratory in lieu of
buying a commercial product (because of cost savings or
because the product is difficult to obtain) are equivalent
to commercial chemical products, and therefore would be
regulated under 40 CFR 261.33 when disposed. Again,
excess QA standards made by diluting these compounds are
also covered by the listings, when disposed.
Thank you for you inquiry. If you have any other
questions on these topics, please contact Ron Josephson at 475-
6715.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/37ElA08ABOD6E391852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll319
9441.1988(03)
JAN 13 1988
Mr. Gary D. Strassell
Environmental Manager
The Sheppard Color Company
4539 Oves Drive
P.O. Box 465627
Cincinatti, Ohio 45246
Dear Mr. Strassell:
This is in response to your November 20, 1987, letter to
Michael Petruska of my staff concerning the regulatory classifi-
cation of your chromium wastes. The remainder of this letter
explains the exclusions in 40 CFR Section 261.4(b)(6) for certain
chromium wastes, and answers the questions you raised.
The exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste under
40 CFR 261.4(b)(6) presently applies to those wastes specifi-
cally listed in Section 261.4(b)(6)(ii). Those wastes identified
in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section 261.4(b)(6)(ii) are
excluded because members of the leather tanning and titanium
dioxide production industries submitted evidence to EPA that
successfully demonstrated that their wastes were not hazardous.
The October 30, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 72035) describes this
exclusion in greater detail (see Enclosure).
The criteria for excluding a waste under Section 261.4(b)(6)
requires that the chromium in the waste must be trivalent or nearly
exclusively trivalent, that the industrial process producing the
waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and
that the waste can typically and frequently managed in a non-oxidiz-
ing environment. See Section 261.4(b)(6)(l). Presently, the only
wastes that are included in the Section 261.4(b)(6) exclusion are
those listed in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of paragraph (ii).
The only pigment manufacturing waste exclusion is in subparagraph
(H). This exclusion applies to wastewater treatment sludges from
the production of TiO2 pigment using chromium-bearing ores by the
chloride process. The chromium in this waste originates from the
entirely trivalent chromium in the rutile or ilmenite ores used as
-2-
a raw material in the process (45 FR 72036). If your customer
generates a waste meeting the description in (H), then that waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/OFC2E15BF2B28342852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
would be excluded under Section 261.4(b)(6) provided the waste does
not fail the EP toxicity characteristic for any constituent other
then chromium or does not fail any other hazardous waste character-
istic.
Any individual or group of generators whose waste meet the
criteria under Section 261.4(b)(6)(i), but are not specifically
designated under paragraph (ii)(A)-(H) may submit a rulemaking
petition to EPA in accordance with Section 260.20(a) to demonstrate
that their waste is not hazardous. If EPA agrees with the peti-
tion, it will amend Section 261.4(b)(6) to exclude those wastes
from regulation as well. (As already indicated, wastes meeting the
existing descriptions in subparagraphs (A) through (H) of Section
261.4(b)(6) is only non-hazardous if it exhibits no other hazardous
characteristics in Subpart C of Part 261.) If you choose to submit
a rulemaking petition, you will have to submit data showing that
the waste or wastes in question is exclusively (or nearly exclusi-
vely) trivalent chromium, that the industrial process producing the
waste use trivalent chromium exclusively or nearly exclusively, and
that the waste is typically managed in a non-oxidizing environment.
If you have additional questions in this area, please continue
to communicate with Mike Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosures
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/OFC2E15BF2B28342852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK13194
9443.1988(07)
DISCARDED CLASS C EXPLOSIVES
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
June 6, 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Discarded Class C Explosives
FROM: Sonya M. Stelmack, Acting Chief
Alternative Technology Support Section
TO: Incinerator Permit Writer's Workgroup
Our section has recently received several inquiries
regarding whether Class C explosives intended for disposal
are classified as Subtitle C hazardous wastes. Since it is
apparent that confusion exists, I would like to clarify this
issue.
To date, only those Class C explosives identified as
off-specification small arms ball ammunition up to and
including 0.50 caliber have been demonstrated not to be
subject to the Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements. The
Office of Solid Waste concluded that these materials are not
"reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.33(a)(6) based
on information provided by Remington Arms Company and the
Army (see attached memorandum). Furthermore, in a letter
from Marcia Williams to J. Carricato of DOD (also attached)
it was emphasized that the OS W determination only applied to
the ball ammunitions since other ammunition types of similar
caliber may be subject to RCRA. For the remaining Class C
explosive wastes, as for any other solid waste not listed in
40 CFR 261 Subpart D, the generator must determine whether
his particular waste exhibits the reactivity or other
characteristics identified in 40 CFR 261 Subpart C.
We will be working with the Army on the Class C
explosives issue as it related to popping furnaces. If you
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6F3A75AD3A86135A852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
have any questions on the Class C explosives issue, please
contact Lionel Vega at FTS 475-8988.
Attachments
cc: Bruce Weddle
Elizabeth Cotsworth
Lionel Vega
David Friedman
Major Jessie Cabellon
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6F3A75AD3A86135A852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.1937C9)
OCT I 5 —
Mr. Bernhardt C. Warren, CHMM
Manager, Institutional Waste
Quadrex HPS Inc.
1940 N.w. 67th Place
Gainesville, Florida 32606-1649
Dear Mr. Warren:
Thank you for your September 22, 1987, letter in which you
raised a number of issues regarding management and treatment of
scintillation media.
In the July 3, 1987, Federal Register Notice, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) clarified its position
that mixed wastes are subject to hazardous waste regulations.
Since that Notice was published, EPA and the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) have worked to minimize the impact of dual
regulation of mixed waste on the regulated community. Further,
I recognize that the clarification of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) applicability to mixed waste has broadened
the scope of wastes now subject to RCRA regulations. Hazardous
waste regulations may now encompass generators, treaters, and
other handlers of radioactive wastes that may not have been
subject to RCRA previously.
The EPA position regarding mixed waste has been and
continues to be that, if a hazardous waste is combined with a
radioactive waste, the hazardous waste must be managed in
accordance with applicable RCRA regulations. Consequently,
organic solvent containing scintillation media would be subject
to RCRA independent of a NRC designation as below regulatory
concern for the radioactive constituent. The example you
described in your letter, however, points out that generators
and owner/operators of treatment facilities may 1) be knowingly
mismanaging scintillation media in an effort to circumvent
applicable NRC regulations; or 2) lack the technical expertise
to determine if, in fact, the level of radioactivity in the
scintillation media is below regulatory concern.
-------
EPA and NRC do not. consider mismanagement of mixed
waste or violation of applicable regulations to be a result of
conflict or inconsistency in the regulations. Rather, both
Agencies believe that stricter enforcement of applicable
regulationswould avert such situations. At this time, however,
it does not appear that promulgation of regulations specific to
mixed waste is appropriate.
I appreciate your bringing this potential violation to the
attention of the responsible Agencies. My staff has discussed
the issues raised in your letter with the NRC and they are
currently investigating the allegations. In addition, I referred
your letter to our Enforcement Division for review although
compliance with applicable NRC regulations appears to be the
basis for your concern. NRC has indicated that, once their
review of the issues you raised is completed, you will be
apprised of their findings. Again, thanJc you for bringing this
situation to my attention.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 12781
9441.1986(84)
November 13, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: RCRA Regulatory Status of Contaminated Ground
Water
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Patrick Tobin, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of September 18, 1986,
regarding the regulatory status of ground water contaminated with
hazardous waste leachate. To answer this question, one first has
to determine the status of ground water. Under the regulations,
ground water contained in the aquifer is not considered a solid
waste, since it is not "discarded" in the sense of being abandoned,
recycled, or inherently waste-like as those terms are defined in
the regulations. See 40 CFR 261-2(a)-(d). Therefore, contaminated
ground water cannot be considered a hazardous waste via the mixture
rule (i.e., to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazardous waste
must be mixed with a solid waste see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv)).
Nevertheless, ground water contaminated with hazardous waste
leachate is still subject to regulation since it contains a
hazardous waste. Therefore, the treatment, storage, or disposal of
ground water contaminated with hazardous waste leachate must be
handled as if the ground water itself were hazardous since
hazardous waste (see footnote 1) leachate is subject to regulation
under Subtitle C of RCRA. However, if the ground water is treated
such that it no longer contains a hazardous waste, the ground water
would no longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Taking this interpretation and applying it to the example in
your memorandum, the ground water containing a listed hazardous
waste, once collected, is subject to regulation under the hazardous
waste regulation. However, if as a result of treatment, the ground
water no longer contains the hazardous waste leachate, the ground
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/E70F7BBB9655FD26852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
water would no longer be subject to the hazardous waste rules.
Your letter also raises the question of treatment of ground
water within the context of corrective action. If the corrective
action is taken at an interim status facility in compliance with a
3008(h) order, treatment can take place. We are considering the
possibility of amending the regulations to clarify the relationship
between corrective action and the reconstruction ban ( 270.72(e)).
More broadly, the Agency is currently examining the issue of
whether permits should be required for any corrective actions. We
are also developing rules for corrective action under RCRA
3004(u). Until this analysis is completed, if the corrective
action takes place at a permitted facility, it can be handled as a
permit modification.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus, of my staff, if you have
any further questions; his telephone number is 475-8551 (FTS).
Hazardous Waste Division Directors,
Regions I-III and V-X
Gene Lucero, OWPE
Lloyd Guerci, OWPE
Mark Greenwood, OGC
Steve Silverman, OGC
1. This memo more precisely explains the position on ground
water contamination presented in John Skinner's memo
dated December 26, 1984.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/E70F7BBB9655FD26852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 12634
9441.1986(45)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 86
1. Small Quantity Generators/Parts Washers/Waste Counting
An owner/operator (o/o) of a service station leases a parts washer
containing mineral spirits from the Safety-Kleen Corporation. The
o/o uses the mineral spirits on a daily basis to degrease parts
on-site. The spent mineral spirits exhibit a flash-point less
than 140o F. The o/o's written contract with Safety-Kleen requires
Safety-Kleen to collect the mineral spirits for reclamation and to
deposit regenerated or new mineral spirits at the service station
every eight weeks. The o/o is a "100-1000 kg/mo generator" of
hazardous wastes.
When, if ever, do the o/o's mineral spirits become regulated as a
hazardous waste? According to the revised small quantity generator
regulations which appeared in the March 24, 1986 Federal Register,
are the mineral spirits counted in determining the amount of
hazardous waste generated?
Section 261.4(c) exempts "[a] hazardous waste which is
generated...in a manufacturing process unit or an associated
nonwaste-treatment-manufacturing unit" from regulation under
Parts 262 through 265 and the notification requirements of
Section 3010 of RCRA. The material is only subject to
regulation when it is removed from the unit in which it was
generated or if the material remains in the unit for more than
90 days after the unit ceases to be operated for manufacturing
purposes. In this specific case, the parts washer leased from
Safety-Kleen is functioning as a manufacturing process unit.
The parts washer is a containerized unit used in degreasing
operations. Therefore, the mineral spirits will not be subject
to regulations under Parts 262-265, 270, 271, 124, and Section
3010 until they are emptied from the parts washer container
or until they remain within a nonoperational parts washer for
more than 90 days, whichever occurs first.
Under the March 24, 1986 rules, waste exempt from some regulations
under 261.4(c) are not counted. As long as the waste is exempt
under 261.4(c), it need not be counted. However, the mineral
spirits would be counted in determining the amount of hazardous
waste generated on-site as soon as the mineral spirits are
removed from the parts washer unit or after they remain in the
non-operating unit for more than 90 days. If the mineral
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/BD3408B3ED345B00852565DA006FOA... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
spirits remain within the parts washer unit for 90 days or
less after the unit ceases operation, then they will not be
counted towards the quantity determination of the service
station o/o.
Source: Maureen Smith (202) 382-7703
Matthew Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Margaret Kneller
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/BD3408B3ED345B00852565DA006FOA... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 13291
TEST SAMPLES, EXCLUSION FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE
9431.1989(03)
JuneS, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Management of Test Samples as Hazardous Waste
FROM: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Programs
TO: Environmental Compliance Managers
This memo is intended to clarify a letter from the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste on the management of laboratory samples
under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 261).
According to 40 CFR Part 261.4 (d) (1), samples collected
solely for the purposes of testing are exempted from the
regulations for hazardous waste management. I would like to
emphasize that this is a qualified exemption. The samples are
exempt from regulation as long as they meet any of the following
conditions contained in 261.4 (d) (1) (i..vi):
(i) Being transported from the collector to the
laboratory
(ii) Being transported from the laboratory back to the
collector for following testing
(iii) Being stored at the collector waiting to go to the
laboratory
(iv) Being stored at the laboratory before being tested
(v) Being stored at the laboratory after being tested
but before being returned to the collector
(vi) Being stored at the laboratory for a specific
purpose after being tested (i.e. for a court case
in which the sample is evidence, etc.)
Regulation 261.4 (d) (3) states that the exemption does not apply
if the laboratory determines the waste is hazardous and the
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C99103F9FC81CAA9852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
conditions listed above are no longer being met.
According to 40 CFR Part 261.5 (a), facilities that generate
less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste or 1 kg/mo of acute
hazardous waste are exempt from hazardous waste regulations.
This exemption is also conditional, based on a generator's
compliance with the following:
-2-
o Determining if their waste is hazardous; this is
required by 261.5 (b), which references 261.5 (g),
which cites 262.11.
o Disposing of their waste at a facility authorized to
accept it; this is required by 261.5 (f) (3) and 261.5
(g) (3).
Generators of less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste would also
be subject to RCRA requirements under regulation 262.34 if they
accumulate, for the purpose of disposal, greater than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste.
In summary, samples held for testing need not be
managed as hazardous waste while they are being tested. Once
they are determined to be waste, a determination of whether the
waste is hazardous must be made if it hasn't been already. If
the waste is determined to be a hazardous waste, it must be
managed in full compliance with all applicable regulations,
including 40 CFR Parts 261.5 and 262.11.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C99103F9FC81CAA9852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.1535:23)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
MAY 88
1. Hazardous Waste Identification - Kill Listing
During the production of TNT (trinitrotoulene), DNT (dinitrotoulene) is
generated as an intermediate chemical via nitration of toulene. Does the Kill
listing (i.e., product washwater from the production of dinitrotoulene via the
nitration of toulene) cover the product washwaters generated from this
intermediate step or does the listing only cover those product washwaters
generated from final product DNT?
Product washwaters produced from the intermediate DNT chemical are
included in the Kill listing. The October 23, 1985 Federal Register (50 £R
42937) states that the Kill listing includes "any wastes which meet the waste
description and are generated by the processes described in the background
document, regardless of the end product or industry in which it takes place."
In fact, 50 FR 42937 specifically states "product washwaters from the
production of DNT by nitration of toluene, as an intermediate to TNT
production, also are covered by this listing."
Source: Bob Scarberry (202) 382-4769
Research: Sue Brugler
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbacklll56
9441.1986(42)
MAY 20 1986
Mr. Paul B. Guptill
Missouri Hospital Association
P.O. Box 60
4713 Highway 50 West
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
Dear Mr. Guptill:
This is in response to your letter dated April 14,
1986, regarding the regulatory status of used x-ray film
being sent to refiners for silver reclamation. In order
to answer this question, one must first determine whether
the used x-ray film is considered a solid waste. Under
the hazardous waste rules, all spent materials, and listed
sludges and listed by-products that are sent for reclamation
are defined as solid wastes, (see 40 CFR 261.2(c), used
x-ray film would be defined as a spent material. I/ Therefore,
used x-ray film would be defined as a solid and hazardous
waste if it is listed or exhibits one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity).2/
Since these films are not specifically listed, they would
only be defined as hazardous if they exhibit any of the
hazardous waste characteristics. Based on test data provided
by the National Association of Photographic Manfacturers (NAPM),
IIA spent material is any material that has been used and
as a result of such use can no longer serve the purpose
for which it was produced without processing.
21 In your letter, you argue that used x-ray film going
to a refiner would not be considered hazardous,
regardless of their hazardous levels. However, the
Agency has always defined the hazardousness of the
waste based upon the characteristics of the waste
and not how it is managed.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9B5C438FFCD3FB93852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
-2-
these films, in and of themselves, do not appear to be
hazardous under RCRA. Therefore, used x-ray films are
probably not subject to the Federal hazardous waste management
regulations (see enclosure).
You should be aware, however, that although the data
provide by NAPM appears to suggest that these films are
non-hazardous, each generator is still responsible for
making this determination. If the generator determines
that their used x-ray films are hazardous, they would be
subject to the hazardous waste rules. However, the only
requirements under the Federal regulations that would be
imposed upon the generator would be to get an identification
number and to comply with the uniform hazardous waste
manifest. I, therefore, question the cost figures estimated
by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for
hospitals to comply with the hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any
further assistance my telephone number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch
Enclosures
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9B5C438FFCD3FB93852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 87
5 - Applicabilit
v
Exeiuai_
Hazardous industrial wastewaters
Clean *at*r Act under a XPDES
regulation unoer RCFU
fron the outfall to^a"
v-astewater is ased in f
L th. status of -n
re
S>y the
'-J frcn
not fall
define, "
the RCRA
of oU
«.a«teMter Jo
«
Source: Randy Hill
Research: Laurie Huber
(20:, 38J-77QO
-3-
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12946
9441.1987(45)
CONTAINERS USED TO HOLD LISTED CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS
JUN 16 1987
Mr. Fred Kamienny
Vice President
PRN Service, Inc.
1210 Morse
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
Dear Mr Kamienny:
This responds to your letter of April 13, 1987, regarding
the regulatory status of chemotherapy drugs and related supplies.
In particular, you questioned whether the weight of the "empty"
vial should be included in determining the amount of drug residues
to be disposed.
As you pointed out, several chemotherapy drugs are listed in
40 CFR 261.33(f) (commonly known as the U-list). As such, these
wastes are regulated under the EPA hazardous wastes regulations
(unless subject to the small quantity generator exclusion). Included
in the listing are the following discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species, container residues, and spill
residues:
1) chlorambucil (U035)
2) cyclophosphamide (U058)
3) daunomycin (U059)
4)melphalan(U150)
5)mitomycinC(U010)
6) streptozotocin (U206)
7) uracil mustard (U237)
Under EPA regulations governing the management of hazardous
wastes, any container used to hold these chemicals (such as vials)
are considered hazardous wastes unless these containers meet the
criteria of an "empty container." Under the empty container
provisions such vials are excluded from regulation if the material
has been removed by pouring, pumping, and aspirating, and no more
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/86AD2CDEFEC77625852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
than 1 inch of residue remains in the bottom of the vial or no
more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container. (See 40 CFR 261.7)
-2-
The Agency is aware, however, that prudent practice dictates
that materials contaminated with these chemicals (such as syringes,
vials, gloves, gowns, aprons, etc.) not be handled after use.
Therefore, to minimize exposure to these toxic chemicals, the
Agency recommends that the entire volume of waste be weighed and
that there be no attempt to remove any residue from the vial
before disposal.
Chemotherapy drugs that are not listed hazardous wastes are
not regulated by EPA. However you should contact your State or
local government regarding the management of these chemicals.
Also, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides guidance
on handling and management of antineoplastics. Contact Harvey
Rogers, at NIH for further information. Mr. Rogers may be reached
at (301)496-7775.
If you should have any further questions regarding regulatory
requirements for specific wastes, you may call RCRA Hotline at
(800) 424-9346, or contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202)
382-4805.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/86AD2CDEFEC77625852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 12993
9444.1987(3 la)
JUL30 1987
Mr. Sirmans
Raymark Industrial Division
1204 Darlington Avenue
Crawfordsville, Indiana 47933
Dear Mr. Sirmans:
After our review of Raymark's delisting petition (#0627)
submitted to the Agency on August 16, 1985, and of additional
information supplied in support of the petition, the Variances
Section has established that Raymark's wastes does not meet the
corrected listing description for K062 wastes published on
September 22, 1986 (51 FR 33612), which amended the K062 listing
promulgated on May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19320). The listing now
refers to "pickle liquor generated by steel finishing operations
of facilities within the iron and steel industry (SIC Codes 331
and 332)." Since you have identified your etching processes as
being classified under SIC Codes 3465 and 3449, your waste pickle
liquor is not a listed hazardous waste and may be managed as a
solid waste under Subtitle D regulations. Your petition is,
therefore, mooted, and we have closed your file. Please be
reminded that your waste must still be tested periodically to
verify that it does not demonstrate any of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
Should you have any questions regarding our evaluation,
please contact Scott Maid, of my staff, at (202) 382-4783.
Sincerely,
Myles Morse, Chief
Variances Section
cc: Allen Debus, EPA Reg. V
William Muno, EPA Reg. V
Karl Bremer, EPA Reg. V
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5AAA173B707E3E11852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
9443.1987(2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
301987
• SOuO
Mr. Phillip C. McGuire
Associate Director, Law Enforcement
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226
Dear Mr. McGuire:
Thanx you for your October 14, 1987, letter regarding the
disposal of explosive materials under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have reviewed the information you
provided concerning the detonation of seized explosives that you
believe would not fall under the RCRA Subtitle C program. We
thinx, however, that the seized explosives may indeed be a solid
waste from the moment a decision is made that the explosives
must be destroyed and not returned to the original owners.
The basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
opinion is that the explosives are not being used for their
originally-intended purpose (e.g., demolition of a building,
military use, etc.), but rather are being detonated to discard
the materials. The explosives, therefore, would meet the
definition of a solid waste as defined in 40 £ZB Section
261.2(a) and (b). If these explosives exhibit the
characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40 C£K 261.23, they
would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations for
storage, treatment and disposal. For example, detonation of
reactive waste is considered a form of thermal treatment that is
subject to Section 265.382, and shipments to the disposal site
are subject to 40 era Parts 262 and 263.
we recognise the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(BATT) has considerable experience in handling explosives. Your
internal procedures appear to be comparable to EPAfs rules in
many respects. There are, however, some differences that may
need to be examined. For example, you state that the detonation
areas must be at least 1,000 feet from buildings, woods, etc.
EPA's regulations (Section 265.382) require farther distances
for quantities in excess of 100 Ibs.
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11428
9441.1989(20)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APR 27 1989
Mr. Gene Rideout
Systems Manager
Dangerous Goods Consultants
P.O. Box C.P. 283
Roxboro, Quebec H8Y 3E9
Dear Mr. Rideout:
This response addresses your letters dated August 30, 1988,
February 7, 1989, and March 15, 1989, regarding the lab sample
exclusion found in 40 CFR Section 261.4(d). It is our
understanding that you wish to transport via private or company
vehicle samples of hazardous waste from Canada into the United
States for analysis. You question whether the samples that you
are shipping must be managed as hazardous waste in the United
States. You would also like to know if it is acceptable to use
a personal or company automobile to transport the sample
material in the United States.
Based upon the information that you have provided, it
appears that the samples are being handles and shipped in a
manner that is outlined in the lab sample exclusion (40 CFR
261.4(d)). Therefore, these samples are exempt from the federal
hazardous waste regulations including the hazardous waste import
requirements as outlined in 40 CFR 262, Subpart E and 40 CFR
264.12. In addition, as long as each shipment is in compliance
with the lab sample exclusion, including the documentation and
packaging requirements of 261.4(d)(2)(ii), as well as U.S.
Department of Transportation regulations, that may apply, and
any other applicable regulations, the mode of transportation
used is at your discretion.
Please be aware that the applicability of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act in a particular State may be
different; therefore, you should contact any RCRA authorized
State through which you may travel.
-2-
http://yosemite.epa.gOv/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/218E5A81264B8ID 1852565DA006F04... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
If you have any further questions or need additional
information, please contact Emily Roth of my staff at
(202) 382-4777.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Deputy Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
OSW-332-ED-RSCC-8801-LM-4/12/89-RIDEOUT
LM-4/14/89 RIDEOUT
lm-4/24/89 RIDEOUT
http://yosemite.epa.gOv/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/218E5A81264B8ID 1852565DA006F04... 8/18/2004
-------
w
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN 944"' " '"
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204tO
DEC 2 4 m
Honorable Malcolm Wallop
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 2O510
Dear senator Wallop:
Thank you for your November -0, 1987, letter regarding the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Report to Congress on
the Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development, and
Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy.
We appreciate your comments regarding the scope of the study
and the Report. Our tentative interpretation is provided
be'ow.
Since the release of our preliminary drafts of the Report,
we have revised some of our interpretations regarding the scope
of this study, primarily on the basis of input from the
inter-agency workgroup formed to assist us in preparing the
Report.
Produced water generated from primary field operations
associated with the exploration, development or production of
oil, gas and geothermal energy is considered exempt. Primary
field operations encompass production related activities but
not transport at ion or manufacturing activities. With respect
to oil production, primary field operations encompass those
activities usually occurring at or near the wellhead, but prior
to the transport of oil from an individual field facility or a
centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline or
trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner.
With respect to natural gas production, primary field
operations are those activities occurring at or near the
wellhead or at the gas plant but prior to that point where the
gas is transferred from an individual field facility, a
centrally located facility or a gas plant to a carrier for
transport to market.
Primary field operations may encompass the primary,
secondary and tertiary production of oil or gas. Wastes
generated by the transportation process itself are not exempt
because they are not intrinsically associated with primary
field operations, e.g., pigging waste from pipeline pumping
stations. Transportation for the oil and gas industry may be
for short or long distances. Wastes associated with
-------
manufacturing are not exempt because they are not associated
with exploration, development, or production and hence are not
intrinsically associated with primary field operations.
Manufacturing (for the oil and gas industry) is defined as any
activity occurring within a refinery or other manufacturing
facility whose purpose is to render the product commercially
saleable.
j
Solvents that are part of normal primary field operations
are considered intrinsically related to exploration,
development and production and are exempt. An example would be
solvents used down hole. Waste solvents used for cleaning
equipment or unused, quantities of solvents are not exempt.
The Agency has not yet reached a decision on the status of
rig wash. Most, if not all rig wash is trenched to the reserve
pit. In some cases, the rig wash May not contain any harmful
contaminants. But in other cases, the rig wash may contain
concentrated solvents or other contaminants, and may not be
suitable for disposal in the reserve pit. Increased waste
segregation may be desirable in these cases.
The Agency will be accepting suggestions and data on these
isrues during the public comment period following release of
th'.i Report later this month.
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1986(73)
SEP 25 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Truck or Rail Shipment of Hazardous Wastes to A POTW
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste branch, Region V
This memo is in response to your September 8,1986 request
for clarification of the POTW exemption in 40 CFR 261.4(a)(l)(ii).
As you correctly note in your memo, materials which are
directly mixed with domestic sewage that passes through a
sewer system to a publicly owned treatment system for treatment
is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. Whether or
not the material would otherwise be a "listed" or "characteristic"
hazardous waste under other circumstances, however, makes no
practical difference. In addition, the POTW exemption has
no bearing on whether or not the POTW treatment residues are
considered hazardous waste by virtue of exhibiting a characteristic.
The POTW exemption is, in fact, limited to the specific
conditions of 261.4(a)(l)(ii). Therefore, the exemption only
applies to the actual mixture of domestic sewage and other materials
while they are in the sewer system. Consequently, any activities
occurring prior to the actual introduction of the material
to the sewer system is not covered by the exemption. In
particular, any material that is either listed in Part 261,
Subpart D or which exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste
and which is accumulated, transported, or managed via any other
regulated activity prior to introduction into the sewer
system, would still be subject to regulation as a solid and
hazardous waste.
As you know, the accumulation of hazardous waste on-site
in tanks or containers is regulated under 262.34. Accumulation
in other types of units is considered storage subject to
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11181
-------
permitting. To the extent that any hazardous waste is
accumulated or otherwise stored prior to transportation to a
POTW, it would be regulated exactly as if it was eventually
to be, for example, landfilled or incinerated. Similarly,
the transportation of any hazardous waste is regulated under
Part 263, regardless of the destination. Therefore, a facility
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11181
-------
-2-
which generates a hazardous waste and which subsequently
ships the waste to a POTW for treatment must comply with all
appropriate accumulation and transportation requirements,
including appropriate use of the manifest system. Since under
270.60(c), a POTW is deemed to have a RCRA permit provided
they comply with a limited set of requirements, including
notification and compliance with the manifest system, we see no
regulatory obstacle to a facility shipping its waste to a
POTW for subsequent management.
I hope this interpretation is responsive to your concerns.
If you have any further questions on the issue, please feel
free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, on FTS 382-4769.
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regions I-TV and VI-X
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11181
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
V .-/
SCUO WAS'E AND EMJPG£NCV aE3"G
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulation and Permitting of Laboratories
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
On July 19, 1988, EPA promulgated an exemption for samples used
in treatability studies (53 FR 27290). To help increase awareness
of the new exemption, and to clarify the regulatory and permitting
requirements for laboratories in general, we have prepared the
attached decision tree and a summary of the treatability sample
rule. This is intended to help lab managers and enforcement
personnel understand the regulations. Questions in this area may
be addressed to Stephen Cpchran at FTS-475-9715.
Attachments
-------
c»i
DETAILED FACT SHEET
SMALL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDIES SAMPLE EXEMPTION
Status: Final Rule, effective July 19, 1988 (53 FR 27290)
OSW Contact: Paul Mushovic
1. Effect of the Rule
The final rule conditionally exempts small quantities of
hazardous waste being utilized in small-scale treatability
studies from the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Such testing
requires no prior EPA approval. Quantity limitations for
treatability studies are set per waste stream per treatment
process. Limitations are also being set for quantities shipped,
and for treatment rates and storage limitations per facility.
New paragraphs (e) and (f) to 40 CFR 261.4 accomplish the
following. First, persons who generate samples are exempted from
the generator and transporter requirements when samples are
shipped by the generator, or any other person who collects the
sample (the "sample collector"), to a laboratory or testing
facility for the purpose of conducting a treatability analysis,
or when shipped from the facility back to the sample collector,
provided that certain packaging and labeling requirements are
met. Second, any laboratory or testing facility that conducts
treatability studies may store these waste samples and residues
generated from the treatability study within the quantity and
time limits specified and not be subject to the requirements of
40 CFR, Parts 264, 265, and 270. Third, the actual testing of
the samples does not require a permit, provided the laboratory or
testing facility complies with the notification requirements in
the rule and meets the quantity and time limitations specified in
the rule.
Definition and Examples. A treatability study (newly-defined)
subjects a relatively small amount of hazardous waste to a
treatment process. Its purpose is to determine:
- whether the waste is amenable to a treatment process;
- what pretreatment (if any) is required;
- the optimal process conditions;
- the efficiency of the treatment process; or,
- the characteristics and volume of residuals from a
particular treatment process.
A treatability study is not to be used for commercial
treatment or disposal of hazardous waste. Examples of the types
of treatability studies included in the exemption are:
- physical/chemical/biological treatment;
- thermal treatment (incineration, pyrolysis, oxidation,
combustion);
solidification;
- sludge dewatering;
volume reduction;
toxicity reduction; and,
recycling feasibility.
-------
-2-
The rule also allows the following types of waste testing
studies:
- liner compatibility studies;
- corrosion studies;
- toxicological and health effects studies; and,
- other material compatibility studies (e.g., relatina to
leachate collection systems, geotextile materials, other land
disposal unit requirements, pumps and personal protective
equipment).
2. Purpose and Rationale of the Rule
A. Need for Simplified Procedures. The hazardous waste
regulations, when applied to waste samples used in small-scale
treatability studies, are more comprehensive than is necessary to
adequately protect human health and the environment. The Agency
needs to promote research and the development of innovative
technologies to manage hazardous wastes.
B. Factors Limiting Risk. The Agency believes that the
following factors combine to ensure that the risks to human
health and the environment are de minimis;
- the various quantity and time restrictions contained in the
rule; -
- the high cost of collecting and shipping the sample and
conducting legitimate treatability studies;
- certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will
enable the Agency to conduct inspections and bring enforcement
actions against persons who abuse this exemption; and,
- Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Postal Service
v(USPS), or other regulations governing the transportation of
hazardous materials.
The Agency also believes that sufficient professional and
financial incentives are in place to provide for the safe
shipment of samples to and from, and proper handling of samples
at, laboratories and testing facilities conducting treatability
studies.
3. Limitations Contained in the Rule
Specific limitations in the final rule ensure de minimis risk
to human health and the environment.
-------
-3-
A. Waste Quantity Exempted per waste stream. There are
limits on the amount of waste that can be subject to a
treatability study evaluation per generated waste stream. The
rule exempts (per waste stream per treatment process):
- 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
.- 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
- 250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated by acute
hazardous waste.
The rule also allows the Regional Administrator to grant
requests for waste stream quantity limits in excess of those
specified above, up to an additional 500 kg of non-acute
hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, and 250 kg of
soils, water, and debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste
when it can be demonstrated that an additional quantity of
hazardous waste is needed to complete a treatability study when:
- there has been an equipment or mechanical failure;
- there is a need to verify previous results;
- there is a need to study and analyze alternative techniques
within a previously evaluated treatment process; or,
- there is a need to determine final specifications for
treatment.
3. Transportation Shipment Limits. The Agency has set a
single shipment limitation as follows:
- 1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
- 1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
- 250"kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste.
These shipment limitations, covering the exemption from the
RCRA hazardous waste transporter regulations and manifesting
requirements, will apply when the materials are being shipped to
a laboratory or testing facility or returned to the generator or
sample collector.
C. Facility Treatment Rate Limit. The Agency has adopted a
treatment rate limit of 250 kg per day of as received waste for
the entire laboratory or testing facility. "As received" refers
to the waste shipped by the generator or sample collector as it
arrives at the laboratory or testing facility.
D. Facility storage Quantity Limits. The Agency has also
adopted an overall storage limitation of 1000 kg of "as received
waste per testing facility. This limitation can include up to
500 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute
hazardous waste or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. The Agency is
making it clear in this rule that the storage exemption only
applies to laboratories or testing facilities conducting
-------
-4-
treatability studies. The rule does not allow for intermediate
storage.
E. Facility Storage Time Limits. Any untreated sample and
any residue generated during the treatability study must be
returned to the generator within 90 days of study completion or
within 1 year from the date of shipment by the generator to the
laboratory or testing facility, whichever is earlier. Otherwise,
these materials must be managed, by the laboratory or testina
facility conducting the treatability study, as a RCRA hazardous
waste (unless the waste is no longer hazardous).
MTUs conducting treatability studies may qualify for this
exemption. The requirements of the exemption apply to each
location where an MTU will conduct treatability studies.
When more than one MTU is operating at one location they will be
treated as one MTU facility for purposes of applying the
limitations.
4. Procedures for Compliance with the Rule
Facilities conducting small-scale treatability studies would
not be required to obtain the permit; and the shipment of samples
to and from facilities would no longer need to be manifested.
There are still certain procedures required to qualify for the
exemption.
A. General Reporting and Recordkeepinq Requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being imposed to
facilitate inspector review, and if necessary, to take
enforcement action. The generator of the sample (who may also be
the shipper or sample collector) and the laboratory or testing
facility conducting the treatability study must keep copies of
contracts and shipping documents for a minimum of 3 years after
the completion of the study.
B. Generator-Specific Requirements. Generators and sample
collectors must also maintain records indicating the following:
- the amount of waste (per waste stream and treatment
process) shipped under the exemption;
- the name, address, and EPA identification number of the
study facility;
* shipment dates; and,
-whether or not any unused sample or any residue generated
from the treatability study was returned.
Beginning in 1989, generators must report this information in
their biennial reports. In addition, generators and/or sample
collectors who seek a variance to submit supplemental sample
material from a particular waste stream must indicate the reason
-------
-5-
for the request, support the additional quantity requested,
account for all sample material previously submitted from the
waste stream, and describe any technical or equipment
modifications and the corrected results.
C. Facility-Specific Requirements. Owners or operators of a
study facility must:
- notify the Regional Administrator or authorized State, by
letter, of the intent to conduct treatability studies at least 45
days prior to conducting any such studies;
- obtain an EPA identification number if it does not have
one;
- maintain records documenting compliance with the specified
time and quantity limits for treatment and storage for 3 years
from the completion of each treatability study.
Specific minimum information, by treatability study, that
must be maintained includes:
- the name, address, and EPA identification number of the
generator or sample collector;
- information on the quantities of and dates that waste
materials were received, stored, and tested; and,
- the date the unused sample and residue were returned to the
generator or, if sent to a designated facility, the name of the
facility and its EPA identification number.
By March 15 of each year, each facility must submit a
comprehensive report to the authorized State or Regional
Administrator that includes the above information for all studies
of the previous calendar year and an estimate of the number of
studies and the amount of waste expected to be used in
treatability studies during the current year.
Additionally, laboratories or testing facilities that do not
return the unused sample or the residues to the generator or
sample collector vithin the specified time limits are subject to
appropriate regulation. Facilities must determine if they meet
the SQG requirements of Subject 261.5 or the accumulation
requirements of Subject 262.34.
5. impact of the Rule
This exemption will reduce the overall costs and economic
impact of EPA's hazardous waste management regulations by
eliminating permitting requirements for laboratories and testing
facilities intending to conduct treatability studies. Facilities
and laboratories will be spared the time (as much as 2 years) and
the costs (estimated to be between $100,000 and $200,000)
otherwise necessary to obtain a RCRA permit. The Agency
-------
-6-
anticipates that most of the estimated 400 facilities which will
be conducting treatability studies will include testing
laboratories, research organizations, colleges, universities,
technical institutes, and those facilities involved in solid and
hazardous waste management.
6. Effective Date of the Rule
The need for more effective hazardous waste treatment
alternatives and the fact that this amendment reduces, rather
than increases, the existing requirements for facilities that
handle waste samples provide good cause to make this rule
effective immediately upon publication notwithstanding Section
4(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Section
553(d). This amendment takes effect immediately upon publication
in the Federal Register. The regulations will be applicable only
in those States that do not have final authorization. Because
these changes are less stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are not required to adopt this
rulemaking, although EPA strongly encourages States to do so as
quickly as possible. EPA will expedite review of authorized
State program revision applications.
7. Agency Contact
For- further information regarding the Treatability
Studies-Sample Exemption, contact Stephen Cochran at EPA
Headquarters telephone No. 202-475-9715 or FTS No. 475-9715.
-------
— -r\
uetefsnine*
of
STEP 2.
Determine if
material la a waste
STEP 4,
Determine If salM
wraata ta a hazardous
waste
STEP 4.
Treatablilty atudy
exemption
STEP «,
Determine If exempt
reeyotfatg eeeors
STEP «.
Determine If special
recycling occur*
STEP 7,
Determine If other
eooara
Office of Solid Waste
Laboratory Decision Tree
Type of Testing
f26t.4(d) govern*
l***ofidw«*»
per 5261.2?
RCRA Subtitle C .
regulawns do not apply
YES
itted in
5§261.31-03 or doe* it exhibtt
« eharaoanatic of a hazardous
wacte (§§261.20-24)?
RCRA Subtrte C .
regulaaons do not apply
YES
If the activity something
other than a naabity
study (defined in §260.10}?
NO
§261.4<«)«nd(f)
(treatabirty •zempbon)
governs*
YES
Is t»e activity someMng
other than exempt recycling
lin§261.6(aX3)?
Activity i« an exempt
recycing and • exempt
YES
Is the acavity sometfwtg
other tfian tfie speoaj Ibnn
of recyding in §261.8<«X2)?
MO
Activity invotot rtgutetod
ftcyCsftiQ undtf Ptft 266 *
permit for storage may be
required*
YES
Is to eaMty something
other tien §261.6(c)
STEP •.
O«t*rmin« tf atoraga
oeeura
STOP I.
Dcfearmln*
# a
Storage penw may be
rvQUfea, out 9te fecydng
operuon is currenvy not
subject fa regutaeon *
YES
eoeuta
STEP 10.
Verify that aothrity
r*quir«c • permit
Perrnst is required §270.1(c);
check Part 268 tor stonge
en
J
in f260.10) occur?
Actoftycunwtfymaynotbe
I EPA
Permtt to required §270.1(c)
unkMS exetnpt under
f270.t(eK2)«
Check Pert 2«
9 ess> if placemen
onlendislagsd
* Check to eee If stale require
ere nrare stringent
-------
Guidance on Laboratory Testing and RCRA Permitting
This guidance addresses only the issue of whether materials
received by a laboratory must be handled as a hazardous waste
under the federal permit or interim status hazardous waste
management standards. It does not address the issue of the
laboratory which generates hazardous wastes and whether
permitting is required for the laboratory-as-generator.
Individual states (whether authorized under RCRA or not) may
also have requirements that are more strict than the federal
requirements. Thus, although this guidance may indicate that a
particular activity may be conducted without requiring a permit,
in all cases the laboratory director must confirm with the
appropriate state agency whether a permit is required.
Additional assistance on all aspects of the determination
process outlined in this guidance may be obtained by calling the
RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline ((800)424-9346,
commercial (202)382-3000; FTS-382-3000).
-------
Step l. Determine the type of testing that will occur.
If the testing is solely to determine a waste, soil, water, or
air sample's characteristics or composition, the sample's
handling may be subject to reduced regulations under 40 CFR
S261.4(d>.
Step 2. Determine whether the material is a solid waste per
§261.2 (or, in the case of contaminated soil or water, contains a
solid waste). {Note: The term "solid waste" does not refer to a
material's physical form, but to its legal status as a waste vs.
commodity.1
This step requires looking at both the status of the material as
it .is handled in the "outside world" and as it is handled in the
laboratory. For instance, an EP toxic wastewater treatment
sludge which is landfilled in the "outside world" is a solid
waste and a hazardous waste; however/ if it is being tested for
reclamation possibilities, it would be neither a solid waste nor
a hazardous waste until the experimental residue* are discarded.
Another example would be an off-specification commercial chemical
product listed in §261.33. If, in the "outside world", it is
sent for reclamation, it is neither a solid waste nor a hazardous
waste. However, if the laboratory intends to incinerate it, it
is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste* Assistance in this
step may be found by referring to the Guidance Manual on the RCRA
Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Wastes (EPA 530-SW-86-015), or
by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance Hotline with
details about the specific situation.
Step 3. Determine whether the solid waste is a hazardous waste.
Refer to §261.4(b) to see if it is a "solid waste which is not a
hazardous waste." If it is not excluded by §261.4(b), refer to
§§261.31-261.33, to determine if it is a listed hazardous waste;
if it is not listed, refer to §§261.20-261.24 to determine if it
is a characteristic hazardous waste. For assistance, call
(800)424-9346.
Step 4. Determine whether the laboratory's activity qualifies
for the treatability study exemption at §261.4(e) and (f).
See the July 19, 1988 Federal Register (53 FR 27290). Individual
state* may not recognize this exemption.
Step 5. Determine whether the laboratory will be performing any
of the recycling operations on waste* which are described in
S261.6(a)(3). If mo, the activity i» not subject to federal RCRA
regulation.
-------
-2-
Step 6. Determine whether the laboratory will be recycling
wastes in the manner described in S261.6(a)(2 ) .
I Note: Burning for energy recovery must be legitimate recycling.
Current enforcement guidance uses 5000-8000 BTD/lb aa generated
(not as blended for burning) as the dividing point between
legitimate energy recovery and incineration.)
If so, the regulations in S261.6(a)(2) refer the reader to the
appropriate sections of Part 266. In some cases, these
activities will require permits.
Step 7. Determine whether the laboratory's activity is recycling
which may be (currently) exempt from regulation under S261.6(cK
A storage permit may be required.
Step 8. Determine whether storage of hazardous waste received
from off-site.occurs. If »o, a storage permit is required
(§270.Kc)) unless the activity is specifically excluded from the
permit requirement by $270.1(c)(2) and (3). Check Part 268 for
additional regulation of storage of certain hazardous wastes.
Continue to step 9.
Step 9. Determine whether treatment or disposal (as defined in
$260.10) occur. If so, a permit covering these activities may.be
required (§270.l(c)). Research, Development, and Demonstration
activities may be covered by a special type of permit (see
§270.65). In addition, the laboratory must refer to Part 268 for
restrictions on placement of hazardous wastes on land (if land
placement is proposed).
Step 10. Verify that the activity require* a permit. ,Certain
activities are exempt from the permit requirement (»ee
$270.1(c)(2) and <3)>. In addition, Part 268 contains the
restrictions on land placement of certain haazardous wastes.
-------
Page 1 of 1
FAXBACK 12013
SMALL QUANTITY GENERATOR APPLIES TO AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF WASTES
GENERATED AT A
FACILITY
PPC 9441.1980(05)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV 17 1980
Mr. William A. McClintic
Defense Division
Brunswick Corporation
150 Johnston Road
Marion, Virginia 24354
Dear Mr. McClintic:
This is in response to your letter of September 25, 1980, asking
for clarification of the applicability of our hazardous waste management
regulations to very small quantities of hazardous wastes generated
by a generator who also generates a large quantity of hazardous waste.
The small quantity generator special requirements of 261.5 of our
regulations are only available to generators that generate an aggregate
amount of hazardous wastes of less than 1000 kilograms per month at any
one site or facility. If the aggregate amount of hazardous wastes
generated at a site or facility exceeds this monthly amount, then the
special requirements of 261.5 do not apply to any of the hazardous
wastes generated at that site or facility. I am afraid, therefore,
that the very small quantities of hazardous waste generated at your
Marion facility are subject to the "full" regulations because the single
large quantity of hazardous waste disqualifies the facility for the
special small quantity generator requirements.
I hope this sufficiently answers your questions.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
WH:GDietrich:bm: 11/13/80.401 M
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/67A0709AF6F2800D852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11346
9443.1988(05)
MAY-2 1988
Mr. G. R. Boulden
Ladish Co., Inc.
Kentucky Plant
Cynthiana, KY41031
Dear Mr. Boulden:
This letter is in response to your telephone conversation
with, and March 1, 1988 letter to, David Topping of my staff.
Specifically, you have requested an interpretation as to the
applicability of certain hazardous waste definitions and
regulations.
As you are aware, wastes are considered hazardous if they
either (1) are listed in the lists off hazardous wastes described
in Sections 261.31 through 261.33; or (2) exhibit any of the
characteristics of a hazardous waste described in Sections 261.21
through 261.24. For purposes of clarity, it should be noted that
the wastes you describe do not meet the first criterion. That
is, since the plant's SIC code is not 331 or 332, the wastes do
not meet the definition of EPA Hazardous Waste No. K062, which
appears to be the only listing that applies to pickling
operations. Therefore, the wastes would only be considered
hazardous if they exhibit one of the characteristics or are mixed
with another waste that is listed.
The responses to your specific questions follow:
1. Is the spent pickle liquor a hazardous waste if
it corrodes 1020 steel at a rate of U 0.25
inches/year?
Yes. This is the definition of a corrosive liquid
waste as described at Section 261.22(a)(2).
2. Is the sludge from the bottom of the pickle tank a
hazardous waste if its pH U 2?
Yes. This is the definition of a corrosive aqueous
waste as described at Section 261.22(a)(l).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/21542C5019855A76852565DA006F0401 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
-2-
3. Does paragraph 264.314 apply to the dewatered lime
neutralized pickle sludge that is taken to the local
landfill?
No. Part 264 applies to hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal units. To the extent that the
"local landfill" is not a hazardous waste facility,
Section 264.314 is not applicable.
4. In regards to the waste discussed above, what if
any, regulatory requirements does the EPA have?
Since it is not clear whether the wastestreams of the
Kentucky Plant do or do not exhibit the
characteristics described above, a general answer to
this question cannot be provided. It is suggested
that you direct this question to our Regional Office
at the following address:
U.S. EPA Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
Attn: James H. Scarbrough
Residuals Management Branch
Also, please note that State regulations may differ from
Federal regulations. Since the regional EPA offices deal more
directly with the States, they are better able to provide the
information you desire.
Should you have any questions regarding this response, feel
free to contact David Topping of my staff at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment
Division
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/21542C5019855A76852565DA006F0401 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, FORENSICS AND TRAINING
EPA-330/9-97-002R
Compliance-Focused Environmental Management System
Enforcement Agreement Guidance
August 1997
Revised January 2000
Steven W. Sisk
NATIONAL ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS CENTER
Diana A. Love, Director
Denver, Colorado
-------
-------
Revised January 2000
INTRODUCTION
Since the late 1980s, civil multimedia compliance investigations conducted by the EPA
National Enforcement Investigations Center (NEIC) have increasingly involved identifying causes
of observed noncompliance. In a significant number of cases, the causes arise from inadequate
environmental management systems (EMSs).1 NEIC, in response, developed key elements for a
compliance-focused EMS (CFEMS) model, which have been used as the basis for EMS
requirements in several settlement agreements. The purpose of this guidance is to present those key
elements and to show, through the attached example, how they can be incorporated into a settlement
agreement.
To achieve maximum benefit from the CFEMS elements, the overall EMS in which they are
incorporated should embody the "plan, do, check, and act" model for continuous improvement.
Consequently, the compliance-focused EMS model described here is intended to supplement, not
replace, EMS models developed by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as the ISO 14001
EMS standard developed by the International Organization for Standardization.
A settlement agreement that requires an EMS should include a requirement that the
organization conduct an initial review of its current EMS, followed by development of a
comprehensive CFEMS that must be documented in a manual. The EMS manual must contain
policies, procedures, and standards for the 12 key elements, at a minimum, and should also identify
other, more detailed procedures and processes (e.g., inspections and self-monitoring) that may be
located elsewhere at the facility. After the organization has had sufficient time to implement and
refine the EMS (usually 2 to 3 years), the agreement should require at least one EMS audit by an
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) defines an EMS as "thatpart
of the overall management system which includes organizational structure, planning
activities, responsibilities, practices, procedures, processes and resources for developing,
implementing, achieving, reviewing, and maintaining [the organization's] environmental
policy." The EMS provides the structure by which specific activities related to
environmental protection and compliance can be effectively and efficiently carried out.
-------
Revised January 2000
independent third-party auditor, with results reported to both the organization and EPA. However,
additional audits may be required, as individual circumstances dictate.
The intended result of this approach is twofold: first, to have the organization develop an
EMS that will both improve its compliance with applicable environmental requirements and, second,
to improve its environmental performance by achieving the organization's environmental targets and
objectives.
The 12 key elements of a CFEMS addressed in this guide were compiled from a number of
sources: EMS assessment protocols developed by Deloitte and Touche LLP of San Francisco for
the Global Environmental Management Initiative (1992) and an industrial client (1994); ISO 14001
"Environmental management systems - Specification with guidance for use" (1996); National
Sanitation Foundation EMS standards (NSF 110-1995); a November 14, 1986 EPA memorandum
entitled "Final EPA Policy on the Inclusion of Environmental Auditing Provisions in Enforcement
Settlements"; and the "due diligence" provisions of the current EPA "audit policy" (60 FR 66710
published December 22,1996). Additional input was obtained through NEIC participation in several
EPA EMS-related work groups including the Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) Pilot Proj ect
workgroup tasked with defining the EMS requirements for the full-scale program.
The current revision involved enhancing several of the elements and more completely
incorporating the due diligence provisions of the EPA audit policy. Refinement continues through
settlement negotiations, and discussions with EPA staff, EMS consultants, and environmental
personnel from several companies with medium-size and large facilities.
A general EMS provision for a settlement agreement and the 12 key elements are presented
in the following sections. The prescriptive style has been retained to facilitate future use in
-------
Revised January 2000
settlement agreements.1 Example consent decree language incorporating the EMS improvement
approach described above is presented in Attachment A.
GENERAL EMS PROVISION
A comprehensive compliance-focused Environmental Management System (EMS) shall be
developed, implemented, and maintained by the organization. The EMS shall address, at a
minimum, the 12 key elements listed below, and shall be described in an "Environmental
Management System Manual."
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MANUAL PROVISIONS
The EMS Manual shall be organized to clearly address the following key elements.
1. Environmental Policy
a. This policy, upon which the EMS is based, must clearly communicate management
commitment to achieving compliance with applicable federal, state, and local
environmental statutes, regulations, enforceable agreements, and permits (hereafter,
"environmental requirements") and continuous improvement in environmental
performance. The policy should also state management's intent to provide adequate
personnel and other resources for the EMS.
2. Organization, Personnel, and Oversight of EMS
a. Describes, organizationally, how the EMS is implemented and maintained.
The 12 elements are closely inter-related components of an EMS for which subsystems
and procedures must be developed and fully integrated if the entire program is to be
effective. They are usually included in settlement agreements as a complete group;
however, individual elements may need to be modified to reflect site-specific conditions
and circumstances.
-------
Revised January 2000
b. Includes organization charts that identify units, line management, and other
individuals having environmental performance and regulatory compliance
responsibilities.
c. Identifies and defines duties, roles, responsibilities, and authorities of key
environmental program personnel in implementing and sustaining the EMS (e.g.,
could include position descriptions and performance standards for all environmental
department personnel, and excerpts from others having specific environmental
program and regulatory compliance responsibilities).
d. Includes ongoing means of communicating environmental issues and information to
all organization personnel, on-site service providers, and contractors, and for
receiving and addressing their concerns.
3. Accountability and Responsibility
a. Specifies accountability and responsibilities of organization's management, on-site
service providers, and contractors for environmental protection practices, assuring
compliance, required reporting to regulatory agencies, and corrective actions
implemented in their area(s) of responsibility.
b. Describes incentive programs for managers and employees to perform in accordance
with compliance policies, standards and procedures.
c. Describes potential consequences for departure from specified operating procedures,
including liability for civil/administrative penalties imposed as a result of
noncompliance.
4. Environmental Requirements
a. Describes process for identifying, interpreting, and effectively communicating
environmental requirements to affected organization personnel, on-site service
providers, and contractors, and ensuring that facility activities conform to those
requirements. Specifies procedures for prospectively identifying and obtaining
information about changes and proposed changes in environmental requirements, and
incorporating those changes into the EMS.
b. Establishes and describes processes to ensure communication with regulatory
agencies regarding environmental requirements and regulatory compliance.
-------
Revised January 2000
5. Assessment, Prevention, and Control
a. Identifies an ongoing process for assessing operations, for the purposes of preventing
and controlling releases, ensuring environmental protection, and maintaining
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. This section shall describe
monitoring and measurements, as appropriate, to ensure sustained compliance. It
shall also include identifying operations and waste streams where equipment
malfunctions and deterioration, operator errors, and discharges or emissions maybe
causing, or may lead to: (1) releases of hazardous waste or other pollutants to the
environment, (2) a threat to human health or the environment, or (3) violations of
environmental requirements.
b. Describes process for identifying operations and activities where documented
standard operating practices (SOPs) are needed to prevent potential violations or
pollutant releases, and defines a uniform process for developing, approving and
implementing the SOPs.
c. Describes a system for conducting and documenting routine, objective, self-
inspections by department supervisors and trained staff, especially at locations
identified by the process described in a. above.
d. Describes process for ensuring input of environmental requirements (or concerns)
in planning, design, and operation of ongoing, new, and/or changing buildings,
processes, maintenance activities, and products.
6. Environmental Incident and Noncompliance Investigations
a. Describes standard procedures and requirements for internal and external reporting
of potential violations and release incidents.
b. Establishes procedures for investigation, and prompt and appropriate correction of
potential violations. The investigation process includes root-cause analysis of
identified problems to aid in developing the corrective actions.
c. Describes a system for development, tracking, and effectiveness verification of
corrective and preventative actions.
d. Each of these procedures shall specify self-testing of such procedures, where
practicable.
-------
Revised January 2000
7. Environmental Training, Awareness, and Competence
a. Identifies specific education and training required for organization personnel, as well
as process for documenting training provided.
b. Describes program to ensure that organization employees are aware of its
environmental policies and procedures, environmental requirements, and their roles
and responsibilities within the environmental management system.
c. Describes program for ensuring that personnel responsible for meeting and
maintaining compliance with environmental requirements are competent on the basis
of appropriate education, training, and/or experience.
8. Environmental Planning and Organizational Decision-Making
a. Describes how environmental planning will be integrated into organizational
decision-making, including plans and decisions on capital improvements, product
and process design, training programs, and maintenance activities.
b. Requires establishing written targets, objectives, and action plans by at least each
operating organizational subunit with environmental responsibilities, as appropriate,
including those for contractor operations conducted at the facility, and how specified
actions will be tracked and progress reported. Targets and objectives must include
achieving and maintaining compliance with all environmental requirements.
9. Maintenance of Records and Documentation
a. Identifies the types of records developed in support of the EMS (including audits and
reviews), who maintains them and where, and protocols for responding to inquiries
and requests for release of information.
b. Specifies the data management systems for any internal waste tracking,
environmental data, and hazardous waste determinations.
10. Pollution Prevention Program
a. Describes an internal program for preventing, reducing, recycling, reusing, and
minimizing waste and emissions, including procedures to encourage material
substitutions. Also includes mechanisms for identifying candidate materials to be
addressed by program and tracking progress.
6
-------
Revised January 2000
11. Continuing Program Evaluation and Improvement
a. Describes program for periodic (at least annually) evaluation of the EMS, including
incorporating the results of the assessment into program improvements, revisions to
the manual, and communicating findings and action plans to affected employees, on-
site service providers, and contractors.
b. Describes a program for ongoing evaluation of facility compliance with
environmental requirements, and should specify periodic compliance audits by an
independent auditor(s). Audit results are reported to upper management and potential
violations are addressed through the process described in element 6 above.
12. Public Involvement/Community Outreach
a. Describes a program for ongoing community education and involvement in the
environmental aspects of the organization's operations and general environmental
awareness.
-------
Revised January 2000
ATTACHMENT A
EXAMPLE CONSENT DECREE LANGUAGE
FOR EMS IMPROVEMENTS
-------
Revised January 2000
-------
Revised January 2000
Attachment A
EXAMPLE CONSENT DECREE LANGUAGE FOR EMS IMPROVEMENTS
A. Environmental Management System
1. Upon the effective date of this Decree, Defendant shall provide to EPA and the state
in writing the name, affiliation and address of the individual(s) selected by the
Defendant to conduct the Initial EMS Review and Evaluation, how such individual(s)
satisfies the proficiency criteria described in the [reference standard, e.g., ISO
14012 "Guidelines for environmental auditing - Qualification criteria for
environmental auditors" or American Society for Testing of Materials ("ASTM")
Provisional Standard 12-95 - Provisional Standard Guide for Study and Evaluation
of An Organizations Environmental Management Systems], and the schedule,
including milestones, for conducting the Initial EMS Review and Evaluation.
2. The individual identified pursuant to paragraph A.I above shall conduct an initial
review and evaluation of the current EMS relating to the operations of both [the
company] and Contractors, as defined in paragraph A. 17 below. The Defendant shall
review and evaluate the current EMS to identify gaps using the elements set forth in
paragraphs A.4.a(l) through (12) below.
3. Based on the Initial Review and Evaluation results and other information, Defendant
shall prepare a written Comprehensive EMS for the Facility1 addressing, at a
minimum, the twelve key elements presented in paragraphs A.4.a(l) through (12)
below. The purpose of preparing the Comprehensive EMS is to assist [the company]
in its program to comply with federal, state and local environmental statutes,
1 "Facility" is a defined term in each settlement agreement.
A-1
-------
Revised January 2000
regulations, permits, and enforceable agreements (hereinafter in this Section A
(Environmental Management System) referred to as "environmental requirements").
4. Within two hundred seventy (270) days of the effective date of this Decree,
Defendant shall complete the preparation of an "Environmental Management System
Manual" which shall include the Comprehensive EMS, an EMS implementation
schedule and rationale identifying proposed changes to the current EMS and explain-
ing what the changes are intended to accomplish. For each of the elements identified
in paragraphs A.4.a(l) through (12) below, as appropriate, the manual shall provide
a detailed blueprint of the EMS, describing how the activity or program is or will be:
(a) established as a formal system, (b) integrated into ongoing department operations,
and (c) continuously evaluated and improved.
a. Defendant shall develop an Environmental Management System Manual -
The EMS Manual shall address the following elements:
NOTE: The 12 key elements of the compliance-focused EMS (or alternate standard) are
inserted here.
5. Defendant shall submit the complete Environmental Management System Manual
to EPA and the state for review and comment within thirty (30) days of its
completion.
6. EPA will provide its and the state's comments on the Environmental Management
System Manual within ninety (90) days of EPA's receipt of such Manual unless EPA
or the state notifies the Defendant in writing that additional time for review and
approval is required. The state's review and EPA's review and comment will not
A-2
-------
Revised January 2000
extend beyond one hundred and fifty (150) days of EPA's receipt of the
Environmental Management System Manual.
7. [The company] shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of EPA's and the state's
comments on the proposed EMS Manual, submit to EPA and the state a supplement
to the EMS Manual or a written response, as appropriate, addressing EPA's and the
state's comments. The EMS Manual shall contain an implementation schedule for
initiating each component of the system not already implemented.
8. Within thirty (3 0) days of completing their reviews, EPA and the state will return the
supplement or written response, and the EMS Manual to the Defendant.
9. Upon Defendant's receipt of EPA's and the state's comments, Defendant shall
immediately commence implementation of the EMS in accordance with the schedule
contained in the EMS Manual. The Defendant shall submit status reports regarding
the implementation to EPA and the state, on a quarterly basis, beginning no later than
thirty (30) days from receipt of EPA's and the state's comments on the manual. The
status reports shall be due on the 15th day of the first month of the next quarter and
every quarter thereafter until implementation is complete.
10. Within twenty (20) months of the effective date of this Decree, the Defendant shall
provide to EPA and the state in writing (1) the name, affiliation, and address of the
independent 3rd party consultant selected by the defendant to perform a
Comprehensive EMS Review and Evaluation at the Facility; (2) how the selected
independent 3rd party consultant satisfies the independence and proficiency criteria
in the [reference standard, e.g., ISO 14012 "Guidelines for environmental auditing -
Qualification criteria for environmental auditors" American Society for Testing of
Materials (ASTM) Provisional Standard 12-95 - Provisional Standard Guide for
A-3
-------
Revised January 2000
Study and Evaluation of An Organizations Environmental Management Systems];
and (3) a schedule, including milestones, for conducting the review. The review shall
be performed in accordance with the [reference standard, e.g., ISO 14011
"Guidelines for environmental auditing - Audit procedures - Auditing of
environmental management systems", or ASTM Provisional Standard 12-95 -
Provisional Standard Guide for Study and Evaluation of An Organizations
Environmental Management Systems]. The Defendant's contract with the 3rd party
consultant shall require such 3rd party consultant to review and evaluate the
implementation of the systems, policies, and procedures described in the EMS
Manual, using the EMS elements set forth in paragraphs A.4.a(l) through (12) above
as criteria for the evaluation.
11. Within ninety (90) days after submitting the notification required by Paragraph A. 10,
above, the independent 3rd party consultant shall complete the Comprehensive EMS
Review and Evaluation and submit a Comprehensive EMS Review and Evaluation
Report to [the company], EPA and the state, simultaneously. This report shall
include (1) the results of the auditor's review and evaluation of the facility EMS
relating to both [the company] and Contractor operations and (2) the auditor's
recommendations for improvements to the Comprehensive EMS.
12. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the independent 3rd party consultant
Comprehensive EMS Review and Evaluation Report, Defendant shall provide to
EPA and the state for review and comment a written response to the
recommendations presented in that Report identifying those recommendations it does
and does not intend to implement and/or plans to implement with modification(s).
The Defendant shall include in its response an explanation of its rationale for not
implementing and/or modifying the independent 3rd party consultant
A-4
-------
Revised January 2000
recommendations and a schedule for implementing changes to the EMS based on the
Comprehensive EMS Review and Evaluation.
13. EPA will provide its and the state's comments on the Comprehensive EMS Review
and Evaluation Report within ninety (90) days of EPA's receipt of such Plan unless
EPA or the state notifies the Defendant in writing that additional time for review and
comment is required. The state's review and EPA's review and comment will not
extend beyond one hundred and fifty (150) days of EPA's receipt of the
Comprehensive EMS Review and Evaluation Report.
14. [The company] shall, within thirty (30) days of receipt of EPA's and the state's
comments on the Comprehensive EMS Review and Evaluation Report, submit to
EPA and the state a written response to such comments.
15. Within thirty (30) days of completing their review of the Defendant's response to
EPA's and the state's comments, EPA and the state will return the Comprehensive
EMS Review and Evaluation Report to the Defendant.
16. Any submissions made to EPA or the state pursuant to this Section A shall not be
interpreted as a waiver or limitation of the United state's or the state of [state name]
authority to enforce any federal, state, or local statute or regulation including permits.
17. For purposes of this Environmental Management System section, the term
"Contractor" shall mean [contractor one name], any successor to [contractor one
name] located on facility, [contractor two name], any successor to [contractor two
name] located at Defendant's facility and contractors providingthe following services
at the facility: [list of specific services such as asbestos removal; demolition;
painting; waste handling, including vacuum truck operators; and construction].
A-5
-------
Revised January 2000
18. Confidential Business Information ("CBI") - Defendant may, if appropriate, declare
portions of the EMS Manual, rationale or underlying information, to be confidential
pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 2.
A-6
-------
SEP 15, 1986
Mr. John B. Slemmer
Environmental Manager
SolidTek Systems Inc.
5371 Cook load
P.O. Box 888
Morrow, Georgia 30260
Dear Mr. Slemmer:
Thank you for your letter of July 23. 1986, concerning various aspects of the definition of
hazardous waste. Let me respond to your questions in the order you have posed them.
With respect to your questions on the "mixture rule," you are correct in stating that a
facility may treat hazardous wastes that are listed in 40 CFR 261.31, 261.32, and 261.33 solely
because they exhibit a characteristic by combining them with solid wastes or reagents to
produce a new mixture.* Although the current wording of 40 CFR 261.3(a)(iii) provides that if
such a mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic for which it was listed, then it is no longer a
hazardous waste, I must advise you that the Agency may propose to amend this provision in
order to reconcile it with the new delisting requirements in the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA. Those requirements, contained in section 3001(f), state that
as part of the delisting procedures the Agency must consider factors other than those for which
the waste was originally listed. Consequently, we believe that 261.3(a)(iii) may be in conflict
with this section of HSWA.
Regarding your questions on waste codes, the best advice that I can offer you is to
employ those codes that are applicable. In the toluene example, waste code F005 would apply
(toluene comes under F005, not F002). As far as the xylene example is concerned, the correct
code is D001 since the paint is not commercial chemical product (CCP) xylene, nor is it a spent
xylene. It is, as I understand, unused paint that is being discarded. Since discarded paint is not
listed, only the characteristic would apply.
*It should be noted that a generator may perform treatment in its own accumulation tanks or
containers provided that the tank or container is operated strictly in accordance with Section
262.34 (see enclosed letter).
Faxback 11180
-------
Concerning your final question on categorizing mixtures of compounds listed in subpart
D under 261.33, the mixture in your example, osmium tetroxide and pyridine, is not a hazardous
waste essentially for the reason that you provide in a., i.e., the CCP list only applies to pure
grade, technical grade, and formulations that contain sole active ingredients; the osmium
tetroxide and pyridine combination is none of these.
If you have any additional questions on defining or categorizing hazardous waste do not
hesitate to contact me at (202) 382-4766.
Sincerely,
Matt Straus
Chief
Rate Characterization
Branch
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll305
9443.1987(30)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
NOV30 1987
Mr. Phillip C. McGuire
Associate Director, Law Enforcement
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226
Dear Mr. McGuire:
Thank you for your October 14, 1987, letter regarding the
disposal of explosive materials under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have reviewed the information you
provided concerning the detonation of seized explosives that you
believe would not fall under the RCRA Subtitle C program. We
think, however, that the seized explosives may indeed be a solid
waste from the moment a decision is made that the explosives
must be destroyed and not returned to the original owners.
The basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
opinion is that the explosives are not being used for their
originally-intended purpose (e.g., demolition of a building,
military use, etc.), but rather are being detonated to discard
the materials. The explosives, therefore, would meet the
definition of a solid waste as defined in 40 CFR Section
261.2(a) and (b). If these explosives exhibit the
characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40 CFR 261.23, they
would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations for
storage, treatment and disposal. For example, detonation of
reactive waste is considered a form of thermal treatment that is
subject to Section 265.382, and shipments to the disposal site
are subject to 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263.
We recognize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(BATF) has considerable experience in handling explosives. Your
internal procedures appear to be comparable to EPA's rules in
many respects. There are, however, some differences that may
need to be examined. For example, you state that the detonation
areas must be at least 1,000 feet from buildings, woods, etc.
EPA's regulations (Section 265.382) require farther distances
for quantities in excess of 100 Ibs.
-2-
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/CF4275COD6603F57852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
I would like to suggest that EPA staff meet with your staff
to discuss how to reconcile the RCRA rules as they apply to BATF
detonation activities. Rulemaking efforts may be required of
both agencies to resolve any inconsistencies. In order to
schedule a meeting that will be mutually convenient, please
contact Mike Petruska, of my staff, on 475-8551. We believe
that this meeting will provide the opportunity to discuss
several points including what rulemakings may have to be
undertaken by either agency, and what exemptions may be
possible.
If I can be any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
J. Winston Porter
Assistance Administrator
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/CF4275COD6603F57852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.19B-(89)
NOV i 0 ;2£J
Honorable Judd Gregg
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 205IS
Dear Mr. Gregg:
Than* you for your October 16, 1987, letter regarding the
concerns of the Selectmen of Wilton, New Hampshire, about a
recent household hazardous waste (HHW) collection day.
In the area of household hazardous waste, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has issued the enclosed information
document entitled "Household Hazardous Waste an<5 Related
Collection Programs" (October 16, 1986). EPA h£S also issued
the enclosed list of State contacts and bibliography of
information to assist planners of HHW collection programs. The
Agency sponsored a national conference on HHW in November 1986
and is sponsoring one again this year. A brochure describing
the November 1987 conferance is enclosed.
The Selectman's letter mentions that their recent HHW
collection day was incomplete because of EPA regulations that
may have precluded homeowners from bringing in certain
subst&nces. Currently, the Agency does not have any regulations
that preclude the collection of certain wastes. All household
wastes are exempt by definition from the Federal hazardous waste
regulations promulgated under Subtitle C of the Resource
conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Section 26l.4(b)(l)
unconditionally exempts household waste, including HHW, from the
Subtitle C regulations even when accumulated in quantities that
would otherwise be regulated, or when transported, stored,
treated, disposed, recovered, or reused. This exemption also
applies to household hazardous waste collected during a RHW
collection program.
Household wastes, including household hazardous wastes, are
subject to the regulations under Subtitle 0 of RCRA. The
current Subtitle D regulations governing the disposal of any
solid waste are the "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices" (40 CZB Pert 257). These
regulations are general environmental performance standards that
axe implemented by the States. Household hazardous waste can be
lo any solid waste diS£pAa4-.facility, including a
«u*cipal solid waste iaridfirr, tnat tm ±n
"CMteria" and State end-local cequirsaefi
-------
Although household wastes are exempt from the Federal
hazardous waste regulations, EPA reeommgngifi that sponsors of HHW
collection programs manage the collected HHW as a hazardous
waste. The community has already gone to the effort and expense
of separately collecting these materials and Subtitle C controls
provide a greater level of environmental protection.
The Agency also recommends the use of licensed hazardous
waste transporters who win properly identify, label, manifest,
and transport the collected wastes for recycling, treatment, or
disposal. Altnough sponsors are not required to manage HHW as a
hazardous waste, they usually contract with hazardous waste
management professionals to run the programs. These contractors
generally manage the HHW as a hazardous waste and usually make
efforts to reuse and recycle the waste.
with regard to dioxin-bearing HHW, the following should help
clarify this situation. As mentioned above, household hazardous
wastes are unconditionally exempt from Subtitle C of RCRA. This
exemption includes household hazardous wastes that contain
dioxin. Like any household waste, household hazardous wastes
that contain dioxin must be disposed of in accordance with EFA's
rules under Subtitle D of RCRA.
The RCRA land disposal ban rule issued November 8, 1986,
applies only to those dioxin-bearing wastes that are
specifically listed as hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of
RCRA. Therefore, this rule does not apply to any household
hazardous wastes and does not prohibit hazardous waste
management facilities from receiving any household hazardous
waste, even those potentially containing dioxin.
Tour constituents' letter mentioned that other materials
vere not accepted at the collection day (explosives, PCBs, gas
cylinders, etc.). Individual sponsors of the local HHW
collection days often will list those materials that they are
unable to accept. The State environmental agency is the
appropriate agency to contact for assistance in proper disposal
of these other items. Tour constituents may wish- to contact
-------
Donna Reardon at the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services. She is Administrator of the Hazardous Waste Cleanup
Fund and has much experience in the field of HHW. She can be
reached at the following address:
Donna Reardon, Administrator
Hazardous Haste Cleanup fund
New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services
Haste Management Division
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
Phone: (603) 271-2902
Than* you for your interest in the management of household
hazardous waste. If I can be of any further assistance, please
let me Know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
9441.1988(39)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AUG 30 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulation and Permitting of Laboratories
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS-300)
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
On July 19,1988, EPA promulgated an exemption for samples used in treatability
studies (53 FR 27290). To help increase awareness of the new exemption, and to clarify
the regulatory and permitting requirements for laboratories in general, we have
prepared the attached decision tree and a summary of the treatability sample rule. This
is intended to help lab managers and enforcement personnel understand the
regulations. Questions in this area may be addressed to Stephen Cochran at FTS-475-
9715.
Attachments
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
Attachment 1
DETAILED FACT SHEET
SMALL-SCALE TREATABILITY STUDIES SAMPLE EXEMPTION
Status: Final Rule, effective July 19,1988 (53 FR 27290)
OSW Contact: Paul Mushovic
1. Effect of the Rule
The final rule conditionally exempts small quantities of hazardous waste being utilized
in small-scale treatability studies from the RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Such
testing requires no prior EPA approval. Quantity limitations for treatability studies are
set per waste stream per treatment process. Limitations are also being set for quantities
shipped, and for treatment rates and storage limitations per facility.
New paragraphs (e) and (f) to 40 CFR 261.4 accomplish the following. First, persons
who generate samples are exempted from the generator and transporter requirements
when samples are shipped by the generator, or any other person who collects the
sample (the "sample collector"), to a laboratory or testing facility for the purpose of
conducting a treatability analysis, or when shipped from the facility back to the sample
collector, provided that certain packaging and labeling requirements are met. Second,
any laboratory or testing facility that conducts treatability studies may store these
waste samples and residues generated from the treatability study within the quantity
and time limits specified and not be subject to the requirements of 40 CFR, Parts 264,
265, and 270. Third, the actual testing of the samples does not require a permit,
provided the laboratory or testing facility complies with the notification requirements
in the rule and meets the quantity and time limitations specified in the rule.
Definition and Examples.
A treatability study (newly-defined) subjects a relatively small amount of hazardous
waste to a treatment process. Its purpose is to determine:
whether the waste is amenable to a treatment process;
what pretreatment (if any) is required;
the optimal process conditions;
the efficiency of the treatment process; or,
the characteristics and volume of residuals from a
particular treatment process.
A tieatability study is not to be used for commercial treatment or disposal of hazardous
waste. Examples of the types of tieatability studies included in the exemption are:
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
physical/chemical/biological treatment;
thermal treatment (incineration, pyrolysis, oxidation, combustion);
solidification;
sludge dewatering;
volume reduction;
toxicity reduction; and,
recycling feasibility.
The rule also allows the following types of waste testing studies:
liner compatibility studies;
corrosion studies;
toxicological and health effects studies; and,
other material compatibility studies (e.g., relating to leachate collection
systems, geotextile materials, other land disposal unit requirements, pumps and
personal protective equipment).
2. Purpose and Rationale of the Rule
A. Need for Simplified Procedures. The hazardous waste regulations, when applied to
waste samples used in small-scale treatability studies, are more comprehensive than is
necessary to adequately protect human health and the environment. The Agency needs
to promote research and the development of innovative technologies to manage
hazardous wastes.
B. Factors Limiting Risk. The Agency believes that the following factors combine to
ensure that the risks to human health and the environment are de minimis:
the various quantity and time restrictions contained in the rule;
the high cost of collecting and shipping the sample and conducting legitimate
treatability studies;
certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements that will enable the Agency
to conduct inspections and bring enforcement actions against persons who abuse this
exemption; and,
Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. Postal Service (USPS), or other
regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials.
The Agency also believes that sufficient professional and financial incentives are in
place to provide for the safe shipment of samples to and from, and proper handling of
samples at, laboratories and testing facilities conducting treatability studies.
3. Limitations Contained in the Rule
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
Specific limitations in the final rule ensure de minimis risk to human health and the
environment.
A. Waste Quantity Exempted per Waste Stream. There are limits on the amount of
waste that can be subject to a treatability study evaluation per generated waste stream.
The rule exempts (per waste stream per treatment process):
1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated by acute hazardous waste.
The rule also allows the Regional Administrator to grant requests for waste stream
quantity limits in excess of those specified above, up to an additional 500 kg of non-
acute hazardous waste, 1 kg of acute hazardous waste, and 250 kg of soils, water, and
debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste when it can be demonstrated that an
additional quantity of hazardous waste is needed to complete a treatability study
when:
there has been equipment or mechanical failure;
there is a need to verify previous results;
there is a need to study and analyze alternative techniques within a previously
evaluated treatment process; or,
there is a need to determine final specifications for treatment.
B. Transportation Shipment Limits. The Agency has set a single shipment limitation as
follows:
1000 kg of non-acute hazardous waste; or,
1 kg of acute hazardous waste; or,
250 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste.
These shipment limitations, covering the exemption from the RCRA hazardous waste
transporter regulations and manifesting requirements, will apply when the materials
are being shipped to a laboratory or testing facility or returned to the generator or
sample collector.
C. Facility Treatment Rate Limit. The Agency has adopted a treatment rate limit of 250
kg per day of as received waste for the entire laboratory or testing facility. "As
received" refers to the waste shipped by the generator or sample collector as it arrives
at the laboratory or testing facility.
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
D. Facility Storage Quantity Limits. The Agency has also adopted an overall storage
limitation of 1000 kg of "as received" waste per testing facility. This limitation can
include up to 500 kg of soils, water, or debris contaminated with acute hazardous waste
or 1 kg of acute hazardous waste. The Agency is making it clear in this rule that the
storage exemption only applies to laboratories or testing facilities conducting
treatability studies. The rule does not allow for intermediate
storage.
E. Facility Storage Time Limits. Any untreated sample and any residue generated
during the treatability study must be returned to the generator within 90 days of study
completion or within 1 year from the date of shipment by the generator to the
laboratory or testing facility, whichever is earlier. Otherwise, these materials must be
managed, by the laboratory or testing facility conducting the treatability study, as a
RCRA hazardous waste (unless the waste is no longer hazardous).
MTUs conducting treatability studies may qualify for this exemption. The
requirements of the exemption apply to each location where an MTU will conduct
treatability studies. When more than one MTU is operating at one location they will be
treated as one MTU facility for purposes of applying the limitations.
4. Procedure for Compliance with the Rule
Facilities conducting small-scale treatability studies would not be required to obtain
the permit; and the shipment of samples to and from facilities would no longer need to
be manifested. There are still certain procedures required to qualify for the exemption.
A. General Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being imposed to facilitate inspector
review, and if necessary, to take enforcement action. The generator of the sample (who
may also be the shipper or sample collector) and the laboratory or testing facility
conducting the treatability study must keep copies of contracts and shipping
documents for a minimum of 3 years after the completion of the study.
B. Generator-Specific Requirements. Generators and sample collectors must also
maintain records indicating the following:
the amount of waste (per waste stream and treatment process) shipped under
the exemption;
the name, address, and EPA identification number of the study facility;
shipment dates; and,
whether or not any unused sample or any residue generated from the
treatability study was returned.
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
Beginning in 1989, generators must report this information in their biennial reports. In
addition, generators and/or sample collectors who seek a variance to submit
supplemental sample material from a particular waste stream must indicate the
reasonfor the request, support the additional quantity requested, account for all sample
material previously submitted from the waste stream, and describe any technical or
equipment modifications and the corrected results.
C. Facility-Specific Requirements. Owners or operators of a study facility must:
notify the Regional Administrator or authorized State, by letter, of the intent to
conduct tieatability studies at least 45 days prior to conducting any such studies;
obtain an EPA identification number if it does not have one;
maintain records documenting compliance with the specified time and
quantity limits for treatment and storage for 3 years from the completion of each
treatability study.
Specific minimum information, by treatability study, that must be maintained includes:
the name, address, and EPA identification number of the generator or sample
collector;
Information on the quantities of and dates that waste materials were received,
stored, and tested; and,
the date the unused sample and residue were returned to the generator or, if
sent to a designated facility, the name of the facility and its EPA identification number.
By March 15 of each year, each facility must submit a comprehensive report to the
authorized State or Regional Administrator that includes the above information for all
studies or the previous calendar year and an estimate of the number of studies and the
amount of waste expected to be used in tieatability studies during the current year.
Additionally, laboratories or testing facilities that do not return the unused sample or
the residues to the generator or sample collector within the specified time limits are
subject to appropriate regulation. Facilities must determine if they meet requirements
of Subject 262.34.
5. Impact of the Rule
This exemption will reduce the overall costs and economic impact of EPA's hazardous
waste management regulations by eliminating permitting requirements for laboratories
and testing facilities intending to conduct treatability studies. Facilities and
laboratories will be spared the time (as much as 2 years) and the costs (estimated to be
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
between $100,000 and $200,000) otherwise necessary to obtain a RCRA permit. The
Agency anticipates that most of the estimated 400 facilities which will be conducting
treatability studies will include testing laboratories, research organizations, colleges,
universities, technical institutes, and those facilities involved in solid and hazardous
waste management.
6. Effective Date of the Rule
The need for more effective hazardous waste treatment alternatives and the fact that
this amendment reduces, rather than increases, the existing requirements for facilities
that handle waste samples provide good cause to make this rule effective immediately
upon publication notwithstanding Section 4(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. Section 553(d). This amendment takes effect immediately upon publication in
the Federal Register. The regulations will be applicable only in those States that do not
have final authorization. Because these changes are less stringent or reduce the scope
of the Federal program, States are not required to adopt this rulemaking, although EPA
strongly encourages States to do so as quickly as possible. EPA will expedite review of
authorized State program revision applications.
7. Agency Contact
For further information regarding the Treatability Studies-Sample Exemption, contact
Stephen Cochran at EPA Headquarters telephone No. 202-475-9715 or FTS No. 475-9715.
Attachment 2
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE LABORATORY DECISION TREE <1988/tree-01.pic>
(Place cursor on this line and press ENTER to view) <1988/tree-01.pic>
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
Guidance on Laboratory Testing and RCRA Permitting
This guidance addresses only the issue of whether materials received by a laboratory
must be handled as a hazardous waste under the federal permit or interim status
hazardous waste management standards. It does not address the issue of the
laboratory which generates hazardous wastes and whether permitting is required for
the laboratory-as-generator. Individual states (whether authorized under RCRA or not)
may also have requirements that are more strict than the federal requirements. Thus,
although this guidance may indicate that a particular activity may be conducted
without requiring a permit, in all cases the laboratory director must confirm with the
appropriate state agency whether a permit is required.
Additional assistance on all aspects of the determination process outlined in this
guidance may be obtained by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry Assistance
Hotline ((800) 424-9346, commercial (202) 382-3000; FTS-382-3000).
Step 1. Determine the type of testing that will occur.
If the testing is solely to determine a waste, soil, water, or air sample's characteristics or
composition, the sample's handling may be subject to reduced regulations under 40
CFR 261.4(d).
Step 2.
Determine whether the material is a solid waste per 261.2 (or, in the case of
contaminated soil or water, contains a solid waste). [Note: The term "solid waste" does
not refer to a material's physical form, but its legal status as a waste vs. commodity.]
This step requires looking at both the status of the material as it is handled in the
"outside world" and as it is handled in the laboratory. For instance, an EP toxic
wastewater treatment sludge which is landfilled in the "outside world" is a solid waste
and a hazardous waste; however, if it is being tested for reclamation possibilities, it
would be neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste until the experimental residues
are discarded. Another example would be an off-specification commercial chemical
product listed in 261.33. Pf,in the "outside world", it is sent for reclamation, it is
neither a solid waste nor a hazardous waste. However, if the laboratory intends to
incinerate it, it is both a solid waste and a hazardous waste. Assistance in this step may
be found by referring to the Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled
Hazardous Wastes (EPA 530-SW-86-015), or by calling the RCRA/Superfund Industry
Assistance Hotline with details about the specific situation.
Step 3. Determine whether the solid waste is a hazardous waste.
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
Refer to 261.4(b) to see if it is a "solid waste which is not a hazardous waste." If it is
not excluded by 261.4(b), refer to 261.31 -261.33, to determine if it is a listed
hazardous waste; if it is not listed, refer to 261.2 0-261.24 to determine if it is a
characteristic hazardous. For assistance, call (800) 424-9346.
Step 4. Determine whether the laboratory's activity qualifies for the treatability study
exemption at 261.4(e) and (f).
See the July 19,1988 Federal Register (53 FR 27290). Individual states may not
recognize this exemption.
Step 5. Determine whether the laboratory will be performing any of the recycling
operations on wastes which are described in 261.6(a)(3). If so, the activity is not
subject to federal RCRA regulation.
Step 6. Determine whether the laboratory will be recycling wastes in the manner
described in 261.6(a)(2). [Note: Burning for energy recovery must be legitimate
recycling. Current enforcement guidance uses 5000-8000 BTU/lb as generated (not as
blended for burning) as the dividing point between legitimate energy recovery and
incineration.]
If so, the regulations in 261.6(a)(2) refer the reader to the appropriate sections of Part
266. In some cases, these activities will require permits.
Step 7. Determine whether the laboratory's activity is recycling which may be
(currently) exempt from regulation under 261.6(c). A storage permit may be required.
Step 8. Determine whether storage of hazardous waste received from off-site occurs. If
so, a storage permit is required ( 270.l(c)) unless the activity is specifically excluded
from the permit requirement by 270.1(c)(2) and (3). Check Part 268 for additional
regulation of storage of certain hazardous wastes. Continue to step 9.
Step 9. Determine whether treatment or disposal (as defined in 260.10) occur. If so, a
permit covering these activities may be required ( 270.l(c)). Research, Development,
and Demonstration activities may be covered by a special type of permit (see 270.65).
In addition, the laboratory must refer to Part 268 for restrictions on placement of
hazardous wastes on land (if land placement is proposed).
Step 10. Verify that the activity requires a permit. Certain activities are exempt from
the permit requirement (see 270.1(c)(2) and (3)). In addition, Part 268 contains the
restrictions on land placement of certain hazardous wastes.
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc.
Faxback 11366
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 25, 1988
Michael Geary
Bio-Ecological Services, Inc.
6525 Morrison Blvd.
P.O. Box 2048
Charlotte, NC 28226
Dear Mr. Geary:
This letter is in response to your March 24, 1988, request for clarification of the status of certain
antineoplastic drug wastes. Your request was for an interpretation of 40 CFR 261.33, with respect to
excess antineoplastic drug formulations which are not needed and thus are discarded.
If an antineoplastic drug is mixed with diluents, such as water or saline solution, the excess
diluted or undiluted amount to be discarded is unused commercial chemical product. If the discarded
unused commercial chemical product is listed in 40 CFR 261.33, the material is a listed hazardous
waste regardless of dilution with water or saline because the product still would be the sole active
ingredient. However, it is not considered a "spent material." Section 261.1 (c) (1) defines & spent
material as 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. The portion antineoplastic drug, if diluted, has
not yet been used for its intended function, nor is it contaminated.
If an antineoplastic drug is mixed with diluents and with other pharmaceuticals for use, the
unused mixed excess portion that is discarded is a solid waste. If the antineoplastic drug is listed in 40
CFR 261.33, the unmixed excess portion is a listed hazardous waste provided the antineoplastic drug is
the sole active ingredient in the mixed formulation. If it is not the sole active ingredient, the mixture
would not be the listed hazardous wastes; he????? the formulation may still be hazardous if it exhibits
any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
In all of the situations you described, the material (if it met the listing in 40 CFR 261.33) would
have to be sent to a permitted or interim status hazardous waste management facility, if the facility
generates more than 1 kg per month of acutely hazardous waste, or more than 100 kg/month of non-
acutely hazardous waste. See 40 CFR 261.5(f) and (g) for the hazardous waste management options
for conditionally exempt small quantity generators of hazardous waste.
-------
In addition, any State in which you generate, transport, treat, store, or dispose of these
formulations may have regulations that are more stringent than the Federal hazardous waste rules. You
therefore should check with the State agencies to determine what regulations, if any, apply to handling
these materials.
If you have further questions regarding the status of wastes containing P-listed or U-listed
commercial chemical products, please contact Wanda LeBleu-Biswas at (202) 382-7392.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
-------
B.E.S.
BIO-ECOLOGICAL SERVICES. INC.
6525 Morrison Blvd. P.O. Box 2048 Charlotte, North Carolina 28226
Telephone (704) 364-1039
800-533-7994
March 24, 1988
U.S. E.P.A.
Office of Solid Waste
Sylvania Lawrence, Acting Director
WH-562A
401 M Street Southwest
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. Lawrence:
I am in need of clarification involving the de-listing of U-listed antineoplastic drugs used in cancer
treatment wards at hospitals and clinics. Specifically, if a U-listed antineoplastic is mixed for treatment
purposes and the remaining material is sent for disposal, is the material still U-listed?
Please address specifically:
1) Antineoplastics nixed with diluents like water or saline.
a) Is unused portion "spent" or still U-listed?
2) Antineoplastics mixed with diluents and other pharmaceuticals.
a) Is the antineoplastic in the remaining portion still the "sole active component",
thus still maintaining the U-listing?
b) Is the unusual portion "spent" or still U-listed?
I do understand that virgin product, spill material, and offspec product are listed. Are the
antineoplastics mixed for treatment still listed?
If no U-listing remains, then do these materials have to be sent to a hazardous waste incinerator or
treated as hazardous waste?
My concern is due to the fact that there are no published Threshold Limit values or LD50 values
materials. Also that there is no clear definition to determine whether these materials are "spent".
-------
Please clarify these questions in the agencies opinion. The response will be used to determine our
corporate position on matters concerning antineoplastic disposal.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (704) 364-1039.
Sincerely,
BIO-ECOLOGICAL SERVICES INC.
Michael J. Geary
Manager of Environmental and Compliance
MJG/cbr
FaxBack# 11343
-------
9444.1987(11)
SOLVENT LISTINGS FOR PAINT WASTES/REMOVER AND SPILL RESIDUE
APR 14 1987
Mr. Kurt E. Whitman
Project Coordinator
GWInc.
Post Office Box A
Saukville, Wisconsin 53080
Dear Mr. Whitman:
This letter responds to your request for clarification on the
applicability of the F001 through F005 hazardous waste listing to
four specific waste streams generated from the use of virgin chemi-
cal formulations and whether these wastes are subject to the
November 7,1986, land disposal restrictions final rule. I
apologize for the long delay in responding to you correspondence.
Each of the scenarios presented in your letter is restated
below and followed by an appropriate response which provides
clarification on whether these wastes are covered by the spent
solvent listings (i.e., EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002, F003
F004, and F005).
Example #1 - "A paint remover consisting of 55% Methylene Chloride,
15% Phenol and 30% Sodium Chromate. This material
is an outdated, virgin product. GW, Inc. assigned
a EPA hazardous waste of D002 only."
— According to the above description, the waste stream is an
outdated, virgin product and has not been utilized as a paint
remover. As such, the solvent was not used for its solvent
properties, and therefore, is not covered by the F001-F005 spent
solvent listings. If this waste stream exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity, it would be appropriately classified under EPA
Hazardous Waste Number D002.
The spent solvent listings include only those wastes generated
as a result of a solvent being used for its solvent properties,
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12906
-------
that is, its ability to solubilize (dissolve) or mobilize other
constituents (e.g., solvents used in degreasing, cleaning, fabric
-2-
scouring; as diluents, extractants, reaction and synthesis media).
Furthermore, the listing only applies to solvents that are con-
sidered spent (i.e., solvents that have been used and are no
longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or
otherwise reprocessed).
Example #2 - "A paint stripper consisting of 15% Toluene, 35%
Methylene Chloride, 10% Phenols, 20% Kerosene and
20% Paint Sludge. Analytical results show that
this is an ignitable waste (D001)."
— It appears, based on the information provided in your letter,
that the virgin paint stripper was used for its solvent properties
(i.e., to solubilize paint). The resultant waste stream probably
constitutes a spent solvent mixture covered under the F001-F005
hazardous waste listings, however, this determination depends on
the concentration of the F001-F005 constituents in the paint
stripper before use (see the enclosed FEDERAL REGISTER notice for
the solvent mixture rule). Since the waste stream contains
greater than 10% of the solvents listed in F001, F002, F004 or
F005, the virgin paint stripper also probably contained a total
of 10% or more of these solvents. If so, this waste stream
meets the criteria for an F001-F005 spent solvent mixture/blend
and would be subject to the land disposal restrictions.
Example #3 - "Spent paint waste formulation of 30% Alkyd Enamel
Resin, 15% Chromium and Lead Pigments, 20% Toluene,
5% Xylene and 30% unknown solids. The EPA hazardous
waste codes for this sludge are D007, D008 and D001."
— The spent solvent listings do not cover manufacturing process
wastes contaminated with solvents when the solvents were used as
reactants or ingredients in the formulation of commercial chemical
products. Therefore, the waste solvent-based paint formulation
described in your letter is not within the scope of the F001-F005
spent solvent listings.
Example #4 - "Spill Residue consisting of 85% Clay (Oil Zorb) and
Dirt, and 15% 1,1,1 Trichloroethane. The EPA waste
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12906
-------
code is F002 for this waste stream."
— Proper classification of this waste stream requires knowledge
of the regulatory status of the 1,1,1-trichloroethane prior to
its being spilled. If the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was a discarded
-3-
commercial chemical product, manufacturing chemical intermediate,
of off-specification commercial chemical product, the spill residue
should be classified as U226. As such, this waste is not subject
to the November 7,1986 final rule.
If however, the 1,1,1-trichloroethane was a spent solvent
prior to its being spilled, the entire waste stream would be
classified as a listed spent solvent (EPA Hazardous Waste No.
F002). In this case, the spill residue would be considered a
hazardous waste because it contains an F002 solvent. This waste
stream would be subject to the prohibitions on land disposal of
spent solvent wastes.
I hope this information adequately addresses your concerns.
Please feel free to contact William Fortune, of my staff at (202)
475-6715, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
Enclosure
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12906
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK 12956
9441.1987(52)
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL METHODS FOR LOW-LEVEL WASTES THAT
CONTAIN UNCONTAMINATED
LEAD USED AS SHIELDING, SURFACE CONTAMINATED LEAD, AND
ACTIVATED LEAD
June 26, 1987
Mr. Terry Husseman
Chair, Northwest Interstate
Compact Committee
Washington Department of Ecology
PV-11
Olympia, Washington 98504
Dear Mr. Husseman:
Thank you for your letter of May 28 in which you requested
guidance on treatment and disposal methods for low-level waste
that contains uncontaminated lead used as shielding, surface
contaminated lead and activated lead.
First, I would like to address activated or radioactive
lead. As you know, lead is not a naturally occurring
radionuclide. Lead may become radioactive or activated as a
result of neutron bombardment while being used as shielding in
nuclear power plants, for example. Such activated lead, if
short-lived, may be stored to allow radioactive decay prior to
disposal. The resultant non-activated or elemental lead may be
disposed of as hazardous waste in a hazardous waste disposal
facility. If storage for decay is impractical, the activated
lead must be managed as mixed waste. You should note, however,
that in States authorized to administer the Federal mixed waste
program or in States with Federally administered hazardous waste
programs, any storage of mixed waste in excess of ninety days for
generators and ten days for transfer facilities would require a
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit. Similarly,
designated storage facilities must obtain a RCRA permit.
Lead which is contaminated on the surface may be
decontaminated by a number of commercially available processes.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/A841642007074521852565DA006F03Cl 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
However, because lead is malleable and easily gouged or pitted,
radioactive contamination is often not limited to the surface and
may be imbedded in the lead itself. Where decontamination is
incomplete or contraindicated because of occupational health
-2-
considerations, the lead must be managed as a mixed waste. Also,
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs is developing a standard which
will delineate levels of radiation which are below regulatory
concern (BRC). Once BRC levels have been established, it may be
possible to dispose of lead which exhibits BRC levels of
radioactive contamination as a hazardous waste.
Lead containers or container liners which are used as
shielding in low-level waste disposal operations post a unique
problem. Containers or container liners are not regulated by the
Agency (See 40 CFR 261.7) nor would they be a waste because they
are fulfilling intended uses. ((CF 40 261.2(c)(l)(ii)). In
this instance, containers or liners may be analogous to
commercial chemical products (e.g., pesticides) where as a
product, their normal use is placement on the land. Therefore,
lead whose primary use is shielding in low-level waste disposal
operations is not subject to Federal hazardous waste regulations
when placed on the land as part of its normal commercial use.
Encapsulation represents a viable mechanism for mitigating
the hazardous waste characteristic lead may exhibit upon EP
toxicity testing only in specific circumstances. The EP toxicity
test procedure requires grinding the waste into pieces not
greater than one square centimeter in size prior to extraction.
Therefore, encapsulation would result in a non-hazardous waste
only in those instances where it could be demonstrated that the
encapsulation process results in a product that would not degrade
after disposal, (i.e., is resistant to degradation or fracturing
when placed in the land disposal environment). In such
instances, you could petition the Agency to waive the EP toxicity
test requirement. Additionally, the Agency is revising existing
EP toxicity test procedures. Work is underway to develop
procedures for evaluating a waste's long term physical stability.
These procedures may then be used to demonstrate that the
encapsulated material will not degrade and allow testing of an
intact lead brick or the like, for example.
The agency has not evaluated specific technologies for
encapsulation of lead or other wastes, nor has the Agency
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/A841642007074521852565DA006F03Cl 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
performed specific laboratory analyses of materials to determine
their resistance to EP toxicity test. However, a polymer or
some other material which maintains its integrity under
environmental stress would seem to be suitable.
-3-
In view of the urgency of the lead issue, it may be prudent
to explore the feasibility of obtaining both a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission license and an EPA permit to provide for the disposal
of mixed waste.
If I can be of further assistance, do not hesitate to
contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Alan Corson
Floyd Galpin
Ken Shuster
bcc: Jim Michael
Betty Shackleford
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/A841642007074521852565DA006F03Cl 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUNE 10, 1987
Ms. Beverly Brookshire, Staff Architect
Building and Service Section
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Washington, DC 20429
Dear Ms. Brookshire:
This is in response to your letter of May 21, 1987. The answers to your specific questions are
as follows:
(1) You will have to contact the District of Columbia to find out if the darkroom drains to a
publicly owned treatment works (POTW), i.e., the Blue Plains Facility.
(2) If the darkroom does drain (along with domestic sewage, i.e., untreated sanitary
wastes) to a POTW, then the photo chemicals are not solid waste, and not
hazardous waste. See 40 CFR §261.4 (a)(l).
If you have further questions, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at 382-4765.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
FaxBack# 11254
-------
May 21, 1987
Ms. Marsha Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Ms. Williams:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is planning to set-up a dark room in our building located at
1776 F Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. Before doing so, it would be appreciated if we could have
the following questions answered:
1. Does this drainage system discharge to a Publicly Owned Treatment Works?
2. Since our consumption rate is approximately 6600 (100's) cubic feet per year (annualized
based on last 88 days usage of 1584 cubic feet), should the discharge of photo chemicals
be considered hazardous waste or would we be excluded per section 261.4A12, ii?
It would be appreciated if you could direct your response to Ms. Beverly Brookshire, Staff Architect.
If you have any questions, she may be reached at 898-7307.
Sincerely,
J. David Shaffer, Chief
Building & Services Section
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AUGUST 11, 1988
Mr. Greg Steele
Safety Officer
National Institute for Petroleum
and Energy Research
Post Office Box 2128
Bartiesville, OK 74005
Dear Mr. Steele:
This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1988, requesting an interpretation of 40 CFR
Section 261.4(d) regarding the conditional exemption for samples collected for testing. After
consultation with EPA Region VI, we agreed that a general explanation of the scope of Section
261.4(d) would help clarify the issue. You should continue to deal with the State of Oklahoma
regarding an interpretation of the rules as they apply to your facility. Also, please note that a State may
impose requirements more stringent than, or in addition to, EPA's.
The scope of Section 261.4(d) is defined by the introductory paragraph (d)(l), which provides
that the sole purpose of testing must be to determine the sample's characteristics or composition; in
other words, to characterize the sample. (See 46 FR 47426; September 25, 1981.)
Paragraph (d)(l)(iv) provides that samples stored in a laboratory before testing are excluded,
and paragraph (d)(l)(v) and (vi) provide for storage of the sample at a laboratory for specific purposes.
The rule does not specifically say that all sample preparation/testing occur at a single laboratory; rather,
preparation and splitting of samples is generally viewed as part of the analytical procedures required for
waste characterization and this, in many cases, is not done at the same laboratory that does the waste
testing. Thus, as long as all the other Section 261.4(d) conditions are met, this two-stage analytical
process is allowable under the exclusion.
Finally, we note that in your letter you refer to NIPER as being "sample collector." This would
only be true, however, if NIPER personnel actually collect the sample. Being under the same contract
as the company taking the sample does not make NIPER the sample collector. If NIPER is a
laboratory, however, the exclusion could apply as described above.
-------
If you have further questions in this area, please contact Mike Petruska of my staff at (202)
475-9888.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
FaxBack# 11362
-------
Page 1 of 6
Faxback 11304
9443.1987(28)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
NOV20 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Lead-Based Paint Residues and Lead Contaminated
Residential Soils and Private/Public Housing Units
FROM: Jeffery Denit, Deputy Director.
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Walter Kovalick, Deputy Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548)
The following information is being provided in response to
your draft memorandum requesting classification of lead-based
paint residues.
BACKGROUND
As you are aware, the question of lead-based paint dis-
posal has been of concern for a long time. As early as 1904, it
was recognized that ingestion of paint and paint chips poses a
serious health hazard to children. Many buildings, both individual
residences and public housing units, especially those built
before 1950, contain lead-based paints on interior and exterior
walls, window sills, and other surfaces accessible to young
children. In addition to paint, some plasters and putties have
also been found to contain high levels of lead. Some older
primers have been found to contain from 30,000 to 600,000 mg
lead per kg of primer. Soils adjacent to residences also have
been found to contain high levels of lead due to the leaching of
the lead as a result of the weathering of the painted surface.
For instance, in a study of lead contamination in Urbana,
Illinois, lead was found in concentrations up to 12,000 ppm in
soil. Many other cities throughout the United States have similar
problems.
-2-
Numerous state and Federal agencies have been aware of
and concerned about the problem for some time and are pursuing
programs to identify lead poisoning and to remove lead-based
paint from residences. The Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Preven-
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03397582AE241A74852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 6
tion Act, as amended, provides the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) with authority to eliminate the hazards
of lead-based paint poisoning in HUD-financed and other public
residential housing. Unfortunately, the program has been hindered
by the lack of a determination of whether or not lead-based
paint residues (paint chips, peelings, etc.) should be managed
and disposed of as a hazardous waste.
ISSUES
Currently, the question of whether or not lead paint
wastes are hazardous is confused by Section 261.4 "Exclusions"
of 40 CFRPart 261, Identification and Listing of Hazardous
Waste. If these wastes are generated at a commercial facility
and exceed the EP toxicity limit of 5 ppm for lead, then they
will be hazardous wastes. However, when the paint residues
are generated at private and public residential units, the
question arises as to whether the household waste exclusion
applies (See 40 CFR 261.4(b)). This provision excludes
household wastes from regulation as solid wastes, and therefore,
as hazardous wastes. Household wastes are defined as "any
material (including garbage) trash, and sanitary wastes (in
septic tanks) derived from households (including single and
multiple residences, hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger
stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day
recreation areas.)"
In the preamble to the Federal Register notice addressing
hazardous waste identification and listing (Vol. 49, No. 220,
November 13, 1984, page 44998), EPA states that "there is no
basis for extending the household waste exclusion to waste
such as debris produced during building construction, renovation,
or demolition in houses or other residences, as EPA does not
consider wastes from these sources to be similar to those
generated by a consumer in a home in the course of daily living."
Furthermore, in the preamble to the Final Hazardous Waste
Rules, Federal Register, Vol. 45, No. 98, May 19, 1980, EPA
noted that wastes generated by Federal agencies are not subject
to the household exemption since they cannot qualify as households.
-3-
Paint wastes are exempted from regulation as a hazardous
waste if they are generated at individual households by the
houseowner doing his own removal. On the other hand, if the
removal at an individual residence is done by a contractor,
the residues are solid wastes and must be evaluated with respect
to their hazardousness (EP Toxicity) and must be disposed of
according to hazardous waste regulations if found to be hazardous.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03397582AE241A74852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 6
In cases where paint residues are regulated under Sub-
title C, then commercial contractors who are performing the
renovation work and who generate less than 100 kg per month of
paint residues (which we believe is likely), will be a condition-
ally exempt generator (Section 261.5) and their waste will not
be subject to regulation under Sections 262 through 266 of
RCRA. We believe that only large renovation projects will
exceed the 100 kg per month limitations.
While paint residues may not be regulated as hazardous
wastes, especially at private individual households or small
housing units, information should be made available to homeowners
warning them of the hazards associated with improper disposal
of paint residues. Directors should be provided regarding
the proper disposal of these wastes.
In the case of a larger commercial contractor whose activi-
ties result in the generation of more than 100 kg per month of
waste, for instance, at a public housing renovation project,
then the "hazardousness" of the waste must be determined.
In the case of lead-paint wastes, the EP Leachate Test should
be performed. If the leachate lead concentration exceeds 5
ppm, then the paint waste is a hazardous waste. If the residues
are indeed hazardous, then the generator (removal contractor)
must comply with all appropriate regulations, (e.g., Parts 262
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Wastes and
Part 263 Standards Applicable to Transporters of Hazardous
Waste), and must send the waste to a facility that is permitted
or operating under RCRA interim status.
-4-
PROCESSES THAT MAY GENERATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
There are several methods available for removing lead-based
paints; however, the conventional lead paint removal techniques
currently available are not totally effective and may exacerbate
the lead problem by dispersing lead-containing particles
throughout the residence. Newer, more effective abatement methods
which may be used for lead removal include:
Peel Away - This consists of a caustic paste that
is covered with a plastic film (calcium, magnesium,
and sodium hydroxide). This paint removal
system can be used on wood, metal, stone and
brick, flat and irregular surfaces. It should
be noted that in a demonstration project conducted
in Baltimore, waste water from the peel away
process was found to have a lead content greater
than 66 ppm, which was well in excess of the EP
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03397582AE241A74852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 6
toxicity limit of 5 ppm.
Off-Site Dipping - Wood trim, woodwork, and doors
are stripped of paint in enclosed chemical tanks
containing methylene chloride. When used for
this purpose, spent methylene chloride is a
listed hazardous waste.
High Efficiency Particle Accumulator (HEPA) Sander -
This is a power disk sander that attaches to a
HEPA vacuum to trap debris. It is used on flat
surfaces only. This method would generate a
dust which could, depending upon the lead content,
fail the EP Toxicity Test.
Replacement - Removal and replacement of wood trim
and old windows with new materials. All of the
painted wood products from the residence should
be sampled and the EP performed on the wood
samples.
In any of the above methods, if the extractable lead
exceeds 5 ppm in the waste, then it is a hazardous waste. If
the household waste exclusion does not apply then the wastes
must be handled and disposed of in accordance with the requirements
of 40 CFR Parts 262, 263, and 264, 265 and 270 as appropriate.
-5-
CONTAMINATED SOILS
In addition to painted surfaces, the soils immediately
adjacent to residences may have high concentrations of lead,
due to the lead being leached from the exterior of the structure
as the paint weathers and ages. For example, in a study of lead
concentration in Urbana, Illinois, concentrations of the lead
in the soil were found to range from 132 to 11,760 ppm adjacent
to and 240 to 6,640 ppm away from the houses.
Whether or not "contaminated" soils are considered
hazardous wastes depends upon whether or not they are 1) removed
and transported off-site of left in place, and 2) exceed the lead
toxicity limit of 5 ppm.
If the contaminated soil is removed for off-site disposal,
it must be evaluated against the characteristics to determine
whether or not the soils are hazardous. If the soils fail the
existing EP toxicity characteristic, then they must be taken
to a RCRA Subtitle C facility. In the case of CERCLA sites
such soils must be taken to a RCRA facility which is in
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03397582AE241A74852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 6
compliance with CERCLA requirements for off-site disposal.
(See OSWER Directive Number 9834.11 "Revised Procedures for
Planning and Implementing off-site Response Actions;
November 13, 1987.)
The requirements for on-site treatment of lead-contaminated
residential soils, which may seldom be practical, differs for
CERCLA and RCRA sites. For CERCLA sites, such on-site treatment
can be performed without a permit being required. However,
for on-site treatment of RCRA sites, a permit is required
unless treatment is performed in tanks or containers in compli-
ance with Section 262.34. It should be noted that any on-site
treatment must consider the requirements of the individual
states in question, which may be more stringent that Federal
requirements.
In the case of soil left on site, the property owner
will not normally be required to determine whether the soil is
a hazardous waste. For soils that are left in place, EPA or
the appropriate state agency should set clean-up levels that
will ensure that the site will not pose a hazard when returned
to normal residential use. I know that the CERCLA program often
makes such determinations. For your information, described below
is the procedure OSW plans to provide in the RCRA Clean Closure
and RFI Guidance Manuals for determining when contaminated
soils may safely be left in place and the site returned to
residential use. We have had a number of discussions with your
staff and we think that there is a general agreement on this
approach.
There are two approaches which should be used in making a
determination if further soil removal is required. The first
is to look at health-based concentration limits in surface
soils; the second is an acid precipitation leach test (method
1312inSW-846).
The health-based limits should be used to determine how
much contaminated soil will have to be removed. The RCRA Clean
Closure and RFI guidance Manuals provide direction on the appropri-
ate health-based soil no longer exceeds the health-based concen-
tration limits.
At that point, method 1312 should be run on soil samples
to determine the threat, if any, that might be posed by
remaining residual contaminants leaching into ground water.
For testing for lead, a ph of 4.2 should be used. In the
absence of better numbers, the 5 ppm threshold used for the EP
should be the limit for method 1312 as well. Since method 1312
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03397582AE241A74852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 6 of 6
is new, no data on its use is available. Once such data are
available, the ppm limit may be revised.
The removed soil should be tested against the EP after
removal to see if it fails the 5 ppm limit. If so, it must be
sent to a Subtitle C facility. If it does not fail, it can be
sent to a Subtitle D facility.
If you have any questions pertaining to the above, please
do not hesitate to contact Jerry Coalgate of my staff
Attachment
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03397582AE241A74852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
um.cw jiAiti er«»iKUf»»*eNi At PROTECTION AGENCY
., 9441.198" t€0.'
^^. e>^ ^ ~ ^ •*
IU6 i t 1987
Honorable Lloyd Bentsen
United States Senate
961 Federal Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Senator Bentsent
Thank you for your July 14, 1987, letter requesting
information relative to the concerns of your constituent,
Mr. Harrison T. Brundage. Contrary to Mr. Brundage's
information, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
not classified oil field drilling muds as hazardous substances.
These wastes are currently exempt from regulation as hazardous
waste.
As required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), EPA is currently undertaking a scientific study
of these wastes. This study will provide the basis for a
Report to Congress due by December 31, 1987. Th« etatuta
requires that the study addressi
(A) the sources and volume of discarded material generated
per year fron such wastes;
(B) present disposal practices;
(C) potential danger to human health and the environment
from the surface runoff or leachate;
(D) documented cases that prove dangerous or have caused
danger to human health and the environment from
surface runoff or leachate;
(E) alternatives to current disposal methods;
(P) the cost of such alternatives; and
(G) the impact of those alternatives on the exploration
for, and development and production of, crude oil
and natural gas or geothermal energy.
It is our intent to fully address each of these study
factors, including the economic impacts on the oil and gas
industry, in the Report to Congress. While many components
of drilling muds may be relatively benign substances, the
results of the EPA study to date indicate the presence of
some constituents of potential concern. EPA is currently
evaluating whether these constituents are present at levels
of jeten^iaj. r•military concern,.
-------
After EPA submits the Report, to Congress* there will be
a period for public hearings and comments* following which*
in June of 1988. EPA will make a regulatory determination.
Such a determination will be in the form of a recommendation
as to whether additional regulations are, or are not* needed.
The statute provides that additional regulations would take
effect only when authorized by an Act of Congress.
We trust that this explanation helps to clarify this
issue for your constituent. If I can be of any further
assistance* please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 12721
9441.1986(74)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 86
1. Hazardous Wastes Listed Solely for Subpart C Characteristics
Certain listed hazardous wastes (e.g., F003, K044, K045, and K047)
are listed solely because they exhibit a characteristic specified in
40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. The Subpart C hazardous waste characteristics
are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and EP toxicity.
(a) If analysis indicates that a mixture of one or more of these
listed wastes with a non-hazardous solid waste does not exhibit a
Subpart C characteristic, can the mixture be managed as a non-hazardous,
solid waste based on language in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii)? 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(iii) states that a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous
waste that is listed in Subpart D solely because it exhibits a Subpart C
characteristic is a hazardous waste unless the resultant mixture of
a solid waste and a hazardous waste no longer exhibits any characteristic
of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C.
(b) Is the resultant mixture subject to the delisting requirements
of 40 CFR 260.22(c)? 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2) requires that the EPA
determine whether additional factors (including additional hazardous
constituents listed in Part 261 Appendix VIII) other than those for
which the waste was listed could cause the waste to be hazardous
waste.
(c) If a waste which is listed solely because of a characteristic
dilute when generated that it does not exhibit a subpart C
characteristic, can it be managed as a non-hazardous waste based on
40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) or is it subject to the delisting requirements
of40CFR260.22(c).
(a) Yes; the mixture of a non-hazardous solid waste with a listed
hazardous waste, listed solely for a Subpart C characteristic,
is not regulated as a hazardous waste if the resultant mixture
does not exhibit any Subpart C characteristic.
(b) No; the more stringent delisting criteria of 40 CFR 260.22(c)(2)
do not apply to mixtures of solid and hazardous wastes where 40
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4AlEB8D230F3E3AB852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii) applies.
(c) The dilute waste is subject to the delisting requirements
of40CFR260.22(c).
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7706
Research: Betty Wilson
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4AlEB8D230F3E3AB852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Nov. 18, 1980
Randal M. Reynolds
Environmental Process Engineer
Gold Kist, Inc.
P.O. Box 2210
Atlanta, Georgia 30301
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
This is in response to your letter of October 30, 1980, requesting clarification of our hazardous
waste management regulations and a related question and answer sheet concerning the rinsate from the
triple rinsing of containers which have held chemical products listed in 261.33(e). You content that
such rinsate should not be considered a hazardous waste—as we indicated in our question and answer
book—unless it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C of
Part 261 or is listed as a hazardous waste in §261.31 or §261.32.
We contend that such rinsate is a hazardous waste because of the "mixture rule" of §261.3 (a)
(2) (ii) which states that a solid waste is a hazardous waste if "it is a mixture of solid waste and one or
more of the hazardous waste listed in Subpart D . ..." (see 45 Federal Register 33119). A chemical
product listed in §261.33 which is being rinsed from a container (and, therefore, being discarded) is a
"hazardous waste listed in Subpart D." The rinsing solution is a "solid waste" because it is being
discarded. The rinsate is a "mixture of solid waste and a hazardous waste listed in Subpart D."
Therefore, the rinsate is a hazardous waste. I might point out that the rinsate, in some cases, may be a
hazardous waste for additional reasons—those you point out—but the citation I have given is the bases
for the interpretation in our question and answer book.
I trust that this clarifies this matter for you. I apologize for the tardiness of this response but we
have been overwhelmed with requests for clarification of our regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
James Scarbrough w/incoming
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 13039
9443.1987(19)
AQUEOUS AS USED IN THE CORROSIVITY CHARACTERISTIC
SEP 14 1987
Mr. Stuart J. Gock
Environmental Coordinator
Printing Developments, Inc.
2010 Indiana Street
Racine, WI 53405
Dear Mr. Gock:
The following information is being provided in response to
your letter of April 6, 1987, regarding the definition of aqueous
as used in the Corrosivity Characteristic, 40 CFR Part 261.22(a)(l).
As you are aware, the corrosivity characteristic does not
specifically define what constitutes an aqueous waste. However,
we have developed guidance in defining the term "aqueous." In
particular, we consider a waste to be aqueous if it has a liquid
phase containing more than 50 percent water." (See attached letter
from Dr. John Skinner, Director of the Office of Solid Waste, on
February 26, 1985.) This position is currently in effect and you
should use the 50 percent water cut-off as a basis for evaluating
whether or not to test your wastes for corrosivity.
I should point out that we are considering reviewing this
position, as well as the need for a regulatory definition of
aqueous waste. Therefore, you should be aware that a regulatory
definition of aqueous may be proposed at some point in the
future.
If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert Scarberry, Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D251BD9E4C4A9D75852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Attachment
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D251BD9E4C4A9D75852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of4
Faxbackll559
9432.1990(03)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 13 1990
Charles Winwood
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Inspection and Control
U.S. Customs Service
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20229
Dear Mr Winwood:
Thank you for your letter of July 12, 1990 concerning the
current and future regulatory status of "empty" containers under
40 CFR 261.7.
Your statement is correct that this section allows, in some
cases, up to one inch of residue to remain in a container that
held certain hazardous wastes and be considered empty for
purposes of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
regulations. However, the "one-inch" rule is only part of the
definition of an "empty container" in 261.7(b). This definition
has three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the
container held. In other words, how one determines whether a
container is empty depends on the material previously contained.
Enclosed with this letter for your review, and for the use of
your staff, is a discussion of the Agency's interpretation and
rationale for this important provision. The current rule was our
way of defining when a container no longer poses a serious
hazard, but we did not have definitive data to support the
conclusion.
I have asked Mike Petruska, Chief of the Waste
Characterization Branch, to contact your staff. His Branch is
responsible for generator and transporter issues, and I think it
appropriate for them to meet as this would allow us to understand
more fully your concerns and to discuss alternative regulatory
definitions to rectify this situation.
My understanding of your concern is that border inspections
of containers may unknowingly expose your agents to hazardous
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6997E131FF388449852565DA006F0489 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
waste through this regulatory definition. This is a legitimate
concern, and you should note that this situation may be rectified
through our work on the administration's Export Bill pursuant to
the Basel Agreement. When it is finalized, it is anticipated
that it will subject hazardous waste that is currently exempt
from Subtitle C requirements e.g., "empty" containers) to the
provisions governing the import and export of hazardous waste.
My staff will continue working with your staff to ensure that
situations such as this are covered in the final bill.
In the interim, EPA will continue working with Customs on
training efforts such as the recently completed U.S. Customs/NEIC
training of 500 customs inspectors on the Mexican border.
Currently, we are discussing the feasibility of expanding this
effort to include joint training of U.S. and Canadian customs
officials with Environment Canada. Adequate training for
inspection procedures for hazardous waste shipments is probably
the best method of ensuring the continued safety of Customs
employees.
Thank you for your interest in this issue, I look forward to
continuing to work with the Customs Service on hazardous waste
issues. If I or my staff can be of any further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
ENCLOSURE
The definition of "empty" containers in 40 CFR 261.7 has
three parts and is dependent on the type of waste the container
held. In other words, how one determines whether a container is
empty depends on the material previously contained.
The first part of the definition applies to containers which
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6997E131FF388449852565DA006F0489 8/19/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
held hazardous wastes other than compressed gases or acute
hazardous wastes. For such containers, the regulations provide
that an empty container is one from which all wastes have been
removed that can be removed using practices commonly employed to
remove materials from that type of container, (e.g., pouring,
pumping, aspirating), and that no more than 2.5 centimeters (one
inch) of residue remain on the bottom of the container or inner
liner (40 CFR 261.7 (b)(l)(l)(i) and (ii)). Additionally, in the
August 18, 1982 Federal Register, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) provides a weight alternative to this "one-inch"
rule. Specifically, the Agency allows 3 percent by weight of the
total capacity of the container to remain in containers that are
less than or equal to 110 gallons in size. For containers
greater than 110 gallons, an empty container is one from which
all residues have been removed by normal means, and no more than
0.3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container (40 CFR 261.7 (b)(l)(iii)).
In the preamble to the August 18, 1982 Federal Register, EPA
discusses the incorrect substitution, by members of the regulated
community, of the word "or" for the word "and" at the end of
paragraph 261.7 (b)(l)(i). This substitution would lead an
individual to believe that the practice of leaving one inch of
residue in a container qualifies the container as being "empty",
whether or not all of the waste has been removed to the extent
possible using methods commonly employed. The Agency
emphatically states that this is not the case. When the two
paragraphs are correctly read together, it is clear that one inch
of residue is an overriding constraint, to be utilized only if
all wastes cannot be removed by normal practices.
The second part of the definition covers containers which
have held hazardous wastes which are compressed gases. For these
containers to be considered empty under RCRA, the pressure inside
the container must approach atmospheric pressure.
The third part of the definition covers containers that have
held acute hazardous listed in 261.31, 261.32 or261.33(e). For
such a container to meet the definition of "empty" under
261.7(b), the container must be triple rinsed with an appropriate
solvent, or in the case of a container with an inner liner, the
inner liner must be removed.
The EPA discusses the rational for the definition of "empty
container" in the preamble of the November 25, 1980 Federal
Register (45 FR 78525). "EPA believes that, except where the
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6997E131FF388449852565DA006F0489 8/19/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
hazardous waste is an acutely hazardous material listed in
261.33(e), the small amount of hazardous waste residue that
remains in individual empty, unrinsed containers does not pose a
substantial hazard to human health or the environment." However,
EPA was still (and remains) somewhat concerned with unregulated
container residues.
This concern was illustrated later in the November preamble,
when the Agency set forth three options for regulation of the
residues in "empty" containers and solicited comments on these
options, as well as any data indicating that unregulated residues
may pose a substantial hazard to human health and the
environment. The three options were 1) to require triple rinsing
for all containers; 2) to regulate the residue when it is removed
from a container; and 3) to impose a limit on the amount of
unregulated residue. Of the three options presented, EPA
considered triple rinsing for all containers to offer the
greatest protection to human health and the environment. This
approach would ensure that the only container residues left
unregulated would be trace amounts remaining after triple rinsing
or an equivalent cleaning operation. Thus, if all containers
were required to be triple rinsed before they were considered
"empty" under RCRA, the potential for environmental and health
problems associated with these containers could be substantially
reduced.
The Agency addressed the comments received in response to
the November 25, 1980 solicitation in the August 18, 1982 Federal
Register. Most commenters found the triple rinsing option
undesirable and the Agency had no data to support the proposal of
the triple rinse option based on the comments received.
Accordingly, the Agency has continued to implement the "one-inch"
rule (or the 3 percent/0.3 percent alternative) under Federal
regulations.
It is also important to note that the shipment of empty
containers which have held hazardous wastes may be registered
under more stringent or additional State, local, or Federal
regulations. For example, under the Department of Transportation
(DOT) regulations, a container which has held a hazardous
material must be cleaned and purged of its contents before the
hazardous material label can be removed (49 CFR 173.29).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6997E131FF388449852565DA006F0489 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll255
9441.1987(46)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
JUN17 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Mehanol Recovery System; Clarification of Waste Status
FROM: Matthew A. Straus
Chief, Waste Characterization Branch
TO: Clifford Ng, Engineer, Region II, AWM-HWF
This is in response to your memo of February 18, 1987, in which
you request our interpretation of the waste streams associated with a
specific methanol recovery process. First, I apologize for taking so
long in responding to your request. I hope this delay has not caused
you any problems.
With respect to your specific questions, the following is our
interpretation of how this process is regulated under the hazardous
waste rules:
1. Stream A, the methanol-laden air from the drying and granulation
step of the process, does not meet the definition of a solid
waste under RCRA because it is in vapor form and not confined in
a container.
2. The carbon beds that both condense and adsorb the methanol from
the air contains an F003 waste when the condensation of methanol
occurs. Therefore, stream B, the carbon/methanol mixture is to
be handled as a listed hazardous waste.
3. The solvent stripper is used to recover the spent carbon.
Therefore, this process is not subject to regulation. See 40 CFR
261.6(c)(l). However, any residues (stream C) derived from it is
considered an F003 waste. The spend carbon, which is the
recovered product, is not a solid waste.
4. Stream C, the condensed steam/methanol mixture is a hazardous
waste because it was derived from treating a hazardous waste (see
40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)) and stream C would remain a hazardous
waste, unless it is delisted under the provisions of 40 CFR
Sections 260.20 and 260.22 or is mixed with another solid waste
(see 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03779BB9D77EE532852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
-2-
5. Since stream C is hazardous (unless it is delisted or has been
mixed with a solid waste), then downstream tank 4 would be
subject to RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Stream F is also
derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste and, therefore,
would be a hazardous waste. As you are aware, if stream F were
sent to a POTW or discharged under an NPDES permit, then it would
not be subject to RCRA regulations.
I hope this clarifies your concerns about the waste streams from
this process. If you require additional information, please feel
free to call Ed Abrams at FTS-382-4787.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/03779BB9D77EE532852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.1937(55)
JUL 24 I98T
Honorable Helen Bentley
Rouse of Representatives
Washington, DC 20S15
Dear Ma. Bentleyt
The purpose of this letter is to provide you with nor*
information concerning th* ECU Chemicals* Hawkins Point Plant in
Baltimore, Maryland.
After receiving the May 7, 1§87 letter from SCM Chemicals, EPA.
staff in Region ZZZ and in Headquarters have been reviewing operatii
at their Hawkins Point Plant. We have not limited our review to
the issue raised in that letter* rather* we have taken a broad
approach in evaluating the plant's manufacturing and waste managene
operations.
Under the "Bcvill Anandaent" tc P,CRA, on 'mining waste
exclusion", solid **st6 £rob\ £ha extraction* benefieiation, and
processing of orec and minerals is temporarily excluded from regula
tion under Subtitle C. Based on our review of the operations at
the Hawkins Point Plant* we have concluded that the plant is
processing ilmenite ore to obtain titanium dioxide. Therefore* the
wastes from such processing at the SCM facility are temporarily
excluded from regulation by the Bevill amendment. Assuming the
wastes from this processing are the only wastes in the batch
attack lagoon* the lagoon is not subject to Subtitle C requirement*
(See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(?).) This determination regarding the
application of the ftevill exclusion is based only on the existing
information we have received from the Hawkins Point Plant.
We understand that Maryland's regulation contains an analogue
to the Bevill amendment* but that Maryland officials have taken a
more narrow view of their exclusion. Thus* SCM could continue to
be regulated under the State's current hazardous waste regulations
and be subject to the State's corrective action order. The scope
of the mining waste exclusion is a difficult issue. Given past EPA
decisions on the scope of the Federal exclusion* we believe the
titanium dioxide process at SCM is temporarily excluded from Pedera
RCRA jbtitle C jurisdiction. However* the ftate may interpret th*
scope of their exclusion more narrowly and still conport with
Federal law.
-------
Picas* let me know if you have any further questions or conmenti
on this matter.
Sincerely*
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ' ,, ,,,,,.,
944j..i3o (40)
MAY 2 I 1987
Honorable Phil Gramm
United States Senate
Washington, O.C. 20510
Dear Senator Gram&s
Thank you for your March 26, 1987, letter regarding your
constituent's concern with the mixture rule as it applies to
al activities.
Federal activities
First, you should know that the Environment*! Protection
Agency (EPA) modified its hazardous waste regulations in
Hoveaber, 1981 to exempt certain wastewater /sol vent mixtures
that contained low levels of solvents (see enclosure). These
rules actually relieved many industrial wastewater treatnent
facilities from having to comply with the hazardous waste
regulations. EPA set the concentration limits based on the
conclusion that wastewaters meeting the limits would not pose
a threat to human health or the environment. Conversely,
wastewaters exceeding the limits may pose a threat, and
therefore, remain subject to regulation. You should note,
however, that even wastewaters exceeding the limits, when
treated in t&nkc, are. exempt from regulation.
In promulgating this rule, EPA is not treating Federal
facilities any differently than other industrial wastewater
treatment facilities. Thus, if any Federal facility, including
the Naval Air Rework facility at Pensacola, Florida meets the
limits set in the regulation, the wastewaters would not be
hazardous due to their solvent content. You should be aware
that the wastewater treatment units at the Psnsacola facility
contain other hazardous waste; thus, they would be subject to
regulation under the hazardous waste regulations.
-------
Your constituent also raises the possibility that an
inequity aay exist in how EPA regulates publicly owned and
privately owned treatment works (privately owned treataent
works encoapass industrial wastewater treatment facilities,
including those that exist at Federal facilities). The
difference in regulation is not due to the Federal government's
ability to pay, but instead is the result of a statutory
mandate in RCRA Section 1004(27). The statute excludes solid
or dissolved material in industrial discharges which are
subject to peraits under Section 402 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
If I can be of any further assistance, please contact
ae.
Sincerely,
Winston Porter
Assistant Adainistrator
Rnclocure
-------
944i.l93"(94)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN
WASHINGTON. OX. 20460
Of»'CE
SOLID WASTE AND
Mr. Brian C. Sullivan
306 Secretariat Court
Crestview, Kentucky 41017
Dear Mr. Sullivan:
This is in response to your October 2. 1987, letter to
Congressman Jim Bunning regarding steel drum storage and
refurbishing. I appreciate receiving your viewpoints on the
issues you identified in your letter and hope that this letter
addresses the four specific questions you raised.
Specifically, you asked what chemicals are used to clean
drums. Drums are commonly cleaned with chemical solvents,
caustic solutions, and sometimes water. If the cleaning
solutions meet any of the definitions of hazardous waste in
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 261 (copy
enclosed), they are subject to the hazardous waste rules.
Further, the cleaning solutions are regulated by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and local sewer
authorities to the extent that they are discharged into sewers
or public waters.
In response to your question regarding the measuring of
residue in drums and recordkeeping, the enclosure to this letter
explains how one may manage "empty" drums that previously held
hazardous chemicals. The allowable amount of residue in a drum
is dependent upon the criteria found in Part 261; such as the
number of inches, volume and/or weight. These criteria vary
according to the weight of the drum. If the drum meets the
terms of the above exemption, then the person handling the drum
is not covered under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and is therefore exempt. (The person who manages the
drum could be a transporter, generator, or disposal facility,
among others.) However, I would like to clarify one point you
made in your letter. In your letter, you state that drums can
contain one inch of waste and still be exempt from regulation.
Although this may be true in certain circumstances, persons are
not allowed to leave one inch of waste in the drum if that waste
can be removed; that is, in emptying a drum one must remove Ail
waste that can be removed using the practices commonly employed
to remove materials, but in no case can more than one inch be
left in the drum. Therefore, we believe many drums will only
contain a slight residue. It should also be noted that any
-------
example, if a drum reconditioner were to accept one drum that
contair.ed hazardous residue in excess of the allowable limits,
he would have to obtain a RCRA hazardous waste permit or would
be in violation of the RCRA rules.
Unfortunately, the EPA does not have specific information on
Queen City regarding how long drums are stored before
reconditioning. As long as the drums are emptied consistent
with EPA rules, the length of storage time is not regulated.
Rather, the limits placed on the residues define a safe level of
residue left in the drum.
In response to your last question, there is a difference
between 110 drums with one-half inch of residue and one drum
full of a hazardous chemical. Generally, the more concentrated
a hazardous chemical, the more harm it may cause when it is
released. Further, it would be impractical to regulate all
drums that contain any amount of a hazardous chemical. The
risks posed by these chemicals are very small.
As mentioned above, I have also enclosed an informational
fact sheet that explains how and when drums that have previously
held hazardous chemicals may be considered "empty* and may
thereby be handled without regulation. If I can be of further
assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Honorable Jim Sunning
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12307
PPC 9441.1984(26)
CONTAINERS THAT HELD COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, DEFINITION OF EMPTY
SEP 11 1984
Mr. William M. Parker III
Akzo Chemie America
300 SWacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606
Dear Mr. Parker:
I am responding to your request for a written confirmation
of the interpretation that the RCRA/Superfund Hotline gave you.
According to 40 CFR 261.7(b) (1), containers that held commercial
chemical products from 40 CFR 261.33(f) are empty when they
have been emptied using the practice commonly used to remove
materials and no more than one inch of residue remains on the
bottom of the container, or no more than 3 percent of the weight
of the container's capacity remains if the container is 110
gallons or less in size.
Thus, pouring out the contents from a bag, then shaking
and tapping the outside of bags containing solid maleic anhydride
(U147) or solid phthalic anhydride (U190) is a common emptying
practice. This practice would likely result in empty containers
meeting the definition cited above. These "empty containers" are
not subject to Federal RCRA regulation.
Of course, the 44 states and territories that have instituted
hazardous waste programs that operate in lieu of RCRA may have
slightly different viewpoints on this issue. You should be
familiar with regulatory standards of any States you deal with.
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline (800/424-9346) can send you a
list of the State hazardous waste agency addresses and phone
numbers if you need it.
I am glad to be able to confirm the Hotline's assessment
of your emptying practices. Let me know if I can be of any
future assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D8CCD09E7E4F209E852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Studies and Methods Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D8CCD09E7E4F209E852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
Faxbacklll24
9493.1986(01)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 22 1986
Mr. Randall F. Andrews
Industrial and Agricultural Chemicals, Inc.
Route 2
Box521-C
Red Springs, N.C. 28377
Dear Mr. Andrews:
This is in response to your letter of December 27, 1985,
concerning the regulatory status of the copper plating solution
that you receive at your plant site. As I understand your
situation, you obtain from a copper plating operation a copper
sulfate bath (which exhibits the characteristic of corrosivity)
at your plant site and react it with a chelating agent to
produce a material that is registered with the North Carolina
Department of Agriculture as a commercial fertilizer. This
material no longer exhibits the corrosivity characteristic.
This material is then sold to farmers for use as a fertilizer
or is sold to fertilizer companies for inclusion into fertilizer
for resale.
Under this scenario, the copper sulfate bath that you
receive at your plant site is a solid and hazardous waste and
is subject to the transportation and storage requirements
under the hazardous waste regulations. The material that is
produced at your plant site (i.e., the commercial fertilizer),
however, is no longer subject to regulation under the hazardous
waste rules and may be managed as such. The basis for this
decision is as follows: On January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated
its final rules which deal with the question of which materials
are solid and hazardous wastes when they are recycled. Among
other things, these rules state that all hazardous secondary
materials that are placed on the land for benefical use or
incorporated into products (referred to as waste-derived
products) that are placed on the land for benefical use are
solid and hazardous wastes. (See enclosed copy of regulations.)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D0589981041F31E0852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
In the Agency's view, these practices are virually the equivalent
of unsupervised land disposal, a situation RCRA is designed
to prevent. The many damage incidents resulting from wastes
being placed on the land for benefical use bear out the
Agency's concern. This type of recycling activity has also
been a particular concern of Congress. In particular, in a
number of Congressional reports, they describe various damage
incidents involving wastes that are placed on the land for
benefical use. These reports reflect not only Congress'
concern but its intent that EPA regulate this type of activity.
Therefore, we believe that this type of recycling activity
constitues waste management and need be subject to regulatory
control.
By asserting jurisdiction over waste-derived products
that are placed on the land, we are also asserting jurisdiction
(and regulating) the materials that go into these products,
provided these materials are hazardous (i.e., exhibit one or
more of the hazardous waste characteristics or are specifically
listed). Therefore, since the copper plating solution is
corrosive, it is subject to regulation. More specifically,
the generator and transporter of this material is subject to
the appropriate generator and transporter standards, including
the hazardous waste manifest, while you (being the recycler)
would be subject to the appropriate storage standards. (See
40 CFR 261.6(b) and (c) for specific regulatory requirements.)
As indicated earlier, however, the material that is produced
at your facility ~ the commercial fertilizer ~ is no longer
subject to regulation since this material is no longer defined
as hazardous.
Since this regulation has gone through formal rulemaking,
your only alternative (at this time) is to submit a rulemaking
petition under 40 CFR Part 260.20 (See enclosure for specific
information requirements). Please feel free to give me a
call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone
number is (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus
Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D0589981041F31E0852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D0589981041F31E0852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.193"(82)
OCT 2 I 1037
NOTE TO: Vic Kimm
Marcia Williams
SUBJECT: Decontamination of Tanker Cars
This responds to your question concerning what requirements
apply to tank cars once the hazardous waste has been emptied from
them. Railroad cars containing a hazardous waste would be
considered containers. Therefore, the container residue limits
and decontamination procedures of 40 CPR $261.7 would apply to
the emptied rail cars. These provisions Include:
1. The tank car would be considered empty if:
a. all waste has been removed using commonly
accepted practices; and
b. no more than 2.5 cm (1 inch) of residue
remains on the bottom of the tank car; or
c. no more than 0.3% by weight of the total
capacity of the tank car remains in the
car.
2. In addition, if the tank car held an acutely hazardous
waste it would be considered empty if it has been
triple rinsed with a solvent capable of removing the
remaining product or it has been cleaned by another
method shown by the literature or tests by the generator
to achieve equivalent removal.
2,4,5-T/Silvex and dinoseb are considered to be acutely hazardous
wastes; EDB is only * hazardous waate.
Suzanne
cc: J. Qreenberg
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AC
WASHINGTON. O.C. 204SO
off tet of
•OLIO WA«TC ANO •McnotNcv
Mr. Henry G. Williams
Commissioner
State of New York
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, Mew York 12233-1010
Dear Commissioner Williams:
Thank you for your April 29, 1987, letter expressing
your concerns regarding our current policy on the legal status
of municipal waste combustor (MWC) ash.
- As you know. Section 223 of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, which clarifies household
waste exemption of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), addresses the statue of MWC or resource recovery
facilities. However, HSWA does not directly address disposal
of the combustion residues. Our policy regarding Section
223 of HSWA, as it applies to MWC residues, was set forth in
the preamble to the Final Codification Rule of July 15,
1985, 50 FR 28725. A copy is enclosed for your convenience.
That policy has been and continues to be that ash from municipal
waste combustion facilities is not automatically exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste.
In the fall of 1966, the Agency began a research effort
designed to provide reliable data on ash management and the
potential for environmental exposure to ash constituents.
Phase I of that effort is nearing completion. This fall we
expect to have developed a plan for aa environmentally protective
ash management strategy. We are considering both treatment
approaches] and special disposal approaches such as monofills
as options) for this strategy.
We are aware of the significant interest in the issue of
MWC ash management, and we encourage and welcome participation
by the states in its resolution. My staff, I know, has been
in close communication with staff from your office. Your
continued interest and cooperation in this endeavor is appre-
ciated.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
34 41.195
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
SEPTEMBER 67
3. Waste Identification
A company generates aerosol paint and solvent cans fron
painting and cleaning operations. The cans are empty as
per common industry practices used to empty such devices
to less than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the
container (40 CFR 261.7(b)(1(i) & (111)). The'cans nay
still contain propeliant, making the cans reactive if
put in contact with a strong initiating force .
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-6676
Research: Andy O'Hare
-------
December 12, 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Truck or Rail Shipment of Hazardous Wastes to a POTW
FROM: Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Stringham, Chief
Solid Waste Branch, Region V
This memo is a follow-up response to your September 8, 1986, request for clarification of the
POTW exclusion in 40 CFR §261.4 (a) (1) (ii).
As noted in my memorandum to you of September 25, 1986, the POTW exclusion is limited to
the circumstances and conditions of §261.4 (a) (1) (ii). Thus, a material is not a solid waste if it is "Any
mixture of domestic sewage and other wastes that passes through a sewer system to a publicly-owned
treatment works for treatment (emphasis added)." If the material does not pass through a sewer system
prior to arriving at a POTW, it is deemed to be a solid waste and, if appropriate, a hazardous waste.
Consequently, POTWs that manage wastes which have not passed through the sewer system and mixed
with domestic sewage would be subject to all applicable hazardous waste regulations. Under §270.60
(c), the POTW would be deemed to have a RCRA permit, provided they comply with the RCRA
requirements identified in that Section. In addition, the POTW would be required to manage the residues
of the treatment process as hazardous waste if the sludge either: 1) exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste, or 2) was the result of treatment of a listed hazardous waste.
We are aware of the dichotomy which regulating a material on the basis of its mode of
conveyance (Le., by truck or sewer) appears to present. This situation was discussed in the Agency's
February 1986 Report to Congress on the Discharge of Hazardous Wastes to Publicly Owned Treatment
Works (Domestic Sewage Study; Pg. 6-85). At present, however, wastes which are shipped to POTWs
by truck, rail, or dedicated pipe would not be covered by the §261.4 (a) (1) (ii) exclusion nor would the
residues from the treatment of a listed hazardous wastes at that POTW be excluded from regulation.
Cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regions I-IV and VI-X
FaxBack# 11204
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 11278
9443.1987(17)
AUG18 1987
Mr. Kevin T. Rookstool
Mineral By-Products, Inc.
240 West Elmwood Drive
Suite 2011
Dayton, OH 45459
Dear Mr. Rookstool:
This is in response to your letter of May 20, 1987, in which
you asked whether the characteristic of corrosivity, as discussed
in 40 CFR 261.22, applies only to those wastes which are aqueous
and or liquid. Section 261.22 presently applies only to aqueous
and liquid wastes, unless and until EPA promulgates a definition
of corrosivity for solids. The Agency has no plans to do this at
the present time.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
cc: David Friedman
Filomena Chau
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B9A2515736527AB4852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12624
DRY CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES WASTE NOT EXCLUDED AS HOUSEHOLD
WASTE
9441.1986(32)
APR 21 1986
Mr. Thomas J. Fronapfel, PE
Waste Management Section
Division of Environmental
Protection
State of Nevada Department
of Conservation and
Natural Resources
Capitol Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
Dear Mr. Fronapfel:
To follow up on our recent conservation, and in response
to your letter of April 2, 1986, this confirms that wastes from
dry-cleaning services and maintenance services at hotels and
motels are not excluded as household wastes under the exclusions
of 40 CFR 261.4
The exclusion cited above was intended to remove normal
households from regulatory control under the Resource Conversation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). This was extended to normal household-
type waste from hotels, motels, etc. For example, empty containers
and the like resulting from normal room cleaning or pesticide
spraying of the room could be excluded. However, dry-cleaning
and vehicle fleet or equipment maintenance are not routine
household operations; wastes resulting from such activities at
hotels and motels, if hazardous, are subject to RCRA regulatory
control.
This interpretation is for the Federal RCRA program. Since
Nevada has final authorization for the RCRA program, it is their
rules which will apply in this case; in accordance with the statute,
your regulations or standards may be more stringent than the
Federal rules. If you have any other questions, please call our
hotline at 800/424-9546 or call me direct at 902/382-4770.
Sincerely,
Alan Cor son
Deputy Director
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4DD03CA327DBEABE852565DA006... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Characterization and Assessment
Division (WH-5628)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4DD03CA327DBEABE852565DA006... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 12342
9441.1985(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 84
3.
A treatment, storage, or disposal facility (TSDF) has agreed to accept "empty
containers" per 261.7. Upon receiving the containers (55 gallon drums), the
TSDF found that although the containers held less than one inch, the containers
could be and were emptied further by inverting the container and pouring out
additional hazardous waste. According to 261.7(b)(l)(i), a container that
has held hazardous waste is empty if all wastes have been removed that can be
removed using the practices commonly employed to remove materials from that
type of container, e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating. If the TSDF further
empties the container by pouring, was the container "empty" when received even
though it held under one inch of material?
No; the container was not empty. Preamble language to the August 18, 1982
Federal Register (47 FR 36093) states that "it should be clear that one
inch of waste material is an overriding constraint and may remain in an
empty container only if it cannot be removed by normal means." this
indicates that a container must be emptied by pouring, pumping and
aspirating. Then, if the container holds less than one inch, the container
is empty per 261.7.
Source: Alan Corson (202) 382-4776
Research: Bill Rusin
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/18ADlE3205B78720852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
Manufacturing Process rJni_ts
A nanufacturing process unit that holds methylene
chloride is located within a building that is slated for
demolition. If the owner/operator (o/o) of the unit
closes the building and ceases to operate the unit, how
long does the o/o have before the methylene chloride
must be shipped off-site?
F.rsc, the owner/operator of the unit should
determine if the raethylene chloride would be
regulated as a hazardous waste. If the methylene
chloride is a spent material it would be regulated
as a solid waste if disposed of, used in a manner
constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery,
reclaimed, or accumulated speculatively (Section
251.2(c)(l), (2), (3), and (4)). If the spent
methylene chloride solution contained, before use.
ten percent (10T) or more raethylene chloride, it
would meet either the FOOl or F002 listings in
Section 261.31 and subsequently would also be
regulated as a hazardous waste, assuming the
methylene chloride regulated was utilized for its
solvent properties. If the methylene chloride is a
commer:i«l chemical product and not a spent
material, it would be regulated as a solid waste if
used in a manner constituting disposal, iispose-i
of, or burned for energy recovery (Section
26l.2(c)(l) and (2)). If the product is reclaimed
or accumulated speculativcly it would not be
regulated as a solid waste (Section 25i.2(c)(3) and
(i)). If the solvent is disposed of, used in a
manner constituting disposal, or burned for energy
recovery it is a solid waste and, due to the fact
that it would meet the U080 listing in Section
261.33(f) it would also be regulated as a hazardous
waste.
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
Manufacturing Process rJni_ts
A nanufacturing process unit that holds methylene
chloride is located within a building that is slated for
demolition. If the owner/operator (o/o) of the unit
closes the building and ceases to operate the unit, how
long does the o/o have before the methylene chloride
must be shipped off-site?
F.rsc, the owner/operator of the unit should
determine if the raethylene chloride would be
regulated as a hazardous waste. If the methylene
chloride is a spent material it would be regulated
as a solid waste if disposed of, used in a manner
constituting disposal, burned for energy recovery,
reclaimed, or accumulated speculatively (Section
251.2(c)(l), (2), (3), and (4)). If the spent
methylene chloride solution contained, before use.
ten percent (10T) or more raethylene chloride, it
would meet either the FOOl or F002 listings in
Section 261.31 and subsequently would also be
regulated as a hazardous waste, assuming the
methylene chloride regulated was utilized for its
solvent properties. If the methylene chloride is a
commer:i«l chemical product and not a spent
material, it would be regulated as a solid waste if
used in a manner constituting disposal, iispose-i
of, or burned for energy recovery (Section
26l.2(c)(l) and (2)). If the product is reclaimed
or accumulated speculativcly it would not be
regulated as a solid waste (Section 25i.2(c)(3) and
(i)). If the solvent is disposed of, used in a
manner constituting disposal, or burned for energy
recovery it is a solid waste and, due to the fact
that it would meet the U080 listing in Section
261.33(f) it would also be regulated as a hazardous
waste.
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 12679
9571.1986(04)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JULY 86
4. Mining Waste, K064, and 3004(x)
EPA published a proposed rule in the October 2, 1985 Federal Register
(50 FR 40292). The proposed rule would reinterpret the mining waste
exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7) as it applies to processing wastes.
Only large volume, relatively low toxicity processing wastes would
be excluded, specifically phosogypsum, bauxite refining muds,
primary metal smelting slags, and slag from elemental phosphorus
reduction. The reinterpretation also proposed to relist six smelting
wastes previously listed as hazardous. One of the six smelting
wastes proposed to be relisted is K064, acid plant blowdown slurry/
sludge resulting form the thickening of blowdown slurry form primary
copper production.
If EPA finalizes the listing of K064, can EPA modify existing Subtitle
C requirements under Section 3004(x) of RCRA for units handling K064?
Section 3004(x) authorizes EPA to modify existing Subtitle C require-
ments to take into account the special characteristics of mining
wastes, the practical difficulties associated with implementation of
such requirements, and site-specific characteristics.
Only large volume, relatively low toxicity processing wastes would
be excluded, specifically, phosphogypsum, bauxite refining muds,
primary metal smelting slags, and slag from elemental phosphorus
reduction. The reinterpretation also proposed to relist six smelting
wastes previously listed as hazardous. One of the six smelting
wastes proposed to be relisted is K064, acid plant blowdown slurry/
sludge resulting from the thickening of blowdown slurry from primary
copper production.
If EPA finalizes the listing of K064, can EPA modify existing Subtitle
C requirements under 3004(x) of RCRA for units handling K064? Section
3004(x) authorizes EPA to modify existing Subtitle C requirements to
take into account the special characteristics of mining wastes, the
practical difficulties associated with implementation of such require-
ments, and site-specific characteristics.
No; 3004(x) authority would not apply to K064. Section 3004(x)
authority only applies to wastes temporarily excluded under 3001(b)
(3)(A)(ii) (the "Bevill Amendment"), i.e., solid waste from
the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and
minerals, that subsequently become subject to Subtitle C of
RCRA based on the results of a 8002 study. If finalized, the
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW\rcra.nsf/Documents/55184A9460D8F96C852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
proposed reinterpretation would narrow the scope of the "Bevill
Amendment." Wastes that are no longer encompassed by the
exclusion, including this primary copper smelting waste (if
listed in the final rule), would not be mining wastes (solid
wastes from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of
ores and minerals). Therefore 3004(x) would not apply.
Source: Meg Silver (202) 382-7706
Research: Kevin Weiss
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW\rcra.nsf/Documents/55184A9460D8F96C852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
9443.1985(11)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 85
A. fCRA
1. Solvent Mixture Rule
A product contains two active ingredients, toluene and benzene. This unused
product is spilled on the ground. How is the spill and spill residue regulate
under ICRA? will the proposed solvent mixture rule in the April 30, 198S
Federal Register (SO PR 18378) affect this?
Currently, if a product with more than one active ingredient is spilled, it
will not be classified as a *P* or *U* spill residue per 5261.33 since the
product contains more than one acti<* ingredient. Tht proposed solvent
mixture rule (50 PR 18378) does not change the an**s£ since the proposed
rule only addresses spent solvent mixtures.
If the soil mixed with the spilled product meets a characteristic of hazar'
do* vssrte in Part 261 Subpert C, then the soil is * fCRA waste. If the
soil Mixture does not meet a characteristic of hazfiz&us waste, ICRA is
not applicable. CERCLA reporting may be required if the repcctable quantic
is exceeded since benzene and toluene are hazardous substances.
Sourcet Jackie Sales (202) 382-4770
Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7703
-------
Page 1 of4
FAXBACK 12615
BYPRODUCT MATERIAL, DEFINITION OF
9432.1986(10)
12 APR 86
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Byproduct Material
FROM: MarciaB. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Waste Management Division
Region IV
In response to your memorandum of March 12, 1986, we have
outlined below how you and the State of South Carolina can proceed
with permitting and/or enforcement actions leading to issuance of
a RCRA permit at the Savannah River Plant (SRP).
Universe of Mixed Waste
EPA has seen and reviewed some of the waste stream booklets
prepared by DOE facilities. We reviewed the one for SRP several
years ago, but we understand that it was since revised. The
booklets do not provide definitive lists of wastes that are and
are not regulated under RCRA. They merely provide a starting
point for negotiating with the facility to determine which
wastes are regulated under RCRA.
The definition of "byproduct material" in the Atomic Energy
Act (AEA) does not explicitly resolve the question of which wastes
are, in their entirety, byproduct material, and are thus exempt
from RCRA, and which are mixtures of byproduct and hazardous
waste and are thus regulated under RCRA. The definition of
byproduct in 10 CFR 20.3 which you referenced in your memorandum
is merely a restatement of the statutory definition and, thus,
does not provide definitive guidance to determine which byproduct
wastes are regulated and which are excluded.
DOE recently proposed a revised definition of byproduct
material (November 1, 1985, 50 FR 45736). The proposal did not
meet with favorable public comments and it is unlikely that they
will finalize the rule in the near future. The only way States
will be able to judge which waste streams at any DOE facility
should be regulated is to work directly with the facility to
make case-by-case decisions based on the AEA definition.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8B547A3C492718FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
However, EPA considers all mixed waste streams to be subject
to general regulations under RCRA. We would expect that States
with the same radioactive waste exemption as EPA would also
all mixed wastes in their regulatory universe. However,
until the States are authorized for mixed wastes, it is possible
that their interpretations of their statutes may deliver from
EPA's interpretation of RCRA.
Use of RCRA Authorities
The Savannah River Plant should provide to the state of
South Carolina a permit application for all waste units regulated
under State law. Based on that information, the State should
proceed to process and issue a RCRA permit covering all RCRA-regu-
lated units at the facility. Units containing mixed wastes (or
suspected of containing mixed wastes) are currently not covered
under the authorized RCRA program in South Carolina. However,
if the State regulates mixed wastes under State law, units
containing such wastes may also be addressed within the State
permit.
The State should obtain security clearances, where
necessary, and use its full range of enforcement authorities
to gain access to the site and to require sampling and analysis
by the facility to determine where units should be regulated.
Headquarters DOE has assured full cooperation in obtaining
security clearances for State personnel.
EPA can also use its HSWA authorities to supplement an auth-
orized State's authority over RCRA-regulated units. Under 3004(u),
EPA can jointly issue a permit with the State and impose corrective
action requirements on hazardous waste management units and solid
waste management units (SWMU's) at facilities that contain RCRA-
regulated units. Although mixed waste units are not RCRA-regulated
under authorized State RCRA programs, mixed waste will be considered
to be a "solid waste" for purposes of corrective action at solid
waste management units.
The Federal definition of "solid waste" is to be used in
determining what units are SWMU's, because State definitions were
not scrutinized in evaluating applications for State authorization
(except as was necessary to assess the adequacy of the State's
universe of hazardous waste.* Because mixed waste is considered
a solid waste under the Federal RCRA program, units containing
mixed wastes are SWMU's and are subject to corrective actions if
there is another unit requiring a RCRA permit at the facility.
* Therefore, in order to obtain authorization for corrective
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8B547A3C492718FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
action, States must obtain authorization for their definition
of solid waste, which may not exclude mixed waste.
As noted earlier, a mixed waste unit is not a RCRA-regulated
unit in an authorized State. Therefore, there must be at least
one non-mixed, hazardous waste unit at a facility in order for
EPA to subject mixed waste units to corrective action requirements
under 3004(u).
Similarly, EPA may issue an order under 3008(h) requiring
monitoring, investigation of releases and corrective action, but
the order can apply to mixed waste units only if there is one or
more unit subject to interim status requirements at the site.
Response to Specific Questions
In response to the three bullets and the three numbered
items on page 2 of your memorandum, we have the following
answers:
If you suspect that Part B's have not been submitted
for all RCRA units, EPA and/or the State should take
immediate enforcement action. You and the State should
determine who should appropriately take enforcement
action. If there are mixed waste units in question,
EPA cannot enforce submission of the Part B's in an
authorized State. While EPA cannot issue penalties to
another Federal agency, the dispute resolution process
described in the revised Federal Facility Compliance
Strategy may be used.
Review of the Part B submitted by SRP may provide you
and/or the State with sufficient information to make
such a determination. However, if it does not, then
EPA and/or the State should require SRP, through enforce-
ment action, to make such a determination through
sampling and analysis or whatever other method (e.g.,
application of knowledge of waste generation process)
may be appropriate.
As stated earlier, the booklets only provide a starting
point for negotiations. EPA HO will not be reviewing
or approving the individual facility booklets.
1. The May 10 letter to DOE did not delegate any authority,
Therefore, it need not be withdrawn.
2. The AEA definition of byproduct is the only appropriate
and legally enforceable definition that can be used.
You should sue that definition to make case-by-case
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8B547A3C492718FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
decisions, as described on page 2 of this memorandum.
3. There is no documentation available of the EPA review
of the SRP waste stream booklet.
I hope this sufficiently clarifies your and the State's
current authorities with respect to permitting and enforcement
actions you might take at SRP. We will continue to work with
you to resolve any remaining issues, and would appreciate
being kept informed about the progress you and the State of
South Carolina are making in resolving these issues with SRP.
cc: Jim Scarbrough, Region IV
Richard Campbell, Region IV
Joe Freedman, OGC
Tony Baney, OEPE
Peter Guerrero, OSW
RCRA Division Directors, Regions I-III, V-X (with incoming)
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-III, V-X (with incoming)
bcc: Henry Elsen, Regional Counsel (613),
Region X (with incoming)
State Programs Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8B547A3C492718FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 87
.\ssu-ning that the -sethylene chloride w o u 1 I be
regulated as a hazardous vaste, 40 C~R Section
251. 4 ( c ) states' that waste generated -. n 3
•nan u fact u ring process unit is not subject to
regulation until the waste exits the unit or anless
the waste remains in the unit for more than 90 jays
after the unit ceases to be operated. The October
30, 1980 Federal Register (46 FS 72024) explains
that this allowance only applies when the generator
is in compliance with Section 252.34. That is.
generators of more than 1000 kg of hazardous waste
per month have 90 days to store the waste without
having to obtain a permit or interim status. As
stated above, for manufacturing process units this
"90-day clock" begins when the waste exists the
unit or when the waste remains in the unit for more
than 90 days after the unit ceases operation.
However, the preamble in 45 FR 72024 states that in
situations where the unit does cease to be operated
for its primary purpose, the "clock" starts when
the operation stops. Thus, the preamble implies
that for the owner/operator of the above unit the
•accumulation period begins the day -hat the
manufacturing process unit is shut down.
It was not the Agency's intent to regulate wastes
\n these units unless * e waste exits the unit or
remains in the unit for aore than 90 days after the
unit is no longer in operation. Therefore,
although there is preamble language to the
contrary, the accumulation period for the
owner/operator of the above unit would begin either
when the vaste exits the unit, or if the waste
remains in the unit for more thmn 90 days, the
clock would then start on day 91.
Furthermore the October 30, 1930 Federal Register
goes on to explain that if hazardous wastes do
remain in the unit for more than 90 days after
cessation of operation, "...EPA believes that these
wastes should be fully regulated and that the units
should be regulated as storage facilities. Thus,
at that point, the owner/operator of the unit would
have to have interim status...** (45 Fjl 72024).
Source: Hike Petruska (202) 475-6676
Matt Straus (202) 475-3551
Research: Chris Bryant
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll452
9453.1989(08)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AUG2 1989
T.R. Kirk, Environmental Scientist
Fehr-Graham & Associates
660 W. Stephenson St.
Freeport, Illinois 61032
Dear Mr. Kirk:
This is in response to your letter of July 6, 1989,
requesting a clarification of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c), the
"satellite accumulation" provision. Section 262.34(c)(l) states
that, provided certain requirements are met, "a generator may
accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste or one quart
of acutely hazardous waste listed in Section 261.33(e) in
containers at or near any point of generation where wastes
initially accumulate, which is under the control of the operator
of the process generating the waste ..." Your question concerns
whether the 55 gallon limit on hazardous waste applies to the
total quantity of hazardous waste accumulated at the satellite
location, or it is applies to each waste stream accumulated at
the satellite location.
The 55 gallon limit applies to the total of all the non-
acutely hazardous waste accumulated at a satellite accumulation
area. In the enclosed Federal Register notice of December 20,
1984 (49 FR 49568) EPA explicitly states that the 55 gallon limit
on non-acutely hazardous waste applies to each satellite
accumulation area.
Although the total amount of hazardous waste that may be
accumulated at any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons,
EPA intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite
areas at a generator's facility nor specify the size of the
containers to be used for accumulation. A case-by-case analysis
is necessary to determine whether a generator is accumulating
more than 55 gallons of waste at one satellite area, or whether a
generator has more than one satellite area. An example of a
situation that would not be in compliance with the regulations is
-2-
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9F9F760AD5FDAFF0852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
given in the enclosed Federal Register notice on page 49569,
column 3. The appropriate State or EPA Regional office would
make these case-by-case determinations.
If you have any further questions regarding this letter, you
may contact Emily Roth of my staff at (202) 382-4777.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Syliva K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9F9F760AD5FDAFF0852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
3 *t t » • -»- "
APRIL 87
4. waste Derived fron Treating Exempt or Excluded Wastes
Residues from treating, storing, or diposing of hazardous waste
are included in the definition of hazardous waste ($261.3(c)(i)).
Can residues resulting from incinerating the following wastes
wr.icn are exenpt or excluded from regulation meet the definition
of hazardous waste?
(a) Asn produced by incinerating hazardous waste generated by
less than 100 kg/mo small quantity generators whose waste
is exenpt from full regulation by §261.5(b).
(b) Ash produced from incinerating only household waste which is
excluded from the definition of hazardous waste per
5261.4(S>){1).
(c) Ash produced fron incinerating EP toxic arsenical treated
wood which is excluded from the definition of hazardous
waste unde^r §261.4(b)(9).
(a) Yes, Although $261.5(b) exempts wastes from small
generators producing <100 kilograms per month from
regulation under Parts 262-266 and Parts 270 and 124,
it coes not exempt the waste from being classified as
hazardous, nor does it imply that the waste is not
hazardous. A discussion in the preamble o.f the August 1,
1985 Federal Register mentioned that any hazardous waste,
regardless of its point of origin, is hazardous waste.
This logic could only apply to < 100 kg/mo generators',
waste, as well as to > 100 kg/mo generators* waste
(50 FJR 31299). The incinerator would not be required
to have a RCRA permit in order to receive hazardous
waste from < 100 kg/mo generators per $265.1(c)(5)and
$26«4.1{g)(l), but the incinerator could itself generate
a hazardous waste ash that would be subject to
regulations under Parts 262-266.
(b) No. Section 261.4(b)(l) excluded household waste that
has been recovered (e.g., refuse-derived fuel) from
regulation as a hazardous waste. The preamble of the
May 19, 1980 Federal Register stipulated that residues
remaining after treatment (e.g. incineration) of household
waste are not subject to regulation as hazardous waste
(45 FR 33099).
(c) Yes. The exclusion for arsenical treated wood, as
discussed in the preamble of the November 25, 1980
Federal Register, pertains to arsenical-treated wood
that is land disposed by someone who uses the wood for
its intended end use, (45 FJR 78531). This exclusion
doe not extend to EP toxic waste generated by the
incineration of the wood. The incineration of the
wood may be subject to regulation if the wood exhibits the
characteristic of EP toxicity.
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Research: Kim Cotwals
-------
\
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE!
y WASHINGTON. O.C. 204CO
51987 0..ICI0.
SOLID KVASTC A*0 CMCUCCSCv «ES
Honorable Dan Quayle
United States Senator
46 East Ohio Street
Room 447
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Dear Senator Quayle:
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the concern
of your constituent, Mr. Gregory A. Smith, regarding the
disposal of used railroad crossties that are treated with
creosote.
At the present time, there are no regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) controlling
the disposal of ties treated with creosote. However, any
commercial facility that plans future disposal of these ties
should be aware that the Agency has proposed regulating any
wastes under RCRA which fail a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) for many of the toxic constituents found in
creosote. A copy of this proposed regulation may be found in
the June 13, 1986, issue of the Federal Register (Volume 51,
page 21648). I have enclosed a copy for your information.
Guidance for the proper disposal of treated wood products
has also been issued by the Agency's Office of Pesticide
Programs in the January 10, 1986, Federal Register (Volume 51,
Page 1334). This guidance statest
•Wood which has been treated with [creosote]
should be disposed of by burial or ordinary
trash collection. Do not burn treated wood
in an outdoor fire or in stoves or fireplaces
because toxic chemicals may be produced as
part of the smoke or ashes."
-------
We hope this information will be useful, we recommend
that appropriate State agencies also be contacted regarding
other licensing and regulatory statutes. if i can be of any
further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
-------
9443.1987(07)
CHARACTERISTIC OF IGNLT ABILITY
APR 16 1987
Mr. David L. Bumgarmer
Kemron
200 Putnam Street
Marietta, OH 45750
Dear Mr. Bumgarmer:
This brief note will respond to your letter of inquiry to
David Friedman regarding the interpretation of the Characteristic
of Ignitability, 40 CFR Part 261.21.
Your questions are repeated below with the appropriate
response:
We have observed apparent flashes on solvent mixtures
whose composition would imply they are nonflammable,
i.e., 99% Freon 113 mixtures containing trace levels of
cyclohexane. The flashes occur at low temperatures (20
- 40 C) and are usually not reproducible on the same
aliquot. Should these initial flashes be reported as
true Flash Points for RCRA characterization?
Yes, according to the present regulations.
Many solvent mixtures, including Freon 113, boil at
temperatures below 60 C and cannot be properly evaluated
by Pensky-Martens. How should such RCRA data be reported
to agencies and other clients?
Only those liquids that flash are considered ignitable.
Many clients request Flash Point data for soils and
other solid materials. They indicate that waste haulers
or state or Federal agencies are requiring much data.
Does EPA have a standard policy on this matter?
Current test methods (40 CFR Part 261.21) are designed
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12909
-------
for liquids only. At the present time there are no
suitable, validated procedures for determining the
ignitability characteristic of solid (non-liquid)
-2-
wastes.
We hope these answers are sufficient for your use. If you
have additional questions please feel free to call us.
Sincerely,
Florence M. Richardson
Chemist, Methods Section
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12909
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON. 0 C 20450
9432.1936(0
THE AOMINISTBATQP
Honorable Alan K. Simpson, Chairman
Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Simpson:
In your letter of March 19, 1986, you posed a number of
questions pertaining to the Subcommittees' joint hearing on
March 25 on the regulation of mixed hazardous and radioactive
substances under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and
the Atomic Energy Act.
Our responses to these questions are enclosed. Please let
me know if we can provide further assistance on this issue.
Sincerely,
Lee M. Thomas
Enclosure
-------
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JOINT MIXED WASTE HEARING — MARCH 25, 1986
Question 1;
Please identify all waste streams that contain both hazardous
waste, as that term is defined in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and source, special nuclear, or byproduct material,
as those terms are defined in the Atomic Energy Act, mixed in-
separably in a sinole waste stream. Please include in your
analysis all such waste streams, including, but not limited to
mixed wastes currently defined by the NRC as low-level radioactive
waste. For each such waste stream, identify the source of genera-
tion, the process or activity that results in the generation of
such waste, the amount of waste generated on an annual basis, the
hazardous waste substance contained in such waste stream, whether
such hazardous substance is currently regulated or is subject to
regulation pursuant to RCRA, and all treatment, storage, manage-*
ment, or disposal options currently permitted, licensed, or
otherwise authorized by EPA or by the NRC (or an Agreement State)
for such waste.
Answer:
The information requested concerning NRC-regulated wastes is
contained in two NRC reports:
( 1) An Analysis of Low-Level Wastes: Review of Hazardous Waste
Regulations and Identification of Radioactive Mixed Wastes (NUREG/
CR-4406).This report describes the types and volumes of mixed
waste currently being generated and disposed of by commercial NRC-
licensed facilities. Analyses of waste streams were not conducted
for this survey/ however, and respondents to NRC's survey account
for only 29 percent of the total low-level radioactive waste (LLRW)
disposed of in 1984. The survey focused on three broad categories
that may be radioactive mixed wastes: waste containing organic
liquids called liquid scintillation wastes (2.3% of LLRW), wastes
containing lead shielding or lead containers (.1% of LLRW), and
wastes containing chromium (.7% of LLRW).
(2) flihaqement of Radioactive Mixed Wastes in Commercial Low-
level wastes (NUREG/CR-4450).This is a draft report which is
subject to revision.
DOE also has conducted mixed waste stream studies. Reports
from these studies are now in draft form. The drafts are being
revised and the revisions have not yet been provided to EPA. The
drafts identify numerous DOE mixed wastes. The majority contain
contaminated solvents or used oil. DOE generates roughly
12 million tons per year of mixed waste.
-------
Question _'
In December of 1985, tne NRC published a report entitled
"An Analysis of Low-Level Wastes: Review of Hazardous Waste
Regulations and Identification of Radioactive Mixed Wastes"
'(NL'REG/CR-4406) . Is this report/ in your judgment, a comprene-.s :ve
summary of all low-level radioactive mixed wastes that are
currently of regulatory concern to the EPA from the standpoint of
EPA's regulatory responsibilities under RCRA? Is this report a '
complete and accurate depiction of the volumes and types of sucr.
waste, as well as the sources of generation?
Answer:
EPA believes that the NRC report is generally accurate in
describing low-level radioactive mixed waste chat is regulated by
NRC. However, EPA personnel did not perform an on-site evaluation
of the wastes. In addition, the report is not complete in that
the survey accounts for only 29 percent of such NRC-regulated
facilities. Furthermore, the report does not address low-level
radioactive mixed waste that is generated and managed by DOE.
Question 3;
with respect to the hazardous substances contained in the
•nixed waste streams identified in response to question 1, has EPA
oromulgated all of the regulations necessary to implement RCRA
(including the 1984 amendments to RCRA)? Specifically, has EPA
established all regulations necessary for: (i) any interested
party to file an application with EPA for a permit to construct
and operate a facility to dispose of such mixed wastes; and (ii)
EPA to evaluate and approve such an application? If not, what
additional regulations will be necessary, what issues will those
regulations address, and when will those regulations be in place?
In tne absence of such regulations are there any existing facilities
in which EPA permits such mixed wastes to be disposed of? If so,
where? What ^t«ps, if any, would these facilities be required to
ta
-------
Question 4;
Are there any other statutes, aside from RCRA and the Atomic
Energy Act/ that apply to the disposal of low-level radioactive
nixed wastes? If so/ please summarize tne requirements of tnose
statutes. Has EPA promulgated all necessary regulations to
implement the requirements of these statutes with respect to the
disposal of low-level radioactive mixed wastes?
Answer;
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation/ and
Liability Act {CERCLA) and the Clean Air Act (CAA) both apply to
tne disposal of low-level radioactive waste. Hazardous and
radioactive releases from a low-level radioactive disposal site
would be subject to CERCLA. Low-level radioactive waste sites
are subject to the CAA relative to radiation releases to the air.
Question 5:
With respect to the source/ special nuclear/ or byproduct
material contained in the low-level radioactive mixed waste
streams identified in response to question 1, does EPA impose
any regulatory requirements to protect the public health and
safety and the environment from the hazards posed by such
materials? If so/ please describe those requirements.
Answer:
Through EPA's Office of Radiation Programs, and pursuant to
the AEA, regulations are being developed that would establish the
minimum health standards relative to radiation release from low-
level waste disposal facilities. In addition/ EPA has already
issued such rules (40 CFR 191) pertaining to high-level waste
disposal. These standards include limits on releases over 10/000
years/ exposure to individuals, contamination of ground water,
and assurance requirements of a qualitative nature.
Question 6;
With r««p«ct to th« hazardous substances contained in the
low-level radioactive mixed waste streams identified in response
to question I, do th« regulatory requirements currently imposed
by the NRC_U.e., 10 CFR-Part 61). provide a level of protection
that is adequate to protect human health and the environment,
as required under RCRA/ if those wastes are disposed of in a
low-level radioactive waste disposal facility licensed pursuant
to Part 61?
Answer:
This question cannot b« answered fully at this tim«, since
there has never been a comprehensive analysis of the two regulatior
-------
co determine equivalent protection. On the surface, however, it
appears that -NRC's rules may not provide eauivalent protection
since they do not require protective measures similar to RCRA
standards; e.g., liner and leachate collection systems tnat were
mandated by Congress in the 1984 RCRA Amendments.
Question ":
Aside from disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive
waste disposal facility, what other options are available for the
treatment or management of low-level radioactive mixed wastes? '
Can any or all of these wastes be effectively incinerated? If so,
wnich ones? Are there facilities available that provide such a
service? If so, where? Can any or all of these wastes be decon-
taminated, eitner through chemical, mechanical, or other processes?
If so, wnich ones? Are there facilities available that provide
such a service? If so, where? Aside from these options, are
there other alternative management or treatment options now
available, or likely to be available in the future, that would
eliminate or minimize the need to dispose of low-level radioactive
mixed wastes in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal
facility? Can low-level radioactive mixed wastes be treated or
manaqed so that disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive
waste disposal facility is not necessary?
Answer;
Some constituents in low-level wastes can be effectively
incinerated. These include such wastes as solvents, paper, wood,
clothing, and plastics. If a mixed waste is involved, however,
the incinerator would need both a RCRA permit and an AEA license.
Currently, DOE has a facility in New Mexico for incinerating PCB
mixed waste. This is primarily a research unit located at Los
Alamos. Quadrex PHS, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, handles
liquid scintillation vials.
Decontamination can also be a method for managing low-level
wastes. The facilities engaged in these activities are primarily
recyclers of slightly contaminated materials (heavily contaminated
materials are avoided). Those wastes most likely to be a candidate
for decontamination are reusable materials—e.g., tools, machinery,
equipment, *nd protective clothing. EPA is not aware of any
commercial_facilitie» that decontaminate mixed waste itself.
The NRC study identified in question 1, Management of Radio-
active Mixed Waste in Commercial Low-level Wastes, addresses
management options for eliminating mixed waste streams from
commercial low-level waste.. In summary, the NRC report describes
methods that can be implemented today for reducing or eliminating
mixed waste from commercial low-level waste.
-------
Question 8:
Please summarize all procedural and substantive problems
identified by EPA with respect ^o tne regulation of low-level
radioactive mixed waste, if such waste is required or allowed
to be disposed of in licensed low-level radioactive waste
disposal facilities?
s
Answer:
The major procedural problem associated with the disposal
of mixed waste at an NRC-licensed facility is dual permitting .
to comoly with the requirements under both RCRA and AEA. (Dual
oermitting is not a concern at DOE facilities because DOE does
not issue permits under the AEA.) These requirements sometimes
are in conflict. For example, RCRA Section 264.13(a)(4) requiring
inspection or analysis of waste is an issue since it miqht expose
worKers to radiation.
The major substantive problems identified appear to be RCRA
requirements for liners and leachate collection, corrective
action, and bannina the land disposal of specific waste (all
required by the 1984 RCRA amendments).
Question 9:
What recommendations, if any, does EPA have for resolving
these procedural and substantive problems in the frameworK of the
existing law? Can any of these problems be resolved in the
frameworK of the existing law?
Answer;
As mentioned earlier* EPA is planning to propose amendments
to its RCRA rules addressing radiation hazard aspects of mixed
waste this summer. We believe these amendments will allow
resolution of some of the substantive problems in the frameworK
of the existing law,
Question 10:
What recommendations, if any, doe* EPA have for new
legislative authority eo address these procedural and substantive
problems? Please explain in detail the need and justification
for any legislative modifications recommended by EPA.
Answer:
As for the major procedural problem (dual AEA/RCRA permits),
EPA recommends legislative amendment to RCRA. As currently
written, RCRA does not allow EPA to delegate authority to another
Federal agency, such as NRC, to issue RCRA permits. The States,
in turn, can be delegated authority to regulate mixed waste as
-------
part of rne R.CRA program. This, is a viable solution to dual oer-
mitting for NRC Agreement States where NRC-licensed facilities a-e
located. It does not resolve potential substantive differences,"
howe ve r.
For DOE facilities, dual permitting is not a .concern under
either Federal or State rules. In the event of disputes (e.g.,"
whether certain RCRA rules should be waived because tney would
increase tne radiation hazard) between a State and DOE, tne «tate
could consult EPA or, if it disagrees with attempts to reconcile
differences, institute court action to resolve tne issue.
Question 11;
Does EPA support the procedural approach established in
Section 11 of S.1578, as passed by the Senate, for resolving any
conflicts between EPA and NRC in the regulation of low-level
ra'dioactive mixed wastes? Specifically, does EPA support the
delegation of EPA«s RCRA permitting authority, in the manner
described in section ll(c)(2)?
Answer;
«
EPA has two concerns with S. 1578, Section 11. These concerns
are: -
(1) The Bill as now written would create an "orphan" waste.
The orphan waste would be that which NRC banned under Section
ll(c)(3), and which RCRA sites would not want to take because of
concerns over the radioactive aspect of the waste.
(2) The Bill does not address Naturally Occurring and Accelerator
Produced Radioactive Materials (NARM). NARM wastes that are low leve^
could, of course, be handled at low-level radioactive waste sites.
The AEA does not provide authority to regulate NARM wastes. RCRA
does provide EPA with such authority, but we do not currently
regulate NARM wastes. Most States, however, do have controls for
such wastes.
Question 12;
Please comment on the Department of Energy's proposed
ruling on the definition of byproduct material. Will this rulemaKing
affect EPA's regulation of hazardous substances and mixed wastes?
Answer: "^~
In December 1985, DOE formally proposed a definition of
byproduct material. EPA commented on the proposal in February
1986, stating that a rule-defining "byproduct material" was not
necessary, and that the facility waste stream studies should be
the basis for a RCRA/DOE .mixed waste program. In effect, we
believe that the two agencies (DOE/EPA) can resolve the issues by
getting together and determining what is covered by RCRA and what
is not.
-------
Mixed waste will continue to be regulated under RCHA, recard-
less of whether or not the byproduct rule is promulgated. The
proposed definition could, however, affect what is considered to oe
"mixed waste."
Question 13;
What impact, if any, will EPA's currently ongoing revision
of its RCRA regulations, including those revisions necessary to
conform to the 1984 Amendments to RCRA, have on the ability of
tne States to meet their obligations pursuant to Public Law 99-
240? Will these revisions have any impact on the ability of tne
States to meet the milestones, or any other requirements, in
Public Law 99-240? Will the regulations, currently under
development by EPA to implement the 1984 RCRA Amendments apply to
a low-level radioactive waste facility that accepts low-level
radioactive mixed waste for disposal? If so, what impact will this
have on the selection, licensing, construction, and operation of
sites in accordance with the framework established in Public Law
99-240?
• «.
Answer:
EPA's response to the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
will require a number of major modifications (e.g., location
standards, air standards, and new waste listings and characteristic
to the RCRA standards over the next few years. These new rules
could have an impact on the State programs under RCRA and the AEA.
They could have have an impact on the siting and permitting/licensinc
of new low-level radioactive waste facilities by 1993, as required
by the Low-Level Radioactive Policy Act Amendments of 1986, if
these facilities also handle hazardous or mixed waste. Since RCRA
standards apply to mixed waste* it would be necessary for States to
comply with both RCRA and NRC requirements. There are differences
between these regulatory requirements—such as RCRA requirements to -
analyze waste and to collect and remove leachate at disposal sites—
that would have to be reconciled with NRC requirements. In addition,
State RCRA programs will be under continuous revision in order to
maintain the statutorily mandated equivalence to the Federal RCRA
program as new rules are promulgated. The uncertainty of RCRA
requirements might affect States abilities to site LLW facilities,
if these facilities were also intended to handle mixed waste, we
would note, however, that any regulatory program is subject to
review and-*+vision at any time. This situation is not unique to
RCRA.
Question 14:
What steps, if any, have EPA and NRC taken, to ensure that
the regulatory requirements of RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act are
applied, with respect to low-level radioactive mixed wastes, in
accordance with the reguirements of section 1006U) of RCRA?
("Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to (or to
-------
authorize Any State, interstate, or local authority to regulate
any activity or substance wnicn is subject to....tne Atomic Energy
Act of 1954...except to the extent that such application (or
generation) is not inconsistent with tne requirements of such Act."'
Answer:
:
EPA and SRC are wording together to coordinate their regulatory
responsibilities for mixed waste. The preparation of the two
NRC reports cited in the answer to question 1, which identify the
universe of mixed waste, was an essential first step.
In addition, EPA, NRC, and DOE are examining two options to
ensure consistency between RCRA and the AEA: separate jurisdiction
based on primary concern and delegation of authority. Under the
first option, Congress could divide the mixed waste universe into
pieces, with each piece regulated by a single authority (NRC or
EPA) under only one statute. The waste would then be exempt from
regulation by the other statute. One way to do this would be to
examine each waste stream and assign jurisdiction based on primary
concern about the waste stream (i.e., radioactivity or other
hazards). One problem with this option would be deciding which
criteria to use to determine the primary concern and/or to-assig_n
jurisdiction. In addition, since RCRA is a dynamic program,
this approach likely would require a waste stream evaluation each
time there is a new RCRA hazardous waste characteristic or waste
listing. This requirement for continuous reevaluation could be
modified, however. For example, we could create a mechanism that
would cluster amendments to the RCRA rules and only periodically
mandate that DOE and NRC pic* up these changes. This option
would require a statutory change to exempt certain mixed waste
from the AEA or RCRA.
The second option for issues relatinq to NRC would be to
continue co have multiple jurisdiction, but co enable delegation
of permitting and enforcement authority to one agency and provide
for that agency, in turn, co delegate to its implementing States.
This approach could woric in on* of two ways: (1) delegate RCRA
permitting and enforcement co NRC (i.e., NRC would issue the RCRA
permit at AEA/NRC sices) or (2) delegate AEA licensing and
enforcement authority to EPA (i.e.* EPA would issue and enforce
the AEA/EPA license at RCRA sites). Once again, tne agency with
jurisdiction could be determined based on the primary concern
with the wrote stream. Either delegation would require a
legislative' amendment to the statute whose authority is delegated.
This approach still would require EPA and NRC to resolve
regulatory conflicts or differences, but it would avoid the
problems and costs of dual" permitting and enforcement.
Question 15;
Please describe the applicability of RCRA to Department of
Energy facilities.
-------
Answer?
RCRA applies to all DOE facilities that generate, store,
treat/ or dispose of hazardous waste.
Question 16;
Please describe how mixed wastes at Department of Energy
facilities are regulated under RCRA.
Answer:
DOE facilities are currently subject to RCRA if they generate,
store* treat, or dispose of hazardous waste. The majority of
States are authorized to operate hazardous waste control programs
in lieu of the Federal EPA program. Mixed waste, however, is
currently beyond the scope of authorized State programs. Therefore,
in these States, mixed waste can be regulated only under State
law. In unauthorized States, however, EPA has authority to
regulate mixed waste.
*
Question 17;
Please comment on S. 892. Do you support this bill? Please
explain.
Answer:
This bill would amend the RCRA definition of "solid waste-
to include source, special nuclear or byproduct materials when
those materials are mixed with solid waste, and (1) when those
materials are in the generation, transportation, storage, or
treatment stage, or (2) when those materials are disposed of at
an AEA facility or~~DOE or other unlicensed locations. Section 5
provides that these amendments shall not be construed as altering
the intent of Congress as to whether RCRA applies to mixed waste
disposed of at NRC-licensed facilities. Despite this disclaimer,
the bill does raise questions as to EPA's authority over mixed
waste at NRC-licensed facilities because it is not mentioned
explicitly in Section 4 with DOC wastes. Waste disposed of at a
"repository* (under the Nuclear Haste Policy Act of 1982) would
also not be included as solid waste under RCRA control. For
these reasons, EPA would suggest a modification in language to
clarify th^se points.
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11246
9443.1987(09)
May 13, 1987
Mr. John Whitehead
Assistant Product Manager
Madison Chemical Industries, Inc.
490 McGeachie Drive
Milton, Ontario L9T 3 Y5
Dear Mr. Whitehead:
I am responding to your letter of May 4, 1987, to Mr. Alan
Corson requesting confirmation of your interpretation concerning
the regulation, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), of containers that packaged urethane coating chemicals.
Specifically, you stated that since none of the chemicals
used in your two-part urethane coating system are currently
listed as "P" or "U" wastes in 40 CFR 261.33, the residues in the
containers are not hazardous wastes and, therefore, you would not
need to determine whether the containers are empty in accordance
with 40 CFR 261.7.
Your interpretation is partially correct. Part 261.7 deals
with any hazardous waste residues left in containers, not just
the commercial chemical products listed in Part 261.33 (or those
hazardous wastes listed in Parts 261.31 and 261.32). Therefore,
it also will be necessary to demonstrate that the container
residues do not exhibit any of the hazardous waste
characteristics (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or
extraction procedure (EP) toxicity) before stating that the
residues are not hazardous. If the residues, in fact, are
hazardous (i.e., they exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic)
then Part 261.7 should be used to determine whether the container
is empty.
If you require additional information, please contact Ed
Abrams at (202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Robert M. Scarberry
Chief, Listing Section
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D4B4FDBD46BD56EC852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
cc: Alan Corson, EPA/OSW
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D4B4FDBD46BD56EC852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.1987(16)
RESIDUES FROM U.S. NAVY SALVAGE FUEL BOILER
March 17,1987
Dr. Wladimir Gulevich, Ph.D., P.E., Director
Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management
Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of Waste Management
llth Floor, Monroe Building
101 N. 14th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Dr. Gulevich:
This letter is in response to the various conversations we
have had and your letter of January 15,1987, in reference to the
U.S. Navy salvage fuel boiler plant in Norfolk. I have also
received from you EP tox data which indicate some ash from this
plant exceeds EP concentration levels for lead and cadmium. I
understand the U.S. Navy has proposed that residues from this
plant be exempted from hazardous waste regulation by way of two
regulatory exclusions.
The exclusion at 40 CFR, Section 261.4(b)(4) applies to
residue primarily from combustion of coal or other fossil fuels.
There is insufficient information to determine whether residue
from the Norfolk facility qualifies for this exclusion. On
January 13,1981, the Agency offered an interpretation (copy
enclosed) on the question of whether this exclusion extends to
combustion wastes that result from the burning of mixtures of
fossil and other fuels. In that interpretation, the exclusion
was defined to include all wastes generated in the combustion of
coal-waste mixtures where coal makes up more than 50% of the fuel
mixture. This interpretation is still operative.
The "household waste exclusion" of 40 CFR 261.4(b)(l) turns
not on the composition of the waste, but on whether the
particular source of the waste can properly be characterized as a
household. Based on the information you have provided, we see no
basis for a conclusion that the Navy salvage fuel boiler plant is
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12884
-------
a household. In addition Section 223 of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 modified RCRA to provide an exemption
for wastes at certain resource recovery facilities handling
-2-
municipal solid waste. Based on the information available at
this time, we do not believe there is a basis for excluding these
boiler plant wastes under this provision.
The Agency is vigorously investigating the issue of disposal
of residues from municipal waste combustion. We are aware of the
growing concerns involved, and we are moving as rapidly as is
prudent to acquire the data necessary for regulatory strategy
development. I would be happy to meet with you, per your
request, to discuss this issue. We can arrange a mutually
convenient time following your receipt of this letter.
Thank you for your continued communication and cooperation.
I look forward to seeing you soon. With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Gerry Dorian
Environmental Scientist
cc: Truett DeGeare
Mark Greenwood
Pat Pesacreta
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12884
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12859
9453.1987(01)
SATELLITE ACCUMULATION AREA AND REGULATIONS
February 11, 1987
Brent C. Bradford
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0690
Dear Mr. Bradford:
Robert Duprey, Director of the Waste Management Division in
Region VIII, forwarded your letter of January 8, 1987 to this
Office. This letter contains our response to the questions you
raised regarding issues relating to the Federal regulations for
satellite accumulation under 40 CFR 262.34(c).
1. What is the intent of the Federal regulation with respect to
the total amount (volume) of hazardous waste at each satellite
accumulation area?
A generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of
hazardous waste, or one quart of acutely hazardous waste, in
containers at or near any point of generation where the waste
initially accumulates and which is under the control of the
operator of the process. EPA believes that only one waste would
normally be accumulated at each satellite are, and that the
exempted accumulation should be limited to 55 gallons. Although
the total amount of hazardous waste that may be accumulated at
any one satellite area is limited to 55 gallons, EPA
intentionally did not limit the total number of satellite areas
at a generator's facility nor specify the size of the containers
to be used for accumulation (though we believe many facilities
will use 55-gallon drums).
2. Does the Federal regulation limit the number of containers
that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area?
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5A67CFDB2F85EB2C852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
The Federal regulations do not limit the number of
containers that can be placed at a satellite accumulation area,
rather, the regulations limit the total gallons accumulated to
-2-
55.
3. As described in the Utah proposed interpretation, will Utah
be equivalent to the Federal regulations if the State allows more
than 55 gallons of hazardous waste to be accumulated in more than
one drum..., but require personnel training, preparedness and
prevention and contingency plans?
No, a "satellite accumulation area" is limited to a total
accumulation of 55 gallons, not 165 gallons as proposed.
4. Is Utah's interpretation of "three days" to mean three
"working" days equivalent to EPA's intent?
Yes.
5. Will Utah be equivalent to EPA if we require that the date be
placed on the full drum?
Yes, if a facility uses 5 5-gallon drums, then the date
excess accumulation began must be clearly marked on the drum.
I trust that the above discussion answers your questions and
concerns relating to the Federal satellite accumulation
requirements. If not, Chet Oszman of my staff (202-382-4499) is
willing to provide clarification as needed.
Sincerely,
Susan E. Bromm
Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Kent Gray, State of Utah
Robert Duprey, Region VIII
Patricia Brechlin, Region VIII
Chester Oszman, PSPD
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5A67CFDB2F85EB2C852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 1
1 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 1100
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023
December 11,2001
Mr. Edward W. Pickering
Environmental Science Services, Inc.
272 West Exchange Street, Suite 101
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
Re: Applicability of Household Hazardous Waste Exemption in University Dormitories
Dear Mr. Pickering:
Thank you for your letter of June 19, 2001 to Mr. Ken Rota requesting clarification of the
applicability of the exemption for household hazardous waste (HHW) in 40 CRF 261.4(b)(l).
Specifically, you asked whether this exemption applies to certain wastes generated in dormitories
and other housing facilities owned and operated by colleges and universities?
The following are the two scenarios that you described in your letter, and our responses.
1. A student completes homework assignments in his/her private room in a dormitory or other
housing facility. Some assignments, such as art and modeling projects, result in generator of
spent solvents, paints and other wastes that would meet the definition of listed hazardous
waste and/or characteristic hazardous wastes. Are these wastes exempt under the household
waste exemption?
Response: In order for a waste to meet the HHW exemption, it has to meet two criteria: the
waste must be generated by individuals on the premises of a temporary or permanent residence,
and be composed primarily of materials found in the wastes generated by consumers in their
homes. (49 FR 44978: November 13, 1984). In general, EPA would consider wastes from
student art and modeling homework assignments generated in this manner to be exempt under
the household hazardous waste exemption. The exception would be if homework assignments
were given for the purpose of avoiding regulation. For example, a university could not claim the
HHW exemption for laboratory waste by setting up its laboratory facilities in dormitories.
2. A University provides a workroom within a dormitory or other housing facility for students to
complete homework assignments, including art and modeling projects. The workroom is
equipped with a sink and collection containers for wastes generated from student projects.
The University provides these collection containers as a good management practice to
promote proper handling of these wastes. Periodically, these collection containers are
brought to one of the university's hazardous waste storage areas. Is the waste collected in the
workroom exempt from RCRA regulation under the household waste exemption? Can the
university bring this waste to one of its waste storage areas as a generator without being
classified as a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF)?
Toll Free -1-888-372-7341
Internet Ad dress (U RL) http://www.epa.gov
Recycle/Recyclable Printed w ith Vegetable Oil B ased Inks on Re cycled Pa per (Minim urn 25 % Po stconsu mer)
-------
Mr. Edward W. Pickering
Page 2
Response: In general, EPA also would consider wastes from student art and modeling homework
assignments generated in this manner to be exempt under the household hazardous waste
exemption. Again, the exception would be if homework assignments were given for the purpose
of avoiding regulation.
A university will not become a TSDF under the federal regulations simply by bringing exempt
HHW from a dormitory to one of its hazardous waste storage areas. Rather, the HHW will
become subject to regulation as a newly generated hazardous waste when it is commingled in the
hazardous waste storage area with other non-exempt hazardous waste. All of the wastes in such
a central storage area should then be stored and ultimately disposed in accordance with all
applicable hazardous waste requirements.
Finally, you should consult with each State in which a university is located. Each State may have
more stringent requirements, or amore stringent interpretation of the above requirements.
I hope the above responses address your concerns. If you have any further questions on this
letter, please contact either Jui-Yu Hsieh or Stephen Yee of the Hazardous Waste Unit at
(617) 918-1646 or (617) 918-1197, respectively.
Sincerely,
Marv Rosenstein, Chief
Chemical Management Branch
Office of Ecosystem Protection
Associate Director of Waste Policy
cc: Ken Rota, EPA-OES
Gary Gosbee, EPA-OEP
Jeffrey Fowley, EPA-ORC
Laurie Grandchamp, RI DEM
Stacy Ladner, MEDEP
Peter Marshall, VT DEC
Bill Sirull, MA DEP
John Duclos, NH DBS
Dave Sattler, CT DEP
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
MAY 13, 1981
OFFICE OF WATER
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
Mr. Steven C. Wittmer
Environmental Facilities Engineer
MERCK SHARP & DOHME
West Point, Pennsylvania 19486
Dear Mr. Wittmer:
Your letter of March 26, 1981 requests our interpretation of the RCRA hazardous waste
regulations as applied to products eventually discarded at your West Point plant.
40 CFR §261.33 is the controlling provision: the materials you describe, including U245,
become hazardous wastes "if and when they are discarded or intended to be discarded...". [Emphasis
added]. We underscore the word "when" because the event of discard, or the time of decision to
discard, is determinative. Until a material referenced by section 261.33 is actually discarded, or the
decision is made to discard the material, it is not subject to RCRA regulation.
As we understand, the decision by Merck Sharp & Dohme whether to discard a given product
is not made until after the product has been returned to the West Point plant, following a check by your
Security Department. Moreover, as we understand, your procedures for segregating returned goods for
reclamation or disposal via either incineration or landfill take place only at the West Point plant. Given
these facts, and assuming that your branch operations have no role in the decision to discard a particular
material, we conclude, as to materials in the form of commercial chemical products on the P or U lists of
40 CFR §261.33, that the materials are not yet within the RCRA regulatory system when shipped to
West Point from the branch operations. We agree with your reasoning that West Point is "the place
where the goods become a waste."
I trust this interpretation will be helpful. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
Hazardous and Industrial Waste Division (WH-565)
FaxBack# 11012
-------
MSP
MERCK
SHARP
DOHME
DIVISION OF MERCK & CO., INC., WEST POINT, PENNSLYVANIA 19486
March 26, 1981
Mr. Alan Corson,
Chief-Waste Characteristics Branch
Hazardous Waste Management Division (AW-465)
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Corson:
I recently had the opportunity to meet with Ms. Claire Welty from your office, at our plant on March 6,
1981. During her visit, I briefly summarized a matter concerning hazardous waste management that has
been of concern to our Company. Ms. Welty recommended that we submit this matter in writing to
your office for consideration.
Merck Sharp & Dohme, Division of Merck & Co., Inc., is located in West Point, Pennsylvania where
we manufacture ethical pharmaceutical and biological products. Finished goods are shipped to sixteen
branch operation facilities located throughout the country. The finished goods are then distributed to
customers from the branch operation facilities. A small percentage of the finished goods are returned to
the branch operation facilities on a regular basis. Usually returns occur when a pharmacist has kept a
product beyond the expiration date. Occasionally, a pharmacist may return a product for some other
reason, such as lack of sales. Also, a product may be returned if we initiate a recall for any one of
numerous reasons. These return goods are shipped from all sixteen branches to our West Point plant.
Most return goods shipped to West Point are discarded either for business reasons or because Food
and Drug Administration regulations prevent us from recovering them. Once they reach the plant, return
goods are disposed, but only after they have been checked at our plant under the supervision of our
Security Department. They are either incinerated or transferred to a solid waste crusher for destruction
prior to being landfilled. In this manner, we can account for and control the disposal of all return goods
in a uniform manner at a central location. The centralized control of our return goods has been
practiced effectively for over 30 years. It is essential to our standards of practice to assure uniformity in
handling products, even when discarded.
After careful review of the Part 261 regulations, Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, we have
determined that some of our return goods should be ultimately disposed of as a
FaxBack# 11012
-------
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
March 26, 1981
hazardous waste. Accordingly, we have established procedures to segregate the return goods so that
proper disposal can be assured.
One of our products was listed as an acutely hazardous waste (P025) on May 9, 1980 but was
reclassified as a toxic waste (U245) on November 25, 1980. Since it was unknown at the time the
regulations went into effect whether or not the return goods shipment to West Point contained more than
1 kilogram of that product each month, it was determined that each of our branch operations facilities
should register as a generator and a treatment, storage, disposal facility (TSDF). This included
notification of all ten EPA Regional Administrators. The TSDF portion of the notification has since been
withdrawn based on an evaluation of our standard operating procedures. We have not withdrawn the
generator notification because we are not sure if the branch operation facility is a generator of hazardous
waste or if the West Point plant is the generator of hazardous waste for that fraction of return goods
ultimately disposed as hazardous waste.
In the comments preceding the regulations, the EPA stated that "any material which is intended to be or
is in fact thrown away, abandoned or destroyed is a "waste", (emphasis added). Because most return
goods are discarded, it remains unclear to us whether or not the "intent to discard" language in the
preamble to the regulations means that the branches' return shipments to West Point, in the absence of
the small quantity provisions, would be subject to the requirements of Parts 263 and 264. If branches
are generators we face the probability that we will have to establish different return goods procedures
for branches located in states whose regulations vary from the federal ones. The resulting loss in
uniformity would present increased potential of security and administrative problems.
However, since branches have authority only to return the goods to West Point and only the West Point
site has authority to actually discard the goods, we believe that it is reasonable to regard West Point as
the place where the goods become a waste. This interpretation is consistent with the regulations'
purpose of assuring proper disposal of wastes, since all return goods are tracked under our internal
system and the disposal of goods would be managed in compliance with hazardous waste regulations
where applicable. Following this approach, we would not have to establish different compliance
procedures in different states according to their generator standards, and we could maintain a uniform
procedure. Uniformity in procedures results in better security and control, which, in turn, helps to
assure compliance with the hazardous waste regulations.
FaxBack# 11012
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
March 25, 1981
As it is our objective to comply with the hazardous waste regulations, we would appreciate your review
of our situation to determine whether our interpretation is correct that insofar as returned goods are
concerned, our branch operation facilities are not subject to the hazardous waste generator standards of
the regulations. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
Steven C. Wittmer, Environmental Facilities
Engineer, Facilities Engineering
SCW:cg
FaxBack# 11012
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11358
9441.1988(36)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL29 1988
Mr. Sol L. Colon
Environmental Quality Official
Western Fher Laboratories, Inc.
P.O. Box 7468
Ponce, P.R. 00732
Dear Mr. Colon:
I am writing in response to your letter dated June 13, 1988, in
which you requested our interpretation of the hazardousness of a
waste generated and treated at your facility in Ponce, P.R. Also,
you requested confirmation that your treatment process does not
require a RCRA permit.
Specifically, you treat a liquid waste containing about 18%
acid and 1% organic material by evaporating some of the water
(which is condensed and sent to the facility's wastewater treatment
plant) and transferring the concentrated acid solution to a
concrete mixer where it is mixed with kiln dust to form a dry solid
for disposal.
On July 8, 1988, Ed Abrams, a member of my staff, telephoned
you to determine the composition of the 1% organic component of
your waste and the type of kiln dust. Your response identified the
organic materials as organic acids such as oxolic and tartaric
acids, and not organic solvents. Also, you identified the kiln
dust as cement kiln dust, a solid waste which is not a hazardous
waste (see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(8)).
Assuming that your liquid waste being treated is only
characteristically hazardous because of corrosivity, the dry waste
generated from the treatment would not be considered hazardous if
it does not exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(see 40 CFR 261.20-24), but your operation would be considered
treatment of a hazardous waste. However, since it is being done at
the site of waste generation in tanks, a RCRA permit would be
required only if you stored your waste for periods exceeding 90
days prior to treatment. If treatment was being done off site, a
RCRA storage permit would be required in any case.
-2-
If you require additional information, please contact either
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/026869210192A542852565DA006F040B 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Mr. Angel Chang in EPA Region II, or Mr. Ed Abrams of my staff at
(202) 382-4787.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director,
Characterization and Assessment
Division
cc: Mr. Angel Chang, (2AWM-SW Rm 1000)
EPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/026869210192A542852565DA006F040B 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12946
9441.1987(45)
CONTAINERS USED TO HOLD LISTED CHEMOTHERAPY DRUGS
JUN 16 1987
Mr. Fred Kamienny
Vice President
PRN Service, Inc.
1210 Morse
Royal Oak, Michigan 48067
Dear Mr Kamienny:
This responds to your letter of April 13, 1987, regarding
the regulatory status of chemotherapy drugs and related supplies.
In particular, you questioned whether the weight of the "empty"
vial should be included in determining the amount of drug residues
to be disposed.
As you pointed out, several chemotherapy drugs are listed in
40 CFR 261.33(f) (commonly known as the U-list). As such, these
wastes are regulated under the EPA hazardous wastes regulations
(unless subject to the small quantity generator exclusion). Included
in the listing are the following discarded commercial chemical
products, off-specification species, container residues, and spill
residues:
1) chlorambucil (U035)
2) cyclophosphamide (U058)
3) daunomycin (U059)
4)melphalan(U150)
5)mitomycinC(U010)
6) streptozotocin (U206)
7) uracil mustard (U237)
Under EPA regulations governing the management of hazardous
wastes, any container used to hold these chemicals (such as vials)
are considered hazardous wastes unless these containers meet the
criteria of an "empty container." Under the empty container
provisions such vials are excluded from regulation if the material
has been removed by pouring, pumping, and aspirating, and no more
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/86AD2CDEFEC77625852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
than 1 inch of residue remains in the bottom of the vial or no
more than 3 percent by weight of the total capacity of the container
remains in the container. (See 40 CFR 261.7)
-2-
The Agency is aware, however, that prudent practice dictates
that materials contaminated with these chemicals (such as syringes,
vials, gloves, gowns, aprons, etc.) not be handled after use.
Therefore, to minimize exposure to these toxic chemicals, the
Agency recommends that the entire volume of waste be weighed and
that there be no attempt to remove any residue from the vial
before disposal.
Chemotherapy drugs that are not listed hazardous wastes are
not regulated by EPA. However you should contact your State or
local government regarding the management of these chemicals.
Also, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) provides guidance
on handling and management of antineoplastics. Contact Harvey
Rogers, at NIH for further information. Mr. Rogers may be reached
at (301)496-7775.
If you should have any further questions regarding regulatory
requirements for specific wastes, you may call RCRA Hotline at
(800) 424-9346, or contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202)
382-4805.
Sincerely,
Jacqueline W. Sales, Chief
Regulation Development Section
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/86AD2CDEFEC77625852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 5
FAXBACK 12816
DELISTING ISSUES RELATING TO EPAS MOBILE INCINERATOR
9433.1986(20)
DEC 11 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Delisting Issues Relating to EPA's Mobile Incinerator
TO: David Wagoner Director
Waste Management Division
Region VII
FROM: Bruce Weddle, Director
Permits and State Programs Division
This memo serves to summarize the questions resolved, and
data to be submitted as discussed in a conference call on
December 8, 1986 with Myles Morse of my staff. The questions
discussed included the extent of coverage of the delisting
decision for the Denney Farm site (originally proposed on June 5,
1985); redefinition of the terms of the contingency testing
requirements; areas of the original petition that would
remain "grandfathered" and data requirements and scheduling
for a new petition demonstration regarding waste from Syntex
Corporation.
First, you asked if the residue generated from the incineration
of an additional (approximately) 550 drums of waste would be
covered by the original decision and therefore be considered
non-hazardous under the terms of the exclusion. The wastes in
these drums were described as either "derived from" wastes from
the processing of the Denney Farm soil and soil from the Piazza
Road site. You indicated that many of these drums contained
"garbage" form these sites which may have included laboratory
debris from processing samples of these wastes as well as
disposable clothing worn during the sampling efforts. As Myles
and Steve Hirsch of our Office of General Counsel (OGC) indicated,
these wastes would be covered by the original delisting decision
since they would have been implied as similarly stated in category
No. 13 "Soils and other materials from clean-up from Baldwin Park"
of the field demonstration categories in the proposed decision
(see 50 FR 23722). The original decision therefore, would not
have to be reopened for public comment to treat these wastes. We
do, however, need an accurate description of these wastes and
their estimated volumes for the file and to assure OGC that this
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B7CCD23FB819C7AE852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 5
interpretation is correct. Several other drums were described
as containing solvent and stillbottom wastes. Neither Region VII
nor Frank Freestone of our Edison Lab adequately described this
waste or its source. Therefore, since it could not be surmised
over the phone that these wastes were in any way derived from the
original 13 categories of the exclusion, we could not conclude
that the exclusion covered these drums. We will further evaluate
whether this waste is covered by the original decision if more
detailed information is sent concerning this characterization and
souce of this material, including your basis for believing that
it is a waste derived from the original categories.
The second question regarding the original decision was
whether the definition of "batch testing" for the contingency
testing program could be changed, and would such a change neces-
sitate reopening the decision for public comment. You indicated
that the requirement of sampling and testing each tank of waste-
water for mercury, selenium and chromium generated during the
field demonstration, and the testing of daily composites of
samples from each CHEAP roll and each drum of ash, were too
prohibitive logistically and economically. We can propose to
change these conditions to cover a less frequent sampling regime
(i.e., weekly instead of daily), however, this would reopen this
portion of the decision. That is, an amendment of this nature
would need to be proposed Federal Register allowing a suitable
public comment period. The original proposal included language
that indicated if representative data on at least 10 samples were
submitted and were below the limits of 0.03, 0 14, 0.68 ppm for
mercury, selenium, and chromium, respectively, in the wastewater,
and 0.044 and 0.22 ppm for mercury and selenium in both the CHEAF
media and ash, then the Agency would drop the testing conditions.
During the conference call, Frank Prestone indicated that you had
collected representative test data. This data (on the wastewater,
CHEAF media, and ash) should be submitted to the Variances Section.
If the data indicate that these materials are consistently non-
hazardous, then we can publish a notice amending the decision to
drop the testing requirement completely. If the data is satis-
factory we should be able to propose this change within a few
weeks. This amendment would not reopen any other parts of the
previous decision to public comment, that is, we will not require
the application of different TCDD detection limits as a result
of this amendment.
You should submit an explanation of the rise in chromium
levels noted in some samples due to the chromium content of
patching material used on the refractory after removal of parti-
culate build-up in the refractory. You should also identify
which samples this affected. We are not at this time indicating
that this is an acceptable variation. We will need to review the
data and determine if a sufficient number of samples have been
tested before this decision can be made. If a suitable number of
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B7CCD23FB819C7AE852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 5
samples, (at least forty five if non-parametric statistical
procedures are used) are presented it may be possible to use
an average chromium level rather than a maximum level in our
evaluation.
Your third concern was whether any new (lower) detection
limits for TCDD would be applied to the original decision if
reopened for either of the reasons mentioned above. As already
mentioned the only situation where a different TCDD level would
be considered would be in a new petition request for a waste not
covered by the previous decision. The TCDD levels used in the
original decision will not be changed as a result of amending
the decision to remove the contingency testing conditions.
The final topic of discussion was the initiation of a new petition
action for the Syntex waste. It will not be necessary to resubmit
descriptive data on the treatment system. You should however
describe specific alterations in flow through rates, residence
time, etc. The waste to be incinerated needs to be adequately
characterized. This should include physical description of the
waste, estimated volume and historical knowledge of the generating
source and a description of how the charge was prepared.
Representative samples of this particular waste matrix must be
treated and representative samples of the wastewater, CHEAP media
and ash must be tested to suitable Appendix VIII parameters
(including all priority pollutants). The conditions of the test
burn should be described as well as the sampling procedures of the
waste for treatment and the sampling procedure of the treatment
residues for analysis. The volumes of treatment residues should
be estimated for the total volume of Syntex waste to be treated.
Frank Freestone asked whether analytical data collected from
earlier samples of the Syntex waste could be used in evaluation.
This data can be used if you can describe the sampling procedure
for both the untreated waste and the treatment residues in enough
detail for us to determine how representative these samples were
of the waste remaining to be treated, and if the key conditions
of the trial burn, (i.e., residence time) were similar enough to
the actual conditions that will occur during treatment.
Using the recommended test methods in SW-846, the detection
limits for all other Appendix VIII constituents other then the
TCDD's do not fail below the ppb range. The Characterization and
Assessment Division (CAD) is currently working with ORD and the
Chlorinated Dioxin Workgroup to determine if the assumptions
made about the mobility of dioxin through environmental media
and subsequent exposure levels were too stringent. We will let
you know if our health standards change as a result of this
review. To date, we have not promulgated a regulatory standard
for dioxin which is applicable to delisting evaluations. As
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B7CCD23FB819C7AE852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 5
previously mentioned we are considering using various exposure
scenarios such as overland sediment and soil transport and ground-
water transport. If we determine that dioxin containing wastes
should be evaluated using the OLM (see 51 FR 41032-41100, Nov. 13,
1986) and the VHS model (see 50 FR 48887, Appendix, Nov. 27, 1986)
then a regulatory standard of 0.2 ppq and a solubility of 0.2 ppb
would be used in conjunction with the volume of treatment residue
to determine an acceptable dioxin level in the incineration
residue. If the CAD finds that other exposure routes are more
relevant for dioxin wastes then the use of these scenarios may result
in a less conservative level of concern.
We have attached a list of maximum acceptable levels of some
Appendix VIII constituents based on the health based standards
and the minimum attenuation allowed through the OLM and VHS
models currently used by the Variance Section. It should be
noted that the attached levels only apply to a landfill waste
management scenario (i.e., exposure to contaminated groundwater
from landfilling of the treatment residue). It should also be
noted that although the standards for some of these constituents
are extremely low, we would not require detection limits below
those normally achievable using the recommended extraction and
analytical procedures from Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste (SW-846). (We can make the detection limits from SW-846
available to you if you do not have them.) Where hazardous
constituents in a waste are not detected using appropriate
analytical methods, we will, as a matter of policy, not use
those constituents as a basis to regulate the waste as hazardous.
We will make every attempt to meet your April deadline
for this new petition. However, it should be noted that if a
complete petition with all necessary descriptions and test data
is not received before the end of December, then achieving your
April 1, 1987 deadline becomes less likely. Even if all necessary
data is received by January 1, 1987, we would need to propose a
decision in the FR by January 30, 1987. A thirty day comment
period brings us to the first week of March, leaving us less
than a month to address public comments and finalize the decision
in the FR. This process usually takes 6 months from the date we
receive a complete petition. We will attempt to accelerate the
process as much as possible. It should be noted that petitions
are handled as they are submitted (i.e. on a first come, first
served basis). We are currently acting on about 150 active
petitions, therefore an accelerated schedule on a new petition
could have an adverse effect on the schedule of several other
petitioners in your Region.
If you have any additional questions concerning the original
Denney Farm decision or about information requirements for the
new petition, please call Myles Morse of my staff at FTS 382-4788.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B7CCD23FB819C7AE852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 5
Attachment
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B7CCD23FB819C7AE852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK 12438
9441.1985(03)
July 31, 1985
LABORATORY WASTE EXCLUSION
Mr. Vincent J. Tersegno
2749 Delk Road, S.E.
Marietta, Georgia 30067
Dear Mr. Tersegno:
Mr. Mitch Dubensky of the Office of Water Regulations
and Standards forwarded your letter dated December 7, 1984, to
the Office of Solid Waste since the exclusion you discussed in
40 CFR §261.4(d) applied to hazardous waste regulated by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
As you know, the laboratory waste exclusion insures that
waste samples are not subject to all the hazardous waste regula-
tions while the waste is being handles by the sample collector,
transporter and laboratory for the purposes of waste character-
ization. The amendment specifically avoided using the word
"generator" since the exclusion intended to designate any
person collecting a potentially regulated sample.
The enclosed copy of the September 25, 1981, Federal
Register notice provides further explanatory material in
the preamble. On page 47426, the first full paragraph of the
middle column explains that samples are sent for testing to
determine whether or not the waste is hazardous. Furthermore,
testing to identify the composition or characteristics of a
sample is not treatment as defined in §260.10(a) as stated in
Section C on page 47428. The first sentence at the top of the
right column on page 47428 says any laboratory that treats or
stores hazardous wastes prior to disposal must comply with
applicable RCRA regulations since these activities are not
covered by the exclusion.
The waste is excluded from RCRA regulations as long as it
meets the §261.4(d) terms. At the site where a waste is produced,
the storage and transportation prior to shipment to a testing
laboratory is not regulated. The term "generator" is defined
in §260.10(a) as the person at a given site whose act or process
produces RCRA hazardous waste or whose act first causes a
hazardous waste to become subject to regulation. Therefore,
in many cases, waste covered by the laboratory exclusion has
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/613F7219C4594EA9852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
had no generator as long as the waste is covered by the
laboratory exclusion. If the waste is sent back to the site
it came from, the waste would be subject to regulation then,
and the generator would be at the original site. If the waste
was kept by the laboratory for disposal, the laboratory is the
generator. If the waste was sent back to a third party who
collected the waste for analysis, that collector is generator.
(Of course, some of these parties may be small quantity generators
subject to §261.5.) The second sentence in the second paragraph
of Section II on page 47426 of the preamble says the samples
are shipped from the generator or sample collector, but the
regulation only refers to sample collectors. The regulation
is worded appropriately because the sample collector may not
be the person who is ultimately considered to be the generator
of the waste.
Enclosed is a copy of the October 30, 1980, Federal Register
which specifies that several people may qualify as the generator
of waste. Although the specific examples in Section III
on page 72026-7 do not apply directly to your inquiry, the
multiple definition idea means that the term sample collector
could be the person who owns the waste or the person who actually
removes the waste aliquot for analysis. No doubt your laboratory
has made contractual agreements with your customers regarding
the disposition of samples that specifies returning waste to
the site it came from, in which case sample collector refers
to the company that paid you to take aliquots of waste for them.
As you can see, the preambles and Agency explanations
sometimes clarify the intent and coverage of the regulations.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response sponsors the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline which can answer many of these kinds of
questions toll free on a routine basis at 800-424-9346. Of
course, many States have authorized hazardous waste programs
which have taken the place of the RCRA program. States may have
more stringent requirements, so you should confer with them
regarding specific State requirements. The Hotline can provide
you with a list of the State Agency contacts.
If you have any other questions about this issue, please
do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 382-4804.
Sincerely yours,
Irene S. Horner
Environmental Protection Specialist
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
Enclosures
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/613F7219C4594EA9852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/613F7219C4594EA9852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12018
LIABILITY OF A SERVICING COMPANY AS A GENERATOR OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE
PPC 9451.1980(01)
December 2, 1980
Michael Ridge
Manager, Environmental Health
Carrier Corporation
Carrier Tower
P.O. Box 4000
Syracuse, New York 13221
Dear Mr. Ridge:
This is in response to your letter of August 19, 1980, to
Ms. Eileen Claussen requesting clarification of our RCRA
hazardous waste management regulations as they pertain to
hazardous waste generated in the field servicing of air
conditioning equipment.
Your letter indicates that in servicing air conditioning
equipment owned by your customers, your servicemen may remove
waste oil, spent refrigerant and other materials from such
equipment and, because these materials are to be discarded, they
are solid wastes and may be hazardous wastes. You basically ask
whether your company is a generator of hazardous waste (or
whether the owner of the equipment being serviced is the
generator) and what are your company's responsibilities, if any,
are in managing such hazardous waste.
We interpret our regulations such that, when hazardous
wastes are generated in the servicing of equipment (air
conditioning or other types of equipment), both the owner of the
equipment being serviced and the person (company performing the
servicing are generators and are jointly and severally liable for
performing the generator's responsibilities of Part 262 of our
regulations. We hasten to point out, however, that we will allow
and, in fact, prefer one of these parties to perform the
generator duties. And, where one party, in fact, does perform
those duties, we will look to that party as the generator and
normally will not bother the other party. However, we feel that,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/823A9F3A46E84A45852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
from an enforcement position, we must hold both parties jointly
and severally responsible. A discussion of this can be found in
the preamble to a recent amendment we promulgated in 45 Federal
Register 72026-72027, a copy of which is enclosed.
I hope I have helped clarify our regulations for you. If
you would have additional questions, please do not hesitate to
write, call or come see me. I apologize for the tardiness of
this response but we simply have been overwhelmed with requests
for clarification of our regulations.
Sincerely yours,
Gary H. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
Enclosure
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Jack Lehman w/incoming
Regional A&HM Division Directors, Regions I, III-X
w/incoming
Water Division Region II w/incoming
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/823A9F3A46E84A45852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbacklll42
9441.1986(27)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
April 2, 1986
Mr. Lean E. Lataille
Senior Environmental Scientist
Mabbett, Capaccio, and Associates, Inc.
2067 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140
Dear Mr. Lataille:
This is in response to your letter dated March 12, 1986,
concerning the regulatory status of off-spec and broken mercury
thermometers that are reclaimed under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act hazardous waste rules. In general, these off-
spec and broken mercury thermometers are not subject to any of
the hazardous waste regulations. In particular, the hazardous
waste regulations indicate that commercial chemical products
I/that are reclaimed are not solid wastes. Since a material must
be a solid waste in order that it be hazardous, they are not
defined as a hazardous waste. The mercury thermometers (as I
understand) are unused products that are either off-spec or are
broken during the manufacturing process; thus, these thermometers
are defined as commercial chemical products. Therefore, these
mercury thermometers are not subject to the RCRA hazardous waste
rules.
You should be aware, however, that States may choose to
regulate these materials when they are sent for reclamation.
Therefore, you need to contact representative in the State
hazardous waste program to determine the regulatory status of
these off-spec and broken mercury thermometers under the State
hazardous waste rules.
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if I
can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/OB4F5B8DE27197D1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/OB4F5B8DE27197D1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll418
9441.1989(17)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
APR 14 1989
Elizabeth W. Rovers
Project Engineer
C.T. Male Associates, P.C.
50 Century Hill Drive
P.O. Box 727
Latham, New York 12110
Dear Ms. Rovers:
This letter responds to your March 15, 1989 request for
clarification of the regulatory status of your client's plastic
packing media removed from an air stripping tower that is
treating groundwater contaminated with the F001 solvent
trichloroethylene (TCE). In particular, you asked how the
"derived from" rule applies to the plastic media (i.e., is the
media a hazardous waste?) and whether the media, even when
treated to non-detectable levels, would have to be delisted to
lose its status as a hazardous waste.
The plastic packing media, when removed from the air
stripping tower for disposal, is considered a spent material that
is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste because it
contains a hazardous waste (i.e., F001). The "derived from"
rule (40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)) is not directly applicable because the
plastic packing media is considered to be an integral part of the
treatment process, not a solid waste residue derived from the
treatment of a hazardous waste. Therefore, when the media no
longer contains the hazardous waste, it no longer is considered
to be a hazardous waste and may be disposed in a Subtitle D
landfill. The plastic packing media does not need to be
delisted; however, the burden of demonstrating that the media no
longer contains a hazardous waste remains.
You also stated that your client intends to treat the
TCE-contaminated plastic packing media to non-detectable levels
by volatilization. You did not provide enough information on
this aspect of the process for me to determine whether a permit
is required; however, I can state that volatilization does
constitute treatment, as defined at 40 CFR 260.10.1 urge you to
contact the appropriate EPA Regional Office, as well as the State
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/BC7B7275AA42AE8F852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
-2-
regulatory agency to determine whether a permit is required.
Also, you should be aware that State and local governments may
have applicable regulations that differ from Federal
regulations. You should contact the State regulatory agency to
determine whether other regulations are also applicable.
Should you need further general information, you may contact
the RCRA Hotline at 1 -800-464-9346, or Mitch Kidwell, of my
staff, at (202) 382-4805. For questions specific to your
client's facility, you should contact the appropriate EPA
Regional office and the State regulatory agency.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
"Edwin F. Abrams for"
Robert W. Dellinger, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/BC7B7275AA42AE8F852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
EPA: 530-R-98-005d
NTIS: SUB-9224-98-004
2. Universal Waste Transfer Facility Storage Time Limit
The universal waste management standards of 40 CFR Part 273, Subpart D, outline the streamlined
provisions for transporters of hazardous waste batteries, pesticides, and thermostats classified as universal
waste. During the normal course of transportation, transporters of universal waste are allowed to
temporarily hold waste shipments at transfer facilities for ten days (§273.53). Section 273.6 defines a
transfer facility as any transportation-related facility such as a loading dock, parking area, or storage area
where a transporter can store universal waste. If the transporter exceeds the ten-day storage time period
at a transfer facility, with what additional regulations is the transporter required to comply?
If a transporter stores universal waste at a transfer facility for more than ten days, the transporter would
meet the definition of a universal waste handler, and would be required to comply with the universal waste
handler regulations under Part 273, Subparts B and C (60 FR 25501; May 11,1995). The definition of a
universal waste handler includes facilities that receive universal waste from other handlers, provided they
do not impermissibly treat, dispose, or recycle universal wastes. As a universal waste handler, the
transporter may need to comply with additional notification, labeling/marking, employee training, and
tracking requirements. The transporter normally would not be required to obtain a permit for storage,
however, unless the transfer facility becomes a destination facility, as defined in §273.6.
Faxback 14186
-------
EPA530-R-01-0041
PB2001-103 672
RCRA, SUPERFUND & EPCRA CALL CENTER MONTHLY REPORT
December 2001
1. Cabinets as Satellite Accumulation Areas
A large quantity generator may accumulate hazardous waste without obtaining a
RCRA permit in containers at or near the point of generation provided he or she
complies with the satellite accumulation standards in 40 CFR Section 262.34(c). These
standards require that the containers be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste" or
with other words that identify the contents of the container (§262.34(c)(l)(ii)). If the
generator has a satellite accumulation area that is located inside a cabinet, does a
hazardous waste label placed on the outside of the cabinet fulfill the marking
requirement, or must each individual container within the cabinet be labeled?
Placing a label with the words "Hazardous Waste" on the outside of the cabinet may
satisfy the satellite accumulation area marking requirements provided the cabinet meets
the definition of container. A container is a portable device in which material is stored,
transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled (§260.10). As a satellite
accumulation area, the cabinet would have to be located at or near the point of generation
and be under control of the operator of the process where the wastes are initially
generated. In addition, the generator would have to maintain the cabinet in accordance
with the container standards. These standards require that the cabinet be in good
condition, be made of materials compatible with the waste that would be stored in it, and
must always be closed during storage except when waste is being added or removed
(§262.34(c)(l)(i)). If the cabinet does not meet the definition of container and cannot be
managed according to the applicable container standards, each individual container
within the cabinet would need to be labeled and managed in accordance with all other
satellite accumulation area requirements.
FB 14587
-------
9441.1936(17)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
5.. Definition of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Section 261.2(e)(l)(i) was promulgated on January 4, 1985, (50 FH 664) as
part of the ncv definition of solid waste. It states tr.au rr^aterials are net
solid wastes when they can be shown to be recycled by being used or reused
as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product, provided tne
materials are not being reclaimed. This is significant because materials
that are not solid wastes per §261.2(e) (1)( i) are not hazardous wastes, and
therefore, are not subject to RCRA regulations.
A chesr.ical manufacturing plant generates spent sulfuric acid. The spent acid
is reintroduced into the production process, wnere it is decomposed into its
constituents (e.g., 502). These constituents can then be used to produce
mere sulfuric acid, fcouid. tne process of reintroduction and decomposition
constitute reclamation, thus precluding the plant from the exemption?
Spent sulfuric acid is frequently used as a feedstock in the production
of virgin sulfuric acid. Accordingly, EPA has promulgated a specific
exclusion stating that spent sulfuric acid recycled in this way is not
a solid waste (S261.4(a)(7)). The recycling process more closely resembles
a manufacturing operation tnan a reclamation process. Nate that: (1)
sper.t sulfuric acid is subject to the speculative accumulation provisions,
as defined in §261.1 (c); and (2) the spent acid *ould be a hazardous
waste if disposed (assuming it is corrosive or exhibits another hazardous
waste characteristic) and could be a hazardous waste if recycled in
sane other manner (see the January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 642)).
Source: Matt Straus (202) 475-855:
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12917
9441.1987(29)
LABORATORY SAMPLE EXCLUSION APPLICABILITY TO SAMPLES AND
WASTES FROM LABORATORY
ANALYSIS - DIOXIN
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
APR 30 1987
Mr. Gordon Davidson
Project Manager for Environmental
Affairs
IT Corporation
600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
Dear Mr. Davidson:
This is in response to your April 9, 1987, letter in
which you request authorization to transport laboratory
samples and associated laboratory wastes contaminated with 2,
3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin from your Knoxville
laboratory back to the Diamond Shamrock Lister Avenue site.
You state that the samples originated from the clean-up
associated with this site.
It is my understanding, from a telephone conversation
between you and Doreen Sterling of my staff, that you are
unsure if the waste in question is actually covered by the
Dioxin Listings. You are, however, therefore, assumes that
the waste in question is a "hazardous waste".
According to 40 CFR 261.4(d), a laboratory may transport
a sample, which is collected for the sole purpose of testing
to determine its characteristics or composition, back to the
sample collector. No approval from the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) is required for this action. However,
once the sample is received at the Lister Avenue site, it
must be managed as a hazardous waste.
You also stated in your telephone conversation with
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9F9948F75FE980A8852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Doreen Sterling that the associated wastes in question include
lab solvents, protective gear, etc. which were used during
analysis. These wastes are not covered by the provisions of
Section 261.4(d). Rather, these materials either are listed
hazardous waste (i.e., spent solvent) or contain a listed
hazardous waste (i.e., protective gear) and must be managed
as if it were an acute hazardous waste. However, if the
material that contain listed hazardous waste are decontaminated
such that they no longer contain the listed waste, they are
no longer subject to Subtitle C regulations. Any rinsate,
generated during cleaning would, however, be an acute hazardous
waste via application of the mixture rule (CFR 261.3(a)(2).
If you have any further questions, please contact Doreen
Sterling of my staff at (202) 475-6775.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Marcia E. Williams
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9F9948F75FE980A8852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
JAN 2019ST
Jo;».. 1. i'-trr i n ^ tou, L.'«V«.'». P
vi^.iw.'j^t -_• oi c..-_ .\.uCi icai4 wo
o.; Veterinary r-«it.ioj.oji5t3
A-iiuw jojv i'ox K.a Drive
wiiicinu.it i Ohio 4i2JO
.'.as i- i.i rss^cnse to /our letter of Jeceab^r 17, 19d-j,
i.i w;*icM ^ou ru^uast clarification on tue relevance of "liiiJ
iarr.i:i-j" .^racticea to tue Jc-iiaitioa of land -iisposal in tl«s
Ation *nJ ixacovar / Act (RCR*i) as ancndod by
anJ :loli-i .,
.-.aitaer ^arvadex, nor its aetabolite, uel^nine,
uru Ii-t2cj KC.-uv aozaruuuo 'va.t-si, but aniual aanuras nay oj
rvijUlateu ur^cr RCi\A if taey oxnibit on« or uorc of tne character-
iiitic.-j or .tazatcuus waatc (i.e., corr.»ivit/, ignicitility. s)*»
toxicity, cr reactivity)* aowcver, solii wast«s generated fro".
t.iC raisin, ui anii*dla (including animal (manures) a.il whicn ^re
rscucued to tn« soils as fartilizara, ar« axcluda-J fro« r«-julation
im a uo^aruoua waate l^urjuavjt tc« 40 C.-'R 2 ,»!.-• (b) (2)). Alt.mu 7--
lanj rarnin^j is land disposal, if these wastes when apolicd to
t.t<- x&iiu ar< not hazardous wastes (whica is liXaly), t^e-/ are
aot suDject to ths land disposal restrictions.
j ths provision* of RC.iA, r>asticid3S such as
arc subject to oeterni nations concerning their
on under the- roaerol Insecticide, ^ungicids, an-J
Rocianticide Act. The A-j*ncy is currently reviewing exposure
u-ita provided ^y the aanuiacturar to detornina w:ietvi«»r
fro * tii* MT^ of juACU
-------
Page 1 of4
Faxbacklll34
9441.1986(14)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEE 25 1986
Mr. Christian Volz Esq.
McKenna, Conner, and Cuneo
1575 Eye Street
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Volz
This in response to your letter dated January 9, 1986, in
which you request an interpretation of the hazardous waste rules
regarding the regulatory status of the Torpedo Propulsion Units
that are shipped for recycling to the San Tan facility of the
Garrett Pneumatic Systems Division (GPSD). As we understand
the process, GPSD designs, manufactures, and supplies to the
Honeywell Underseas Division the afterbody of the MK 50 Torpedo.
Contained in the afterbody of the torpedo is a chemical energy
propulsion system (referred to as the "boiler") that generates
the thermal energy used to propel the torpedo. (Heat for the
process is caused by a chemical reaction between two reactive
compounds ~ lithium and sulphur hexafluoride.)
After a torpedo has been run and tested, it is disassembled
and the boiler (as well as other components) is shipped back
to GPSD's San Tan facility for reuse. Before the boiler can be
reused, however, it must be cleaned to remove any unreacted
chemicals and the residues left by those chemicals that did
react. This cleaning operation appears to be carried out in
two steps:
The boiler is first flushed with a mixture of water and
ethylene glycol this mixture reacts with any unreacted
lithium metal to form lithium hydroxide in an aqueous
solution. These rinsewaters may be corrosive when it
leaves the boiler. The rinsewater is collected in a
sump, from which it is then pumped into a 10,000 gallon
holding tank. As the rinsewater is pumped out of the
sump, sulfuric acid is added in line through an educator
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B9AF8D121F2022C5852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
and mixed to neutralize the excess alkalinity in the
rinsewater as well as convert the lithium hydroxide in
the rinsewater to lithium sulfide; at this point, the
rinsewater no longer is corrosive nor does it exhibit
any other hazardous waste characteristics. The lithium
sulfide settles out in the holding tank. After a sufficient
amount has settled out, the material will be filtered and
-2-
sent to a refinery of lithium ore for use in its process.
You indicate that the lithium sulfide does not exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
any remaining lithium salts (i.e., products of the reaction
when the torpedo is run) are then removed with a high-velocity
water jet. The lithium salts are collected and placed
in drums for eventual return to a refiner of lithium ore.
You also indicated that the lithium salts also do not
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
Based on this recycling process, you believe that the used boilers
(and the used torpedoes and afterbodies of which the boilers are
apart) are not subject to the hazardous waste regulations, either
at the Federal or State level.
As you are aware, on January 4, 1985, EPA promulgated its
final rules dealing with the question of which materials are
solid and hazardous wastes when they are recycled. Among other
things, these rules state materials that are directly used/
reused are not solid wastes. See 40 CFR 261.2(e). Although
the boilers are shipped to the San Tan facility to be reused,
the boilers must be regenerated before they can be reused
(i.e., they must be decontaminated before being reused). Since
these boilers would be defined as scrap metal, these boilers
would be defined as solid and hazardous wastes when reclaimed. II
See 40 CFR 261.2 (c)(3). However, hazardous scrap metal
that is recycled is currently exempt from regulation. See 40
CFR 261.6(a)(3)(iv). Therefore, the transportation and storage
of the boilers prior to the processing is exempt from the hazardous
waste regulations.21
With regard to the cleaning operation, these activities
generate materials that also need to be evaluated with regard to
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B9AF8D121F2022C5852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
their regulatory status. The lithium salts that are removed
from the boiler with the high-velocity water jet would not be
subject to Subtitle C control since these salts are not hazardous.
The other rinsate (i.e., ethylene glycol/water mixture), however,
is hazardous (or may be hazardous) when first generated and may
be subject to the hazardous waste rules.
In particular, this rinsing solution is placed in a sump
prior to neutralization. While we agree with you that the
neutralization of this rinsewater is exempt from regulation and
II This assumes, of course, that the boilers exhibit one or more
of the hazardous waste characteristics.
21 This interpretation represents the regulatory status of these
boilers under the Federal regulations and not necessarily
under State law. However, since the San Tan facility is on
Indian lands, the federal regulations would apply in this case.
-3-
the handling of this material after neutralization is also exempt
from regulation (since the rinsewater is no longer hazardous),
the regulatory status of the rinsewater in the sump is still
at issue. More specifically, in November, 1980, EPA exempted
from regulation those wastewaters that are stored/treated in
tanks; however, this exemption only applies if the tanks are
part of the waste water treatment system that are subject to
regulation under either Section 402 or Section 307(b) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). Therefore, if the sump (which I assume
would be defined as a tank) is part of a wastewater treatment
system that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the storage
of the hazardous rinsewater would be exempt from regulation.
If however, the sump is not part of a wastewater treatment
system that is subject to regulation under the CWA, the sump
holding the hazardous rinsewater would be subject to the appropriate
standards (i.e., the sump would be subject to 40 CFR 262.34 or
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265). It should be noted that if the sump
is not a tank, but rather a surface impoundment, the sump would
be subject to regulation no matter whether this unit is part of
a wastewater treatment facility that is subject to regulation
under the CWA. See 40 CFR Parts 260.10 (definition of wastewater
treatment unit and tank) and 264. l(g)(6) for specific regulatory
language.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B9AF8D121F2022C5852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
I hope this letter adequately responds to your request.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus, of my staff,
if you have any other questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at
(202)475-5551.
Sincerely yours,
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B9AF8D121F2022C5852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEPTEMBER 2, 1987
Mr. Fred Hutchison
Radiation and Lab Safety Officer
Safety Office
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
Dear Mr. Hutchison:
Thank you for your July 29, 1987, letter concerning the accumulation time for acute hazardous
waste and hazardous waste. Your understanding of accumulation time for acute hazardous waste and
hazardous waste is correct. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act/Superfund Hotline staff
have given the correct answer to your question.
Acute hazardous wastes are counted and managed separately from hazardous wastes (§261.5
(e)). In the example given, the generator would have 90 days to send the acute hazardous waste off-
site, but would have 180 days for the non-acute hazardous waste.
If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
FaxBack# 11288
-------
Page 1 of4
FAXBACK 12841
9441.1987(04)
OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION EXCLUSION
JAN 13 1987
Mr. James E. (Jim) Nugent, Chairman
Railroad Commission of Texas
Capitol Station, P.O. Drawer 12967
Austin, Texas 78711
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for your letter dated October 21, 1986. As
discussed below, the Agency has made some decisions concerning
issues you raised in your letter. Because these tentative
determinations are preliminary, however, we invite further
discussion on them.
The legislative history of Section 3001(b)(2)(A) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sheds some
light on the identity of oil and gas and geothermal energy
wastes subject to exemption: 1
the term "other wastes associated" is specifically
included to designate waste materials intrinsically
derived from the primary field operations associated
with the exploration, development, or production of
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy. It
would cover such substances as hydrocarbon-bearing
soil in and around facilities; drill cuttings;
materials (such as hydrocarbon, water, sand and
emulsion) produced from a well in conjunction with
crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy; and
the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbon, water,
sand, and emulsion) from production separators, fluid
treating vessels, storage vessels, and production
impoundments.
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary
field operation ..." is intended to differentiate
exploration, development, and production operations
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/83E28AF9179ED5BC852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
from transportation (from the point of custody
transfer or of production separation and dehydra-
tion) and manufacturing operations.
-2-
Given the above background, EPA intends to employ four criteria
to assist in determining whether a waste is exempt, pending
completion of our Report to Congress next year:
1. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration
for, or development and production of, crude oil,
natural gas, or geothermal energy are subject to
exemption. Waste streams generated at oil, gas,
and geothermal energy facilities that are not
uniquely associated with exploration, development,
or production activities are not exempt (one
example would be spent solvents from equipment
cleanup).
2. Exempt waste must be associated with "extraction"2
processes, which include measures (1) to remove
oil, natural gas, or geothermal energy from the
ground or (2) to remove impurities from such
substances, provided that the purification process
is an integral part of normal field operations. 3
3. The proximity of waste streams to primary field
operations is another factor in determining the scope
of the exemption. Process operations that are
distant from the exploration, development, or
production operations may not be subject to
exemption.
4. Wastes associated with transportation are not
exempt. The point of custody transfer, or of
production separation and dehydration, may be
used as evidence in making this determination.
As shown on the enclosed table, EPA has used these criteria
to tentatively designate various wastes as exempt or not exempt.
This table was taken from our October 31, 1986 Technical Report
on wastes from the extraction of oil, gas and geothermal energy
(copy enclosed). The Agency is aware that this list does not
include all waste streams found at oil, gas, or geothermal energy
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/83E28AF9179ED5BC852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
extraction facilities. Therefore, EPA invites commenters to
specifically describe other pertinent waste streams and to artic-
ulate, in terms of the above criteria, whether they believe
these additional streams are exempted by Section 3001(b)(2)(A).
EPA also invites comment on these criteria themselves and on
-3-
the appropriateness of the tentative classification shown on
2 The term extraction is defined to include exploration,
development, and production activities for oil, gas,
and geothermal energy.
3 Thus, wastes associated with such processes as oil refining,
petrochemical-related manufacturing, or electricity
generation from geothermal energy are not exempt.
the table. However, we believe this interpretation is consis-
tent with the final "Small Quantity Generator" regulation
promulgated on March 24, 1986 (51 FR 10146, copy enclosed);
see especially page 10162 for a discussion of the applicability
of that rule to offshore oil rigs).
Consistent with the Small Quantity Generator regulation,
EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas has distributed "notices of
hazardous waste registration requirements". They are being
distributed only as a result of inquiries or requests in
order to aid parties in fulfilling responsibilities which
they consider to be theirs under the law. Because EPA did
not seek data from these facilities requesting information
on our Small Quantity rule, we are unable to determine whether
their waste streams meet the four criteria discussed above.
I trust this clarifies the Agency's current assessment
of the scope of the exemption. If I can be of any further
assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
"Jack W. McGraw for"
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/83E28AF9179ED5BC852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
Enclosures (3)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/83E28AF9179ED5BC852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 12790
9441.1986(96)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
DECEMBER 86
1. Wastes Generated in Process Units
When, if ever, is waste which is generated in a Safety-Kleen parts
washer regulated under RCRA?
In a May 1986 memorandum "Monthly Reports-RCRA/Superfund Industry
Assistance Hotline Report for May 1986", EPA addressed the
regulatory status of parts washers leased from the Safety-Kleen
Corporation. At that time, the Agency viewed these parts
washers as manufactured process units. Consequently, the
wastes generated in the parts washers would be subject to the
exclusion in 261.4(c) and thus would not be regulated unless
removed from the unit or until they had remained in the unit
more than 90 days after the unit ceased to be operated.
Since that time, the Agency has studied this issue further
and has determined that Safety-Kleen parts washers cannot be
viewed as manufacturing process units. It is the Agency's
understanding that Safety-Kleen parts washers usually consist
of some sort of cleaning apparatus attached to the top of a
drum of solvent material. Solvent is drawn up into the cleaning
apparatus for use and is discharged back into the drum afterward.
Following a period of use, the solvent in the drum becomes too
contaminated to clean effectively. Periodically, someone from
Safety-Kleen exchanges a fresh cleaning unit for the spent
unit, which he will then transport to a Safety-Kleen facility
for recycling. In other situations, the cleaning apparatus
is removed at the operator's site and placed atop a fresh drum
of solvent. Frequently, an operator will accumulate several
drums of spent solvent in this manner before the Safety-Kleen
worker arrives to replace the spent solvent drums with fresh
drums.
When the solvent can no longer be used effectively, it is
classified as spent material. A special material sent for
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/36D54A516C29F66B852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
reclamation is regulated as a solid waste under RCRA 261.2(c).
Furthermore, if the waste is listed in Subpart D of Part 261 or
exhibits any of the characteristics identified in Subpart C of
Part 261, then the waste is also regulated as hazardous waste
under RCRA. Consequently, when the operator decides the solvent
has become too contaminated for further use, it becomes regulated
as hazardous waste. The operator will thus become a generator
of hazardous waste when the cleaning apparatus is removed from
the drum.
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 475-8551
Matt Straus (202) 475-8551
Maureen Smith (202) 382-7703
Research: Kris Andersen
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/36D54A516C29F66B852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12436
9443.1985(04)
July 16, 1985
SULFIDE REACTIVITY CHARACTERISTIC
Mr. Terry L. Thoem
Manager, Environmental Conservation
Conoco Incorporated
P.O. Box 2197
Houston, Texas 77252
Dear Mr. Thoem:
I am writing to clarify several aspects of the sulfide
reactivity characteristic that you asked about in your letter of
June 24, 1985.
At present, there is no approved test method for determining
whether a waste exhibits the characteristic of reactivity. I
have enclosed a draft of a test method for determining Total
Available Sulfide. Work currently being done on the agitation
and waste introduction steps may result in significant changes in
the subsequent proposed test. However, pending the conclusion of
our investigations, we recommend, and will accept, use of this
draft procedure. While threshold concentrations have not yet
been promulgated by the Agency, we have adopted 500 mg/kg Total
Available Sulfide as an interim action level. We consider any
waste that yields sulfide values at or above the action level,
using the draft procedure, to be hazardous.
The 500 mg/Kg action threshold was arrived at by considering
a scenario in which a truckload of waste is discharged into a pit
containing (non-hazardous) acidic waste. As a result of the
reaction of the waste with the acid, a rapid, high level release
of toxic gas ensues. The objective of the characteristic is to
identify those wastes which, if such an activity were to take
place, pose a hazard to those persons in the general vicinity of
the disposal site. While we have considered dispersion in
arriving at the action threshold, the specific dispersion model
that will be used in the upcoming proposal is still under
development.
Ground water monitoring of all wastewater treatment lagoons
containing hazardous wastes, is required including those
containing only reactive wastes. The only exemption from ground
water monitoring that is defined by the RCRA regulations is in
the case of neutralization ponds receiving wastes hazardous only
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/6C86101FA17FE406852565DA006F09Cl 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
by reason of corrosivity (§265.90(e)).
This monitoring is necessary because the Agency is not aware
of any mechanism which can assure that such wastes will not also
have toxic chemicals which pose a hazard to ground water. The
fact that a waste is not listed or does not exhibit the
characteristic of Extraction Procedure Toxicity does not insure
the absence of teachable toxic species in the waste.
If you have further questions concerning the reactivity
characteristic please contact David Friedman (202/382-4770) of
the Methods Program. For information on the regulatory
requirements pertaining to ground water monitoring, contact
Robert April (202/475-8860) in the Ground Water Program.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: Claussen
Lehman
Weddle
Corson
Shuster
Friedman
April
Hotline
Region VI
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/6C86101FA17FE406852565DA006F09Cl 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll060
9443.1985(02)
FEE 26 1985
Mr. Kevin J. Walter
Bureau of Technical Services
Division of Environmental Enforcement
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-0001
Dear Mr. Walter:
I am writing in response to your recent letter requesting
clarification of the definition of the characteristics of ignit-
ability for hazardous wastes.
Your understanding that the words "it is a liquid, other
than an aqueous solution containing less than 24 percent alcohol
by volume" were intended to exclude alcoholic beverages, such as
wine, and non-liquid materials is correct. However, while the
Agency's intent was that this exemption apply to potable beverages
only, because the term "alcohol" was used instead of "ethanol,"
all aqueous wastes which are ignitable only because they contain
alcohols (here using the term alcohol to mean any chemical containing
the hydroxyl [-OH] functional group) are excluded from regulation.
While the Agency completes the process of officially adopting
a method for identifying "free liquids," for use in the land
disposal regulations, it is our current practice to employ Method
9095 (see "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,SW-946~) for
such purposes. Any material passing through the paint filter is
deemed to be a liquid.
With respect to what constitutes an "aqueous solution,"
such a solution is one in which water is the primary component.
This means that water constitutes at least 50 percent by
weight of the sample. Although, we have not officially approved
any test methods for determining a waste's water content, any
competent laboratory should be able to make such a determination
using standard techniques (e.g., Karl Fisher titration, GC).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9EF5F665882595DF852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
We share your concern over the ambiguities in the current
ignitability definition and have a program underway to correct
the characteristic's shortcomings. Specifically, changes are
under development to replace the alcoholic solution exclusion
-2-
with a generic exclusion for those wastes which, while possessing
a flash point below 60 C, neither continue to burn nor, if they
do burn, release enough energy to cause a major fire. In addition,
steps are being taken to expand the ignitability characteristic
to include wastes which are physical solids. Both of these
changes will involve proposal and promulgation of specific
definitional test methods and thresholds.
I hope this information clears up any questions you may
have about the ignitability characteristic. If you have any
further questions concerning any of the hazardous waste
characteristics, please contact David Friedman, of my staff, at
202-382-4770.
Sincerely yours,
Original Document signed
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
bcc: G.A. Lucero WH-527
A. Corson
David Friedman
Regional Solid Waste Branch Chiefs
Hotline
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9EF5F665882595DF852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11424
9453.1989(05)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
APR 21 1989
Mr. Stephen J. Axtell
Smith & Schnacke
2000 Courthouse Plaza NE
Post Office Box 1817
Dayton, Ohio 45401-1817
Dear Mr. Axtell:
This letter is in response to your letter of February 23, 1989,
requesting clarification of the generator accumulation time
requirements of 40 CFR 262.34. You ask when the accumulation time
begins for an unknown waste that, upon analysis, is found to meet
the definition of hazardous waste. Initially, the container was
improperly labelled or not labelled at all. A sample of the
contents was sent off site for analysis, and was found to be
hazardous.
In your letter you relate that Chris Bryant of the RCRA Hotline
indicated that the accumulation time for an unknown waste begins
when the analytical results indicating that the waste is hazardous
are received. Unfortunately, this information was incorrect. The
correct reading of Section 262.34 in this instance follows:
Section 262.34(a) provides a limited exemption from the
requirement that those who store hazardous waste must obtain
permits. To obtain the exemption, a generator must comply with
all the requirements of Section 262.34. If the date on which the
accumulation began was not marked on the drum (Section 262.34(a)
(2)) or the drum was not marked "Hazardous Waste" (Section 262.34
(a)(3)), then the generator has not met the pre-conditions for the
exemption from permitting requirements and is an operator of a
storage facility subject to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR Part 270.
Where a generator does meet the conditions of Section 262.34,
the accumulation time begins when a waste is generated or when
it is first taken from a "satellite" accumulation area operated
pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(c). Waste is generated either when it
is produced or when it is first caused to be subject to regulation
(40 CFR 260.10), not when a generator first analyzes the waste.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9D1975EA95752261852565DA006F04... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
If the waste in the drum was a listed or characteristic hazardous
waste when it was produced, then the one-time 90-day accumulation
time could begin only at the time the waste was produced or removed
from the satellite accumulation area.
-2-
If the waste was not subject to regulation when it was first
stores, e.g., the material had not yet been listed as a
regulated hazardous waste, then the 90-day period would have
begun when the waste became subject to regulation—upon the
effective date of the new listing. A generator's failure to
properly analyze, label, and accumulate waste does not exempt
the waste from regulation.
If we can be of any further assistance, please contact
Emily Roth at (202) 382-4777.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/9D1975EA95752261852565DA006F04... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK12727
RAW MATERIAL TRANSPORT VASSEL EXCLUSION FOR ALL WASTES
GENERATED ON SUCH VESSELS
9441.1986(65)
SEP 3 1986
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Mr. Ernest J. Corrado
Vice President
American Institute of Merchant Shipping
1000 16th Street, N.W., Suite 511
Washington, D.C., 20036
Dear Mr. Corrado:
Thank you for your August 6, 1986, letter in which you set
forth the maritime industry legal analysis on the application of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to
vessel wastes. While I do not agree with a number of the conclu-
sions you have drawn regarding Congress1 intent to limit RCRA
jurisdiction to land disposal, I do agree that the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) did in fact promulgate an exemption from
RCRA regulation for raw material and product transport vessels.
In my February 5, 1986 letter to Vice Admiral Rots of the
Coast Guard, we concluded that different types of wastes generated
in vessels were regulated differently under the hazardous waste
rules. This conclusion was based on the intent underlying EPA's
exemption of hazardous waste generated in product or raw material
transport vessels until the waste is purposely removed from the
vessel. 40 CFR 261.4(c). We believe that the exemption was
intended to cover only those hazardous sediments and residues
produced in the units containing valuable product or raw material.
As articulated in the preamble to the rule, EPA judged that:
[T]hese hazardous wastes are contained against
release into the environment. . . and the risks
they pose to human health or the environment
are very low and are only incidental to the
risks posed by the valuable product or raw
material with which they are associated (emphasis
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/FBECA5193E9803FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
added). 45 Fed. Reg. 72024, 72025 (Oct. 30, 1980).
Since wastes generated on other parts of the ship,
including engine room wastes, are not directly associated with
the storage or transport of valuable product, we did not deem any
other hazardous wastes generated aboard the ship to be covered
by the 261.4 exemption. However, as a result of the points
that you raised in the June 6, 1986 meeting with members of my
staff, we have taken another look at this issue.
The language of 261.4(c) refers to hazardous waste
generated in a product or raw material transport vessel as being
exempted, rather than the product-containing unit itself. EPA
defined the term "vessel" in 260.10 to include "every description
of watercraft...," which describes the whole vessel rather than
any particular tank or unit in the vessel. Thus, we believe that
there is a regulatory basis for considering all waste generated
in the vessel to be exempt from regulation until it is purposely
removed. In addition, we understand that the regulated community
has relied on this broader view of the exemption since 1980. Given
the fact that there has been substantial reliance for some time
on a legitimate, although unintended, reading of the regulatory
language, we have become convinced that it is reasonable to view
the exemption as extending to all hazardous waste management
activity on the product or raw material transport vessel. However,
as specified in 261.4(c), all hazardous wastes generated in the
vessel become subject to RCRA regulation as soon as the waste is
removed from the vessel (anywhere within U.S. waters) or within
90 days after the vessel is no longer operated as a product or
raw material storage or transport vessel.
Therefore, when any hazardous waste is removed from the
vessel, the owner of the product or raw material, the operator of
the vessel, and the person purposefully removing the hazardous
waste from the vessel would all be considered "generators", as
defined in 260.10 of the regulations. Any of those parties
deemed to be a "generator" of the waste, therefore, could perform
any or all of the duties of the generator. As EPA pointed out in
the October 30, 1980 preamble to the rule, the Agency would look
initially to the operator of a central facility operated to
remove sediments and residues from the vessel to perform the
generator duties, which includes obtaining an EPA identification
number. Of course, this should not be construed as requiring a
central facility or terminal to remove hazardous waste from a
vessel. In situations where hazardous wastes generated in the
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/FBECA5193E9803FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
vessel are not removed at a central facility, the Agency would
look to the vessel operator to perform the generator duties. See
45 Fed. Reg. at 72027.
While we have some concern that the literal reading of
261.4(c) exempts from regulation some hazardous wastes that
were not intended to be exempt when EPA promulgated the regulatory
amendment (i.e., waste generated aboard vessels in other than
product or raw material cargo tanks), we believe that such a
literal reading of 261.4(c) poses low risk to human health
and the environment for several reasons. First, as indicated in
the February 5 letter, we do not believe that generation of
hazardous wastes in units not related to product or raw material
storage or transportation, such as bilges, to be a serious problem
while aboard the vessel since the ship itself is designed
to prevent leaks. Second, to the extent that oily residues from
propulsion systems are not contaminated with listed wastes, such
as spent solvents, the oily wastewater now required to be discharged
to shoreside reception facilities under MARPOL would not meet the
definition of hazardous waste. */ Finally, as noted above, any
hazardous wastes generated in product or raw material transport
vessels are subject to RCRA when they are discharged from or
otherwise exit the vessel. Thus releases to the environment
would still be regulated under RCRA.
I hope that this has been responsive to your concerns.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further
questions.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
*/ As you correctly point out, EPA has proposed to list used
oil as a hazardous waste; however, EPA is reconsidering the
entire used oil issue. Should the Agency move forward in finalizing
rules in this area, those rules would take into consideration the
special problems of shipboard wastes.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/FBECA5193E9803FE852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 12552
9441.1986(16)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 86
4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Exclusion
A coal combustion process produces a mixture of fly ash and bottom ash, a
waste that is deemed non-hazardous in 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4). When quench water
comes in contact with the ash to cool it, the water sometimes becomes
alkaline to the point of corrosivity. A pipeline transfers this mixture to
a dewatering facility, and the dewatered ash is placed on a truck. Is this
corrosive quench water a hazardous waste, even though it is from an excluded
ash?
Fly ash, bottom ash, slag and fuel gas emission control wastes
generated primarily from the burning of fossil fuels are exempt from
hazardous waste regulation under RCRA according to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(4)
and Section 3001(b)(3) (A)(i) of RCRA. The quench water becomes
corrosive solely as a result of contact with the ash. Because the
hazardous waste characteristic of the quench water is derived from an
exempt waste, the resulting corrosive quench water retains the exempt
status of that waste. In other words, whatever makes the water
corrosive is already exempt, so the water is also exempt from
regulation as a hazardous waste.
Source: Ephraim King (202) 382-7709
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW\rcra.nsf/Documents/DA492DFCOA876946852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 13410
9453.1990(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
OCTOBER 1990
1. Clarification of Section 262.34(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
55-Gallon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas
The owner/operator of a manufacturing company maintains a generator
satellite accumulation area pursuant to Section 262.34(c). The operator
has exceeded the 55-gallon accumulation limit and according to Section
262.34(c)(2), has three days to remove this waste from the satellite
area and manage it either in a 90-day storage area as a large quantity
generator in compliance with Section 262.34(a), manage the waste at an
on-site permitted unit, or ship the waste off-site. Does the 90-day
accumulation time for large quantity generators in Section 262.34(a)
begin at the time the 55-gallon limit is exceeded or after the
three-day transition period in Section 262.34(c)?
1. Clarification of Section 262.34(a) Accumulation Time for Excess of
55-Gallon Limit in Satellite Accumulation Areas (Cont'd)
The owner/operator has up to a 93-day accumulation time for the excess
waste generated at the satellite accumulation area (90-day clock in
Section 262.34(a), plus up to three days for waste transfer). The March
24, 1986 Federal Register, which clarifies small quantity generator
provisions, states "...as soon as the 55-gallon limit has been exceeded
in any satellite area, any excess waste is subject to all applicable
RCRA requirements within three days. This means that the 180/270 day
on site accumulation provision for 100-1000 kg/mo, generators applies
to any excess waste three days after the 55-gallon limit has been
exceeded." (51 FR 10162). If the generator chose to remove the waste
from the satellite area before the three-day transfer provision
expired, he would subject the waste to the 90-day clock provisions.
For example, if the above operator chose to move his excess waste from
the satellite area after just one day, the 90-day accumulation time in
Section 262.34 would begin as the waste entered the 90-day accumulation
area, not after three days. The generator has chosen not to utilize
the other two days that were available for transfer.
Source: Emily Roth, OSW (202) 382-4627
Research: Mic LeBel, GRC
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/58FE4BlA2F256EA9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK 12547
HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAMS, CERCLA AND RCRA
LIABILITY OF
MUNICIPAL SPONSORS OF
9441.1986(09)
JAN 28 1986
CERCLA and RCRA Liability of Municipal Sponsors of Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Programs
John P. Lehman, Director
Waste Management and Economics Division (WH-565)
Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Waste Management Division
Region V
I am responding to your October 29, 1985, memorandum
requesting an Agency policy statement concerning the liability
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of municipal sponsors of household
hazardous waste collection programs. In addition, this
memorandum clarifies the issue of potential liability under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
following interpretations are based on discussions of these
issues with the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM).
In a June 7, 1984, memorandum to the Deputy Administrator,
Lee Thomas (then Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response) clarified the issue of
RCRA liability. This memorandum, which is attached, stated
that household hazardous wastes are by definition exempt from
regulation under Subtitle C for RCRA. Section 261.4(b)(l)
unconditionally exempts household wastes from being designated
as hazardous even when accumulated in quantities that would
otherwise be regulated or when transported, stored, treated,
disposed, recovered, or reused. However, when household
wastes are mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators, this resulting mixture is subject to the small
quantity generator rules (Section 261.5(h)). In addition,
when household waste is mixed with other regulated hazardous
wastes, the entire mixture becomes subject to full hazardous
waste regulation (Section 261.3(a)(2)). For this reason,
sponsors of household hazardous waste collection programs
should be careful to limit the participation in their programs
to households to avoid the possibility of receiving regulated
hazardous wastes from commercial or industrial sources.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B784AOCC9822683E852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
With regard to CERCLA, we cannot offer relief from long-
term liability. CERCLA does not contain any type of exclusion
for household waste or any type of exclusion based on the
amount of waste generated. As a general matter, any waste that
qualifies as a hazardous substance under CERCLA is subject to
the liability provisions of Section 107. Hazardous substances
are both defined under Section 101(14) and designated under
Section 102(a). Therefore, if a household waste contains a
substance that is covered under either section (whether or not
it is a RCRA hazardous waste), potential CERCLA liability
would apply regardless of whether the material was picked up
as part of a community's routine trash collection service or
was gathered as part of a special collection day program.
With respect to household hazardous waste, such waste would
clearly qualify as a "hazardous substance" if they contain
any substance listed in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. See
50 Federal Register 13474 (April 4, 1985).
With regard to enforcement under CERCLA, you noted that
John Skinner, former Director of this office, recently cited
a policy statement in a May 4, 1984, letter (attached) from
Region I Administrator, Michael DeLand, to Dana Duxbury of the
Massachusetts League of Women Voters. This policy statement
relied on enforcement discretion in indicating that EPA had no
intention of taking enforcement action against a Massachusetts
town that sponsored a contracted collection day, if problems
arose in the transportation or disposal of the household
hazardous waste collected during the collection program.
Further clarification was offered by Courtney Price (OECM)
in a memorandum dated May 11, 1984 (attached), to Alvin Aim,
former Deputy Administrator. For the specific case of that
Massachusetts town, the company collecting and transporting
the wastes and the disposal facility owner or operator would
be considered the responsible parties.
While you are correct in stating that the Agency's general
policy is to not give "no action" assurances in enforcement
matters (see attached Courtney Price memorandum of November 16,
1984), Ms. Price addressed a specific household hazardous
waste collection program in the May 11, 1984, memorandum and
explained their position in the Region I case in Massachusetts.
The decision of "no action" in the Massachusetts case was
based on the facts about that specific program. An important
feature was limiting collections to household hazardous wastes.
No wastes from small commercial businesses were accepted.
Courtney Price indicated that OECM would have to look at the
specific facts of any situation involving wastes from small
businesses to determine whether an exercise of enforcment
discretion would be appropriate.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B784AOCC9822683E852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
In our recent discussions with OECM, we have considered
the concept of "no action" as a possible general policy for
sponsors of household hazardous waste collection programs.
OECM has not yet completed their analysis of this issue. They
expect to complete their analysis in the next several weeks
and will supply their policy statement in a separate memorandum.
If you have any questions regarding the issues addressed
in this memorandum, please contact Michael Flynn of my staff
at 382-4489.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B784AOCC9822683E852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12339
PPC 9443.1984(10)
SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION REACTIVITY, OFF SPECIFICATION
30 NO VI984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Classification of Small Arms Ammunition
With Respect to Reactivity
FROM: John H. Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: David Wagoner, Director
Air & Waste Management Division
Region VIII
Recently, a question arose as to the status under RCRA of
off-specification small arms ammunition (ball or sporting
ammunition of calibers up to and including 0.50) intended for
disposal. The issue concerned whether such wastes are "reactive
wastes" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.23(a)(6) and, therefore,
subject to RCRA hazardous waste requirements. Because the
ammunition contains an ignition source that may be shock and heat
sensitive and is designed to generate high pressure during use, it
had been our opinion that it is probably "reactive." However, on
the basis of information that was received from the Remington
Arms Company and the Army, we now conclude that such materials
are no "reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.23(a)(6).
Section 261.23 (a)(6) of Title 40 provides that a solid
waste which is "capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it
is subjected to a strong initiating source or if heated under
confinement" is "reactive." As discussed in the May 19, 1980,
preamble to 40 CFR 261.23, shock and thermal instability are
important elements of this definition. While presently there is
no Agency guidance regarding these criteria, the Remington Arms
Company of Independence, Missouri, and the U.S. Army have provided
information which addresses both of these factors.
Remington Arms Company submitted details on the effects of
heat and impact to small arms ammunition. There was no explosion
when a box of ammunition was set afire. Small arms, when subjected
to the SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturer's Institute)
Impact Test, showed no evidence of mass propagation or explosion.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/ClE231B4287D5A17852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
The Department of the Army has a rigorous safety and hazard
testing program on all munition items. The tests, which include
drop tests from 5, 7, and 40 feet to simulate handling errors
and "heating under confinement," 160 F for 48 hours, also
showed no evidence of detonation or explosion with respect to
small arms ammunition. The tests were performed on both the
individual munition and a package containing a prescribed number
of items.
As noted above, we feel that results from these tests show
that off-specification small caliber ammunition up to and including
0.50 is not "reactive" within the meaning of 40 CFR 261.23(a)(6).
We, therefore, believe that the disposal of such ammunition is not
subject to Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements.
We appreciate your cooperation. If you have any questions
regarding the matter, please call David Friedman or Florence Richardson
at FTS 382-4770.
cc: Air & Waste Management Divisions Directors
Regions I-VI and VIII-X
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/ClE231B4287D5A17852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
3441.1986(58)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 86
c
1. Treatment Studies and Permits
A generator of hazardous waste would like to send hazardous waste
samples to a facility that will perform innovative treatment studies
on the samples. These "treatability studies" involve investigating
new methods or techniques to change the physical/ chemical, or
biological character or composition of the waste and render the
waste less hazardous, or non-hazardous. Wiat regulations ittist a
facility comply with if the facility accepts hazardous waste samples
for treatability studies and the facility uses technology for which
Parts 264, 265 and 266 standards have not been promulgated to date?
On September 25, 1981 (46 FR 47426), EPA excluded samples of
hazardous waste fron PCRA regulations in Parts 262-270 when
stored, transported and tested for hazardous waste characteristics
or composition. This lab sample exclusion is codified as
$261.4(d). Samples of hazardous waste collected for "treatability
studies" are not included in the $261.4(d) lab sample exclusion.
Therefore, "treatability studies" are subject to RCRA interim
status or permit standards in Parts 264, 265, 266 and 270.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSK&) added
Section 3005{g) to provide EPA the authority to issue research,
development and demonstration (RD&D) permits for treatment
activities. The purpose of RD&D permits is to authorize
experimental testing of new hazardous waste treatment technologies
or processes* This new authority has been codified in 40 CFR
S270.65 (50 FR 28752, July 15, 1985). The statute and $270.65(a)
authorize EPA to issue permits for innovative and experimental
hazardous waste treatment technology or process activities,
including those which are not yet subject to RCRA Parts 264.
The EPA is developing Part 264 permit standards for miscellaneous
units (Subpart X) and experimental facilities (Subpart Y). The
Subpart X regulations will provide permit authority for units
that are currently not regulated in 40 CFR Parts 146 and 264.
These units include deep mines, silos, salt mines, thermal
treatment units and open detonation units. The Subpart Y
regulations may replace $270.65 authority and will provide
permit standards for experimental facilities. Proposed regulations
for Subpart X are scheduled for publication in the Federal
Register by the Fall of 1986» Subpart Y is expected to be
proposed at a later date.
Source: Ren Gray, Office of General Counsel (202) 382-7700
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12337
PPC 9443.1984(09)
CORROSIVE SOLIDS, COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, REACTIVE WASTES DEFINED
NOV29 1984
NL Baroid
NL Industries, Inc.
Mr. W. H. Yancey
P.O. Box 1675
Houston, TX 77251
Dear Mr. Yancey:
I am glad to clarify the issues of hazardous waste
identification you raised in your letter dated November 15, 1984.
First, you asked if physically solid forms of sodium hydroxide
and potassium hydroxide (granular or pellets) are currently
regulated as RCRA corrosive hazardous waste. The answer is no.
Title 40 CFR 261.22(a) defines corrosivity for aqueous solutions
within given ph ranges and for liquids that corrode steel faster
than a quarter of an inch per year under specified test conditions.
The May 19, 1980, preamble, 45 FR 33109 states:
"...there is no demonstrated need to address corrosive
solids at this time. EPA will, however, continue to
seek information on the dangers presented by these wastes
and will consider specific regulatory measures if the
need for more control becomes apparent."
At this time, the Agency is developing a test protocol to
evaluate the teachability of solid-phase corrosives. Further-
more, the new RCRA amendments direct EPA to minimize effects
of hazardous waste on human health and the environment. So
you can see that the status of corrosive solids may be subject
to change in the future.
Second, you wondered if products that contain preservatives
listed in 40 CFR 261.33(f) are subject to regulation as
RCRA hazardous waste. In particular, you asked about potato
starch that has been treated with formaldehyde. The comment
after 40 CFR 261.33(d) explains that commercial chemical products
are manufactured for commercial use and are commercially pure or
technical grades or formulations in which the chemical is the
sole active ingredient. The comment also says that a waste that
contains a chemical listed in 261.33(e) or (f) is only a RCRA
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/E232C63E5AB085FE852565DA006F096E 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
waste if the waste is listed in 5261.31 or 261.32 or if the
waste is hazardous by characteristics identified in S261.20 to
261.24. The comment is in brackets and thus is not part of the
regulations, but it conveys the intended meaning of the definition
of commercial chemical products. Thus, the potato starch, when
a waste whether it is used or not, does not contain a commercial
chemical product, since the formaldehyde has already been used
in the mixture as a preservative. Furthermore, there are no
listed potato starch waste streams. You should determine whether
or not the potato starch meets the criteria for ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity. In any case, the starch
is not a hazardous waste by the mixture rule.
Third, as you know, 40 CFR 261.23(a)(5) does not specify
the amount of cyanides or sulfides that would identify a waste
as reactive. Presently, EPA is in the process of developing
test protocols to quantify the reactive characteristic for
cyanides and sulfides. In the meantime, the enclosed regulatory
interpretive letter, RIL #2, outlines the Agency's suggested
guidelines. Below 10 ppm, the waste will not be considered
reactive, and above 200 ppm, it will be considered reactive
unless the generator can show why it is not. Between 10 and 200
ppm, the decision will be based on the potential releasibility
of H2S of HCN on a case-by-case basis.
All but about seven States and three territories have programs
that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program, and eight of
these programs have received full authorization. When a State
has been granted authority to operate the RCRA program, you are
subject to the State regulations which may be slightly different.
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346 can send you a copy
of the State hazardous waste agency addresses and phone numbers
if you need it.
If you wish to discuss these questions further, please do
not hesitate to call me at (202) 382-4804.
Sincerely yours,
Irene S. Horner
Studies and Methods Branch
Attachment
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/E232C63E5AB085FE852565DA006F096E 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11812
9451.1994(01)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
February 10, 1994
Mr. Thomas J. Dolce
GZA-AET
140 Broadway
Providence, Rhode Island 20903
Dear Mr. Dolce:
Thank you for your letter of December 17, 1993, regarding
counting waste in satellite accumulation areas. You specifically
asked if a small quantity generator who collects hazardous wastes
at satellite accumulation areas must count this waste for the
purpose of determining generator status.
The regulations at 40 CFR 261.5(c) state what is, and is not
included when making quantity determinations.
Hazardous waste that is not subject to regulation or that is
subject only to 262.11, 262.12, 262.40(c) and 262.41 is not
included in the quantity determinations of this part and parts 262
through 266, 268, and 270 and is not subject to any of the
requirements of those parts. Hazardous waste that is subject to the
requirements of 261.6(b) and (c) and subparts C,D, and F of part
266 is included in the quantity determination of this part and is
subject to the requirements of parts 262 through 266 and 270.
To determine generator status, generators must count all
hazardous waste generated at their facility in a calendar month.
Wastes not included in the monthly determination are either not
subject to regulation or subject to only the notification and
reporting requirements in 40 CFR section 262.22, 262.12, 262.40(c)
and section 262.41 as cited above.
Wastes stored in satellite accumulation areas are subject to
certain container standards (e.g., sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a)). The container standards are not among those listed in
section 261.5(c) as "not included in the quantity determination."
Therefore, wastes in the satellite accumulation areas must be
included in the generators's monthly waste quantity determination
as well as other on-site quantity determinations.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/93C074AA19A91437852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
For further discussion of this and other generator
requirements please see 51 FR 10151, March 24, 1986. We have
enclosed a copy of this Federal Register notice for your
convenience. If you have questions about this letter, please
contact Ann Codrington of my staff at (202) 260-4777.
Thank you for your interest in the safe management of
hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Michael Shapiro
Director, Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/93C074AA19A91437852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12534
EMPTY CONTAINER RULE APPLIED TO TANKER OR VACUUM TRUCKS
9441.1986(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 7 1986
Mr. John L. Cherill
Corning Manufacturing & Engineering
Division
Corning Glass Works
Corning, New York 14831
Dear Mr. Cherill:
This letter confirms our discussion and your letter of late
November with regard to Coming's use of a vacuum truck to filter
the dust and the regulatory status of the "empty" truck.
While the RCRA regulations are not specific in this regard,
you are correct in your assessment that the definition of "empty",
as applied to containers in 40 CFR 262.7, is also applicable to
other situations, such as your truck. Generally, we have supplied
the interpretation that the empty container definition may be
applied to tanker vehicles as well as to containers. Thus, if
you have emptied your vacuum truck by means normally used for
such vehicles, the vehicle is considered "empty" if no more than
one inch of material remains, or an equivalent volume (as defined
in 40 CFR 261.1).
You should be aware that RCRA is intended to be implemented
by the States. When a State has been authorized to conduct the
hazardous waste management program in that State, their rules
prevail in lieu of the federal standards. You should check with
the appropriate State office in the jurisdictions of concern
to you for their interpretation of the regulatory status of your
operations. The interpretation given above is only pertinent to
those States where federal regulations prevail.
If you have any further questions or need additional help in
the RCRA regulations please call our hotline at 800-424-9346.1
can be reached at 202/382/4770.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Corson
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/2ClE8DB8B2EC116A852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Branch Chief
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/2ClE8DB8B2EC116A852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
9441.1984(33}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMHARIES
NOVEMBER 84
Solid wastes that result frcrn the extraction, beneficiaticn, ana process in,
of ores and minerals (including coal) are excluded from the RQ& regulations
per S261.4(b)(7). Solvents are often used to clean the equipment vised for
such extraction, beneficiaticn, and processing. Are these cleaning solvents
also exempted per 5261.4 (b) (7) or are they !OA hazardous wastes?
The 5261.4(b)(7) exemption is for wastes which are generated in direct
association with the extraction, benef iciation, and processing of ores
and minerals* The cleaning of equipment with solvents is not directly
associated with these processes. Therefore, solvents used in cleaning
the machinery would be RCRA >>»*»*•<<<•»«? wastes if they are listed or meet
a 5261 Subpart C characteristic.
Source: Alan Corson (382-4770)
Research: Hilary Scnner
-------
Page 1 of 3
Faxbackll728
9453.1993(01)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
February 23, 1993
Mr. D.B. Redington
Director, Regulatory Management
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Boulevard
St. Louis, Missouri 63167
Dear Mr. Redington,
Thank you for your letter dated December 15, 1992, concerning
the hazardous waste storage regulations under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In your letter, you requested
a clarification of the satellite accumulation provisions for
hazardous waste generators (40 CFR 262.34(c)(l)), particularly for
the types of wastes you described as being "generated from diverse
sources throughout a facility."
We have a policy of allowing EPA Regions, and states
authorized to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program, to answer
site-specific inquiries about the hazardous waste regulations.
However, the types of wastes you described in your letter (e.g.,
post-consumer items such as used nickel-cadmium batteries that
exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste), are the same types of
wastes that are under consideration in an ongoing rulemaking effort
within the Office of Solid Waste (OSW). Therefore, we feel it would
be appropriate for us to provide you with some clarification
regarding these "universal wastes" and the satellite accumulation
provision under the existing generator requirements.
Based on your description of how and where these waste types
are generated, it is evident that the phrase "at or near the point
of generation where wastes initially accumulate" (see footnote 1),
requires clarification. We agree that there may be circumstances
where certain hazardous wastes, which by their mode of use are
generated in small amounts throughout a facility or part of a
facility, could be accumulated under the reduced requirements
described at 262.34(c)(l), provided that the conditions of this
regulation are met. For like wastes generated from many individual
locations (e.g., nickel-cadmium batteries), we would interpret the
"at or near the point of generation..." language to include a
specific satellite area designated by the generator that
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D6D5A31D264FCF8F852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
facilitates the accumulation of this material prior to moving it to
a designated hazardous waste storage area. A generator should be
able to define the locations of waste generation being served by a
satellite accumulation area (within a generator facility or part of
a facility). This is to ensure that a determination can be made as
to when the 55-gallon limit has been reached for a particular
satellite area.
The condition that wastes accumulated under the satellite
provision "be under the control of the operator of the process
generating the waste" is still applicable. However, we would view
this condition as being satisfied for certain "universal wastes"
provided the generator demonstrates that the personnel responsible
for generating and/or accumulating the waste have adequate control
over the temporary storage of these wastes. The EPA recognizes that
for many of these "universal wastes," the person who first takes an
item out of service (e.g., an employee who replaces a dead battery
used in a calculator) may not be the same person responsible for
the accumulation of all of these wastes; rather, another worker may
have the responsibility of overseeing the temporary storage of
maintenance-related wastes. Alternatively, a maintenance worker who
replaces mercury thermostats throughout a factory might also be
assigned responsibility for the location at which the accumulated
used thermostats are temporarily stored.
I would like to emphasize that the satellite accumulation
provision was intended to accommodate situations where relatively
small amounts of hazardous waste are unavoidably accumulated
throughout a facility prior to placing them in designated hazardous
waste storage areas; the goal is that this temporary accumulation
is performed responsibly and safely, with adequate oversight and
control. I would also note that we have not defined the term
"universal waste" in this letter (see footnote 2), but have instead
used some examples of these wastes to clarify the satellite
accumulation provision. The applicability of the satellite
accumulation provision will always depend upon a generator's
particular set of circumstances, which are site-specific;
therefore, any questions regarding specific wastes at specific
facilities are best answered by the agency implementing the RCRA
program for that particular facility.
Lastly, as was mentioned above, EPA is developing standards to
streamline the regulatory requirements for some of these types of
"universal wastes," to facilitate the separation of these materials
from the municipal waste stream, and to encourage proper treatment
and/or recycling. This rule was recently published, and we have
enclosed a copy of it for your convenience. We would encourage you
to read it and submit to us any comments you may have. If you have
any questions on this rulemaking effort, or on any other issue
discussed in this letter, please call Charlotte Mooney or Ross
Elliott of my staff at (202) 260-8551. Thank you for your interest
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D6D5A31D264FCF8F852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
in the responsible management of hazardous waste.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: EPA Regional Waste Management
Division Directors, I-X
1 Defines the satellite accumulation "area."
2 The term is at this point, as you described, an "emerging
term."
Enclosure
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D6D5A31D264FCF8F852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12211
PPC 9441.1984(07)
HOUSEHOLD WASTES - DISPOSAL OF CARBON-ZINC BATTERIES
19 APR 1984
Miss Bonnie Stuckey
Wesselman Park Nature Center
551 North Boeke Road
Evansville, IN 47711
Dear Miss Stuckey:
Thank you for your letter of March 21, 1984, in which
you request information on the proper disposal of household
batteries.
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
EPA is responsible for establishing regulations for controlling
the generation, transportation, storage, treatment, and
disposal of hazardous waste. In passing RCRA, Congress
exempted household wastes from control under the hazardous
waste regulatory program. Neither Congress nor the Agency
believes that requiring homeowners to identify which of their
wastes may be hazardous and to comply with the significant
regulations other hazardous waste generators must follow
would prove feasible either from an economics or enforcement
point of view.
As a result, household C and D cell batteries are exempted
from regulation under RCRA. The Agency does not believe that
this poses a significant environmental problem since most
household batteries are of the carbon-zinc variety. Carbon-zinc
batteries, while disposed of by many households, contain only
very small quantities of hazardous constituents and are generally
dispersed throughout a landfill. It is the nickel-cadmium
and mercury batteries which are hazardous. However, since
nickel-cadmium batteries are considerably more expensive
than most household batteries and also are rechargeable, they
are seldom disposed of in significant quantities by homeowners.
Consequently, the Agency does not believe that these batteries
pose a serious environmental hazard. Mercury cells, while
of concern if disposed of in large quantities (e.g., by a
manufacturer), generally are very small (e.g., hearing aid
and watch batteries) and thus contain only very small amounts
of mercury. These would also not be expected to result in
locally large concentrations in the landfill since household
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8BE31CB07E2F7F23852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
use of these batteries is small.
While the Agency certainly encourages the recycling of
materials wherever possible, we are not aware of any facilities
that recycle carbon-zinc batteries. Nor do we currently have any
posters or other materials that discuss the recycling or
proper disposal of household wastes. However, you may wish
to contact the Indiana State Board of Health since that Agency
has responsibility for the hazardous waste program in Indiana.
Their address is:
Land Pollution Control Division
State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan Street, A-304
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317)633-0194
In addition, several national organizations disseminate
information on hazardous waste recycling programs. You
may wish to contact the Hazardous Waste Project of Environmental
Action Foundation, Dupont Circle Building, Washington, D.C.
20036.
I hope this information will be of use to you.
Sincerely yours,
John H. Skinner
Director
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8BE31CB07E2F7F23852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
FAXBACK 12535
RESIDUES REMAINING IN EMPTY CONTAINERS, BURNING OF
9441.1986(04)
JAN 7 1986
Dale D. Parker, Ph.D.
Executive Secretary
Utah Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Committee
3180 State Office Building
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0500
Dear Dr. Parker:
This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1985, in
which you inquire as to the regulatory status of hazardous wastes
remaining in "empty" containers. Specifically, you ask whether
burning of the residue in empty drums constitutes incineration
(treatment) as defined in the RCRA regulations.
The regulations, at 40 CFR 261.7(a)(l), clearly state that
"[a]ny hazardous waste remaining in ... an empty container... is
not subject to regulation under ... RCA." Since the residue is
not regulated, its management does not constitute hazardous waste
management. In your referenced example, the burning of residue
by a drum recycler would not be considered incineration of
hazardous waste and would not require a permit. The management
of the ash and waste from such burning as hazardous is not required
by the federal regulations; the drum recycler is probably taking
this approach as being environmentally preferable.
I believe this confirms the answer given to you by the RCRA
hotline. Of course, State regulations, in authorized States,
would prevail in lieu of federal regulations and may be more
stringent. If you have further questions please let me know.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Corson
Branch Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
cc: Connie S. Nakahara
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/E67BB9B2CC992A5D852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12334
PPC 9443.1984(08)
WASTE INK AND SOLVENT MIXTURES GENERATED FROM PRINTING FACILITIES
NOV23 1984
Mr. Donald Dean
Environmental Manager
Imperial Manufacturing Company
Underwood Avenue
P.O. Box 280
Plattsburgh, N.Y. 12901
Dear Mr. Dean:
This letter responds to your inquiry of November 9, 1984,
regarding the correct designation for waste ink and solvent
mixtures generated from printing facilities.
First, waste inks containing solvents are not listed hazardous
waste; however, these inks are considered hazardous waste if they
exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste
(i.e., ignitability, reactivity, EP toxicity and corrosivity).
In your particular case, waste ink containing MEK, MIBK, toluene,
xylene, and acetone will probably exhibit ignitability. Should
this be the case, these wastes are deemed hazardous waste and
as such, should be designated as EPA Hazardous Waste Number D001.
Solvent mixtures from the cleaning of pumps, lines and
tanks, as described in your letter, are not currently covered by
the solvent listings in 40 CFR 261.31. Therefore, they are
hazardous waste only if they also exhibit one or more of the
characteristics of hazardous waste. Within the next few months,
the Agency will propose to amend the listing to include certain
solvent mixtures. Thus, many of these solvents will be brought
under Subtitle C control.
If your waste management activities occur in a state that
has been authorized under RCRA, then the State rules, rather than
the federal rules, apply.
We recommend that you consult with the appropriate States
to determine whether they interpret their listing as covering
solvent mixtures. Agency data indicates that New York State
interprets their listing as applying to solvent mixtures as well
as single solvents. In addition, it is within the authorized
State's discretion to determine the appropriate classification
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5EOC13AE03BD2FC4852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
for wastes that are both listed and exhibit a characteristic.
Should you have questions, or require additional information,
please contact Jacqueline Sales, of my staff, at (202) 382-4807
Sincerely,
Eileen Claussen
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5EOC13AE03BD2FC4852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12407
9441.1985(15)
MAY 20, 1985
CONTAINERS CLEANING OTHER THAN TRIPLE RINSING-PAPER BAGS
Mr. Stanley L. Johnson
Division of Licensing and Enforcement
Department of Environmental Protection
State House Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Alan Corson asked me to respond to your letter dated
April 10, 1985, because we previously collaborated on the
paper bag issue. Section 261.33(c) considers a container that
held a hazardous waste listed in §261.33(e) (P-listed waste)
to be hazardous waste until the bag is empty as defined in
§261.7(b)(3). Section 261.7(b)(3)(i) involves triple rinsing
with an appropriate solvent, (ii) allows cleaning "by another
method that has been shown in the scientific literature, or by
tests conducted by the generator, to achieve equivalent removal,"
and (iii) declares that a container is empty if the liner is
removed. Your question was how can paper bags meet these
criteria? The answer is that beating the bags after emptying
can be an alternative to triple rinsing, as the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline explained.
The Office of Solid Waste had no written policy until
this letter, but "bag beating" has been an acceptable alternative
to triple rinsing or an oral basis probably since 1981. There
are, however, no references in the literature that compare the
removal efficiency of repeated tapping of the outside of an
inverted paper bag vs. triple rinsing that the regulations
seem to require.
Ray Krueger, of the Office of Pesticide Programs, EPA,
said that repeated tapping with a stick is an effective removal
mechanism, though OPP has no written policy saying so. He
expressed concern about the worker exposure, and he suggested
an alternative, explained on the enclosed copy of PR notice
#83-3, issued March 29, 1983, by OPP, that cites open burning
as a possible disposal method, subject to Federal, State, and
local approval. The pesticide program has data that indicates
that such open burning leaves little residue in the soil,
because the thermal treatment break down the chemicals. In
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EA662E4C1983E81E852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
terms of RCRA, the November 25, 1980, (45 FR 78528) preamble
says: "Forms of container cleaning other than triple rinsing
may constitute treatment...the burning operation is designed
to remove and destroy the wastes...These processes meet the RCRA
definition of 'treatment' and are thus subject to the require-
ments of Part 264 and 265." Unless the generator met the
small quantity generator requirements, generating less than
one kilogram of P-listed wastes in the given calendar month,
burning the bags would be subject to RCRA treatment standards.
I hope this letter answers your question for emptying
paper bags. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me at (202) 382-2550.
Sincerely yours,
Irene S. Horner
Environmental Protection Specialist
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
Enclosure
cc: Alan S. Corson
RCRA/Superfund Hotline
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EA662E4C1983E81E852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12329
PPC 9441.1984(32)
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTIC - BASIS FOR LISTING
NOV7 1984
Mr. Stephen S. Odojewski
Waste Resource Associates, Inc.
2576 Seneca Avenue
Niagara Falls, New York 14305
Dear Mr. Odojewski:
This letter responds to your September 18, 1984 request for
clarification of the RCRA regulations that apply to waste that are
only hazardous on the basis of a characteristic.
If a waste that is hazardous because of a characteristic is not
a listed waste, then 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(i) says it is not a hazardous
waste when it no longer meets that characteristic. Your under-
standing of 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and 261.3(d)(l) is correct in saying
that this treated waste residue is no longer hazardous when it no
longer is hazardous by characteristics. The treatment itself may or
may not require a RCRA facility permit, depending on if the treatment
is subject to regulation. Exceptions to treatment can generally
be found in 264. l(g).
On the other hand, some wastes are listed solely because of a
characteristic, such as F003 (ignitables). In this case the waste is
no longer hazardous when it is mixed with solid waste and the mixture
does not exhibit any characteristic according to 261.3(a)(2)(iii).
On the other hand, if a waste like F003 is not mixed with solid
waste during treatment, 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2) and 261.3(d)(2) says the
treatment residue remains a listed waste until the waste has been
excluded under 260.20 and 260.22. Specifically, 40 CFR 260.22(c)
requires a "delisting" petition to demonstrate that the waste no
longer meets the characteristic criteria.
I do want to point out that all but 7 States and 3 territories
have programs that operate in lieu of the Federal RCRA program —
and 8 of these programs have received full authorization. When a
State has been granted authority to operate the RCRA program, you
are subject to the State regulations which may have a slightly
different viewpoint. The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 800-424-9346
can send you a copy of the State hazardous waste agency addresses
and phone number if you need it.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8C10C9B80E044C41852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
In most cases, characteristic wastes would no longer be a RCRA
hazardous waste when they no longer exhibit the characteristic, except
as previously mentioned. Please do not hesitate to contact me
again if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Alan S. Corson
Chief
Studies and Methods Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8C10C9B80E044C41852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11442
9453.1989(07)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 13 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Satellite" Accumulation
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: David A. Ullrich, Associate Division Director
Office of RCRA
Waste Management Division (5HR-13)
In response to your memorandum of June 13, 1989, we have
addressed the questions posed by Ohio EPA regarding our
requirements of 40 CFR Section 262.34(c) concerning satellite
accumulation.
Specifically, in the attachment to your memorandum, Ohio EPA
asks if roll-off boxes meet the definition of containers and may
be used at satellite accumulation areas. It is our view that if
the roll-off boxes meet the definition of container found in
Section 260.10 and are managed in accordance with the applicable
container requirements of Sections 265.171, 265.172, and
265.173(a), they may be utilized in satellite accumulation.
Section 260.10 defines "container" as "any portable device
in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of
or otherwise handled." A roll-off box is a portable device. The
container requirements include: (1) that the container be in
good condition (i.e., not leaking), (2) that the container be of
a material, or lined with a material, which is compatible with
the waste, and, (3) that the container be closed during storage,
except to add or remove waste.
The ??? other requirement under Section 262.34(c)(l) states
that the container be marked with the words "Hazardous Waste" or
other words that identify the contents. This is the extent of
the physical requirements for satellite accumulation containers.
Therefore, as long as the quantity limits and time limits for
excess quantities are met, the roll-off box may be classified as
a satellite accumulation container.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5FODC347A0804A9B852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
-2-
However, for containers used in off-site shipment of
hazardous waste, the Department of Transportation (DOT) packaging
specifications for the hazard class must be met. DOT regulations
governing the transportation of hazardous materials are found in
49 CFR Parts 171 through 177.
Ohio EPA has also raised a concern about the ability of a
generator to determine when the 55 gallon quantity limit for
satellite accumulation of hazardous waste (or one quart of acute
hazardous waste), is exceeded if roll-off boxes are used. The
dimensions, or capacity, of the roll-off boxes are not mentioned
in the Ohio EPA attachment. Under our regulations any type of
container may be used as a satellite accumulation device provided
it meets the Section 260.10 definition for container, and is used
in accordance with the above-mentioned container provisions of
Part 265. We ask that Ohio EPA inform us if they find that the
use of roll-off boxes of various volumes and capacities
contributes to a generator's inability to quantify his waste.
In addition to answering these questions, we offer the
following observation. It appears that the Ohio EPA has a
thorough understanding of the Section 262.34 requirements and
provides an accurate interpretation of the regulations. However,
you should note that, upon removal from an accumulation storage
area, hazardous waste may also be managed in an on-site permitted
unit (45 FR 76624, November 19, 1980).
If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please
do not hesitate to contact me or have your staff contact Emily
Roth at (202) 382-4777.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5FODC347A0804A9B852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
FAXBACK 12308
PPC 9443.1984(05)
BLASTING CAPS AS REACTIVE WASTES
11 SEPT 1984
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Status of Blasting Caps as Reactive Wastes
FROM: John Skinner, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: David Wagoner, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
Region VII
This is in response to your recent memorandum requesting
clarification of the definition of a reactive waste as it applies
to out-dated blasting caps. According to 40 CFR 261.23, a waste
which is capable of detonation or explosive reaction, if subjected
to heat or a strong initiating force, is a reactive hazardous
waste. Blasting caps clearly fall within that definition.
As you brought to our attention, Section 2.1.3 of "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste" (SW-846) appears, however,
to suggest otherwise. A note in the manual states that blasting
caps in quantities of less than 1000 are not a hazardous waste.
This is a mistake. SW -846 is a compilation of sampling and
analytical methods that may be used to test for the presence of
Appendix VII or VIII constituents. It is not, however, the
basis on which the identification or listing of a particular
material as a hazardous waste is made. Thus, Note 5 in Section
2.1.3. of SW-846, should be disregarded.
A package of revisions and updates to SW-846 is currently in
preparation; as part of this update, Note 5 will be deleted to
prevent future misunderstandings. We appreciate your brining
this problem to our attention. If you have any questions, please
contact Florence Richardson of my staff. She can be reached at
FTS 382-4801.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/ABCA795A532F689D852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
EPA530-R-99-005b
SUB-9224-99-002
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT
February 1999
1. Movement of Waste Between Satellite Accumulation Areas
Pursuant to 40 CFR Section 262.34(c), large quantity generators (LQGs) and small quantity
generators (SQGs) are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste in satellite accumulation
areas without complying with all of the generator accumulation provisions, or obtaining a
RCRA permit or interim status. The satellite accumulation provisions allow LQGs and
SQGs to accumulate hazardous waste in containers at or near any point of generation where
wastes initially accumulate and which is under the control of the operator of the process
generating the waste. If a facility has multiple satellite accumulation areas, can an LQG or
SQG move wastes from one satellite area to another satellite area?
An LQG or SQG cannot move wastes between satellite accumulation areas. Once a waste
leaves a satellite accumulation area, the waste should be destined for an accumulation area
which is fully regulated under Sections 262.34(a) or (d), or Parts 264 or 265. The regulatory
requirements for satellite accumulation areas are designed to provide the generator with a
safe and efficient manner to accumulate limited amounts of hazardous waste at or near the
point of generation, prior to moving the waste to a fully regulated storage area. This
eliminates the need to frequently move smaller quantities of hazardous waste within the
generator's facility (49 FR 49569; December 20, 1984). It was not EPA's intent to allow
hazardous wastes to be moved from one satellite accumulation area to another.
Furthermore, if waste is moved between satellite accumulation areas, this calls into question
whether the waste is being stored in a satellite accumulation area "at or near the point of
generation where wastes initially accumulate."
Faxback 14337
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/28DFOBC3BC8BF23A852567BA00620... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 11048
PPC 9441.1984(34)
EMPTY CONTAINER RULE
DATE: 28 NOV 1984
SUBJECT: Empty Container Rule
FROM: John H. Skinner, Directory
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Karl J. Klepitsch, Jr., Chief
Waste Management Branch
This is in response to your October 24, 1984, memorandum
in which you requested a clarification of the Headquarters
position on emptying tank cars. Let me reiterate the position
Alan Corson took during his conversation with Gary Victorine
and relate it to the information included in your memorandum.
At that time, Gary did not emphasize that the tank cars had
bottom valves.
Alan told Gary that if only top unloading is available, the
tank car is empty only if as much has been removed as possible
and no more than an inch or no more that 0.3% of the total capacity
(weight) remains. However, the Agency expects bottom valves to
be used, when present, if they provide maximum removal of waste.
Likewise, a 55-gallon drum should be emptied as completely
as possible. If pouring from an inverted drum removes more
residual than a hand pump does, then pouring is obligatory. Of
course, removal must be performed to achieve maximum possible
removal, not just to the one-inch level of 0.03% capacity, in order
to produce an empty container according to 40 CFR 261.7(b)(l).
40 CFR 261.7(b)(l)(i) sites in part: "all wastes have
been removed that can be removed using the practices commonly
employed...,e.g., pouring, pumping, and aspirating..." The
August 18, 1982, preamble says that one inch of waste can be left
in an empty container only if it remains after performing normal
removal operations. Taken together, these citations support the
interpretation that all commonly employed emptying methods
have to be employed to empty a container. "Commonly employed"
refers to the normal practice of industry, not to what a given
person does. Thus, containers that have not been subjected to
all commonly employed methods of emptying are still subject to
regulation.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3557C78329459623852565DA006F022F 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
If you have any further questions on this issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Alan Corson of my staff at FTS-3 82-4770.
cc: Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3557C78329459623852565DA006F022F 8/19/2004
-------
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 84
9443.1984(06)
An aqueous wtste containing snail amounts of an organic
coopound flashes in a Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester.
Is this waste RGtt ignitable or is it excluded- fro* that
definition because it 'contains less tnan 24S'«lcohol?"
The waste has no alcohol in it.
If an aqueous waste contains no alcohol, it is not excluded
fro* the definition of ignitable as is wine or latex paint.
Hence, If the flashpoint is less than 140*F, the aqueous
waste 1s deemed icnltable. EPA is working on developing
a test for such wastes to determine if they would sustain
coooustion or on I/ flash in the Closed Cu£ Tester.
Source: Florence Richardson
Research: Oenise Wright
-------
Page 1 of 1
EPA530-R-99-0121
SUB-9224-99-012
RCRA, SUPERFUND & EPCRA HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT
December 1999
1. Inspection of Satellite Accumulation Containers
A large quantity generator (LQG) that is accumulating hazardous waste on-sitefor 90 days
or less in containers must comply with 40 CFR Part 265, SubpartI (§262.34(a)(l)(i)).
Section 265.174 of Subpart I requires owners and operators to inspect containers weekly for
leaks and deterioration caused by corrosion or other factors. Are LQGs required to inspect
hazardous waste containers in satellite accumulation areas at or near the waste 's point of
generation in accordance with §262.34(c)?
Hazardous waste containers used to accumulate hazardous waste at or near any point of
generation ("satellite accumulation") and in compliance with §262.34(c) are not required to
be inspected weekly. A generator accumulating hazardous waste in satellite accumulation
areas must comply with §§265.171, 265.172, and 265.173(a) (§262.34(c)(l)(i)). These
requirements include that a LQG ensure that the containers are in good condition, that the
waste is compatible with the containers, and that the containers are kept closed except when
necessary to add or remove waste. In addition, if the container begins to leak the generator
must transfer the waste to a container that is in good condition. Section 265.174, regarding
weekly inspection, is not a requirement for containers of hazardous waste in a satellite
accumulation area. Therefore, LQGs are not required to conduct a weekly inspection of
containers in satellite accumulation areas so long as they comply with the provisions of
§262.34(c). Authorized states may require weekly inspection of containers in satellite
accumulation areas, as states may have more stringent requirements than the federal
regulations.
Faxback 14418
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/04CD4D38067AlCA885256936006EFC... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of4
FAXBACK 14029
PPC 9451.1996(04)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
May 1, 1996
Brenda J. Boy kin
Shaw, Pittman, Potts, & Trowbridge
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
Dear Ms. Boykin:
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1995 requesting an
interpretation of the regulations that apply to generators who
accumulate waste in containers at or near the point of generation
where wastes initially accumulate. Specifically, you ask whether
the regulation at 40 CFR 262.34 would allow the generator to
accumulate more than 55 gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste at
one time at a satellite location.
As you may know, the regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(c)(l)
state that "a generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of
non-acute hazardous waste or one quart of acutely hazardous
waste...in containers at or near any point of generation where
wastes initially accumulate, which is under the control of the
operator of the process generating the waste..." Such accumulation
may take place provided that the waste is placed in containers
that are in good condition, the waste is compatible with their
containers, the containers are marked with the words "Hazardous
Wastes" or other words that identify the contents, and the
containers are covered when the generator is not adding or
removing waste. See 49 FR 49568 - 49572, Dec. 20, 1984. Should
the 55 gallon limit be exceeded, Section 262.34(c) requires the
generator to mark the container holding the excess accumulation of
hazardous waste with the date the excess amount began
accumulating, and after three days, manage that excess waste in
accordance with Section 262.34(a).
Your question relates to the interpretation of 40 CFR
262.34(c)(2) which states that:
A generator who accumulates either hazardous waste or acutely
hazardous waste listed in 261.33(e) in excess of the amounts
listed in paragraph (c)(l) of this section at or near any point of
generation must, with respect to that amount of excess waste,
comply within three days with paragraph (a) of this section or
other applicable provisions of this chapter. During the three-day
period the generator must continue to comply with paragraphs
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C7A32C4432227EB9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
(c)(l)(I) through (ii) of this section. The generator must mark
the container holding the excess accumulation of hazardous waste
with the date the excess amount began accumulating.
According to these provisions, the generator has 3 days
after the 55 gallon limit has been exceeded to transfer the excess
waste from the satellite area. In order to answer your question
of whether waste above the 55 gallon limit may be accumulated in
the 3 day interim period and remain subject to the accumulation
area provisions, it is necessary to refer to the preamble language
of December 20, 1984, which considers the potential hazards of
accumulating hazardous waste in these sites. In the December 20,
1984 Federal Register notice, the Agency states that "...the
accumulation at satellite areas of up to 55 gallons of non-acutely
hazardous waste is reasonable and safe and does not pose a threat
to human health and the environment" (49 FR 49569, Dec. 20, 1984).
However, in the discussion which followed, the Agency questioned
the safety of the accumulation of non-acutely hazardous waste in
amounts above the 55 gallon limit. "Because the weight of
evidence suggests limited use by the regulated community of
containers larger than 55 gallons and because spills of 110
gallons of non-acutely hazardous waste would pose a higher
environmental threat, EPA does not believe that the satellite
accumulation level should be higher than 55 gallons." Id.
The preamble language above illustrates the Agency's view
that waste accumulation in satellite accumulation areas should not
be excessive. Although it is clear that the Agency did not intend
for amounts as large as 110 gallons to be accumulated on a routine
basis, it is not specific about whether small amounts of
non-acutely hazardous waste exceeding the 55 gallon limit may be
accumulated routinely. The Agency understands that due to the
nature of the production process, there may be special cases in
which small quantities of wastes above the 55 gallon limit may
need to be accumulated for brief periods in one accumulation area.
Thus, we interpret that the satellite accumulation provisions of
40 CFR 262.34(c)(l) permit the generator to continue to accumulate
nominal quantities of a non acutely hazardous waste in excess of
the 55 gallon limit as long as the additional wastes accumulated
during the 3-days are managed in accordance with section
262.34(c)(l). Any excess waste must be managed (including
transferring that excess waste to the generator's 90-day
accumulation area) in accordance with section 262.34(a) within
three days.
The Agency does not expect that any accumulation over the 55
gallon limit will be excessive and believes that most facilities
should be aware of the process waste generation rate and should be
able to arrange for the removal of any excess accumulation within
the 3 -day time frame, thereby avoiding excessive accumulation of
waste over the 55 gallon limit. The Agency also understands that
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C7A32C4432227EB9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
there may be one-time circumstances during which quantities in
excess of 110 gallons are generated. In such cases, the Agency
recommends that you contact your state waste management office for
further guidance on how such occurrences should be handled.
Also, because states may have regulations and
interpretations that are more stringent than the federal
regulations, the Agency strongly recommends that you check with
your state waste management office (or Regional office in
unauthorized states) for questions specific to the amount of waste
allowed above the 55 gallon limit in the particular states where
your clients operate. This interpretation is not binding on
authorized states.
I hope this response is of assistance. If you have
additional questions, please contact Ann Codrington of my office
at (202)260-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Bill Hamele
Attachment
SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
(202)663-8000
Facsimile(202) 663-8007
August 15, 1995
Ms. Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director, Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Satellite Accumulation Rule; Request for Interpretation
Dear Ms. Lowrance:
I am writing to request an interpretation of the rule that
applies to generators who accumulate hazardous waste in satellite
accumulation containers. 40 C.F.R. 262.34(c) states that "[a]
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C7A32C4432227EB9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
generator may accumulate as much as 55 gallons of hazardous waste
... in containers at or near any point of generation" provided
that the generator complies with certain requirements. The rule
states that if the generator accumulates more than 55 gallons of
waste, he must "with respect to that amount of excess waste" move
the waste to the facility's long-term (e.g., 90-day) storage area
within three days.
My question is whether the generator can temporarily have
more than 55 gallons of hazardous waste at a single satellite
location. This could occur, for example, if the generator has
filled one 55-gallon container with hazardous waste and intends to
move that container to the long-term storage area within three
days. If the generator then starts filling a new 55-gallon
container in the three-day period before he or she removes the old
one, this would mean that the total quantity of hazardous waste at
the satellite accumulation location could exceed 55 gallons
temporarily (because it would include the filled 55-gallon
container as well as the amount that accumulates during the
three-day period). I am uncertain whether the rule would allow
the generator to have more than 55 gallons at one time at a
satellite location, even under these circumstances, and I would
appreciate your clarification.
Please contact me if you require any additional information
in order to respond to this inquiry. Thank you for your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Brenda J. Boy kin
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C7A32C4432227EB9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20460
MAR 71984
Mr. Dick Bruner
Executive Director
Technical and Logistics Services (DLA-S)
Defense Logistics Agency
Cameron Station
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
Dear Mr. Bruner:
This letter is in response to a number of requests made by the Department of Defense (DOD)
for guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the regulatory status of spent and/or
discarded lithium-sulfur dioxide (Li/S02) batteries.
EPA recognizes that the Department of Defense has done extensive work in assessing the
hazards posed by lithium batteries -I and in developing procedures for managing spent or discarded
Li/S02 cells. In fact, DOD currently considers these batteries to be hazardous wastes for management
purposes. Consequentlyi the purpose of this letter is simply to render an Agency opinion as to whether
lithium batteries are hazardous wastes under the rules promulgated pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), and to clarify the application of those rules to the
management (Le., disposal) of lithium batteries.
-The term 'lithium batteries' as used in this letter applies only to those batteries or cells commonly
referred to as lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries. At this time, EPA does not have sufficient information to
make a blanket determination as to whether lithium batteries using other cathode materials (le., thionyl
chloride (SOC12), poly carbon monofluoride ((CF)X), manganese dioxide (MnO^), iodine (I), silver oxide
(Ag2O), silver chromate (Ag2Cr04), vanadium pentoxide (V205), iron sulfide (FeS), copper oxide (CuO),
and lead bismuthate (Bi2Pb2O5)) exhibit the characteristic of reactivity. Consequently, handlers of these
lithium batteries must evaluate them against the reactivity characteristic identified in S261.23 as well as
the other hazardous waste characteristics to determine if the batteries should be handled as hazardous
wastes.
-------
Faxbackll033
Based on a careful review of the available data and information, EPA has concluded
that lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries clearly exhibit the characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40
CFR 261.23. Handlers of these wastes must, therefore, comply with all applicable standards
under 40 CFR Parts 262 to 266, and 124, 270, and 271. Under these standards, the land
disposal of reactive waste is prohibited unless the waste is treated or otherwise rendered non-
reactive. (See 264.312 and 265.312).
Under 40 CFR 261.23, a solid waste is considered to be reactive if a representative
sample of the waste has any of the following properties:
(1) It is normally unstable and readily undergoes violent change without detonating.
(2) It reacts violently with water.
(3) It forms potentially explosive mixtures with water.
(4) When mixed with water, it generates toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity
sufficient to present a danger to human health or the environment.
(5) It is a cyanide or sulfide bearing waste which, when exposed to pH conditions
between 2 and 12.5, can generate toxic gases, , vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to
present a danger to human health or the environment.
(6) It is capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a strong
initiating source or if heated under confinement.
(7) It is readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction at
standard temperature and pressure.
(8) It is a forbidden explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173.53 or a Class B explosive
as defined in 49 CFR 173.88.
The lithium in Li/Sc>2 cells will form potentially explosive hydrogen gas when mixed with
water (261.23 (a) (3)), and Li/S02 cells are capable of violent rupture or reaction if subjected
to a strong initiating source or if heated under confinement (261.23 (a) (6)). However, of
primary concern is the potential, under existing management practices, for components of the
batteries to generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to
human health or the environment when those components are mixed with water or exposed to
certain pH conditions (261.23 (a) (4) and (a) (5)).
-------
A review of the existing literature clearly indicates that Li/S02 batteries are capable of
violent reaction if mishandled by being exposed to a strong initiating source or heated under
confinement. Incidents of violent cell ruptures, particularly of cells of the unbalanced design, have
been documented in laboratory abuse tests and under actual field conditions. Although newer
designs of Li/S02 batteries incorporate a number of safety features that reduce their explosive
potential in most circumstances, forced discharge below zero volts, penetration, or heating in a
confined area may still cause vented batteries to violently rupture.
Lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries typically contain strips of lithium metal as the anode as well
as a non-aqueous electrolyte consisting primarily of sulfur dioxide (S02) and smaller concentrations
of acetonitrile (CHsCN) and a lithium salt, typically lithium bromide (Li Br). Lithium is known to
react with water to produce potentially explosive hydrogen gas. Although lithium battery cells are
constructed such that their reactive components do not ordinarily come into contact with water
under normal operating conditions, if placed in a landfill, or otherwise improperly managed, these
batteries will eventually corrode and allow their reactive constituents to come into contact with
water. The reactive nature of lithium is of particular concern since substantial quantities of partially
discharged cells or cells of the unbalanced, or excess lithium type, are often disposed of together.
The Agency believes that under existing management practices, (Ie., storage in drums or disposal
of batteries in drums), potentially explosive concentrations of hydrogen gas might reasonably be
expected to occur (261.23(a) (2)).
The Agency also believes that the practice of accumulating large quantities of Li/S02
batteries could result in concentrations of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in sufficient concentration
to present a danger to human health or the environment. As mentioned previously, newer lithium
battery cells are designed to automatically vent S02 and other components to the air to minimize the
possibility of explosion due to pressure when the cells are exposed to external heat or short
circuiting. During operations such as collection, processing, and disposal, the batteries may be
exposed to mechanical shock, short circuiting, immersion in water or penetration. These
operations are likely to cause cells to rupture and/or vent their reactive materials in potentially
dangerous concentrations if venting or rupture occurs in a confined area or if significant numbers of
cells are involved. Sulfur dioxide is a strong irritant and is capable of causing incapacitation at
concentrations above 50 ppm and has proven to be life-threatening at concentrations of 400-500
ppm. In addition, acetonitrile (CH3CN) will decompose to form toxic cyanide fumes when heated.
Lithium also reacts with acetonitrile to produce lithium cyanide (LiCN) which in turn can react with
weak acids to produce toxic hydrocyanic gas. Potentially dangerous concentrations of these, as
well as other toxic fumes and vapors, may, therefore, be expected to result if the reactive
components of these batteries are exposed to water or acidic conditions during collection,
processing, or disposal operations.
The inherently reactive nature of lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries was, in fact, demonstrated by a fire at the
Groton Point landfill in Groton, Connecticut on April 20, 1981. In that incident, a number of drums of lithium-
sulfur dioxide batteries, which were improperly handled, caught fire due either to short circuiting or contact with
-------
moisture. The fire resulted in a number of violent ruptures as well as the generation of toxic gases and fumes
which posed a hazard to personnel combating the fire.
The Agency recognizes that the degree of hazard posed by lithium battery cells depends upon a large
number of variables including:
• the quantity of cells accumulated in one location and the condition of the cells (e.g., whether they have
vented, are partially depleted, fully discharged, of the balanced or unbalanced type, etc.)
• the procedures used in storing, transporting, disposing, or otherwise handling spent or discarded
batteries.
• the proximity of workers or the general public to the batteries.
Due to the variable nature of the hazards posed by lithium batteries under different conditions, the
Agency had considered whether it was feasible to establish accumulation levels below which quantities of lithium
batteries would not be considered reactive and, therefore, not subject to the hazardous waste regulations.
However, the Agency does not believe that there is sufficient information available at this time to reasonably
establish such exemption levels specifically for lithium batteries.
The Agency's conclusion that lithium-sulfur dioxide batteries exhibit the characteristic of reactivity does
not affect the applicability of other provisions of the hazardous waste regulations. Of specific interest to DOD
may be S261.5, which conditionally exempts from hazardous waste regulation all hazardous wastes from
generators that do not generate more than 1000 kg. per month of hazardous waste or accumulate more than
1000 kg. of such waste at any time.-/ However, you should be aware that when calculating the quantity of
waste generated for purposes of assessing small quantity generator status, all hazardous wastes from all sources
that are generated at a particular siteV in a one-month period or which are accumulated over any period of time
must be counted. You should also be aware that Congress is currently considering amendments to RCRA that
would lower the small quantity generator exemption level to 100 kg.
As mentioned previously, the practical effect of the Agency's conclusion that lithium batteries are
reactive wastes is that regulated quantities of these batteries may not be disposed of at most hazardous waste
land disposal facilities. Sections 264.312 and 265.312 prohibit landfilling of reactive wastes unless they are
treated, rendered, or mixed such that they no longer exhibit the characteristic of reactivity and unless the general
requirements for reactive wastes contained in §264.17 (b) and 265.17 (b) have been met.
If you have any questions about the information contained in this letter, please do not hesitate to contact
either Francine Jacoff or Robert Axelrad, of my staff at (202) 3 82-4761.
Sincerely yours,
/s/JackW.McGraw
-------
Lee M. Thomas
Assistant Administrator
2/1 Acute hazardous' wastes are subject to a I kg. exemption level for quantities generated in a one-month period
of accumulated over any period of time. As a characteristic hazardous waste, lithium batteries are subject
to the 1000 kg. exemption level.
3/See 5260.10 definitions for 'individual generation site' and 'on-site'.
-------
-2-
The Agency notes that all final decisions that have been
promulgated pertain only to the waste(s) cited in the promulgation
notice. Any other waste management activities not included in the
delisting decision are still subject to RCRA Subtitle C or authorized
State requirements.
As a general rule, the petitioned wastes generated before
the granting of a temporary exclusion were considered hazardous
and, therefore, subjected the units handling the wastes to
Subtitle C control. The granting of a temporary exclusion for
the waste only temporarily removed the waste unit from Subtitle
C regulation. It should also b« noted that the petitioned
wastes (that had been granted a temporary exclusion, but then
denied final exclusion), that were generated during the time the
temporary exclusion was in effect, are now considered hazardous
wastes. However, if these wastes remain in the disposal unit
identified in the petition, the wastes are not subject to Subtitle
C management requirements unless they are disturbed in such a way
so as to trigger Subtitle C regulation (e.g., removed, excavated,
or mixed with other wastes). The following discussions clarify
the regulatory status of wastes that wers previously granted
temporary exclusions.
Final Exclusion Granted
o The facility may continue to handle the petitioned
waste as non-hazardous within the constraints of the
granting notice and any oth«r applicable requirements.
Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Results of the Technical
Evaluation (i.e.. the petitioner failed to show the waste te be
non-hazardous)
If the waste is disposed off-site:
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency's
final decision in the Federal Register.
o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated,
as described in the petition and that would have previously
been included under the temporary exclusion, is subject to
all applicable RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program
requirements (e.g., the facility must insure that the waste
is shipped to a RCRA hazardous waste management facility) •
o While a temporary exclusion was in effect, the petitioner
was not liable for compliance with hazardous waste regula-
tions. Petitioned wastes generated while the temporary
exclusion was in effect could have been disposed of off-site
as non-hazardous. All wastes in the off-site unit must
-------
-3-
be handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements if,
at a later date, they are managed in such a way as to
trigger Subtitle C regulation (e.g., removed from the
unit or considered to be "stored" rather than "disposed").
If the waste is managed on-site:
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion is six months after publication of the Agency's
final decision in the Federal Register.
o Starting on the effective date, new waste that is generated,
as described in the petition and that would have been included
under the temporary exclusion, is subject to all applicable
RCRA Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements.
o Between 1980 and the granting of a temporary exclusion,
there was some period of time that the waste was considered
to be hazardous. Therefore, all units covered by temporary
exclusions have or should have interim status.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered by a temporary exclusion, continues to receive
hazardous waste after the effective date of the final
decision, Attachment 1 provides guidance on compliance
requirements for those units.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving all
wastes prior to the effective date of the final decision,
(and receives no other hazardous wastes), Part 265 closure
must be initiated within 90 days of the revocation of the
temporary exclusion.
o If an on-site land disposal unit that received wastes
covered under a temporary exclusion stops receiving hazardous
waste prior to the effective date of the final decision
but continues to receive solid waste. Part 265 closure must
be initiated within 90 days, and completed within 180 days,
of the revocation of the temporary exclusion. However, the
Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule which
may change these requirements.
o If prior to the effective date of the final decision,
waste covered under a temporary exclusion is disposed in
an on-site solid waste*/ unit, the solid waste unit is not
subject to hazardous waste regulations other than would
typically apply to a solid waste management unit. All
Solid waste" is defined in 40 CFR 261.2(a)(l).
-------
-4-
wastes in that unit are considered hazardous and must be
handled in accordance with Subtitle C requirements ijf they
are managed in such a way as to trigger Subtitle C regulation
at a later date (e.g. , they are removed and are shipped
off-site or receive further on-site treatment).
o If a unit containing only a waste covered under a temporary
exclusion closed prior to the effective date of the final
decision, the unit is not subject to hazardous waste
regulation unless later disturbed (e.g., removed, excavated).
Final Exclusion Denied Based on the Failure to Provide Information
Needed to Evaluate the Petition • ~~~ !
o The effective date of the revocation of the temporary
exclusion was November 9, 1986. As of this date, the
waste must be managed in accordance with applicable RCRA
Subtitle C or authorized State program requirements.
o Attachment 1 provides guidance regarding LOIS compliance
requirements for petitioners with on-site land disposal
units that contain wastes once covered by a temporary
exclusion.
o Starting on the effective date, n«w wastes that are
generated, as described in the petition and that would
have previously been included under the temporary exclusion,
that are disposed off-site must be shipped to a RCRA hazardous
waste management facility.
The status list also shows petitions that have been withdrawn
or are considered moot*
o Petitioners that have withdrawn (i.e., the facility has
submitted a letter to the Agency requesting that its
petition be withdrawn) have lost their temporary exclusions
and should have handled their waste(s) as hazardous as of
the date the petition was withdrawn.
o Petitions that are considered moot may be moot for a variety
of reasons* including: disposal of a specific volume of
waste under a previously granted "one-time" exclusion;
cessation of production activities that generated the
waste being petitioned for delisting; or reclassification
of a particular listing. The status list identifies the
reasons a petition is considered "moot* and the date that
the petition was determined to be moot by the Agency.
-------
-5-
I hope that the attached status list and regulatory
compliance guidance is useful in coordinating the ongoing
efforts of both the Regional and State programs. Should you
have any questions regarding the attached material or require
more information on the Federal delisting program activities/
please feel free to contact Suzanne Rudzinski of the Office of
Solid Waste at FTS 382-4206. If guidance is needed in determining
appropriate compliance actions* please contact Steve Heare of
the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement at FTS 382-2207.
Attachments
cc: RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X Jeff Denit (OSW)
Enforcement Section Chiefs, Regions I-X Bruce Weddle (PSPD)
Permit Section Chiefs, Regions I-X Susan Bromm (PSPD)
Jack McGraw (OSWER) Steve Hirsch (OGC)
Gene Lucero (OWPE) Ed Reich (SSCD)
Suzanne Rudzin»ki (PSPD) Myles Morse (PSPD)
Steve Heare (OWPE) Delisting Staff (PSPD)
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Guidance On Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost
Their Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On-si
-------
Guidance on Compliance Requirements For Facilities That Lost
Temporary Exclusion But Continue To Manage The Waste On-si
I. Requirements for facilities that had interim status, and hac
other units that handled hazardous waste during the time "tHl
the temporarily excluded waste was handled:
- If the facility filed a Part A permit application, and d
not modify it to exclude the unit handling the temporari'
excluded waste, and the facility has not filed a Part B
permit application, and no decision on its permit has be<
made, no further action is required by the facility.
- If the facility revised its Part A permit application to
exclude the unit handling temporarily excluded waste {wh
should mean that that unit handled no other hazardous wai
then the facility must make the necessary change during
status to include this unit, under Section 270.72 or its
analog.
- If the facility has filed a Part B permit application, bi
decision on its permit has yet been made, no further act
required. The facility may need to revise its Part B pe
application, however, if the units containing the petit-
waste were not included as part of their permit applic
It must also request a change in interim status as des
above.
- If the facility received its permit, it must file for a i
permit modification for the unit handling the temporari1
excluded wast* under Section 270.41 or its state analog.
Under the existing regulations, the facility may not han
that waste until the permit is modified. However, the
Agency intends to propose, in the near future, a rule th
will simplify the procedures for obtaining approval to
handle new hazardous wastes.
- If the petitioned waste is disposed of in an on-site sur
impoundment* and that impoundment continues to receive t
petitioned waste four (4} years after the date of promul
of the final denial decision, the petitioner must comply
with Section 3005(j)(6) of RCRA which requires that the
impoundment be retrofitted to meet minimum technological
requirements of Section 3004(o)(1) (A) of RCRA. Accordir
the deadline for complying with the minimum technologica
requirements for surface impoundments is four (4) years
after the date of promulgation of the final denial decis
-------
-2-
II. Requirements for facilities'that may have lost interim status
because of failure to certify compliance:
If other units handling hazardous waste at the facility
required certification on November 8, 1985, but did not
certify, those units lost interim status. However, if a
unit handled only temporarily excluded wastes, that unit
did not lose interim status. (See 50 PR 38946, September
25, 1985.) We recommend that you inspect these units to"
verify that they are in compliance with all applicable
regulations.
III. Requirements for facilities that handled only temporarily
excluded wastes:
- If the facility had interim status and has filed a Part A
permit application, and did not modify its Part A to exclude
the unit handling th« temporarily excluded waste, no further
action is required by the facility.
- If the facility withdrew its Part A permit application,
the facility still has interim status, however, the facility
must reinstate its Part A under Section 270.10(a) and (e)
or their state analogs.
- If the facility has filed a Part B permit application,
but no decision on its permit has yet been made, no
further action is required by the facility. The facility
may need to revise) its Part B permit application, however,
if the units containing the petitioned waste were not
part of their permit application (i.e., if the permit
application addresses only new units that are yet to be
constructed)* Me do not believe that any facilities
which handled only temporarily excluded wastes have
received a permit.
• If the facility handled only temporarily excluded waste,
it was not required to do anything to retain interim status
under Section 3005(e)(2) of RCRA. (See 50 PR 38946, Sep-
tember 25, 1985.) The facility is not subject to Section
3005(e)(3) of RCRA.
-------
PPC 9434.1989(01)
MAR 17 1989
Mr. Joseph E. Cothern
Environmental Protection Specialist
Department of the Air Force
HQ Aerospace Guidance and Metrology Center (AFLC)
Newark Air Force Station, Ohio 43057-5000
Dear Mr. Cothern:
This letter is in response to your letter dated February 2,
1989, in which you requested an assessment and characterization
of beryllium wastes generated at Newark Air Force Station.
In follow-up conversations with you on February 10, 1989 and
February 13, 1989 to obtain more information related to the
process involved, you indicated that the beryllium is generated
in the form of a very fine dust. In order to meet the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) worker
protection standards and the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS), the airborne dust is
collected by vacuum hoods and directed through a two stage
filtration system. As I understand the vacuum-filtration
process, the system consists of the following components:
vacuum hood
10-foot tube
air trap
cyclone hopper (with a bag filter located on top of hopper)
collection container
vacuum unit (with three filters inside)
The dust-laden air initially enters the vacuum hood located
on the ceiling of the grinding/polishing room and travels up the
10-foot tube. It then enters an air trap in which heavier
particulate matter is collected. The lighter air-suspended
particles are then channeled into a cyclone hopper. A bag filter
is situated at the top of the hopper. This is the first
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc
Faxback 13266
-------
-2-
filtration stage. The vacuum unit, which provides suction for
the entire system, is attached to the outside of the hopper. The
vacuum unit houses the final filtration element, which consists
of three filters. This second filtration stage traps the
remaining dust in the air before it is discharged into the
ambient air.
The collection container is detached from the hopper and
vacuum unit when it is filled to capacity with dust, two percent
of which is beryllium. It is then replaced with a new container.
The subsequent management practice is to stabilize/solidify the
dust in cement prior to disposal. The container filled with
concrete (stabilized dust) is then sent off site to a disposal
facility.
The final filtration element, on the other hand, has never
been replaced since the start-up of the operation. As I
understand the current operating procedures, the final filtration
contamination renders it useless.
The material that you wish to characterize are final
filtration element, the beryllium dust, and the dust collection
container. To identify the materials as hazardous waste under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, they
must first be classified as solid wastes under 40 CFR Section
261.2. Based on information you provided over the phone, the
final filtration element, the solidified dust (concrete), and the
container holding the concrete are abandoned by land disposal
and, therefore, meet the definition of solid waste [40 CFR
Section 261.2 (b) (1)] .
based on the additional information you provided over the
phone about the subassembly grinding/polishing and air filtration
process, I have concluded that the dust is not a commercial
chemical product (i.e., PO15) and is not any other listed
hazardous waste identified in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D. The
solidified dust, the container holding the solidified dust, and
the final filtration element contaminated with dust also are not
RCRA listed hazardous wastes. If the dust does not exhibit a
hazardous waste characteristic (prior to solidification) as
defined in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C, the dust is not a
hazardous waste and is not regulated under RCRA Subtitle C.
Also, if the filter element contaminated with the dust does not
exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic once rendered useless,
it is not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA.
Booz Allen & Hamilton, Inc
Faxback 13266
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 13287
CONTAMINATED ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA - SOIL AND GROUND WATER
9443.1989(04)
MAY 23 1989
Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen
United States Senator
961 Federal Building
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Senator Bentsen:
Thank you for you April 24, 1989, letter regarding
Hollis E. Ervin's concerns about the March 14, 1989, court
opinion supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
interpretation of the regulatory status of contaminated
environmental media (such as soil and ground water).
EPA believes that a hazardous waste does not necessarily
lose its hazardous characteristic when it is combined with an
environmental medium, and that, unless demonstrated otherwise,
the contaminated medium should be managed as a hazardous waste
because it contains a hazardous waste. (The environmental
medium itself is not a hazardous waste.) To consider
contaminated media as newly generated wastes for purposes of
determining whether they are hazardous could be an incentive
for the purposeful contamination of environmental media with
hazardous waste in an effort to avoid regulations otherwise
applicable.
EPA has established a process under which persons
may petition the Agency to have their waste removed from
regulatory control on a case-by-case basis (sometimes called
"delisting"). Under this process, EPA evaluates the waste in
question and determines whether it needs to be regulated as a
hazardous waste. In addition, EPA is currently examining ways
to streamline this process - e.g., setting de minimis levels of
contaminants which, when met, would allow for the management of
wastes outside the structure of the hazardous waste
regulations.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/DE735B95EDF696A1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
As found by the D.C. Court of Appeals, the "contained in"
rule has been a consistent and reasonable interpretation since
the promulgation of the applicable regulations in 1980. To
change an established regulatory interpretation, the Agency is
required to provide notice and an opportunity for public
comment (i.e., regulatory interpretations cannot be changed at
the "whim" of EPA).
Thank you for your interest in the hazardous waste
program. If I can be of further assistance to you, please feel
free to call me, or have your staff contact Bob Bellinger at
(202)475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
OS305/DELLINGER/T. MCMANUS - 382-4646/CSH/5-16-89/
CONTROL #AL892146/DUE DATE:5-19-89/DISK #23/NAME:BENTSEN
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/DE735B95EDF696A1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK 12627
PPC 9488.1986(05)
DESTRUCTION OF DIOXIN CONTAMINATED SOIL
USING MOBILE INCINERATION
APR 24 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Destruction of Dioxin Contaminated Soil Using Mobile
Incineration
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Waste Management Division, Region IV
In response to your letter of February 28, 1986, you
requested clarification on two issues concerning the RCRA research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) permit application for the
U.S. Air Force in Gulfport, Mississippi. The issues you raised
involve delisting the residues resulting from treatment and allow-
ing site construction prior to permit issuance.
Delisting
You requested the use of delisting information from the
ENSCO trial burn or EPAs burn at Times Beach to expedite NCBC's
delisting petition. (During the ENSCO trial burn, trichloroethane,
monochlorobenzene, and trichlorobenzene were incinerated and the
DRE (at the stack) was calculated.) This information can only be
used indirectly to support the NCBC petition. The delisting
regulations explicitly state (see 40 CFR 260.22(k)) that "an
exclusion will only apply to the waste generated at the individual
facility covered by the demonstration and will not apply to
waste from any other facility". In addition, RCRA 3005(f)(l)
requires the petitioner to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the Administrator, that the waste does not meet any of the criteria
for which it is listed nor contain any other additional constituents
which could cause the waste to be hazardous. The delisting
demonstration, therefore, is required to be made on the waste
itself, and cannot be made on surrogates (i.e., POHC's).
NCBC may, however, incinerate a small portion of the
contaminated soil from Gulfport, Mississippi on another ENSCO
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D26798C8F3ADE32D852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
unit certified as achieving six 9's DRE as a basis for their
-2-
delisting petition. NCBC would need to demonstrate that: (1)
the two ENSCO units are essentially identical, and (2) the waste
incinerated during the "test burn" is representative or a "worst-
case" of the waste that will be incinerated during the field
demonstration. Furthermore, NCBC must provide "test burn" data
on a minimum of four representative samples of the solid residue
and of the scrubber water. These samples must be analyzed for the
characteristics of a hazardous waste and for all the Appendix VIII
constituents that are reasonably expected to be presented in the
waste. The Appendix VIII constituents would be chosen based on
the results of the analyses on the contaminated soil from
Gulfport, Mississippi. Providing that the concentrations of the
hazardous constituents in the waste meets the deli sting require-
ments, the Agency could propose to grant a conditional exclusion.
The conditional exclusion is needed to verify that the two ENSCO
units do indeed achieve the same destruction efficiency.
Site Construction
RCRA 3005(a), as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984, requires owners and operators of all hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities to obtain a
RCRA permit prior to constructing a RCRA facility. While I can
appreciate the USAF's intent to expedite the testing of the
mobile incinerator, RD&D permits are also subject to this
restriction. (Section 270.65(b) only allows EPA to modify or
waive the permit application and procedural requirements of
40 C.F.R. Parts 270 and 124, not the statutory requirements
of RCRA.) This means that the mobile incinerator can be prefab-
ricated and transported to the proposed treatment site, but
construction of the site itself, such as pouring concrete founda-
tions and connecting the MTU to physical structures on-site
cannot occur until the RD&D permit is issued (RCRA 1004(2)).
If you have any additional questions on these issues, please
contact Doreen Sterling at FTS/475-8551 with regard to delisting
and Nancy Pomerleau at FTS/382-4500 with regard to site
construction.
cc: Bruce Weddle
Peter Guerrero
Art Glazer
Nancy Pomerleau
Doreen Sterling (WH-562B)
Matt Straus (SH-562B)
Ken Gray (LE-132S)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D26798C8F3ADE32D852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
Myles Morse (WH-562B)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/D26798C8F3ADE32D852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
APRIL 20, 1988
H. David Bowes, President
Finish Engineering Company, Inc.
921 Greengarden Road
Erie, PA 16501-1591
Dear Mr. Bowes:
This is in response to your letter of April 12, 1988, concerning generator determinations (i.e.,
"counting rules") for users of solvent stills. EPA provided a very relevant example of how the counting
rules work in the preamble of the March 24, 1986, Federal Register (51 FR 10153) which I have
enclosed for your information. Basically, the rules (40 CFR Section 261.5(a)) state that if a generator
reclaims (e.g., distills spent solvent) but does not store the spent solvents prior to reclamation, he need
only count the still bottoms. If he stores the spent solvents before reclamation, however, he must count
the spent solvent as noted in 40 CFR 261.5(d)(3), but then he need not count the still bottoms.
Finally, the letter you enclosed from Mr. Claunch has been entered in the docket for EPA's
Definition of Solid Waste rulemaking, and will be considered as we develop final amendments for the
Definition. If you have further questions in this area, please contact Michael Petruska at 475-9888.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus
Deputy Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Enclosure
-------
FINISH ENGINEERING CO.
Distillation Equipment • Coating Machinery
April 12, 1988
Mr. Matt Strauss
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Department WHS 62B
Room 240 SE
401 M Street
Washington, DC SW 20460
Mr. Strauss, recall within the past few weeks, I called about a letter written by Ms. Marcia E. Williams
to Recyclene Products, Inc. of San Francisco, who makes solvent recovery equipment similar to our
equipment. A copy of Ms. Williams letter is attached.
Regarding this letter:
Is the 100 Kg figure the determining amount left after the recycling process (residue)?
If I might answer my own question, I feel the 100 Kg is the residue. I draw my conclusion from the
fact that in the dry cleaning industry, their solvents are recycled continuously but eventually leave a
residue. A recent EPA regulation stipulates that their residue is the determining volume used to calculate
waste.
When I called a few weeks ago, I pointed out our particular industry... manufacturers of batch and
continuous small volume (5 to 500 gallons contaminated solvents per 8 hours) are being pressed by the
resolution of the definition of still bottoms. The residue remaining after distillation is the topic of this
letter. My associate C. Kenneth Claunch, recently wrote to the EPA on this subject. I have also
enclosed a copy of his March 21 letter.
I shall phone you the week of April 19th to ask your guidance on the definition of still bottoms from our
stills and how those still bottoms must be treated.
Sincerely,
H. David Bowes
President
-------
HDB:pb
Enclosures
-------
FINISH ENGINEERING CO.
Distillation Equipment • Coating Machinery
March 21, 1988
FEDERAL EXPRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Docket, Room LG-100
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
REFERENCE: Docket No. F-87-SWRP-FFFFF
Gentlemen:
Relative to your proposed rule published in the Federal Register, Vol. 53, No. 5, Friday, January 8,
1988,1 make the following comments urging you to recognize that your proposed rule will cause (1) a
huge increase in hazardous wastes, (2) an unnecessary economic burden to many industries and (3)
strongly discriminates against small companies (favoring large companies).
Background: You propose to regulate under RCRA essentially all materials that are not instantly useful
unless they are involved in a closed (piped, etc.) process. (The two other exceptions relating to
petroleum refining and primary smelting are highly specific to those types of large industries and to the
specifics of the court's ruling. The comments here are directed to the impact of your proposed ruling on
the rest of the industrial world).
You are overlooking a large number of industries that involve materials, especially wash-up solvents,
that are an integral part of a continuous process. They may not be large enough companies, in most
cases, to have a closed (piped, etc.) loop system; but, in fact, they handle materials that nave NO
ELEMENT OF DISCARD. These materials are recycled daily. They never leave the manufacturing
area. For economic reasons, they must be returned to the process where they are simply separated,
contaminants from unchanged virgin material, e.g. paint from solvent via heat distillation (solvent still),
tramp oil from unchanged machine coolants via filtration, etc.
Following are examples:
-------
EPA F-87-SWRP-FFFFF
March 21, 1988
page 2
Degreasing:
Figure 1 shows a typical metal part manufacturing process involving solvent washing - usually called
degreasing. In many, many, many plants, this washing process and the solvent recovery are as integral
to the overall process as is the metal machining step. There is no element of discard; it is economically
foolish to consider discard. The EPA authors may have had facts from the 1970's in mind when
developing their position. Solvents then were nearly free (0 to $.25 per gallon). Today, their cost is $2
to $15 per gallon, most are in the $7 range for degreasing. As a result, the solvent is not discarded (and
if it is, it comes under RCRA). The solvent does not leave this manufacturing area before it is separated
via solvent distillation which is the heat separation of contaminants from the unchanged, perfectly good
solvent, yielding often a solid residue, and crystal clear solvent. Solvent yields to 100% are common!
Your proposed rule (p. 524) under a. (degreasing) states:
"Here, not only is the spent solvent being disposed from the operation, but is not part of a
manufacturing process at all. There is no continued extraction of material values from a raw
material, but rather it is a needless waste until restored through treatment to a usable condition."
There are elements of correctness to the above quote, but relative to the original intention of Congress
and to the court's opinion (Am. Mining, Congress vs. EPA), this quote (1) doesn't state the facts
correctly and (2) uses extremely restrictive definitions of certain words, contrary to the court's opinion
which is clearly stated. I comment:
-It is not "disposed from the operation"; it is part of the operation, usually a few feet away.
-"not part of the manufacturing process"; by the common engineering definition, it IS part
of the process.
-"there is no continued extraction." Not true, simply wrong.
-"a useless waste." This material has value, usually high value. The plant manager
involved considers it to be an expensive in-process stream that is easily and simply
restored to full usefulness.
-------
EPA F-87-SWRP-FFFFF
March 21, 1988
page3
Coatings Manufacture
Figure 2 shows a typical paint, coatings, ink, etc. manufacturing process. Every 0.5 to 2 hours for each
batch blending operation, something changes for the next batch; i.e. color change, type paint,
specification, etc. The tank and equipment must be washed. This process is clearly part of the
manufacturing process. I can take you to large companies wherein it is all piped to a solvent still,
storage tanks, and to the blending tanks known by EPA as a loop system in a large company. However,
one can visit hundreds of small companies where it is done in a batch system— or not a closed loop by
strict definition. But, in essence, the small company uses a "closed system" because the solvent
NEVER LEAVES the processing area. Example: Figure 3 is a nearly exact layout of a coating
manufacturer (mainly ink) in Cleveland, Tennessee. An integral part of the process is the solvent to the
still and back via portable tanks for washing the blending tanks. It never leaves the manufacturing area.
There is NO element of discard. This company and hundreds of others meets the intention of Congress
and of the court ruling that in-process secondary materials are not to be regulated by the EPA because
there is no need or right to so regulate.
What is a Waste?
The writer agrees with much of the EPA's definition of what is a waste. The use of the words "element
of discard" is far too broad and subject to vast misunderstanding.
Typical Wastes
-Waste occurs if the material's original purpose is gone and can only be recovered by very
complex steps, usually in some separate, central, specialized chemical processing location.
Examples: off specification paints, used lubricating oils, chemically changed products (e.g.
polymers vs. monomers). These and similar materials require very complex chemical and
physical changing to revert to their original state. Usually so complex, it is never done.
-Waste occurs if the material's proposed purpose is different than its original purpose. A dirty
oil proposed to be incinerated is obviously a waste.
-------
EPA F-87-SWRP-FFFFF
March 21, 1988
page 4
What is Not a Waste
A material should not be considered a waste if it meets the following criteria:
(a) it is returned to the process without leaving the process site. There is minimal or no
storage (e.g. 0 to 2 days). (This could be the sole criteria.)
(b) The returned material is essentially identical to new material; i.e. it replaces (saves) raw
materials.
(c) the correction of the material so it can be returned to the process is a physical correction,
not a chemical one. Examples of physical correction: filtration, distillation, centrifuge,
adsorption, etc.
I urge you to reconsider your proposed ruling to allow, without regulation, the processing of in-process
material discussed above.
I present several reasons for this very reasonable exception below:
1. It is simple and definable (note (a) above).
2. It will cause huge quantities of solvents to be reclaimed (over 100,000,000 gallons per year)
and perhaps other materials with no risk to mankind or the EPA.
3. #2 above saves natural resources - crude oil, etc.
4. If not done, in-plant, in-process regulation by the EPA will greatly demotivate industry to do
#2 and #3. The result is that such wastes will go to less desirable processes; e.g.
incineration (air pollution), illegal but common dumping (little here, little there type), etc.
-------
EPA F-87-SWRP-FFFFF
March 21, 1988
pageS
Finally, the EPA recognized the correctness of the position herein with its p. 527 (C.
Exclusion ...in Closed Systems ..." Gentlemen, this is an exception for LARGE
BUSINESSES (can afford closed systems) WHICH CLEARLY DISCRIMINATES
AGAINST SMALL BUSINESSES. Such discrimination will put small businesses at an
economic disadvantage. I can prove this is true. (The company in Figure 3 competes
against larger companies that have a closed system still.)
Very truly yours,
FINISH COMPANY, INC.
C. Kenneth Claunch
Chief Executive Officer
CKC:kac
FaxBack# 11341
-------
Faxback 13372
9441.1990(13c)
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline Monthly Report Question
May 1990
2. Hazardous Waste Identification
i
As part of an experiment, an independent tester wishes to
set up weather testing equipment on several sites across
the country. One of his concerns is that if one of the
thermometers breaks and leaks mercury onto the ground,
how would the soil contaminated with mercury be
identified?
When the mercury leaks from the thermometer and falls onto the
ground, it meets the definition of "spent material" in 40 CFR 261.1
(c)(I): it is a "material that has been used and as a result of
contamination can no longer serve the purpose for which it was
produced without processing." Spent materials that are reclaimed
are solid wastes according to Section 261.2 (c)(3). Thus, if the
mercury contaminated soil exhibits a characteristic of hazardous
waste (for example, the toxicity characteristic of Section 261.24),
the generator must manage the soil as a hazardous'waste.
(Authorized States and EPA Regions determine when the hazardous
waste has been removed and the soil may once again be handled as
soil) The P- and U- lists of discarded commercial chemical products
and spill residues apply only to unused materials; since in this
case the mercury in the thermometer had been used, the U151 listing
of Section 261.33 does not apply.
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbacklll26
9444.1986(02)
January 27, 1986
Mr. Abe Esral
Plant-Roberts Chemicals
1644 Tullie Circle, Suite 118
Atlanta, Georgia 30329
Dear Mr. Esral:
This letter is written in response to your December 16
letter to J. Winston Porter, regarding the Office of Solid
Waste's definition of primary and secondary production of steel
in electric arc furnaces. As you are aware, the electric arc
furnace is the most versatile of all steelmaking processes
because it can be operated as either an acid or basic, oxidizing
or reducing process and, thus, can accommodate any combination of
raw materials including ore, steel scrap, and pig iron (plus
fluxes such as limestone and fluorspar). In general, nearly all
steelmakers using the electric arc furnace use a combination of
all of these raw materials. Therefore, the Agency does not have
a definition for primary and secondary production of steel in
electric arc furnaces and does not differentiate between the
wastes generated when a specific combination of raw materials are
used.
The Agency's use of the term, "primary steel production" is
meant to distinguish between manufacturers who produce steel
using the electric arc furnace and foundary operators who use the
electric arc furnace to melt steel scrap for castings. The
Agency made this distinction clear when it published its response
to a comment received on the interim final rule for the K061
listing (see 45 FR 33124, May 19, 1989) in which a clarification
on the scope of the listings was requested. The interim final
rule read, "Emission control dust/sludges from the electric
furnace production of steel." The commenter indicated that is
was not clear whether the listing description applied only to
primary steel production or to both primary steel production and
to foundries using steel scrap in their electric furnace
production.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/BD69F3CDFE559B3E852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
The Agency's response was that the listing was intended only
to include wastes from primary steel production and that this
intent is reflected in the listing background document, which
refers throughout to primary steel production. Also, the Agency
stated that it was uncertain whether foundry electric furnace
emission control dusts and sludges are sufficiently similar in
composition to warrant inclusion in the same listing.
-2-
In summary, all dusts and sludges from the production of
steel in electric arc furnaces are listed hazardous wastes unless
generated from foundry operations. In addition, dusts and
sludges from foundry operations may be hazardous wastes if they
exhibit any of the characteristics of hazardous wastes as
described in 40 CFR 261, Subpart C.
Please feel free to give Matt Strauss, of my staff a call
if we can be of any further assistance, his telephone number is
(202)475-8551.
Sincerely yours,
Original Document signed
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/BD69F3CDFE559B3E852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 13291
TEST SAMPLES, EXCLUSION FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE
9431.1989(03)
JuneS, 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Management of Test Samples as Hazardous Waste
FROM: Howard Wilson, Manager
Environmental Compliance Programs
TO: Environmental Compliance Managers
This memo is intended to clarify a letter from the EPA's
Office of Solid Waste on the management of laboratory samples
under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (40 CFR Part 261).
According to 40 CFR Part 261.4 (d) (1), samples collected
solely for the purposes of testing are exempted from the
regulations for hazardous waste management. I would like to
emphasize that this is a qualified exemption. The samples are
exempt from regulation as long as they meet any of the following
conditions contained in 261.4 (d) (1) (i..vi):
(i) Being transported from the collector to the
laboratory
(ii) Being transported from the laboratory back to the
collector for following testing
(iii) Being stored at the collector waiting to go to the
laboratory
(iv) Being stored at the laboratory before being tested
(v) Being stored at the laboratory after being tested
but before being returned to the collector
(vi) Being stored at the laboratory for a specific
purpose after being tested (i.e. for a court case
in which the sample is evidence, etc.)
Regulation 261.4 (d) (3) states that the exemption does not apply
if the laboratory determines the waste is hazardous and the
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C99103F9FC81CAA9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
conditions listed above are no longer being met.
According to 40 CFR Part 261.5 (a), facilities that generate
less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste or 1 kg/mo of acute
hazardous waste are exempt from hazardous waste regulations.
This exemption is also conditional, based on a generator's
compliance with the following:
-2-
o Determining if their waste is hazardous; this is
required by 261.5 (b), which references 261.5 (g),
which cites 262.11.
o Disposing of their waste at a facility authorized to
accept it; this is required by 261.5 (f) (3) and 261.5
(g) (3).
Generators of less than 100 kg/mo of hazardous waste would also
be subject to RCRA requirements under regulation 262.34 if they
accumulate, for the purpose of disposal, greater than 1000 kg of
hazardous waste.
In summary, samples held for testing need not be
managed as hazardous waste while they are being tested. Once
they are determined to be waste, a determination of whether the
waste is hazardous must be made if it hasn't been already. If
the waste is determined to be a hazardous waste, it must be
managed in full compliance with all applicable regulations,
including 40 CFR Parts 261.5 and 262.11.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C99103F9FC81CAA9852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
QUESTION: A private laboratory generates a variety of hazardous wastes. The lab has about 200 lab
technicians who may handle the wastes. Must these lab technicians be trained to handle hazardous waster,
and, if so, must there be documentation of their training?
ANSWER: The lab technicians must have training to the extent necessary to ensure safe handling of the
wastes. Per §262.34 (a) (4), the generator must comply with §265.16 on training of personnel handling
hazardous waste. Section 265.16 (d) requires that training records be kept at the facility. The generator
could categorize positions (i.e., supervisors, lab technicians, etc.) and list the individuals names in those
categories with a description of the training for that group.
SOURCE: TonyBaney (202)475-8728
RESEARCH: Denise Wright
BOOZ.ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC
FAXBACK 12341
-------
-------
EPA530-R-98-005c
NTIS SUB-9224-98-003
March 1998
1. Universal Waste Storage Time Limits & Multiple Handlers
The universal waste management standards of 40 CFR Part 273 outline
streamlined provisions for managing universal wastes. Section 273.6
defines a universal waste as hazardous waste batteries, canceled
pesticides, and mercury thermostats. A generator of universal waste, or
a facility that receives universal waste from offsite and sends the
waste to another universal waste participant, may meet the definition of
a universal waste handler. Facilities which meet the definition of a
universal waste handler may accumulate universal waste for up to one
year from the date the waste is generated or received from another
handler. Since handlers may then transport the universal waste to other
off-site handlers, can each individual handler take advantage of the
one-year accumulation provision?
When universal waste is transferred and accumulated by multiple
handlers, each individual handler may utilize the one-year accumulation
provisions of §§273.15 and 273.35, since each location at which
universal wastes are consolidated and/or collected is regulated as a
separate handler. Accumulation of universal waste by a handler for a
period over one year may be allowed if the handler can prove such
activity is solely for the purpose of accumulating quantities necessary
to facilitate proper recovery, treatment, or disposal (§§273.15(b) and
273.35(b)).
Faxback 14179
-------
NRC: EA-99-171 - Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center Page 1 of 3
Indax I Site Map I FAQ I Halp I Glossary I Contact Us
" y& iki»^-f"™j
;5:/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission \fm f **
'"'* 3 flP0| Jjf. « °*
Home || || || || ||
|| || || || ||
Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Enforcement Documents > Significant Enforcement Actions >
Licensees > EA-99-171
EA-99-171 - Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center
August 16, 2001
EANo. 99-171
Raymond C. Grimaldi
Chief Executive Officer
Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center
State of New Jersey
Department of Human Services
Div. Of Mental Health Services
P.O. Box 625
Farmingdale, NJ 07727
SUBJECT: NOTICE OF VIOLATION (NRC Inspection 99990001/1997023, and NRC Office of Investigations R
97-050)
Dear Mr. Grimaldi:
This refers to the inspection conducted on October 30, 1997, and November 20, 1997, at the Arthur Brisbane i
Treatment Center (Brisbane) in Farmingdale, New Jersey, to review the circumstances associated with an ever
occurred at your facility on October 29, 1997, wherein an exit sign, containing 12 curies of tritium, was broker
in radioactive contamination of a portion of the facility. You were authorized to possess and use such exit sign;
a general license contained in 10 CFR 31.5. Subseguent to the inspection, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI
initiated an investigation to determine if Brisbane, which is operated by the State of New Jersey Department o
Services (DHS), willfully and improperly disposed of the broken generally licensed exit sign (along with contarr
asbestos floor tiles and other contaminated objects) by improperly transferring the material to SMI, East Coast
Waste, Inc. (SMI), a medical waste broker who was not authorized to receive radioactive waste.
Based on the OI investigation, the NRC found that, as a result of the deliberate actions of the DHS Chief of the
Environmental Compliance (DHS official), Brisbane improperly disposed of the radioactive material generated f
cleanup of the broken exit sign. The radioactive material was transferred to SMI, located in Morrisville, PA, whi
transferred it to Safety Disposal Systems, Inc. (formerly known as Chambers Medical Technologies of South Q
medical waste incinerator facility in South Carolina. Neither SMI nor Safety Disposal Systems, Inc. has a specif
the radioactive material as reguired by 10 CFR Parts 30 or 32 or from an Agreement State. The basis for this fi
described in the factual summary of the OI investigation which was sent to you on April 12, 2001. The April 12
also stated that we were providing you the opportunity to address the apparent violations by either attending ;
predecisional enforcement conference or by providing a written response before we made our final enforcemer
a letter dated May 17, 2001, you provided a response to the apparent violations.
As noted in that factual summary, the NRC concluded that the DHS official deliberately classified the radioactiv
medical waste and caused it to be sent for incineration despite warnings from several knowledgeable people ti-
the radioactive material as medical waste was not appropriate. After receiving bids submitted to him for prope
the DHS official told others that he was over budget from the contamination clean-up and could not afford the
proper waste disposal. The DHS official also informed an NRC inspector on December 4, 1997, that the drums
the broken exit sign and other contaminated objects had been disposed of properly, when, in fact, they had nc
disposed of in accordance with 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8).
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/materials/ea99171 .html 8/18/2004
-------
NRC: EA-99-171 - Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center
Page 2 of 3
As a result of these actions, two violations of NRC requirements occurred, both of which are described in the ei
Notice of Violation. The violations involved (1) the deliberate improper disposal of the radioactive material; an(
deliberate submittal of the inaccurate information to the NRC. The safety significance of the violations was low
because there were no doses to individuals or potential doses to individuals that would create a serious health
broken exit sign was eventually disposed of properly by SMI. Nonetheless, these violations occurred as a resull
deliberate actions of the DHS official. Therefore, in accordance with the "General Statement of Policy and Proa
Enforcement Actions," (NUREG-1600), the violations are classified as a Severity Level III problem.
In accordance with the Enforcement Policy in effect at the time of the violation, a base civil penalty in the amo
is considered for a Severity Level III problem. Because this was a willful violation, the NRC considered whether
warranted for Identification and Corrective Action in accordance with the civil penalty assessment process in S
of the Enforcement Policy. Credit was not given for Identification since the violation was identified by the State
Carolina. Credit was given for Corrective Action since appropriate corrective actions were taken including the r.
disposal of the radioactive material after it was identified by the State of South Carolina.
While the NRC recognizes that application of the normal civil penalty assessment process would result in a bas
for the Severity Level III problem, I have been authorized, after consultation with the Director, Office of Enforc
exercise discretion in accordance with Section VII.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy and not issue a penalty. Speci
were issued a $15,000 civil penalty by the State of South Carolina on January 12, 1998, for violations of State
related to this event. Also, you have since removed all exit signs containing radioactive material at your facility
your May 17, 2001 letter to the NRC, and therefore, your agency is no longer a general licensee. In light of the
NRC has decided not to issue a civil penalty in this case.
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violation, and the corrective actions take
the violation and prevent recurrence, were already described adequately in your May 17, 2001 letter. Therefor
not required to respond to this letter unless the description therein does not accurately reflect your corrective ,
your position. In that case, or if you choose to provide additional information, you should follow the instruction
the enclosed Notice.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.790 of the NRC's "Rules of Practice," a copy of this letter and its enclosures, and
response will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Put
Available Records (PARS) component of the NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the T
at http://www.nrc.qov/readinq-rm/adams.html (the Public Reading Room).
Sincerely,
/RA/ James T. Wiggins Acting for
Hubert J. Miller
Regional Administrator
Docket No. 030-03111
License No. 37-09016-01
Enclosure: Notice of Violation
cc w/encl:
State of New Jersey
State of South Carolina
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center
Farmingdale, New Jersey
Docket No. 030-03111
License No. 37-09016-01
EA 99-171
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/materials/ea99171 .html 8/18/2004
-------
NRC: EA-99-171 - Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center Page 3 of 3
During an NRC inspection conducted on October 30, 1997, and November 20, 1997, as well as a subsequent ir
conducted by the NRC Office of Investigation, violations of NRC reguirements were identified. In accordance wi
"General Statement of Policy and Procedure for NRC Enforcement Actions," NUREG-1600, the violations are list
A. 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8) requires, in part, that the licensee dispose of generally licensed devices only by tran:
persons holding a specific license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or from an Agreement Sta
Contrary to the above, on December 4, 1997, Arthur Brisbane Child Treatment Center (a general licensi
tritium in EXIT signs) disposed of a broken generally licensed device (containing 12 curies of tritium) ar
objects contaminated with radioactive material, by transferring the material to SMI, East Coast Medical
(SMI), a company which did not hold a specific license issued pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or a
an Agreement State. In addition, SMI subsequently transferred this material to Safety Disposal System:
(formerly known as Chambers Medical Technologies of South Carolina), which also did not hold a specif
pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or a license from an Agreement State.
B. 10 CFR 30.9(a) requires, in part, that information provided to the Commission by a licensee be complet
accurate in all material respects.
Contrary to the above, on December 4, 1997, the licensee provided the Commission information that w,
complete and accurate in all material respects. Specifically, a licensee official, namely, the Chief of the I
Environmental Compliance, informed an NRC inspector on December 4, 1997, that drums containing a t
sign and other objects contaminated with tritium, had been disposed of properly, when in fact, the mati
been disposed of in accordance with 10 CFR 31.5(c)(8). The material was not disposed of in accordance
10 CFR 31.5(c)(8), in that it was transferred to SMI, a company which did not hold a specific license iss
to 10 CFR Parts 30 and 32 or a license from an Agreement State. This information was material becausi
capability to influence the NRC follow-up review of the disposal.
This is a Severity Level III problem (Supplement VII).
The NRC has concluded that information regarding the reason for the violations, the corrective actions taken ai
correct the violations and prevent recurrence, and the date when full compliance was achieved, is already ade(
addressed on the docket in the referenced inspection report and in your reply to the NRC dated May 17, 2001.
you are required to submit a written statement or explanation pursuant to 10 CFR 2.201 if the description ther
accurately reflect your corrective actions or your position. In that case, or if you choose to respond, you shoulc
your response as a "Reply to a Notice of Violation," and send it to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555 with a copy to the Regional Administrator, Region I, w
of the date of the letter transmitting this Notice of Violation (Notice).
If you contest this enforcement action, you should also provide a copy of your response, with the basis for you
the Director, Office of Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-00(
If you choose to respond, your response will be made available electronically for public inspection in the NRC F
Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS
accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic Readin
Therefore, to the extent possible, the response should not include any personal privacy, proprietary, or safegu
information so that it can be made available to the Public without redaction.
In accordance with 10 CFR 19.11, you may be required to post this Notice within two working days.
Dated this 16th day of August 2001
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/enforcement/actions/materials/ea99171 .html 8/18/2004
-------
9443.1983(03)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 83
C Question: If » tnatsrial it 80% solid «n3 20% w»t«r, can th» PH t» n»asur«J
'' , i«S«r 261.22UHD?
Vwser- It i* still t«*tabl« if it contains frs« liquids (*mt«r). Th«
ajueous phaM of th« proposed paint filter tMt could b« us«3 to
dstsmim if th*r« «r*-.fr«« liquids.
f lorvnc* Richudson
-------
Page 1 of 1
FAXBACK 12089
9443.1983(01)
IGNITABLE SOLID DEFINITION APPLIED TO TITANIUM SWARF
JAN 10 1983
RE: WCBDF0345
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ignitable Solids Definition
FROM: John H. Skinner, Acting Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: David A. Wagoner, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VII
As you requested in your memo of December 15,1 am writing
to clarify the definition of an ignitable solid under 40 CFR
261.21 as it applies to materials such as titanium swarf.
As Gene Grumpier correctly advised Greg Weber of Region V,
in order for a solid waste to be an ignitable waste it must
be capable, under standard temperature and pressure, of both
causing fires through friction, absorption of moisture or
spontaneous chemical changes and burn so vigorously and per-
sistently that it creates a hazard. Thus, if the titanium
swarf is very difficult to ignite it would not be classified
as a hazardous waste even though, once ignited, it may pose a
hazard.
In order to remove the ambiguities inherent in such a
definition, OSW is in the process of developing specific testing
methods and hazardous waste definition threshold for ignitable
solids. However, such tests are not expected to be ready for
proposal until FY 84.
If you have any comments or questions concerning the
ignitable waste definition please give David Friedman or
Florence Richardson a call at FTS 382-4770.
WH-565B:DFRIEDMAN:df:s248:382-4770:WSM: 1-5-83 Disk DF:03:45
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EF97D61792D91CD8852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
QUESTION: If a small quantity generator (SQG) periodically becomes subject to the 262.34 generator
regulations, e.g., only once every five years, must his personnel training be updated annually per 265.16 (c)?
ANSWER: No; the SQG need only comply with the 265.16 (c) requirements when he is subject to all of 262.34
which, in this case, is once every five years. Hence, personnel training would be updated every five years.
BOOZ-ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC
FAXBACK 12245
-------
9441.1987(32)
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline Monthly Report Question
April 1987
3. Multiple Generator Location and Consolidation
A company owns several small factories in different
counties. Each factory generates less than 100 kilograms
of hazardous waste per month, and is subject to reduced
regulation under _261.5. Options for disposal of waste
from conditionally exempt generators are provided in
_261.5(f)(3). (a) May the conditionally exempt generators
transport waste to one of the company's facilities for
consolidation and subsequent shipment to a RCRA disposal
facility? (b) Does the facility of the generator who is
consolidating the waste qualify as a "transfer facility"?
(c) Does the generator who consolidates the waste become
a full quantity generator if he ships more than 1000 kg
of hazardous waste from his site per month? (or a
100-1000 kg/mo generator if he ships between 100 and 1000
kg of waste per month?)
(a) Under _261.5(f)(3) in order to remain exempt from certain
regulations, a conditionally exempt small quantity generator may
ensure delivery of his hazardous waste to a storage, treatment, or
disposal facility that is one the following types of facilities:
(i.) permitted under Part 270 of 40 CFR; or
(ii.) in interim status under Parts 265 and 270 of 40
CFR; or
(iii.) authorized to manage hazardous waste by a state
with a hazardous waste management program approved under
Part 271 of 40 CFR; or
(iv.) licensed, registered or permitted by the state to
manage municipal or industrial solid waste; or
(v.) beneficially uses, reuses or reclaims the waste.
In order for one of the generators to serve as a central collection
point for the other generators, he would have to qualify as one of
the above mentioned facilities. Realistically, the easiest approach
Booz Allen & Hamilton
Faxback 12894
-------
would be for the generator to receive State approval to manage the
consolidated waste shipments.
(b) If the generator does not receive authorization from his
State, he may still receive and store the waste for a
period of time if he qualifies as a transfer facility.
Under _263.12, waste may be stored at a transfer facility
for ten days or less without requiring interim status or
a permit. The December 31,1980 Federal Register (45 FR
86966) defines the term transfer facility to refer to
transportation terminals (including vehicle parking
areas, loading docks and other similar areas), break-bulk
facilities or any other facility commonly used by
transporters to temporarily hold shipments of hazardous
waste during transportation. It is possible that this
generator facility may qualify as a transfer facility, as
long as the waste is not stored on-site for more than 10
days.
(c) If the waste is not sent to a facility specified under
_261.5(9)(3)(1)-(V), it is no longer conditionally exempt
waste, and each generator must comply with applicable
regulations. Thus, if the generator cannot receive state
approval nor qualify as a transfer facility, he must
obtain a permit for storage of hazardous waste.
Booz -Allen & Hamilton
Faxback 12894
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11115
9441.1985(42)
DEC 13 1985
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regulatory Interpretation for Pesticide Applicator
Washing Rinse Water
FROM: Marcia E. Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Harry Seraydarian, Director
Toxics and Waste Management Division
EPA Region IX
This is in response to your memorandum dated September 16,
1985, regarding the regulatory status of washwaters that are
generated by washing the exterior of a pesticide serial
applicator's airplane. You expressed concern that the
interpretation set forth in our July 22 memorandum does not
consider the ultimate disposal and the hazard presented by
these washwaters and the enforcement problems that such an
interpretation would cause. In particular, in the study that
was submitted with your memo, that data appear to suggest that
there is a potential for migration of pesticide residues resulting
in contamination of ground water. Therefore, you request that
we re-visit this issue. In addition, you also request that we
expedite the regulations designed to close the current loop-hole
concerning mixtures of spent solvents and other commercial
products.
Although I understand your concerns and generally agree
with you that these rinse waters may present a hazard if they
are not properly managed, I must agree with Dr. Skinner in this
interpretation of the rules; any other reading of the rules
would argue that any chemical that is released into the environ-
ment as a result of use would be disposed and regulated under
RCRA. In particular, the mixture rule states that if a solid
waste and a hazardous waste are mixed, the entire mixture is
defined as hazardous. At issue here is whether the pesticide
that adheres to the exterior of the airplane is defined as a
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6FB300FE87A5EB4D852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
"RCRA hazardous waste." To be defined as a RCRA hazardous
-2-
waste, the pesticide would have to be an unused discarded
commercial chemical product. See 40 CFR §261.33. Since
the pesticide has been sprayed from the airplane, it technically
has been used and, therefore, is not defined as a §261.33 commercial
chemical product. (On the other had, the pesticide residue
that remains in the spray tanks after the spraying operation
has not technically been used and, thus, would be defined as
a §261.33 commercial chemical product.) Any other inter-
pretation would go beyond the intent of RCRA and the implementing
regulations. These pesticide washwaters, therefore, are not
defined as hazardous because of the mixture rule.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the interpretation
should not be taken to mean that we have evaluated these wastes
and have determined that they are non-hazardous. As I already
indicated, these washwaters may be hazardous (as evidenced by
the study you attached with your memo) and may present as much
of a hazard as the rinsate from spray tanks (which are currently
subject to regulation). In fact, we have begun a study to
try to define the levels at which these washwaters may present
a hazard if these washwaters are mismanaged (i.e., placed in
unlined surface impoundments). The study is expected to be
completed (at least as a draft) by the end of this year and we
will keep you apprised of the results. Based on the date, as
well as any other information that is collected, we may take
further action to control these washwaters.
With respect to your other request to close the current
loop-hole concerning solvent mixtures and other commercial
products, the solvent mixture rule is expected to be promulgated
in December, while the commercial chemical product mixture
rule is expected to be proposed very shortly.
Please feel free to call Matt Straus if you have any
questions or comments; his telephone number is (8) 475-8551.
cc: A&WM Division Directors (Regions I-VIII and X)
S. Shatzow
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/6FB300FE87A5EB4D852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
Faxbackll606
9455.1991(02)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MAY 16 1991
Mark J. Schulz
President
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.
Browning-Ferris Industries
757 N. Eldridge
Houston, Texas 77079
Dear Mr. Schulz:
This responds to your February 22, 1991 letter to David Bussard requesting a
determination regarding the regulatory status of pharmaceutical products that
are returned by the dispensers of these products to the manufacturers,
wholesalers, or to a third-party service company that will facilitate the
processing, crediting, and, if needed, appropriate disposal of the returned
products. Currently, such products are returned directly to the manufacturer
or wholesaler, who credits the dispenser for the products and determines
whether the products are to be reused, reclaimed, or appropriately disposed.
BFI Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. (BFI-Pharm) intends to provide this reverse
distribution service to the pharmaceutical industry.
As I understand your letter, pharmaceutical products may be returned for many
reasons, including, among others: 1) an oversupply at the dispenser, 2)
expiration of the recommended shelf life, 3) a recall has been initiated by
the manufacturer, 4) the product was received as a result of a shipping
error, and 5) the product has been damaged. You state that, in general the
dispensers of the pharmaceutical products do not know whether the returned
products will be reused, reclaimed, sold overseas, or disposed (i.e, they are
not able to determine whether these materials are solid wastes). Because the
dispensers receive credit for the returned products (either because the
products actually have real value to manufacturer or because such credits are
part of a competitive marketing approach), the products have a monetary value
to the dispensers and they would not normally assume such materials to be
wastes.
Under our current regulations, such returned products are not considered
solid wastes until a determination is made to discard these materials. The
returned products themselves (being "commercial chemical products" under our
classification system) are considered more product-like than waste-like
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/354FE6A290ED95E1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
(until a determination is made to dispose of them) because recycling by
use/reuse is generally a viable option. If the underlying assumption is that
the returned products will be recycled, until the manufacturer or wholesaler
determines otherwise (assuming that this determination is beyond the ability
of the dispenser), then those products managed within the reverse
distribution system are not solid wastes until the manufacturer or wholesaler
makes the determination to dispose of them. This view is based on our
understanding that the system is established as a means to facilitate the
recycling of reusable pharmaceutical products, rather than a
waste management system. We will be interested to learn if your data, which
will be computerized, will support this assumption. At the current time
there does not appear to be any reason for EPA to change its policy regarding
this type of reverse distribution system simply because a third-party service
company is involved rather than the manufacturers themselves.
I would like briefly to bring to your attention two issues that bear
generally upon reverse distribution systems, although neither appear to be of
concern in the BFI-Pharm situation. First, EPA does not intend for hazardous
waste brokers to use a reverse distribution system to relieve generators of
the responsibility for making determinations about the discarding of
materials as wastes. It remains the generator's responsibility to properly
identify secondary materials. Second, a reverse distribution system cannot
be used as a waste management service to customers/generators without the
applicable regulatory controls on waste management being in place. Of
course, as I discussed above with respect to the BFI-Pharm situation, to the
extent that the materials involved are unused commercial products with a
reasonable expectation of being recycled in some way when returned, the
materials are not considered as wastes until a determination has been made to
discard then.
This interpretation is based on the current set of Federal RCRA regulations.
However, as you know, authorized States may regulate or interpret the
regulations differently, and State requirements are the applicable standards
in authorized States. You should contact the appropriate State regulatory
agencies for a more definitive regulatory determination for their respective
jurisdictions.
I hope this has sufficiently answered your questions. Should you have any
further questions regarding EPAs policies, you may contact David Bussard at
(202) 382-4637.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/354FE6A290ED95E1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/354FE6A290ED95E1852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11368
9441.1988(41)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 6 1988
Ms. Jane Magee
Assistant Commissioner for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Indiana Dept. of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015
Dear Jane:
This is in response to your letter on the applicability of
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations to
shooting ranges. In your letter you indicated that the Indiana
University in Bloomington has received a preliminary notice of
intent to sue under RCRA, alleging that the university shooting
ranges are hazardous waste landfills, fully subject to the
requirement for an operating permit and all applicable facility
standards.
The discharge of ball and sport ammunition at shooting
ranges does not, in our opinion, constitute hazardous waste
disposal. This is because we do not consider the rounds to be
discarded, which is a necessary criterion to be met before a
material can be considered a solid waste and, subsequently, a
hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3(a)). Rather, the shooting of
bullets is within the normal and expected use pattern of the
manufactured product. This interpretation extends to the
expended cartridges and unexploded bullets that fall to the
ground during the shooting exercise. The situation, in our
mind, is analogous to the use of pesticides whereby the
expected, normal use of a pesticide may result in some
discharge to the soils. This is a discharge incident to normal
product use and is not considered a hazardous or solid waste
activity falling under the jurisdiction of RCRA.
-2-
If you have any questions regarding our interpretation or
would like to discuss the issue further, please call Elizabeth
Cotsworth (202) 382-3132 or Chet Oszman (202) 382-4499.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C2E5EE43B9045F3C852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Elizabeth Cotsworth
Matt Hale, OSW
Fred Chanania, OGC
Karl Bremer, Region 5
Chet Oszman, OSW
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/C2E5EE43B9045F3C852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UH.TED STATES EMV.RONMENTAL PROTEC 943 3. 198 6 C09)
| 5 .-.
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECTt RCRA Section 3001(f}<2)(b) and States' Exclusion
of Wastes from Regulation as Hazardous
FROM i Ma re i a E. Williams, Director *****
Otfice of Solid Waste Marc|a E- Williams
TO: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions I-X
Since November 8, 1964, EPA has administered all RCRA delistfng
programs and will continue to do so until States become authorized
for delisting under the new provisions of the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). A State is not required to have
a delisting nechanism. and may be authorized under HSWA without
one. To receive authorization, a State must conform its delisting
program, if any, to the Federal proa ram and apply to the Agency
for authorization.
Effective November 8, 1986, temporary exclusions automatically
expire. Any temporary exclusion granted by a State before
November 8, 1984, should be re-evaluated either by EPA or a State
that has been authorized to conduct delisting pursuant to HSWA.
If a final decision to grant or deny a petition has not been made
by November 8, i986, the temporary exclusion will cease to be in
effect for purposes of RCRA Section 3001(f ) (2) (B) .
Temporary Exclusions
Temporary exclusions are delisting decisions which exclude
• vasts frost regulation as haiardoua, but are not the final
delisting set ion under the regulations of the issuing authority.
For example, IPA issued a number of temporary exclusions pursuant
to 40 CPR 2e0.22(m). That provision explicitly ststed that these
decisions are mads 'before making a final decision". Similarly,
several States have mechanisms for removing a wast* froa regulation
before promulgating a final decision* such aa deliatinga patterned
on the Federal temporary exclusion.
-------
- 2 -
These temporary exclusion* should be distinguished from
grants of enforcement discretion, where a State did not remove a
waste from regulation, but stated only that it would not initiate
an enforcement action against a person treating this waste as non-
hazardous. Entorcement discretion, sometimes called informal
exclusions, are not temporary exclusions (nor are they final
exclusions).
Final Exclusions
A final exclusion is an agency determination done in accordance
with the issuing authority's regulations; e.g., with notice and
comment after which no further review of the petition is contemplated
EPA issues final exclusions pursuant to 40 CFR 240.20 and 240.22,
which requires publication of a tentative decision in the Federal
Register, receipt and evaluation of public comment*, and publication
of a final decision in the Federal Register. States issue final
exclusions in accordance with their State legal authorities.
Any final exclusions that were granted by authorized States
before November 8, 1984, are not aftected by HSWA (i.e., no
additional action is required by the State or by EPA). EPA
encouragea the States to re-evaluate thoso decisions if all
factors (including additional constituents) which could cause
the waste to be hazardous were not considered by the State.
Actions Required
On November 8, 1986, all temporary exclusions will cease to
be in effect for purposes of RCRA if a final exclusion has not
been granted. States and Regions should plan to verify that the
handlers of these previously excluded wastes are complying with
applicable requirements after November 8, 1986. To this end, the
Regions and States should begin to evaluate all Stats delistings
tox
(1) determine the type of Stats exclusion (temporary or final)
that was granted betore November 8, 1984;
(2) determine whether a final exclusion has been granted or
denied by IPAj and
(3) tsks appropriate action to ensure full compliance with
RCJLA (e.g., prior to 11/8/84, you should send handlers
written notification of their rsgulatory responsibilities.
-------
- 3 -
Fro» a practical atandpoint, the expiration of a temporary
exclusion will have greatest immediate impact on those who
manage their waste in land disposal units. These unit* »ay
be immediately subject to ground-water monitoring requirements
and, on November 8, I»i7, may be subject to the "loss of interim
status* requirements of Section 3005
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUNE 22, 1987
Ms. Patricia M. Trainer
Environmental Staff Counsel
Aqua-Tech, Inc.
140 South Park Street
Port Washington, WI 53074
Dear Ms. Trainer:
This is in response to your inquiry of June 11, 1987, concerning 40 CFR §261.3(a)(2)(iii), often
referred to as part of the hazardous waste "mixture rule." First if a waste mixture meets the
requirements of §261.3(a)(2)(iii), no delisting is necessary. That is, a waste listed solely because it
exhibits a characteristic, when mixed with another solid waste, is not hazardous if the resultant mixture
no longer exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., not only the characteristic for which it
was listed, but all characteristics in Part 261, Subpart C).
Your questions concerning still bottoms from treating waste acetone (EPA listed waste F003)
brings into play §261.3(c)(2)(i) the "derived from" rule, as well as the mixture rule. Because the still
bottoms are a solid waste generated by the treatment of a hazardous waste (F003), §261.3(c)(2)(i)
provides that the bottoms are themselves (absent a delisting) hazardous waste. Since the still bottoms
were derived from a hazardous waste that was listed solely because it exhibited a hazardous waste
characteristic (i.e., ignitability), then a mixture of the still bottoms and a solid waste would be designated
as non-hazardous, if the resultant mixture exhibits none of the hazardous waste characteristics.
This mixing would be considered hazardous waste treatment.1 Finally, §261.3(a)(2)(iii) does not
specify any particular kind of solid waste that must be used to qualify for the exemption.
1 You should note, however, that EPA interprets the regulations to allow generators who are otherwise
exempt from permit and interim status requirements to treat their hazardous waste in their accumulation
units without having to obtain a permit or interim status, provided they comply with the requirements in
40 CFR §262.34.
-------
FaxBack# 11257
If you have further questions in this area, call Mike Petruska of my staff at
(202)475-6676.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
-------
AQUA-TECH, INCORPORATED
140 South Park Street, Port Washington, Wisconsin 53074
Phone (414) 284-5746 or (414) 375-0407 (Metro Mihv.)
June 11, 1987
Mr. Matt Straus
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Headquarters
Office of Solid Waste
401 M. Street S. W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Straus:
Aqua-Tech, Inc. would like to request a regulatory interpretation on an exemption provided in 40 CFR
s 261.3. This provision deals with the definition of a hazardous waste, and the interpretation is vital in
ensuring that our clients (generators) comply with the appropriate regulations.
Specifically, we are interested in s. 261.3(a)(2)(iii) which provides that a solid waste, as defined in s
261.2, is a hazardous waste if:
1. It is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste under s. 261.4(b); and
2. It meets any of the following criteria:
.. iii. It is a mixture of a solid waste and a hazardous waste that is listed in Subpart D
solely because it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste
identified in Subpart C, unless the resultant mixture no longer exhibits any
characteristic of hazardous waste identified in Subpart C.
Aqua-Tech's question is: Is such a mixture automatically excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste
or is the generator of that mixture required to comply with the delisting petition requirements of s.
260.22? It is our understanding that if any listed hazardous waste is mixed with a solid waste, the
resultant mixture is a hazardous waste, and that mixture remains a hazardous waste until it is delisted.
We would appreciate receiving an interpretation of whether the delisting is necessary if the mixture no
longer meets the Subpart C characteristic for which it was listed.
-------
Mr. Matt Straus
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Headquarters
June 11, 1987
Page 2
The question of interpretation first arose in defining still bottoms produced from the distillation of listed
hazardous waste. For example, when waste acetone is distilled, the resultant still bottoms are a listed
hazardous waste. It is our understanding that these still bottoms remain a listed hazardous waste until a
site-specific delisting is granted under s. 260.22. Our question is: If these still bottoms are mixed with a
solid waste and the resultant mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic of ignitability, are the still
bottoms no longer hazardous? Another question raised is whether the mixing of a listed hazardous
waste and a solid waste would be regulated as hazardous waste treatment? Further, are there any
limitations on the type of solid waste used? A related question is: How would still bottoms produced
from the distillation of acetone be defined, if the still bottoms do not meet the characteristic of
ignitability?
We appreciate your help in explaining specifically how s. 261.3(a)(2)(iii) is to be applied. If you have
any questions or need further information, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
AQUA-TECH, INC.
Patricia M. Trainer
Environmental Staff Counsel
PMT/er
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 14107
May 1997
EPA 530-R-97-005e
NTIS SUB-9224-97-005
2. Universal Waste Handler Status
40 CFRPart 273 contains two sets of regulations for handlers of universal
waste based on the total amount of universal waste generated or accumulated at
any one time. Section 273.6 defines a large quantity handler of universal
waste (LQHUW) as a universal waste handler that can accumulate 5,000 kilograms
(kg) or more of universal waste at their location at any time. In contrast, a
small quantity handler of universal waste (SQHUW) can accumulate less than
5,000 kg of universal waste at any one time. If a handler which generally
qualifies as a SQHUW has a one-time accumulation of 5,000 kg or more, but
subsequently transports the waste off-site, would the handler be regulated as a
SQHUW or LQHUW?
Pursuant to 40 CFR §273.6, the handler would be regulated as a LQHUW for the
rest of the calendar year in which the 5,000 kg or more of universal waste was
accumulated (see also 60 FR 25500; May 11, 1995).
A handler may reevaluate its status as a LQHUW in the following calendar year.
As a result of the change from a SQHUW to a LQHUW, the handler would need to
comply with additional universal waste management regulations. For example,
the handler would be required to obtain an EPA identification number if they
had not already notified EPA of hazardous waste management activities
(§273.32), and all employees would be required to be thoroughly familiar with
proper waste handling and emergency procedures relative to their
responsibilities at the facility (§273.36). In addition, the handler would
need to keep a record of each shipment of universal waste (§273.39).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/3268E060238893A9852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll378
9441.1988(45)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
NOV2 1988
Mr. Donald E. Stone
Manager, Environmental Compliance
GSX Chemical Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 210799
Columbia, SC 29221
Dear Mr. Stone:
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of
October 19, 1988 and your follow-up letter dated October 20,
1988, both dealing with waste listings for commercial chemical
products.
When defining a material as a hazardous waste under RCRA
Subtitle C, the material must first be defined as a solid waste
in accordance with 40 CFR Section 261.3(a). A discarded
material that is recycled by being reclaimed may be defined as
a solid waste, depending on the type of secondary material (see
Table 1, Section 261.2(c)(3)). Since you did not specify in
the examples in your letter the disposition of the mercury and
mercury-containing material, I am assuming that it is going for
reclamation.
In your first example, the mercury is contaminated before
being placed in the product (thermometer). If the contaminated
mercury is shipped off-site for disposal, it would be a solid
and hazardous waste identified as an off-specification
commercial chemical product (listed waste U151) in 40 CFR
Section 261.33. If, however, the mercury was sent for
reclamation, it would not be defined as a solid waste (see
40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(Table 1)). Therefore, the mercury
would not be identified as listed waste U151 and a manifest
would not be required in this case because Subtitle C of RCRA
is not applicable to materials that are not defined as a solid
waste (see 40 CFR Section 261.2).
In your second example, the broken thermometer has been
used and meets the definition of a spent material in 40 CFR
Section 261.1(c)(l). Spent material sent for reclamation is
defined as a solid waste in 40 CFR Section 261.2(c)(3)(Table
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/DD8538615E13C889852565DA006F04... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
1). The broken thermometer (mercury and glassware) could then
-2-
be further defined as a hazardous waste if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste (i.e., EP toxic, in which
case it is hazardous waste D009). This determination is made
either through the generator's knowledge of the characteristics
of the waste or by subjecting the waste to the EP toxicity
leaching procedure (refer to 40 CFR Section 262.1 l(c)).
Finally, in your third example, if the mercury-containing
batteries and switches can be defined as spent materials as
specified in 40 CFR Section 261.1(c)(l), the waste
identification process used in example two above would apply.
As is always the case, a RCRA authorized State might have
more stringent requirements so you should contact the
appropriate state agency to determine what their regulations
require.
If you have any questions, please contact Steve
Cochran at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Robert W. Bellinger
Chief, Waste
Characterization Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/DD8538615E13C889852565DA006F04... 8/18/2004
-------
§266.206
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
(vii) Access to the stored waste mili-
tary munitions must be limited to ap-
propriately trained and authorized per-
sonnel.
(2) The conditional exemption in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section from
regulation as hazardous waste shall
apply only to the storage of non-chem-
ical waste military munitions. It does
not affect the regulatory status of
waste military munitions as hazardous
wastes with regard to transportation,
treatment or disposal.
(3) The conditional exemption in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section applies
only so long as all of the conditions in
paragraph (a)(l) of this section are met.
(b) Notice of termination of waste
storage. The owner or operator must
notify the Director when a storage unit
identified in paragraph (a)(l)(iv) of this
section will no longer be used to store
waste military munitions.
(c) Reinstatement of conditional ex-
emption. If any waste military muni-
tion loses its conditional exemption
under paragraph (a)(l) of this section,
an application may be filed with the
Director for reinstatement of the con-
ditional exemption from hazardous
waste storage regulation with respect
to such munition as soon as the muni-
tion is returned to compliance with the
conditions of paragraph (a)(l) of this
section. If the Director finds that rein-
statement of the conditional exemp-
tion is appropriate based on factors
such as the owner's or operator's provi-
sion of a satisfactory explanation of
the circumstances of the violation, or a
demonstration that the violations are
not likely to recur, the Director may
reinstate the conditional exemption
under paragraph (a)(l) of this section.
If the Director does not take action on
the reinstatement application within
60 days after receipt of the application,
then reinstatement shall be deemed
granted, retroactive to the date of the
application. However, the Director may
terminate a conditional exemption re-
instated by default in the preceding
sentence if he/she finds that reinstate-
ment is inappropriate based on factors
such as the owner's or operator's fail-
ure to provide a satisfactory expla-
nation of the circumstances of the vio-
lation, or failure to demonstrate that
the violations are not likely to recur.
In reinstating the conditional exemp-
tion under paragraph (a)(l) of this sec-
tion, the Director may specify addi-
tional conditions as are necessary to
ensure and document proper storage to
protect human health and the environ-
ment.
(d) Waste chemical munitions. (1)
Waste military munitions that are
chemical agents or chemical munitions
and that exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic or are listed as haz-
ardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261,
are listed or identified as a hazardous
waste and shall be subject to the appli-
cable regulatory requirements of RCRA
subtitle C.
(2) Waste military munitions that are
chemical agents or chemical munitions
and that exhibit a hazardous waste
characteristic or are listed as haz-
ardous waste under 40 CFR Part 261,
are not subject to the storage prohibi-
tion in RCRA section 3004(j), codified
at 40 CFR 268.50.
(e) Amendments to DDESB storage
standards. The DDESB storage stand-
ards applicable to waste military mu-
nitions, referenced in paragraph
(a)(l)(iii) of this section, are DOD
6055.9-STD ("DOD Ammunition and Ex-
plosive Safety Standards"), in effect on
November 8, 1995, except as provided in
the following sentence. Any amend-
ments to the DDESB storage standards
shall become effective for purposes of
paragraph (a)(l) of this section on the
date the Department of Defense pub-
lishes notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER
that the DDESB standards referenced
in paragraph (a)(l) of this section have
been amended.
§266.206 Standards applicable to the
treatment and disposal of waste
military munitions.
The treatment and disposal of haz-
ardous waste military munitions are
subject to the applicable permitting,
procedural, and technical standards in
40 CFR Parts 260 through 270.
Subpart N—Conditional Exemp-
tion for Low-Level Mixed
Waste Storage and Disposal
SOURCE: 66 FR 27262, May 16, 2001, unless
otherwise noted.
52
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§266.225
TERMS
§ 266.210 What definitions apply to this
subpart?
This subpart uses the following spe-
cial definitions:
Agreement State means a state that
has entered into an agreement with the
NRC under subsection 274b of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(68 Stat. 919), to assume responsibility
for regulating within its borders by-
product, source, or special nuclear ma-
terial in quantities not sufficient to
form a critical mass.
Certified delivery means certified mail
with return receipt requested, or equiv-
alent courier service, or other means,
that provides the sender with a receipt
confirming delivery.
Director refers to the definition in 40
CFR 270.2.
Eligible Naturally Occurring and/or Ac-
celerator-produced Radioactive Material
(NARM) is NARM that is eligible for
the Transportation and Disposal Condi-
tional Exemption. It is a NARM waste
that contains RCRA hazardous waste,
meets the waste acceptance criteria of,
and is allowed by State NARM regula-
tions to be disposed of at a low-level
radioactive waste disposal facility
(LLRWDF) licensed in accordance with
10 CFR part 61 or NRC Agreement
State equivalent regulations.
Exempted waste means a waste that
meets the eligibility criteria in 266.225
and meets all of the conditions in
§266.230, or meets the eligibility cri-
teria in 40 CFR 266.310 and complies
with all the conditions in §266.315.
Such waste is conditionally exempted
from the regulatory definition of haz-
ardous waste described in 40 CFR 261.3.
Hazardous Waste means any material
which is defined to be hazardous waste
in accordance with 40 CFR 261.3, "Defi-
nition of Hazardous Waste."
Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Treat-
ment Standards means treatment stand-
ards, under 40 CFR part 268, that a
RCRA hazardous waste must meet be-
fore it can be disposed of in a RCRA
hazardous waste land disposal unit.
License means a license issued by the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or
NRC Agreement State, to users that
manage radionuclides regulated by
NRC, or NRC Agreement States, under
authority of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended.
Low-Level Mixed Waste (LLMW) is a
waste that contains both low-level ra-
dioactive waste and RCRA hazardous
waste.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) is
a radioactive waste which contains
source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material, and which is not classified as
high-level radioactive waste, trans-
uranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, or by-
product material as defined in section
lie.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act. (See
also NRC definition of "waste" at 10
CFR 61.2)
Mixed Waste means a waste that con-
tains both RCRA hazardous waste and
source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material subject to the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
Naturally Occurring and/or Accelerator-
produced Radioactive Material (NARM)
means radioactive materials that:
(1) Are naturally occurring and are
not source, special nuclear, or byprod-
uct materials (as defined by the AEA)
or
(2) Are produced by an accelerator.
NARM is regulated by the States under
State law, or by DOE (as authorized by
the AEA) under DOE orders.
NRC means the U. S. Nuclear Regu-
latory Commission.
We or us within this subpart, means
the Director as defined in 40 CFR 270.2.
You means a generator, treater, or
other handler of low-level mixed waste
or eligible NARM.
STORAGE AND TREATMENT CONDITIONAL
EXEMPTION AND ELIGIBILITY
§266.220 What does a storage and
treatment conditional exemption
do?
The storage and treatment condi-
tional exemption exempts your low-
level mixed waste from the regulatory
definition of hazardous waste in 40 CFR
261.3 if your waste meets the eligibility
criteria in §266.225 and you meet the
conditions in §266.230.
§266.225 What wastes are eligible for
the storage and treatment condi-
tional exemption?
Low-level mixed waste (LLMW), de-
fined in §266.210, is eligible for this con-
ditional exemption if it is generated
53
-------
§266.230
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
and managed by you under a single
NRC or NRC Agreement State license.
(Mixed waste generated at a facility
with a different license number and
shipped to your facility for storage or
treatment requires a permit and is in-
eligible for this exemption. In addition,
NARM waste is ineligible this exemp-
tion.)
§266.230 What conditions must you
meet for your LLMW to qualify for
and maintain a storage and treat-
ment exemption?
(a) For your LLMW to qualify for the
exemption you must notify us in writ-
ing by certified delivery that you are
claiming a conditional exemption for
the LLMW stored on your facility. The
dated notification must include your
name, address, RCRA identification
number, NRC or NRC Agreement State
license number, the waste code(s) and
storage unit(s) for which you are seek-
ing an exemption, and a statement
that you meet the conditions of this
subpart. Your notification must be
signed by your authorized representa-
tive who certifies that the information
in the notification is true, accurate,
and complete. You must notify us of
your claim either within 90 days of the
effective date of this rule in your
State, or within 90 days of when a stor-
age unit is first used to store condi-
tionally exempt LLMW.
(b) To qualify for and maintain an ex-
emption for your LLMW you must:
(1) Store your LLMW waste in tanks
or containers in compliance with the
requirements of your license that apply
to the proper storage of low-level ra-
dioactive waste (not including those li-
cense requirements that relate solely
to recordkeeping);
(2) Store your LLMW in tanks or con-
tainers in compliance with chemical
compatibility requirements of a tank
or container in 40 CFR 264.177, or
264.199 or 40 CFR 265.177, or 265.199;
(3) Certify that facility personnel
who manage stored conditionally ex-
empt LLMW are trained in a manner
that ensures that the conditionally ex-
empt waste is safely managed and in-
cludes training in chemical waste man-
agement and hazardous materials inci-
dents response that meets the per-
sonnel training standards found in 40
CFR 265.16(a)(3);
(4) Conduct an inventory of your
stored conditionally exempt LLMW at
least annually and inspect it at least
quarterly for compliance with subpart
N of this part; and
(5) Maintain an accurate emergency
plan and provide it to all local authori-
ties who may have to respond to a fire,
explosion, or release of hazardous
waste or hazardous constituents. Your
plan must describe emergency response
arrangements with local authorities;
describe evacuation plans; list the
names, addresses, and telephone num-
bers of all facility personnel qualified
to work with local authorities as emer-
gency coordinators; and list emergency
equipment.
TREATMENT
§266.235 What waste treatment does
the storage and treatment condi-
tional exemption allow?
You may treat your low-level mixed
waste at your facility within a tank or
container in accordance with the terms
of your NRC or NRC Agreement State
license. Treatment that cannot be done
in a tank or container without a RCRA
permit (such as incineration) is not al-
lowed under this exemption.
Loss OF CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION
§266.240 How could you lose the con-
ditional exemption for your LLMW
and what action must you take?
(a) Your LLMW will automatically
lose the storage and treatment condi-
tional exemption if you fail to meet
any of the conditions specified in
§266.230. When your LLMW loses the
exemption, you must immediately
manage that waste which failed the
condition as RCRA hazardous waste,
and the storage unit storing the LLMW
immediately becomes subject to RCRA
hazardous waste container and/or tank
storage requirements.
(1) If you fail to meet any of the con-
ditions specified in §266.230 you must
report to us and the NRC, or the over-
sight agency in the NRC Agreement
State, in writing by certified delivery
within 30 days of learning of the fail-
ure. Your report must be signed by
54
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§266.250
your authorized representative certi-
fying that the information provided is
true, accurate, and complete. This re-
port must include:
(i) The specific condition(s) you
failed to meet;
(ii) A description of the LLMW (in-
cluding the waste name, hazardous
waste codes and quantity) and storage
location at the facility; and
(iii) The date(s) on which you failed
to meet the condition(s).
(2) If the failure to meet any of the
conditions may endanger human health
or the environment, you must also im-
mediately notify us orally within 24
hours and follow up with a written no-
tification within five days. Failures
that may endanger human health or
the environment include, but are not
limited to, discharge of a CERCLA re-
portable quantity or other leaking or
exploding tanks or containers, or de-
tection of radionuclides above back-
ground or hazardous constituents in
the leachate collection system of a
storage area. If the failure may endan-
ger human health or the environment,
you must follow the provisions of your
emergency plan.
(b) We may terminate your condi-
tional exemption for your LLMW, or
require you to meet additional condi-
tions to claim a conditional exemption,
for serious or repeated noncompliance
with any requirement(s) of subpart N
of this part.
§266.245 If you lose the storage and
treatment conditional exemption
for your LLMW, can the exemption
be reclaimed?
(a) You may reclaim the storage and
treatment exemption for your LLMW
if:
(1) You again meet the conditions
specified in §266.230; and
(2) You send us a notice by certified
delivery that you are reclaiming the
exemption for your LLMW. Your notice
must be signed by your authorized rep-
resentative certifying that the infor-
mation contained in your notice is
true, complete, and accurate. In your
notice you must do the following:
(i) Explain the circumstances of each
failure.
(ii) Certify that you have corrected
each failure that caused you to lose the
exemption for your LLMW and that
you again meet all the conditions as of
the date you specify.
(iii) Describe plans that you have im-
plemented, listing specific steps you
have taken, to ensure the conditions
will be met in the future.
(iv) Include any other information
you want us to consider when we re-
view your notice reclaiming the ex-
emption.
(b) We may terminate a reclaimed
conditional exemption if we find that
your claim is inappropriate based on
factors including, but not limited to,
the following: you have failed to cor-
rect the problem; you explained the
circumstances of the failure unsatis-
factorily; or you failed to implement a
plan with steps to prevent another fail-
ure to meet the conditions of §266.230.
In reviewing a reclaimed conditional
exemption under this section, we may
add conditions to the exemption to en-
sure that waste management during
storage and treatment of the LLMW
will protect human health and the en-
vironment.
RECORDKEEPING
§266.250 What records must you keep
at your facility and for how long?
(a) In addition to those records re-
quired by your NRC or NRC Agreement
State license, you must keep records as
follows:
(1) Your initial notification records,
return receipts, reports to us of fail-
ure^) to meet the exemption condi-
tions, and all records supporting any
reclaim of an exemption;
(2) Records of your LLMW annual in-
ventories, and quarterly inspections;
(3) Your certification that facility
personnel who manage stored mixed
waste are trained in safe management
of LLMW including training in chem-
ical waste management and hazardous
materials incidents response; and
(4) Your emergency plan as specified
in §266.230(b).
(b) You must maintain records con-
cerning notification, personnel trained,
and your emergency plan for as long as
you claim this exemption and for three
years thereafter, or in accordance with
NRC regulations under 10 CFR part 20
(or equivalent NRC Agreement State
55
-------
§266.255
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
regulations), whichever is longer. You
must maintain records concerning your
annual inventory and quarterly inspec-
tions for three years after the waste is
sent for disposal, or in accordance with
NRC regulations under 10 CFR part 20
(or equivalent NRC Agreement State
regulations), whichever is longer.
REENTRY INTO RCRA
§266.255 When is your LLMW no
longer eligible for the storage and
treatment conditional exemption?
(a) When your LLMW has met the re-
quirements of your NRC or NRC Agree-
ment State license for decay-in-storage
and can be disposed of as non-radio-
active waste, then the conditional ex-
emption for storage no longer applies.
On that date your waste is subject to
hazardous waste regulation under the
relevant sections of 40 CFR parts 260
through 271, and the time period for ac-
cumulation of a hazardous waste as
specified in 40 CFR 262.34 begins.
(b) When your conditionally exempt
LLMW, which has been generated and
stored under a single NRC or NRC
Agreement State license number, is re-
moved from storage, it is no longer eli-
gible for the storage and treatment ex-
emption. However, your waste may be
eligible for the transportation and dis-
posal conditional exemption at
§266.305.
STORAGE UNIT CLOSURE
§266.260 Do closure requirements
apply to units that stored LLMW
prior to the effective date of Sub-
part N?
Interim status and permitted storage
units that have been used to store only
LLMW prior to the effective date of
subpart N of this part and, after that
date, store only LLMW which becomes
exempt under this subpart N, are not
subject to the closure requirements of
40 CFR parts 264 and 265. Storage units
(or portions of units) that have been
used to store both LLMW and non-
mixed hazardous waste prior to the ef-
fective date of subpart N or are used to
store both after that date remain sub-
ject to closure requirements with re-
spect to the non-mixed hazardous
waste.
TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL
CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION
§ 266.305 What does the transportation
and disposal conditional exemption
do?
This conditional exemption exempts
your waste from the regulatory defini-
tion of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3
if your waste meets the eligibility cri-
teria under §266.310, and you meet the
conditions in §266.315.
ELIGIBILITY
§266.310 What wastes are eligible for
the transportation and disposal
conditional exemption?
Eligible waste must be:
(a) A low-level mixed waste (LLMW),
as defined in §266.210, that meets the
waste acceptance criteria of a
LLRWDF; and/or
(b) An eligible NARM waste, defined
in §266.210.
CONDITIONS
§266.315 What are the conditions you
must meet for your waste to qualify
for and maintain the transportation
and disposal conditional exemp-
tion?
You must meet the following condi-
tions for your eligible waste to qualify
for and maintain the exemption:
(a) The eligible waste must meet or
be treated to meet LDR treatment
standards as described in §266.320.
(b) If you are not already subject to
NRC, or NRC Agreement State equiva-
lent manifest and transportation regu-
lations for the shipment of your waste,
you must manifest and transport your
waste according to NRC regulations as
described in §266.325.
(c) The exempted waste must be in
containers when it is disposed of in the
LLRWDF as described in §266.340.
(d) The exempted waste must be dis-
posed of at a designated LLRWDF as
described in §266.335.
§266.320 What treatment standards
must your eligible waste meet?
Your LLMW or eligible NARM waste
must meet Land Disposal Restriction
(LDR) treatment standards specified in
40 CFR part 268, subpart D.
56
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§266.325 Are you subject to the mani-
fest and transportation condition in
§266.315(b)?
If you are not already subject to
NRC, or NRC Agreement State equiva-
lent manifest and transportation regu-
lations for the shipment of your waste,
you must meet the manifest require-
ments under 10 CFR 20.2006 (or NRC
Agreement State equivalent regula-
tions), and the transportation require-
ments under 10 CFR 1.5 (or NRC Agree-
ment State equivalent regulations) to
ship the exempted waste.
§266.330 When does the transpor-
tation and disposal exemption take
effect?
The exemption becomes effective
once all the following have occurred:
(a) Your eligible waste meets the ap-
plicable LDR treatment standards.
(b) You have received return receipts
that you have notified us and the
LLRWDF as described in §266.345.
(c) You have completed the pack-
aging and preparation for shipment re-
quirements for your waste according to
NRC Packaging and Transportation
regulations found under 10 CFR part 71
(or NRC Agreement State equivalent
regulations); and you have prepared a
manifest for your waste according to
NRC manifest regulations found under
10 CFR part 20 (or NRC Agreement
State equivalent regulations), and
(d) You have placed your waste on a
transportation vehicle destined for a
LLRWDF licensed by NRC or an NRC
Agreement State.
§266.335 Where must your exempted
waste be disposed of?
Your exempted waste must be dis-
posed of in a LLRWDF that is regu-
lated and licensed by NRC under 10
CFR part 61 or by an NRC Agreement
State under equivalent State regula-
tions, including State NARM licensing
regulations for eligible NARM.
§266.340 What type of container must
be used for disposal of exempted
waste?
Your exempted waste must be placed
in containers before it is disposed. The
container must be:
(a) A carbon steel drum; or
§266.350
(b) An alternative container with
equivalent containment performance
in the disposal environment as a car-
bon steel drum; or
(c) A high integrity container as de-
fined by NRC.
NOTIFICATION
§ 266.345 Whom must you notify?
(a) You must provide a one time no-
tice to us stating that you are claiming
the transportation and disposal condi-
tional exemption prior to the initial
shipment of an exempted waste from
your facility to a LLRWDF. Your dated
written notice must include your facil-
ity name, address, phone number, and
RCRA ID number, and be sent by cer-
tified delivery.
(b) You must notify the LLRWDF re-
ceiving your exempted waste by cer-
tified delivery before shipment of each
exempted waste. You can only ship the
exempted waste after you have re-
ceived the return receipt of your notice
to the LLRWDF. This notification
must include the following:
(1) A statement that you have
claimed the exemption for the waste.
(2) A statement that the eligible
waste meets applicable LDR treatment
standards.
(3) Your facility's name, address, and
RCRA ID number.
(4) The RCRA hazardous waste codes
prior to the exemption of the waste
streams.
(5) A statement that the exempted
waste must be placed in a container ac-
cording to §266.340 prior to disposal in
order for the waste to remain exempt
under the transportation and disposal
conditional exemption of subpart N of
this part.
(6) The manifest number of the ship-
ment that will contain the exempted
waste.
(7) A certification that all the infor-
mation provided is true, complete, and
accurate. The statement must be
signed by your authorized representa-
tive.
RECORDKEEPING
§266.350 What records must you keep
at your facility and for how long?
In addition to those records required
by your NRC or NRC Agreement State
57
-------
§266.355
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-03 Edition)
license, you must keep records as fol-
lows:
(a) You must follow the applicable
existing recordkeeping requirements
under 40 CFR 264.73, 40 CFR 265.73, and
40 CFR 268.7 of this chapter to dem-
onstrate that your waste has met LDR
treatment standards prior to your
claiming the exemption.
(b) You must keep a copy of all noti-
fications and return receipts required
under §§266.355, and 266.360 for three
years after the exempted waste is sent
for disposal.
(c) You must keep a copy of all noti-
fications and return receipts required
under §266.345(a) for three years after
the last exempted waste is sent for dis-
posal.
(d) You must keep a copy of the noti-
fication and return receipt required
under §266.345(b) for three years after
the exempted waste is sent for disposal.
(e) If you are not already subject to
NRC, or NRC Agreement State equiva-
lent manifest and transportation regu-
lations for the shipment of your waste,
you must also keep all other docu-
ments related to tracking the exempt-
ed waste as required under 10 CFR
20.2006 or NRC Agreement State equiv-
alent regulations, including applicable
NARM requirements, in addition to the
records specified in §266.350(a) through
(d).
Loss OF TRANSPORTATION AND DISPOSAL
CONDITIONAL EXEMPTION
§ 266.355 How could you lose the trans-
portation and disposal conditional
exemption for your waste and what
actions must you take?
(a) Any waste will automatically lose
the transportation and disposal exemp-
tion if you fail to manage it in accord-
ance with all of the conditions speci-
fied in §266.315.
(1) When you fail to meet any of the
conditions specified in §266.315 for any
of your wastes, you must report to us,
in writing by certified delivery, within
30 days of learning of the failure. Your
report must be signed by your author-
ized representative certifying that the
information provided is true, accurate,
and complete. This report must in-
clude:
(i) The specific condition(s) that you
failed to meet for the waste;
(ii) A description of the waste (in-
cluding the waste name, hazardous
waste codes and quantity) that lost the
exemption; and
(iii) The date(s) on which you failed
to meet the condition(s) for the waste.
(2) If the failure to meet any of the
conditions may endanger human health
or the environment, you must also im-
mediately notify us orally within 24
hours and follow up with a written no-
tification within 5 days.
(b) We may terminate your ability to
claim a conditional exemption for your
waste, or require you to meet addi-
tional conditions to claim a condi-
tional exemption, for serious or re-
peated noncompliance with any re-
quirement (s) of subpart N of this part.
§ 266.360 If you lose the transportation
and disposal conditional exemption
for a waste, can the exemption be
reclaimed?
(a) You may reclaim the transpor-
tation and disposal exemption for a
waste after you have received a return
receipt confirming that we have re-
ceived your notification of the loss of
the exemption specified in §266.355(a)
and if:
(1) You again meet the conditions
specified in §266.315 for the waste; and
(2) You send a notice, by certified de-
livery, to us that you are reclaiming
the exemption for the waste. Your no-
tice must be signed by your authorized
representative certifying that the in-
formation provided is true, accurate,
and complete. The notice must:
(i) Explain the circumstances of each
failure.
(ii) Certify that each failure that
caused you to lose the exemption for
the waste has been corrected and that
you again meet all conditions for the
waste as of the date you specify.
(iii) Describe plans you have imple-
mented, listing the specific steps that
you have taken, to ensure that condi-
tions will be met in the future.
(iv) Include any other information
you want us to consider when we re-
view your notice reclaiming the ex-
emption.
(b) We may terminate a reclaimed
conditional exemption if we find that
your claim is inappropriate based on
factors including, but not limited to:
you have failed to correct the problem;
58
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
§266.401
you explained the circumstances of the
failure unsatisfactorily; or you failed
to implement a plan with steps to pre-
vent another failure to meet the condi-
tions of §266.315. In reviewing a re-
claimed conditional exemption under
this section, we may add conditions to
the exemption to ensure that transpor-
tation and disposal activities will pro-
tect human health and the environ-
ment.
Subpart O—Standards Applicable
to U.S. Filter Recovery Services
XL Waste and U.S. Filter Re-
covery Services, Inc.
SOURCE: 66 FR 28085, May 22, 2001, unless
otherwise noted.
§266.400 Purpose, scope, and applica-
bility.
The purpose of this subpart is to im-
plement the U.S. Filter Recovery Serv-
ices (USFRS) excellence in Leadership
(XL) Project. Any person who is a
USFRS XL waste generator or trans-
porter must handle the USFRS XL
waste in accordance with the require-
ments contained within this subpart.
The standards and requirements of this
subpart also apply to USFRS and its
facility located at 2430 Rose Place,
Roseville, Minnesota. These require-
ments are imposed on USFRS in addi-
tion to any requirements contained in
its RCRA hazardous waste permit or
other applicable state or federal law.
USFRS XL waste generators and trans-
porters are not required to comply
with the requirements of 40 CFR 261.5,
parts 262 through 266 (except this sub-
part O), parts 268, 270, 273 and 279 pro-
vided they manage USFRS XL waste in
compliance with the requirements of
this subpart O.
§ 266.401 Definitions.
County Environmental Agencies or
County Agencies means the counties of
Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,
Ramsey, Scott or Washington in Min-
nesota.
USFRS means U.S. Filter Recovery
Services, Inc. whose principal place of
business for the purposes of these rules
is 2430 Rose Place, Roseville, Min-
nesota.
USFRS XL Waste means one or more
USFRS used water treatment resin
canisters and their contents, any asso-
ciated USFRS pre- or post-resin filters
and their containers and their contents
from a USFRS XL waste generator lo-
cated within the State of Minnesota.
USFRS XL waste includes the ion ex-
change resins, the associated pre- and
post-resin filters, wastes contained on
or within the ion exchange resins and
filters and any other wastes contained
within the water treatment resin can-
isters and filter containers. USFRS XL
waste also includes spills of XL waste
which are handled in accordance with
the requirements in this subpart. This
definition does not include wastes that
were generated prior to the date a gen-
erator is added to this USFRS XL
Project. USFRS XL waste shall be
identified by the waste code XL001.
USFRS XL Waste Application Form
means the form approved by EPA and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MFCA) as part of the USFRS XL
Waste Project or subsequently modi-
fied by USFRS and approved by EPA
and MPCA and used for characteriza-
tion of the chemical constituents of a
person's USFRS XL waste. The USFRS
XL Waste Application Form shall in-
clude all attachments by USFRS or the
applicant, including but not limited to,
the USFRS Site Engineering Form,
Systems Engineering Form and any
waste analysis.
USFRS XL Waste Approved Customer
means only those persons located in
Minnesota who have properly identi-
fied their wastes and processes on the
USFRS XL waste application form;
have not been excluded by EPA, MPCA
or the County Agencies from participa-
tion in the USFRS XL waste project;
have signed the USFRS XL waste Final
Project Agreement (FPA); have cer-
tified that they have read and under-
stand the USFRS XL waste training
module; and have not generated
USFRS XL wastes.
USFRS XL waste approved transporter
means a transporter located within the
State of Minnesota who has a satisfac-
tory safety rating from the United
States Department of Transportation
(USDOT) in the last year; has not been
excluded by EPA, MPCA or the County
Agencies from participation in the
59
-------
J Neural Neumsurg Psychiatry 1998;64:463^68
463
Poisoning by organophosphorus insecticides and
sensory neuropathy
Angelo Moretto, Marcello Lotti
Universita degli Studi
di Padova, Istituto di
Medicina del Lavoro,
Italy
A Moretto
M Lotti
Correspondence to:
Dr Marcello Lotti, Istituto di
Medicina del Lavoro,
Universita di Padova,
via Giustiniani 2, 35128,
Padova, Italy. Telephone
0039 49 8212548; fax 0039
49 8212550. email:
lottitox@uxl.unipd.it
Received 29 May 1997 and
in revised form 13 August
1997
Accepted 9 September 1997
Abstract
Objectives—Poisoning by organophos-
phate insecticides causes cholinergic tox-
icity. Organophosphate induced delayed
polyneuropathy (OPIDP) is a sensory-
motor distal axonopathy which usually
occurs after ingestion of large doses of
certain organophosphate insecticides and
has so far only been reported in patients
with preceding cholinergic toxicity. Sur-
prisingly, it was recently reported by other
authors that an exclusively sensory neu-
ropathy developed in eight patients after
repeated uiiquaiitified exposures to chlo-
rpyrifos, which did not cause clear-cut
cholinergic toxicity. The objective was to
assess whether an exclusively sensory
neuropathy develops in patients severely
poisoned by various OPs.
Methods—lexicological studies and elec-
trophysiological measurements were per-
formed in peripheral motor and sensory
nerves in 11 patients after acute organo-
phosphate poisoning among which two
subjects were poisoned with chlorpyrifos.
Results—Three patients developed
OPIDP, including one poisoned by chlo-
rpyrifos. Exclusively sensory neuropathy
was never seen after either single or
repeated acute organophosphate poison-
ing. A mild sensory component was
associated with a severe motor component
in two of the three cases of OPIDP, the
other was an exclusively motor polyneu-
ropathy.
Conclusion—A sensory-motor polyneu-
ropathy caused by organophosphate in-
secticides might occur after a severe
poisoning and the sensory component, if
present, is milder than the motor one.
Bearing in mind the toxicological charac-
teristics of these organophosphate insecti-
cides, other causes should be sought for
sensory peripheral neuropathies in pa-
tients who did not display severe choliner-
gic toxicity a few weeks before the onset of
symptoms and signs.
(J Neural Neumsurg Psychiatry 1998;64:463-468)
Keywords: organophosphorus insecticide poisoning;
sensory neuropathy; delayed polyneuropathy
Several organophosphorus esters are used as
insecticides because they inhibit the acetylcho-
linesterase (AChE) of insects.1 The same
mechanism accounts for acute toxicity in
humans and is is characterised by signs of
cholinergic overstimulation.2 In addition, cer-
tain organophosphates may cause a distal,
sensory-motor, central-peripheral axonopathy
known as organophosphate induced delayed
polyneuropathy (OPIDP).3"
The toxicological characteristics of organo-
phosphates currently in use as insecticides have
been assessed in animals.5 These organophos-
phates are more potent inhibitors of AChE
than of neuropathy target esterase (NTE),
which is thought to be the target for OPIDP.4 6 7
Consequently, OPIDP was found both in hens
(the animal of choice for OPIDP studies) and
humans only at doses exceeding those which
cause cholinergic toxicity.3 6 8 9
However, it has been reported that the devel-
opment of an exclusively sensory neuropathy
was associated in eight patients with repeated
low level exposures to the organophosphate
insecticide chlorpyrifos (O,O-diethyl O-3,5,6-
trichloro-2-pyridylphosphorothioate).10 No or
mild symptoms or signs compatible with
cholinergic overstimulation were reported in
these patients. Possible explanations for this
unexpected finding might be that sensory neu-
ropathies in humans exposed to organophos-
phate insecticides have been overlooked, that
animal testing is not predictive, or that chlorpy-
rifos itself represents an exception. Therefore,
we evaluated peripheral nerve sensory function
in 11 patients after acute poisoning by various
organophosphates, including two patients poi-
soned by chlorpyrifos. Three patients devel-
oped OPIDP and in two of them a sensory
component was found.
Methods
Patients underwent extensive neurological
examination on several occasions. The examin-
ation of the peripheral nervous system included
assessment of gait, deep tendon reflexes, mus-
cle strength, and vibration, pin, light touch, and
thermal sensitivities. Plasma butyryl
cholinesterase (BuChE) was measured with
commercial kits. Red blood cell, AChE, and
lymphocytic neuropathy target esterase (L-
NTE) were determined according to Ellman et
a/11 and to Bertoncin et a/,12 respectively. Blood
concentrations of organophosphates were
measured by gas chromatography-mass spec-
troscopy. Electrophysiological studies were
performed at controlled temperature as de-
scribed by Kimura,13 two to six weeks after poi-
soning on one or more occasions. To assess
conduction velocities, surface electrodes were
used to stimulate the nerves whereas bipolar
concentric needle and surface electrodes were
used to record muscle and sensory potentials
respectively. The following nerves were as-
sessed: ulnar (stimulation below the elbow and
at the wrist, recording at the abductor digiti
-------
464
Moreno, Lotti
Table 1 Toxological data from patients poisoned with organophosphates
Case No (compound)
1 (Methidathion)
2 (Azinphos-methyl)
3 (Coumaphos)
4 (Coumaphos)
5 (Coumaphos)
6 (Chlorpyrifos)
7 (Isofenphos)
8 (Trichlorfon)
9 (Chlorpyrifos)
1 0 (Methamidophos)
1 1 (Isofenphos +
phoxim)
Time after
poisoning
12h
3 days
12h
2 days
lOh
3 fa*
2h
20 h
15h
40 days
lOh
4h
24 h
3 days
30 days
8h
21 h
3h
Red blood cell AChE
(mUll) (normal
4.9-11.7)
<0.5
0
0
<0.5
2.0
5.9
0
ND
3.6
< 0.5
< 0.5
Plasma BuChE
(mUll) (normal
2.4-8.3)
<0.5
0
0
0
<0.5
< 0.5
1.6
0
0
<0.5
<0.5
< 0.5
< 0.5
Lymphocyte-NTE
(m U/g protein) (normal
6.5-16.5)
10. 7f
8.2f
8.6f
ND
12.5
9.5
5.95
9.2f
5.9**
1.0ft
ND
Blood
concentration
(timolll)
5.6*
ND
ND
0.06
0.08
ND
ND
ND
0.7H
27.0*
10.1M
0.355
* Half life of about 10 hours, t Within normal range also at later measurements. $ Refers to the last episode. \ Within normal
values on day 3 (10.0 mU/g protein). U Half life of about 2 days, but the chemical was detected up to 10 days after poisoning.
** Within normal values on day 45 (8.2 mU/g protein), tt Within normal values on day 9 (12.5 mU/g protein). ^ Isofenphos.
55 Phoxim. ND = not done. AChE = acetyl cholinesterase; BuChE = butyryl cholinesterase; NTE = neuropathy target esterase.
minimi muscle), median (stimulation at the
wrist and at the elbow, recording at the abduc-
tor pollicis brevis muscle; sensory: stimulation
at the third finger, recording at the wrist),
common peroneal (stimulation below the head
of the fibula and at the ankle, recording at the
extensor digitorum brevis muscle), sural (an-
tidromic stimulation 14 cm proximally to the
recording site below the lateral malleolus).
Standard concentric needles were used for the
EMG examination. The abductor pollicis
brevis and the extensor digitorum brevis mus-
cles were assessed; when data were abnormal,
more proximal muscles were studied.
Case presentation
Table 1 shows the enzyme inhibition and orga-
nophosphate concentrations in blood of poi-
soned patients. Table 2 shows a summary of the
electrophysiological studies in patients with
OPIDP.
pralidoxime (400 mg intravenously at admis-
sion), atropine (up to 30 mg/day intravenously
for 15 days), and artificial ventilation (for nine
days).
GROUP 2: POISONING BY ORGANOPHOSPHATES
KNOWN TO CAUSE OPIDP WHICH DID NOT RESULT
IN CLINICAL OR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNS
OF NEUROPATHY
Case3
A 39 year old woman attempted suicide
by ingesting a commercial formulation of cou-
maphos (O-3-chloro-4-methyl-2-oxo-2H-chro-
men-7-yl O,O-diethyl phosphothioate). The
estimated dose was 4 g. She was comatose for
two days and was treated with pralidoxime (up
to 2.5 g/day intravenously for seven days),
atropine (up to 22 mg/day intravenously, for
eight days), and artificial ventilation (for nine
days).
GROUP 1: POISONING BY ORGANOPHOSPHATES
NOT KNOWN TO CAUSE OPIDP WHICH DID NOT
RESULT IN CLINICAL OR ELECTROPHYSIOLOGICAL
SIGNS OF NEUROPATHY
Case 1
A 50 year old man attempted suicide by ingest-
ing a commercial formulation of methida-
thion (S-2,3-dihydro-5-methoxy-2-oxo-1,3,4-
thiadiazol-3-ylmethyl O,O-dimethyl phospho-
rodithioate). The estimated dose was 6 g. He
was comatose for four days and was treated
with pralidoxime (up to 1 g/day intravenously
for nine days), atropine (up to 12 mg/day intra-
venously for 15 days), and artificial ventilation
(for 15 days). This case has been partly
described previously.14
Case 2
An 82 year old man attempted suicide by
ingesting an unknown amount of a commercial
formulation of azinphos-methyl (S-3,4-
dihydro-4-oxo-l,2,3-benzotriazin-3-ylmethyl
O,O-dimethyl phosphorodithioate). He was
comatose for five days and was treated with
Case 4
A 32 year old man was repeatedly administered
unknown amounts of organophosphate (s) over
a five month period for homicidal purposes,
presumably always coumaphos because this
chemical was found in his meals (and in his
blood) at the time of the last episode. The first
poisoning was mild and short lasting (few
hours). A second, more severe episode oc-
curred some days later. He was comatose for
two days and was treated with pralidoxime (up
to 2 g/day intravenously for 12 days), atropine
(up to 10 mg/day intravenously for 12 days),
and artificial ventilation (for four days). He was
discharged on day 26 from the first episode.
During the next four months he had eight more
episodes of mild or moderate toxicity and was
treated with pralidoxime (up to 1.2 g/day intra-
venously for up to three days) and atropine (up
to 2 mg/day intravenously for up to four days).
Eventually, coumaphos was detected in the
parmesan cheese brought to him from outside
the hospital.
-------
Organophosphates and sensory neuropathy
465
Table 2 Summary of elearophysiological data in patients with OPIDP
Case No (compound)
9 (Chlorpyrifos)
10 (Methamidophos)
1 1 (Isofenphos +
phoxim)
Day after
poisoning
24
62
10
34
26
700
Motor*
Nerve
Common peroneal
Ulnar
Common peroneal
Ulnar
Common peroneal
Common peroneal
Median
Ulnar
Common peroneal
Median
Common peroneal
Median
CV (mis)
50
55-60
41-44
48-52
47
40
60
54
22
50
Not measurable
25
CMAP
(mlV)
15
20
8t
12f
8
0.1
3
15
0.3
0.3
0.2
Sensory*
Nerve
Ulnar
Sural
Ulnar
Sural
Ulnar
Median
Median
CV (mis)
44
54
53
44
55
60
71
SAP
(fi V) Notes
t
2
9
4
n 5
6
n
13
**
10
* Reference values were: motor conduction velocity (CV): common peroneal ^ 45, ulnar ^ 50, median ^ 48; sensory conduction
velocity: sural ^ 48, ulnar ^ 53, median ^ 48; compound motor action potential (CMAP): common peroneal ^ 5, ulnar ^ 6,
median ^ 7; sensory action potentials (SAP): sural ^ 6, ulnar ^ 4, median ^ 7.
t An increased frequency of polyphasic potentials was found. $ Fibrillation potentials were present in distal leg muscles, but not in
arm muscles. § Fibrillation potentials were present in both leg and arm distal muscles. U In subsequent electrophysiological studies
motor and sensory CVs were not measurable and severe signs of denervation (fibrillation potentials) were found in arm, and espe-
cially, leg muscles. ** Signs of denervation (fibrillation potentials) were still present and much less evident in both arm (only dis-
tally) and leg muscles. Partial reinnervation took place (scarce interference pattern with high frequency potentials) in arm muscles
and to a lesser extent in proximal leg muscles.
Case 5
A 23 year old woman attempted suicide by
ingesting an unknown amount of a commercial
formulation of coumaphos. She was comatose
for 12 hours and was treated with pralidoxime
(4 g/day intravenously for two days), atropine
(12 mg/day intravenously for three days), and
artificial ventilation (for four days).
Case 6
A 78 year old man attempted suicide by ingest-
ing an unknown amount of a commercial
formulation of chlorpyrifos. He was comatose
for five days and was treated with pralidoxime
(up to 12 g/day intravenously for five days) and
atropine (up to 2.5 mg/day intravenously for six
days). Artificial ventilation was continued for
21 days because of pneumonia for which he
was treated with antibiotics for about six weeks.
Case 7
An 80 year old man attempted suicide with self
injection (subcutaneously and intramuscu-
larly) of a commercial formulation of isofen-
phos (isopropyl O-(ethoxy-N-isopropylamino
(phosphoryl))salicilate). The stimated dose
was 1.5 g. He was comatose for six days and
was treated with pralidoxime (up to 1.6 g/day
intravenously for 10 days), atropine (up to 12
mg/day intravenously for 10 days), and artifi-
cial ventilation (for 10 days). Electrophysi-
ological studies performed on day 16 were nor-
mal. He developed severe pneumonia and died
on day 32.
Case 8
A 53 year old woman attempted suicide by
ingesting a commercial formulation of trichlo-
rfon (dimethyl 2,2,2-trichloro-l-hydroxyethyl-
phosphonate). The estimated dose was 1.6 g.
She was treated with pralidoxime (800 mg
intravenously on admission) and atropine (up
to 2.5 mg/day intravenously for seven days).
Assisted ventilation was not necessary.
GROUP 3: POISONING BY ORGANOPHOSPHATES
WHICH RESULTED IN OPIDP
Case 9
A 42 year old man attempted suicide by ingest-
ing an unknown amount of a commercial
formulation of chlorpyrifos. He was comatose
for seven days and was treated with pral-
idoxime (up to 2.5 g/day intravenously for 23
days), atropine (up to 8 mg/day intravenously
for 10 days), and artificial ventilation (for 17
days). He was treated with antibiotics for about
three weeks because of pneumonia. He was
asymptomatic by day 24 after poisoning when
neurological examination was unrevealing and
electrophysiological studies of motor nerves
were normal. On day 43, he began to complain
of weakness and paraesthesiae of the legs. On
day 62, the patient had some gait impairment
and showed loss of tendon reflexes and of
vibration sense in the legs. Electrophysiological
data obtained at this time were indicative of
OPIDP with both sensory and motor compo-
nents (table 2). After about three months the
clinical and electrophysiological conditions
were unchanged (data not shown). The patient
was lost to follow up. This case has been partly
described previously.15
Case 10
A 32 year old man attempted suicide by ingest-
ing a commercial formulation of methamido-
phos (O,S-dimethyl phosphoroamidothioate).
The estimated dose was 40 g. He was comatose
for four days and was treated with pralidoxime
(up to 8 g/day intravenously for eight days),
atropine (up to 12 mg/day intravenously for
eight days,) and artificial ventilation (for six
days). He developed pneumonia and was
treated with antibiotics for a few days. Electro-
physiology of motor and sensory nerves was
normal 10 days after poisoning. The patient
was discharged asymptomatic two weeks after
poisoning. However, on day 25 he began to
complain of leg weakness. No sensory altera-
tions were recorded at physical examination.
-------
466
Moreno, Lotti
Electrophysiological data were indicative of a
purely motor neuropathy of the lower limbs
(table 2). About two months later the clinical
and electrophysiological conditions were un-
changed (data not shown). The patient died a
few weeks later in a car accident.
Case 11
A 26 year old man voluntarily ingested a com-
mercial formulation of isofenphos and phoxim
(diethoxyphosphinothioyloxyimino (phenyl)
acetonitrile). Estimated doses were 35 and 9 g
respectively. He was treated with atropine (7
mg/day intravenously) and pralidoxime (8
g/day intravenously). Treatment lasted five
days with tapering off over the next seven days.
Cholinergic signs were detectable only for
about one day and artificial ventilation was not
needed. The patient was discharged asympto-
matic on day 17. A few days later, he
complained of lower limb paraesthesia and
weakness. Within four days, he developed flac-
cid tetraplegia. On day 26, electrophysiological
data were consistent with severe motor neu-
ropathy (table 2). No sensory alterations were
recorded at physical examination. Subse-
quently, severe motor denervation was evident
in his arms and legs lasting for several months
along with signs of sural and sensory median
nerve damage (data not shown). After 22
months the clinical condition of his arms
greatly improved. Partial recovery was also evi-
dent in the his legs although he developed
spastic paraparesis. Electrophysiological stud-
ies performed at this time were indicative of
some axonal regeneration of peripheral nerves.
Discussion
Neuropathy was not expected in patients of
group 1, despite severe cholinergic toxicity,
because neither methidathion nor azinphos-
methyl cause OPIDP in hens16 " when tested at
or above the LD50 and no cases in humans have
ever been reported. Moreover L-NTE was not
inhibited in these cases. High L-NTE inhibi-
tion measured soon after exposure is thought
to herald the development of OPIDP.15 ls
Neuropathy may have been expected in
patients of group 2 because the involved orga-
nophosphates cause OPIDP in hens and cases
were also reported in humans. OPIDP did not
develop, likely because of insufficient doses,
although the doses were high enough to cause
severe cholinergic toxicity. Coumaphos causes
OPIDP in hens,19 but neuropathy was not
reported in humans after acute poisoning.20
Moreover, L-NTE was not inhibited in two of
our three patients poisoned with coumaphos
(cases 3-5). Chlorpyrifos causes OPIDP both
in humans (case 9) and hens,21 but did not in
case 6. The patient poisoned with isophenfos
(case 7) showed about 50% L-NTE inhibition
soon after dosing but he died on day 32, and
OPIDP might have developed after this time.
Isophenfos causes OPIDP both in humans22 23
(also case 11) and in hens,24 as does
trichlorfon25 26 but patient 8 had a relatively
mild poisoning and her L-NTE was not inhib-
ited.
Patients of group 3 (cases 9-11, table 2)
developed OPIDP and the inhibition of
L-NTE was predictive (cases 9 and 10). Other
causes of neuropathy such as diabetes, alcohol-
ism, uraemia, porphyrias, and trauma have
been excluded. The sensory component of
polyneuropathy in the patient poisoned by
chlorpyrifos was mild both when symptoms
and signs first appeared and when they fully
developed. The patient poisoned with metha-
midophos displayed a purely motor neu-
ropathy. When electrophysiology was per-
formed during the silent period between
poisoning and onset of polyneuropathy, the
motor-sensory function was normal. In previ-
ously reported cases of OPIDP by methamido-
phos some sensory symptoms, but no objective
signs, have been recorded.27 Methamidophos
causes OPIDP in hens.28 In the patient
poisoned by isofenphos and phoxim, sensory
impairment was not detected at the onset of
polyneuropathy and it recovered at later stages,
when motor neuropathy was still evident.
Phoxim does not cause OPIDP in hens29 and
no cases of human poisoning have been
reported.
Quantitative sensory examination was per-
formed in some of the patients reported on by
Kaplan et al,w although it was not apparently
used as a diagnostic criterion. We did not per-
form a quantitative sensory examination either
because there were no sensory symptoms or
clinical and electrophysiological signs or be-
cause sensory symptoms were always associ-
ated with electrophysiological changes.30
Moreover, the relevance of electrophysiological
alterations not associated with signs or symp-
toms is unclear.30 Therefore, the use of more
sensitive and complex electrophysiological
tests to assess sensory functions in subjects
exposed but not poisoned by organophos-
phates, as suggested recently,31 does not seem
justified in the absence of signs or symptoms.
In summary, the features of the cases
reported here and in the medical literature
indicate that:
(1) OPIDP caused by insecticides is pre-
ceded by severe cholinergic toxicity.9
(2) An exclusively sensory neuropathy does
not occur after severe cholinergic poisoning by
organophosphates.
(3) Mild sensory neuropathy is inconsist-
ently associated with the motor component of
OPIDP27 32~35 and is unlikely to be a more sen-
sitive indicator of OPIDP (by comparing cases
6 and 9).
These findings accord with the known
toxicological characteristics of chlorpyrifos but
contrast with those described in patients
exposed to low concentrations of
chlorpyrifos.10
Toxicological studies showed that commer-
cial organophosphate insecticides have a very
low in vitro AChE I50: NTE I50 ratio with both
human and hen enzymes which correlates well
with the corresponding in vivo ratio (acute
unprotected LD50:single neurotoxic dose) in
the hen.6 (I50 is the concentration of inhibitor
which inhibits 50% of the enzymatic activity in
given experimental conditions.) In particular,
-------
Organophosphates and sensory neuropathy
467
the active metabolite of chlorpyrifos,
chlorpyrifos-oxon, has an AChE I50:NTE I50
ratio of 0.07 with human enzymes, which cor-
relates with the corresponding in vitro and in
vivo (with chlorpyrifos) ratios in hens.21 36 37
Therefore, given the sensitivities of target
enzymes, it is unlikely that the threshold of
NTE inhibition (about 70%) can be reached in
the absence of severe cholinergic toxicity
(which requires 80%-90% AChE inhibition),
after either single or repeated doses of chlorpy-
rifos to humans. Moreover, it was shown that
hens given repeated small doses of neuropathic
organophosphates (not AChE inhibitors) toler-
ate very high cumulative doses without signs of
OPIDP when the dosing schedule is such that
rate of NTE resynthesis is higher than that of
NTE inhibition.38
All but one of the patients of Kaplan et a/10
developed sensory neuropathy within four
weeks from the beginning of a reported low
level repeated exposure to chlorpyrifos. Most
toxic neuropathies including OPIDP are some-
what delayed. Therefore, to allow time for the
development of clinical signs, a critical
biochemical/pathophysiological effect in the
nervous system of these patients should have
been reached after about two weeks of
exposure. The pharmacokinetics of chlorpyri-
fos is long,21 36 37 as indicated by the lengthy
cholinergic symptomatology of our patients
(about one and three weeks) associated with
long lasting blood concentrations of chlorpyri-
fos and enzyme inhibition (case 9 and table 1).
Therefore it might be assumed that the chemi-
cal was present in the nervous system of our
patients for at least two and four weeks, respec-
tively. This is consistent with a reported half life
of urinary elimination of chlorpyrifos metabo-
lites reported in poisoned subjects correspond-
ing to about 80 hours.39 We argue that our
patients also had a prolonged (at least two
weeks) although declining exposure to chlorpy-
rifos, which was similar in time to that of the
patients of Kaplan et a/.10 Moreover, our
patients' single dose was certainly much higher
than the cumulative dose of the patients of
Kaplan et al.10 If sensory neuropathy was the
result of continuous additive toxicity of chlo-
rpyrifos, then a sensory neuropathy in patient 6
and a more severe sensory component of
OPIDP in patient 9 should have been found.
On the contrary, the first patient did not
develop neuropathy and the second had a
mainly motor neuropathy with a degree of sen-
sory impairment similar to that detected in the
patients of Kaplan et al,w who did not display
motor deficits.
We conclude that polyneuropathy may fol-
low a severe poisoning by certain organophos-
phate insecticides. In our patients, the sensory
component of the polyneuropathy was never an
isolated finding and, if present, was mild when
compared with the motor deficit. Although
sensory neuropathies have been consistently
associated in a series of patients with low level
repeated exposures to chlorpyrifos, there is lit-
tle evidence for a causal relation, because the
assessment of those exposures was limited and
based almost exclusively on medical history.10
Bearing in mind the toxicological characteris-
tics of organophosphate insecticides, other
causes should be sought for peripheral neu-
ropathies in patients who did not display severe
cholinergic toxicity a few weeks before the
onset of the neuropathy.
We thank F Davanzo, Centra Antiveleni, Milano Italy, and R
Zoppellari, Ospedale S Anna, Ferrara Italy, for case referral; the
Azienda Regionale Prevenzione Ambientale, Ferrara Italy, for
analytical chemistry, MJ Aminoff, University of California, San
Francisco USA, for his comments, and CA Drace-Valentini for
help in manuscript preparation. This work has been supported
by Bayer AG, Leverkusen Germany, and by DowElanco,
Indianapolis, USA. The conclusions are those of the authors
and not necessarily of the sponsors. The financial support of
CNR, Ministero Italiano delPUniversita e della Ricerca Scienti-
fica e Tecnologica, and Regione Veneto is also gratefully
acknowledged.
1 Tomlin C, ed. The pesticide manual A world compendium,
10th ed. Bath: British Crop Protection Council, 1994.
2 Taylor P. Anticholinesterase agents. In: Hardman JG,
Limbird LE, eds. Goodman and Gilman's the pharmacologi-
cal basis of therapeutics, 9th ed. New York: McGraw Hill,
1996:161-76.
3 Lotti M, Becker CE, Aminoff MJ. Organophosphate
polyneuropathy: pathogenesis and prevention. Neurology
1984;34:658-62.
4 Lotti M. The pathogenesis of organophosphate delayed
polyneuropathy. Crit Rev Toxicol 1992;21:465-87.
5 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Joint meeting on pesticides residues in food, 1961-95 reports.
Rome: FAO/WHO, 1962-96.
6 Lotti M, Johnson MK. Neurotoxicity of organophosphorus
pesticides: predictions can be based on in vitro studies with
hen and human enzymes. Arch Toxicol 1978;41:215-21.
7 Johnson MK. Organophosphates and delayed neuropathy-is
NTE alive and well? Toxicol ApplPharmacol 1990;102:385-
99.
8 Johnson MK. Organophosphorous esters causing delayed
neurotoxic effects: mechanism of action and structure/
activity studies. Arch Toxicol 1975;34:259-88.
9 World Health Organization. Organophosphorus insecticides: a
general introduction. Geneva: World Health Organization,
1986. (Environmental Health Criteria 63.)
10 Kaplan JG, Kessler J, Rosenberg N, et al. Sensory
neuropathy associated with Dursban (chlorpyrifos) expo-
sure. Neurology 1993;43:2193-6.
11 Ellman GL, Courtney KK, Andres W Jr, et al. A new and
rapid colorimetric determination of acetylcholinesterase
activity. Biochem Pharmacol 1961;7:88-95.
12 Bertoncin D, Russolo A, Caroldi S, et al Neuropathy target
esterase in human lymphocytes. Arch Environ Health 1985;
40:139-44.
13 Kimura J. Nerve conduction studies and electromyography.
In: Dyck PJ, Thomas PK, Griffin JW, et al, eds. Peripheral
neuropathy, 3rd ed. Vol 1. Philadelphia: WB Saunders,
1993:598-644.
14 Zoppellari R, Targa L, Tonini P, et al Acute poisoning with
methidathion: a case. Hum Exp Toxicol 1990;9:415-9.
15 Lotti M, Moretto A, Zoppellari R, et al. Inhibition of
lymphocytic neuropathy target esterase predicts the devel-
opment of organophosphate-induced delayed polyneu-
ropathy. Arch Toxicol 1986;59:176-9.
16 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Joint meeting on pesticides residues in food, 1991 report. Rome:
FAO/WHO, 1992:3-23.
17 FAO/WHO. Joint meeting on pesticides residues in food, 1992
report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 1993:233-65.
18 Lotti M. Organophosphate-induced delayed polyneuropa-
thy in humans: perspectives for biomonitoring. Trends
PharmacolSd 1987:8;175-6.
19 Abou-Donia MB, Makkawy HA, Graham DG. Coumaphos:
delayed neurotoxic effect following dermal administration
in hens. J Toxicol Environ Health 1982;10:87-99.
20 Fang TC, Chen KW, Wu MH, el al Coumaphos
intoxications mimics food poisoning. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol
1995;33:699-703.
21 Capodicasa E, Scapellato ML, Moretto A, et al.
Chlorpyrifos-induced delayed polyneuropathy. Arch Toxicol
1991;65:150-5.
22 Catz A, Chen B, Jutrin I, et al Late onset of isofenphos neu-
rotoxicity. J Neural Neurosurg Psychiatry 1988;51:1338^0.
23 Tracey JA, Gallagher H. Use of glycopyrrolate and atropine
in acute organophosphorus poisoning. Hum Exp Toxicol
1990;9:99-100.
24 Wilson BW, Hooper M, Chow E, et al Antidotes and neuro-
pathic potential of isofenphos. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol
1984;33:386-94.
25 Vasilescu C, Alexianu M, Dan A. A delayed neuropathy after
organophosphorus insecticide (Dipterex) poisoning: a
clinical, electrophysiological and nerve biopsy study. JNeu-
rol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1984;47:543-8.
26 Johnson MK. Delayed neurotoxicity—do trichlorphon
and/or dichlorvos cause delayed neuropathy in man or in
test animals? Acta Pharmacol Toxicol 1981;49(suppl V):87-
98.
-------
468
Moreno, Lotti
27 Senanayake N, Johnson MK. Acute polyneuropathy after
poisoning by a new organophosphorus insecticide. N Engl
JMedl982;306:155-7.
28 Lotti M, Moretto A, Bertolazzi M, et al. Organophosphate
polyneuropathy and neuropathy target esterase: studies
with methamidophos and its resolved optical isomers. Arch
rarico/1995;69:330-6.
29 FAO/WHO. Joint meeting on pesticides residues in food, 1984
report. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, 1985:697-715.
30 Dyck PJ. Quantitating severity of neuropathy. In: Dyck PJ,
Thomas PK, Griffin JW, et al, eds. Peripheral neuropathy, 3rd
ed. Vol 1. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1993:686-97.
31 Jamal GA. Long term neurotoxic effects of organophos-
phate compounds. Adverse Drug React Toxicol Rev 1995;14:
85-99.
32 Hierons R, Johnson MK. Clinical and toxicological investi-
gations of a case of delayed neuropathy in man after acute
poisoning by an organophosphorus pesticide. Arch Toxicol
1978;40:279-84.
33 Wadia RS, Shinde SN, Vaidya S. Delayed neurotoxicity after
an episode of poisoning with dichlorvos. Neurology (India)
1985;33:247-53.
34 Vasilescu C, Florescu A. Clinical and electrophysiological
study of neuropathy after organophosphorus compounds
poisoning. Arch Toxicol 1980;43:305-15.
35 Bidstrup PL, Bonnel JA, Beckett AG. Paralysis following
poisoning by a new organic phosphorus insecticide (mipa-
fox). BMJ 1953;i: 1068-72.
36 Richardson RJ, Moore TB, Kayyali US, Randall JC.
Chlorpyrifos: assessment of potential for delayed neurotox-
icity by repeated dosing in adult hens with monitoring of
brain acetylcholinesterase, brain and lymphocyte neuro-
toxic esterase, and plasma butyrylcholinesterase activities.
FundamAppl Toxicol 1993;21:89-96.
37 Richardson RJ. Assessment of the neuro toxic potential of
chlorpyrifos relative to other organophosphorus
compounds: a critical review of the literature. J Toxicol
Environ Health 1995;44:135-65.
38 Lotti M, Johnson MK. Repeated small doses of a neuro toxic
Organophosphate. Monitoring of neurotoxic esterase in
brain and spinal cord. Arch Toxicol 1980;45:263-71.
39 Drevenkar V, Vasilic Z, Stengl B, et al. Chlorpyrifos metabo-
lites in serum and urine of poisoned persons. Chem Biol
Interact 1993;87:315-22.
Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry - http://www.jnnp.com
Visitors to the world wide web can now access the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry either
through the BMJ Publishing Group's home page (http://www.bmjpg.com) or directly by using its individual
URL (http://www.jnnp.com). There they will find the following:
• Current contents list for the journal
• Contents lists of previous issues
• Members of the editorial board
• Subscribers' information
• Instructions for authors
• Details of reprint services.
A hotlink gives access to:
• BMJ Publishing Group home page
• British Medical Association web site
• Online books catalogue
• BMJ Publishing Group books.
The web site is at a preliminary stage and there are plans to develop it into a more sophisticated site. Suggestions
from visitors about features they would like to see are welcomed. They can be left via the opening page of the BMJ
Publishing Group site or, alternatively, via the journal page, through "about this site".
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll335
9443.1988(03)
MAR 22 1988
Steve Simpson
Chief Process Engineer
Associated Technologies, Incorporated
212 South Tyron Street, Suite 300
Charlotte, NC 28281
Dear Mr. Simpson:
This letter is in response to your January 25 letter to
Marcia Williams regarding the regulatory status of asphalt
materials used at Associated Technologies, Incorporated.
Specifically, you requested a determination as to whether the
asphalt is a hazardous waste.
If the asphalt were to be used as a commodity, e.g., for paving
roads, then it would not be regulated under the hazardous waste
regulations. However, since the asphalt is disposed (buried in a
trench) it is a solid waste. In the RCRA program, wastes are
defined as hazardous if they: (1) are included on the lists of
hazardous wastes contained in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 or are
derived from, or are mixtures containing, such wastes; or (2)
exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics described in
Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261 (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, or extraction procedure (EP) toxicity). The
descriptions and analytical data you provided for the asphalt
materials (AC-20 and Type I) indicates that they do not appear to
be hazardous wastes.
However, the descriptions and analytical data you provided
appear to relate to the asphalt materials only, rather than the
mixture of the asphalt materials and the concentrate from the film
evaporator. Thus, if any of the wastes that contribute to the
concentrate are listed wastes, or if the asphalt/concentrate
mixture exhibits any of the hazardous waste characteristics,
the mixture would be a hazardous waste.
-2-
Please note that the interpretation is based upon the
information contained in your January 25 letter and reflects
current Federal regulations. Since State and local regulations may
differ, you are encouraged to contact these authorities to ensure
that you are aware of all applicable regulations. Should you have
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/620B279A52A3EE94852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
any questions regarding this interpretation, please contact David
Topping of the Waste Characterization Branch at (202) 382-7737.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Sylvia K. Lowrance
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Emily Roth
David Topping
Dr. Malcolm Knapp
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/620B279A52A3EE94852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTOND.C. 20460
DECEMBER 9, 1987
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Richard Sklar
President
Recyclene Products, Inc.
405 Eccles Avenue, South
San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Mr. Sklar
This is in response to your letter of November 13, 1987, in which you requested clarification of
the RCRA small quantity hazardous waste generator regulations. In the example you give, generators of
less than 100 kilograms of non-acutely hazardous waste per month recycle their own solvents on-site
and thereby produce distillation bottoms. The regulatory status of such generators is determined by 40
CFR Section 261.5(a) and (d)(2). A generator who treats or reclaims on-site need not count the
treatment residues, so long as the original waste (in this case the spent solvents) is counted once.
Therefore, if a generator produces less than 100 kilograms of non-acutely hazardous waste per month,
he may reclaim it on- site and would remain conditionally exempt under Section 261.5.
Generators of less than 100 kilograms of non-acutely hazardous waste per month have a
number of options for disposal of their hazardous waste. According to 40 CFR 261.5(g)(3), a
conditionally small quantity generator (SQG) may either treat, store, or dispose of the waste at an on-
site or off-site facility licensed, permitted or otherwise approved by a State to manage municipal or
industrial solid waste. Recycling facilities may also receive waste from conditionally exempt SQG's.
These management options exist for any conditionally exempt SQG's hazardous waste, including residue
generated from solvent recycling operations.
FaxBack# 11308
-------
Although the Federal regulations allow a conditionally exempt SQG to send waste to a State-
approved solid waste facility, some States have stricter requirements for generators of less than 100
kilograms of non-acutely hazardous waste per month. The conditionally exempt SQG should check
with the State to see if any additional requirements apply.
Finally, as a side note, you mention in your letter that the sludge produced in your solvent
recovery distillation unit is generally dry and passes the paint filter liquids test. However, it is confusing
as how your sludge is tested. You state that the "sludge... passes the paint filter test since the sludge is
contained in a plastic bag or liner..." I would like to clarify that the waste itself is to be tested in the Paint
Filter test; testing of a liquid waste contained in a bag would pass the test, but it would be obvious that
the waste is a liquid.
If you have further questions in this area contact Mike Petruska at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
RECYCLENE PRODUCTS, INC.
November 13, 1987
Marcia Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. EPA(WH-562)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Ms. William:
Following up on conversations with Ron McHugh and Mike Petruska of your office we wish to pose
the following question and request an interpretative letter as a response.
"Is it not correct that under Federal EPA rules generators of less than 100 kilograms of non-
acutely hazardous waste per month ("conditionally exempt small quantity generators") who recycle
waste solvents on site for their own continued reuse may dispose of the sludge from such solvent
distillation by sending it to a landfill or other facility approved by the state for industrial and municipal
wastes"?
We are manufacturers of small solvent recovery distillation units as shown in the attached literature.
Sludge produced in our units is generally dry and passes the paint filter test since the sludge is contained
in a plastic bag or liner and therefore need not remain liquid for purposes of ease in clean up.
The rule as we understand it and for which we wish to receive an interpretative letter is an intelligent one
and has encouraged many small generators to recycle and thus minimize the hazardous waste they
generate. Additionally it has proven economically sound to small generators since they are recapturing a
very valuable commodity at far less than the cost of purchasing new and losing the solvent either by
disposal in landfill or through incineration.
Furthermore, the low costs and ease of on site reclamation have encouraged many generators who
formerly, illegally and inappropriately, disposed of waste solvents to now recycle and minimize their
waste in an environmentally and economically sound manner.
Yours very truly,
Richard Sklar
President
RS:ml
Enc.
cc: Mike Petruska
-------
3776/36
-------
rage i 01
Faxback 14012
9441.1996(07)
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT:
August 1996
1. Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for Solid Waste
Determination vs. Hazardous Waste Identification
An instrument manufacturer has off-specification mercury
thermometers which it wishes to either discard or reclaim. Under
40 CFR 261.2, the definition of solid waste, "commercial chemical
products" such as thermometers being reclaimed are not solid waste
and therefore cannot be hazardous waste ( 261.2(c)(3) and
( 261.3)). Under 261.33, the P and U lists of hazardous wastes,
"commercial chemical products" containing mercury as a sole active
ingredient are characterized as U151, a listed waste ( 261.33(d),
261.33(f)). What is the difference between the definition of
commercial chemical product for the purposes of the definition of
solid waste and the P and U list of hazardous waste, and given the
relative difference, would the thermometers be subject to
hazardous waste regulation if reclaimed or discarded?
The phrase "commercial chemical product" has different meanings
in the definition of solid waste and the definition of hazardous
waste. As applied to 261.2, the definition of solid waste, EPA
interprets the category of commercial chemical products to include
all types of unused commercial products, whether or not they would
commonly be considered chemicals (e.g., circuit boards, batteries
and other types of equipment). Although 261.2(c)(3), Table 1,
applies this provision to "commercial chemical products listed in
40 CFR 261.33," EPA interprets the definition to also include
commercial chemical products that are not listed in 261.33, but
exhibit one or more characteristic of hazardous waste (50 FR
14219; April 11, 1985).
For the purposes of the P and U lists of hazardous wastes,
however, EPA intended to include in the P and U lists only those
commercial chemical products and manufacturing chemical
intermediates known by the generic chemical name listed in
261.33. EPA considers the P and U list definition of commercial
chemical product to exclude manufactured articles such as
thermometers or fluorescent lamps(40 CFR 78541; November 25,
1980). Therefore, manufactured articles that contain a P or U
listed chemical would not be considered a listed waste when
discarded in an unused form.
If the thermometers in question are to be reclaimed, they would
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/41E160BD479A0147852565DAO()()I7(»(;1^ 1 r 0
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 12996
9444.1987(37a)
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline Monthly Report Question
August 1985
8. Definition of Solid Waste and Reclamation
A distributor of a U-listed commercial chemical product
finds that the product is no longer saleable (for
example, it is past its shelf life). If the distributor
ships it back to the manufacturer for reclamation, the
material is not a solid waste under 40 CFR 261.2 because
listed commercial chemical products are not solid wastes
when reclaimed. However, in many cases the manufacturer
will not know whether the material can be reclaimed until
a sample is analyzed. Could the distributor ship the
entire lot back to the manufacturer, while not knowing
whether the material was a solid waste?
Yes. The distributor can ship the entire lot back to the
manufacturer, while not knowing whether the material was a solid
waste. There are no provisions in the RCRA regulations restricting
shipments of commercial chemical products. Technically, it remains
a commercial chemical product until such time as they are discarded
or intended to be discarded (Section 261.2 and Section 261.33).
This decision is made by the manufacturer. The U-listed commercial
chemical product would still be shipped pursuant to applicable DOT
and U.S. Postal Service regulations. It would not need to be
manifested as a hazardous waste.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/775DE3D29C83D4DB852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 12996
9444.1987(37a)
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline Monthly Report Question
August 1985
8. Definition of Solid Waste and Reclamation
A distributor of a U-listed commercial chemical product
finds that the product is no longer saleable (for
example, it is past its shelf life). If the distributor
ships it back to the manufacturer for reclamation, the
material is not a solid waste under 40 CFR 261.2 because
listed commercial chemical products are not solid wastes
when reclaimed. However, in many cases the manufacturer
will not know whether the material can be reclaimed until
a sample is analyzed. Could the distributor ship the
entire lot back to the manufacturer, while not knowing
whether the material was a solid waste?
Yes. The distributor can ship the entire lot back to the
manufacturer, while not knowing whether the material was a solid
waste. There are no provisions in the RCRA regulations restricting
shipments of commercial chemical products. Technically, it remains
a commercial chemical product until such time as they are discarded
or intended to be discarded (Section 261.2 and Section 261.33).
This decision is made by the manufacturer. The U-listed commercial
chemical product would still be shipped pursuant to applicable DOT
and U.S. Postal Service regulations. It would not need to be
manifested as a hazardous waste.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/775DE3D29C83D4DB852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
peiisrirg 94JJ..S::
A petroleun refinery obtained interim status in 1980 for a surface
ijnpoundment used to treat and store K051. The facility manages no
other hazardous waste. In 1981, the EPA granted a delisting for
the K051 waste because the owner/operator proved that the refining
process waste did not contain lead and hexavalent chromium, the
constituents for which K051 was listed. Does the K051 delisting
effectively mean that the facility never managed a listed hazardous
waste? How would the delisting affect the facility's interim status?
BI person may submit a petition to EPA, pursuant to 40 CFR
§§260.20 and 260.22, to have a waste at a particular facility
delisted. Prior to September 21, 1985, EPA granted only
"informal" or temporary exclusions. "Informal" exclusions
were suggestions to the Regions that enforcement discretion be
used when a tentative decision to grant a temporary exclusion
had been made. Temporary exclusions removed a waste at a
particular facility from regulation, pursuant to 260.22(m)
(then in effect, see 50 FR 28727-28, July 15, 1985). EPA
follows the procedures set forth in 40 CFR §260.20 to grant
final exclusions, which are regulatory amendments.
Wastes which were informally excluded were technically still
hazardous wastes. An impoundment holding informally excluded
K051 waste was subject to the Loss of Interim Status provisions
on November 8, 1985.
For temporarily excluded wastes, the facility's status deoends
on the scope of the temporary delisting granted. If only the
waste generated after the date of the temporary exclusion was
delisted, waste placed in the impoundment prior to that date
would still be hazardous (K051) waste. The impoundment would
have had interim status and should have met Part 265 standards.
The Loss of Interim Status provision applied to the impoundment
|§ on ?tovember 8, 1985.
M If the temporary exclusion covered the waste already in the
§j impoundment as well as K051 waste generated after the exclusion
< date, then the facility would still have interim status, but
none of the Part 265 interim standards would apply to that
surface impoundment. The facility would technically have been
subject to the Loss of Interim Status provision, but not
required to certify compliance with financial responsibility or
ground water monitoring requirements, since none of these Part
265 requirements were "applicable," or to submit a Part B
permit application on November 8, 1985, (50 FR 38947, September
25, 1985).
If EPA revokes the temporary exclusion, or it ceases to be in
effect by operation of law, e.g., if the Agency does not make
a final decision on the petition by November 8, 1986, (RCRA
§3001(f)(2)(B)), the facility will becone subject to the Part
265 interim status reouirements. The facility must then
certify compliance with financial responsibility and ground
water monitoring requirements and submit a Part B permit
application within 12 months or lose interim status (RCRA
§3005(e)(3)).
Source: Steve Hirsch (202) 382-7703
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
9444.1985(07)
RCRA Input to Region IV Inquiry: UIC Well Inventory Update
Eileen B. Claussen, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
Paul Baltay, Director
State Programs Division
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Per your request the following paragraph is the RCRA response to the
embalming fluid question in the subject inquiry.
The RCRA hazardous waste identification regulations contain two mechanisms
for identifying a waste as a hazardous waste, lists and characteristics. A waste is a
hazardous waste if it either is listed (40 CFR 261.31, 32, or 33) or it exhibits one or more
of the defined characteristics (261.21, 22, 23, or 24). While used embalming fluids do not
qualify as hazardous under any of these criteria, many people mistakenly believe they
do because formaldehyde, the key ingredient in such products, is listed under 261.33.
Section 261.33 lists commercial chemical products which are hazardous wastes when
discarded or intended to be discarded. It does not include wastes which result from the
intended use of the product. Thus, embalming fluid, since it consists of formaldehyde
plus some inert ingredients (e.g., colorants and perfumes), would be a hazardous waste
if discarded unused and the septic tank/tile field could classify as Class 4 well.
However, if the generator is disposing of embalming fluid which has been used, for
example, to flush body fluids out of the cadaver, then disposal of the fluid does not
constitute disposal of a hazardous waste and the tank/field is not a Class 4 well.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
JANUARY 10, 1984
Robert R. Staab
Chairman
Baltimore County Delegation
House of Delegates
2 North Dundalk Avenue
Dundalk, Maryland 21222
Dear Delegate Staab:
Mr. Don Clay referred your November 23, 1983, letter regarding Federal regulations on
labeling hazardous wastes to my office.
Under Section 262 of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) hazardous waste
management regulations, a generator is required to place certain information on each container of 110
gallons or less used in transportation. EPA's regulations further require that this information be
displayed in accordance with the Department of Transportation's (DOT) requirements of 49 CFR
172.304 which specify that the marking must be durable.
A member of my staff has called DOT regarding your concerns and was advised that under
normal handling conditions, a typed label would be considered durable. DOT cautioned, however, that
if the typing were applied to a vinyl label, the typing would most likely smear and would not, therefore,
be considered durable. The labels used at the firm where your constituent worked, were probably
vinyl. Unfortunately, while most manufacturers of vinyl labels do not inform consumers of problems
resulting from typing, they do recommend the use of a special non-smear pen to mark the required
information.
If you would like to discuss this issue in greater detail, I would suggest that you contact Mr.
Alan I. Roberts, Associate Director for Hazardous Materials Regulation, Department of Transportation,
8100 Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20590.
-------
Faxback 11031
I trust that I have been responsive to your concerns. If I can be of further help, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Bruce R. Weddle
Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division
cc: Alan I. Roberts, DOT
-------
Page 1 of4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Generated in Laboratories
FROM: Elizabeth Cotsworth, Director Office of Solid Waste
TO: RCRA Senior Policy Advisors, EPA Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to reiterate and clarify the Environmental Protection Agency: s
(EPA) policies under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste management program regarding: 1) who may make a hazardous waste identification,
and 2) the regulatory status of on-site treatment of hazardous waste. This memo is aimed
primarily toward academic institutions that generate hazardous waste in laboratories.
Background Academic institutions across the country vary in size and complexity. Many
are large quantity generators (LQGs) of hazardous waste, generating > 1000 kg/month; or
>1 kg of acute hazardous waste/month. LQGs must comply with the regulations in 40 CFR
262.34(a) for the accumulation of waste on-site. Hazardous wastes produced by LQGs may
be accumulated on-site without interim status or a permit for 90 days or less. Many other
academic institutions are small quantity generators (SQGs), generating >100 kg/month but
<1000 kg/month of hazardous waste. SQGs must comply with 40 CFR 262.34(d) for
accumulation of waste on-site. Hazardous wastes produced by SQGs may be accumulated
on-site without interim status or a permit for 180 days or less.
Many of the hazardous wastes managed at academic institutions are produced and initially
accumulated in research laboratories. The satellite accumulation provisions of 40 CFR
262.34(c) allow for reduced requirements for hazardous waste accumulated in containers at
or near any point of generation. Both LQGs and SQGs may take advantage of the reduced
requirements while hazardous waste is in satellite accumulation areas, such as laboratories,
provided the waste is managed in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34(c) (e.g.,
properly labeled).
Who may determine whether a waste is hazardous? 40 CFR Section 262.11 states, A A
person who generates a solid waste...must determine if that waste is a hazardous waste...® A
A person @ is defined as A an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, Federal Agency,
corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, State,
municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body@ (40 CFR
Part 262.10). A A person @ is not limited to a specific individual. Therefore, any individual
who is part of the A person @ (as defined) may make a hazardous waste determination. The
hazardous waste determination is not limited to the individual who actually produces a solid
waste. For example, Environmental, Health & Safety (EH&S) personnel may make a
hazardous waste determination for a waste produced by an individual researcher, as long as
the EH&S personnel and the researcher are part of the same A person @ (e.g., academic
institution).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/BOC8C9E419CC8DB485256C6E005949... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
Of course, EPA= s objective is to ensure accurate hazardous waste identification. Proper
waste identification is important in order to allow the generator to comply with applicable
requirements such as those for labeling and marking pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34. In short, it
is the A person: s @ responsibility to ensure that the individuals within the organization who
are making the hazardous waste determination obtain all the necessary information from
whichever individuals within the organization have that information. In practice, a
hazardous waste determination in a laboratory setting would ideally be a collaborative effort
between the individual researcher who produces the waste and EH&S personnel who may
make the hazardous waste determination. That is, EH&S personnel making a hazardous
waste determination should receive sufficiently accurate and detailed information about each
waste from the individual researcher to ensure accurate waste identification.
We realize that having addressed the question of who may make a hazardous waste
determination may also raise the question of where a hazardous waste determination is
made. The issue is whether a hazardous waste determination must be made in the laboratory
(typically a satellite accumulation area) or at a central accumulation area. EPA is not
addressing this question in this memo, but intends to address this question in a future
guidance or rulemaking.
What is the regulatory status of on-site treatment of hazardous waste? EPA has
consistently interpreted its regulations to allow generators to treat hazardous waste in their
accumulation tanks and containers, without obtaining a permit or having interim status. This
is true for both LQGs and SQGs. Of course, all generators are allowed to treat only the
hazardous waste that is generated on-site. A permit would be required to store and/or treat
hazardous waste that is consolidated from off-site locations. Examples of treatment that may
be conducted in accumulation tanks and containers include precipitating heavy metals from
solutions, and oxidation/reduction reactions.
There are three reasons for this interpretation. First, we discussed the relationship between
storage, treatment and disposal in the preamble of the January 12, 1981, Federal Register (46
FR 2806-2808). In that preamble, we noted that treatment can occur at a permitted disposal
or storage facility without affecting that facility = s regulatory status. We believe that
treatment activities should similarly not change the regulatory status of generators. Since the
regulations do not impose additional standards for treatment when it occurs at a storage
facility that requires a permit, there is no basis for regulating treatment more strictly at a
storage facility which does not require a permit, such as a generator = s accumulation area.
Second, the provisions of 40 CFR 262.34(a) for LQGs and 40 CFR 262.34(d) for SQGs
require generators to comply with most of the technical standards for containers (Part 265
Subpart I) and tanks (Part 265 Subpart J) with which an interim status storage facility would
have to comply. Of the provisions for treatment, storage and disposal facilities only the
financial responsibility, closure/post-closure and corrective action regulations would not
apply to gen erators that treat hazardous waste.
Third, treatment often renders waste less hazardous, or more amenable for further treatment,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/BOC8C9E419CC8DB485256C6E005949... 8/19/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
recycling, shipment off site, etc. A requirement for generators to obtain a permit for any on-
site treatment would very likely discourage such practices.
Finally, with regard to who may treat a hazardous waste, a generator is defined as A any
person, by site, whose act or process produces hazardous waste... @ (40 CFR. 2601.10).
Therefore, again, any individual who is part of the A person, @ as defined, including EH&S
personnel, is allowed to conduct treatment, provided that the individual complies with the
training requirements of 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) for LQGs , or 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5) for SQGs.
Additionally, nothing in 40 CFR 262.34 precludes generators from transferring waste
between tanks or containers to facilitate storage or treatment.
It should be noted, however, that some forms of treatment by generators are not allowed
without a permit. For example, incineration is regulated by specific standards for
incinerators (Part 264/265 Subpart O), and burning waste in boilers and industrial furnaces
is regulated under the specific standards for those units (Part 266 Subpart H).
If the waste is being treated on-site and the treatment residue is destined to be land disposed,
the generator still has responsibilities under the land disposal restrictions (LDR) program.
The LDRs require that hazardous waste must be treated by a specified method or to a
specified constituent concentration level before it (or its residue) may be placed in the land.
The generator must know the treatment standard applicable to his/her waste and either treat
to meet the treatment standard or send it to a treater to do so. Generators who treat waste on-
site to remove a hazardous characteristic must prepare a waste analysis plan if treatment
occurs in units that do not require a RCRA permit (see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) for LQGs, and
40 CFR 262.34(d)(4) for SQGs). In addition, there are some generator paperwork
requirements associated with the LDRs (40 CFR 268.7(a)). More information about the
LDR program may be found in A Land Disposal Restrictions: Summary of Requirements @ at
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ldr/new.htm Some treatment units have been and
continue to be specifically excluded from permitting. For example, owners and operators of
elementary neutralization units are not required to obtain a RCRA permit (40 CFR 270. l(c)
(2)(v)). Similarly, many forms of on-site recycling of hazardous waste can be performed
without a permit, since EPA generally does not regulate the recycling process itself.
However, any accumulation of hazardous waste prior to placement in an exempt unit or
prior to recycling would be regulated under 40 CFR 262.34, as discussed above.
On a related matter, for those LQGs that accumulate hazardous waste for longer than 90
days, or SQGs that accumulate hazardous waste for longer than 180 days, and therefore
require a permit, the Agency recently proposed a rule that would streamline the permitting
requirements for facilities that store and/or treat their hazardous waste on-site in tanks and
containers (October 12, 2001; 66 FR 52192). The Agency anticipates finalizing the rule in
early 2003.
Please note that this letter discusses only the federal hazardous waste regulations. States that
are authorized to implement the RCRA program may have regulations that are different than
the federal regulations provided they are not less stringent than the federal program. If you
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/BOC8C9E419CC8DB485256C6E005949... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
have any questions, please contact Kristin Fitzgerald at (703) 308-8286 or
fitzgerald.kristin@epa. gov
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/BOC8C9E419CC8DB485256C6E005949... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11241
9441.1987(28)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
APR 30 1987
Mr. Terry Gray, Chief
Plan Review and Permit Section
Hazardous Waste Management Branch
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
State of Indiana
Department of Environmental Management
105 South Merdian Street
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Dear Mr. Gray:
This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1987, in
which you request written confirmation concerning a specific
aspect of the mixture rule exemption that was promulgated on
November 17, 1981. In particular, you ask if solvent that is
lost via volatilization once it is discharged to the plant sewer
is excluded from the mixture rule calculation in 261.3(a)(2)
(iv)(A) and (B).
As I discussed with Ms. Jayne Browning of your staff, the
regulation and the preamble to the November 17, 1981 Federal
Register makes it clear that once a waste (i.e., spent solvent)
is discharged to the wastewater, it must be included in the
calculations to determine whether or not a facility exceeds the
mixture rule exemption levels. See, for example, 40 CFR
261.3(a)(2)(lV)(A) where it states "...provided that the
maximum total weekly usage of these solvents (other than the
amounts that can be demonstrated not to be discharged to
wastewater)...;" see also footnote 24 at 46 FR 56585 where it
states:
-2-
However, if a facility can demonstrate by means of
appropriate records that any portion of solvents used
at the facility are not disposed to wastewater, that
portion is to be excluded from the calculation. That
portion of solvents which is volatilized may not be
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8EBF45C12B167947852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
excluded from the calculation of solvent usage."
Please feel free to give me a call at (202) 475-8551 if
you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8EBF45C12B167947852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
EPA 530-R-97-005b
NTIS SUB-9224-97-002
Universal Waste Consolidation Point Regulation
The universal waste management standards of 40 CFR Part 273 outline the
streamlined provisions for handlers, transporters, and destination facilities
that manage universal wastes. Section 273.6 defines a universal waste as
hazardous batteries, pesticides, and thermostats. A handler, defined as a
generator of universal waste (i.e., any person, by site, whose act or process
produces hazardous waste or whose act first causes waste to become subject to
regulation) is allowed to accumulate waste on site for up to one year. If a
facility is not a generator of universal waste, yet is receiving universal
waste and functioning as a consolidation and/or collection point, would the
facility be regulated under the universal waste regulations?
Yes, the facility would be regulated under the universal waste regulations if
it is consolidating and/or collecting universal waste from generators or other
handlers. The definition of a universal waste handler includes facilities that
receive universal waste from other handlers (Q273.6). A facility is allowed to
consolidate and/or collect universal waste, provided the waste is sent on to
other handlers, recyclers, or treatment/disposal facilities (60 FR 25500; May
11, 1995). Moreover, if the facility has several locations at which universal
wastes are consolidated and/or collected, each location would be regulated as a
separate handler. Additional RCRA requirements may apply if the facility is
handling other types of hazardous waste (i.e., non-universal waste).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/81C15E3BE90FlE63852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Faxback 14081
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/81C15E3BE90FlE63852565DA006F09... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 14012
9441.1996(07)
MONTHLY HOTLINE REPORT:
August 1996
1. Definition of Commercial Chemical Product for Solid Waste
Determination vs. Hazardous Waste Identification
An instrument manufacturer has off-specification mercury
thermometers which it wishes to either discard or reclaim. Under
40 CFR 261.2, the definition of solid waste, "commercial chemical
products" such as thermometers being reclaimed are not solid waste
and therefore cannot be hazardous waste ( 261.2(c)(3) and
( 261.3)). Under 261.33, the P and U lists of hazardous wastes,
"commercial chemical products" containing mercury as a sole active
ingredient are characterized as U151, a listed waste ( 261.33(d),
261.33(f)). What is the difference between the definition of
commercial chemical product for the purposes of the definition of
solid waste and the P and U list of hazardous waste, and given the
relative difference, would the thermometers be subject to
hazardous waste regulation if reclaimed or discarded?
The phrase "commercial chemical product" has different meanings
in the definition of solid waste and the definition of hazardous
waste. As applied to 261.2, the definition of solid waste, EPA
interprets the category of commercial chemical products to include
all types of unused commercial products, whether or not they would
commonly be considered chemicals (e.g., circuit boards, batteries
and other types of equipment). Although 261.2(c)(3), Table 1,
applies this provision to "commercial chemical products listed in
40 CFR 261.33," EPA interprets the definition to also include
commercial chemical products that are not listed in 261.33, but
exhibit one or more characteristic of hazardous waste (50 FR
14219; April 11, 1985).
For the purposes of the P and U lists of hazardous wastes,
however, EPA intended to include in the P and U lists only those
commercial chemical products and manufacturing chemical
intermediates known by the generic chemical name listed in
261.33. EPA considers the P and U list definition of commercial
chemical product to exclude manufactured articles such as
thermometers or fluorescent lamps(40 CFR 78541; November 25,
1980). Therefore, manufactured articles that contain a P or U
listed chemical would not be considered a listed waste when
discarded in an unused form.
If the thermometers in question are to be reclaimed, they would
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/41E160BD479A0147852565DA006F09... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
be considered commercial chemical products being reclaimed for the
purposes of the definition of solid waste, and, thus, would not be
a solid waste. Since a material must be a solid waste in order to
be considered a hazardous waste, the thermometers destined for
reclamation could not be regulated as a hazardous waste ( 261.3).
If the thermometers are to be discarded, then they would be a
solid waste and the manufacturer must then consider whether the
off-specification thermometers are listed or characteristic
hazardous waste ( 262.11). Mercury thermometers are not among the
process- and industry-specific wastes found in the F and K lists
in 261.31 and 261.32. The thermometers would not meet the P or U
listing criteria because they are considered manufactured
articles, not commercial chemical products for the purposes of
hazardous waste, as explained above. As a result, the thermometers
would not be regulated as U151, and would only be subject to
regulation as a hazardous waste if they exhibited a characteristic
of a hazardous waste found in Part 261, Subpart C.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/41E160BD479A0147852565DA006F09... 8/18/2004
-------
5B3 1 GEMS Committee Report of Annual Effectiveness Review
Page 1 of 3
Hide
Document 5B3-1
SAMPLE
GEMS Committee Report of Annual Effectiveness Review
Excerpt From the Minutes of the GEMS Committee, (Insert date of meeting),
Approved and Signed by the Medical Center Director.
1. The GEMS Committee found the GEMS program to be effective in its (first, second, etc.) year, as
indicated by:
% of the corrective actions for the GEMS Gap Analysis conducted
• Completion of _
(insert date).
• Completion of % of the corrective actions for the baseline Environmental Compliance
Audit, conducted (insert date).
• Achievement of the objectives and targets set at GEMS Committee Meeting (insert date) and
as modified at the (insert date) GEMS Committee Meeting.
2. The GEMS Committee recommends the following new objectives and targets for FY (insert
upcoming FY): (Note: Attach objectives and targets form for each new objective identified.)
• % reduction in (insert area identified as a new objective) compared with FY (insert
previous FY). (See attached plan for monitoring and accomplishment.)
_% reduction in (insert area identified as a new objective). (See attached plan for
monitoring and accomplishment.)
• (List as many as identified by the GEMS Committee. Include a plan for monitoring and
accomplishing each item.)
3. The following dashboard summarizes the status of GEMS effectiveness evaluations:
GEMS Gap Analysis
Performance Objectives
Appoint a GEMS Coordinator
and a GEMS Committee
Conduct a Gap Analysis to
Determine Disparity in our
Present Program
Performance Target
Coordinator and Committee will be
appointed no later that the end of the
first quarter.
Gap analysis will be completed by
the end of the second quarter.
Status
Mr./Ms. was appointed the GEMS C<
participants from all organizational u
Associate Director, was appointed co
chairman.
The gap analysis was completed Febi
new policies developed as needed am
comments.
file://J:\Ron's Stuff\Test\GEMS2004\section 5 sample gems documents\tab b3 obje... 5/9/2005
-------
5B3 1 GEMS Committee Report of Annual Effectiveness Review
Page 2 of 3
Develop and Implement a
GEMS Program
The program will be published and
in effect by the end of FY 04.
The newly established written GEM!:
established September 1, 2004.
Environmental Rounds are
Conducted Quarterly in all
Areas (Patient and Non-
Patient) of the Medical Center
to Demonstrate Compliance
with GEMS.
Surveys conducted 90% of the time
and deficiencies are corrected within
30 days.
This performance standard was signil
during FY 2004. All surveys were pe
scheduled in MCM 00-46, Environmi
and in accordance with the Environm
Standards (JCAHO). However, not al
were abated within 30 days. Althougl
(1030/1154) of the items noted were
days, the percentage fell below the st
100%. It should be noted that there v>
duplication of deficiencies when mak
second time in FY 1999.
Environmental Compliance Audits/Inspections
Compliance Standard
Safe Drinking Water (SOW)
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
Air Emissions
Compliance Problem
The well exceeds safe drinking water
standards.
Inspection log not up-to-date.
Boiler exceeds air emission
standards in permit.
Status
Standards met as evidenced by
Standards met as evidenced by
Standards met as evidenced by
GEMS Targets and Objectives
Performance Objectives
Red Bag Waste
Pesticide Use
Performance Target
Reduce red-bag waste by 3% by
weight by end of fiscal year.
Change practice of scheduled
pesticide application to be applied
when determined necessary by
sampling through fiscal year.
Status
Standards met as evidenced by
Standards met as evidenced by
Attachments:
A. (Insert name(s) of plan(s) for monitoring and accomplishing objective(s) in paragraph 2. Sample
Biohazardous Waste Reduction Plan provided as a guide.)
B. GEMS Objective and Target Form(s) (one for each objective identified. Sample provided for
biohazardous waste.)
C. Attachment A to Attachment A, Municipal and Biohazardous Waste Container Location List.
file://J:\Ron's Stuff\Test\GEMS2004\section 5 sample gems documents\tab b3 obje... 5/9/2005
-------
5B3 1 GEMS Committee Report of Annual Effectiveness Review Page 3 of 3
D. Attachment B to Attachment A, Waste Segregation and Waste Container Placement Log and Report
Form.
Submitted by:
Chairperson, GEMS Committee Date
Approved by:
Medical Center Director Date
file://J:\Ron's Stuff\Test\GEMS2004\section 5 sample gems documents\tab b3 obje... 5/9/2005
-------
Sample GEMS Documents
Department of Veterans Affairs
Document 5B3-2
SAMPLE
Green Environmental Management System (GEMS)
Objective & Target Form (Blank)
(Note: Use one form per objective)
Date
Individual Responsible for Implementation:
Environmental Objective:
Related Target(s):
Related Significant Environmental Aspect(s):
Service Specific Function and/or Department:
Target Date (Month/Year):
Frequency of Monitoring:
Action Plan:
How will this objective be met? (Attach additional pages as necessary)
What operational controls shall be incorporated to achieve this objective?
How will this objective be tracked? (Attach additional pages as necessary)
What resources will be required to achieve this objective? (Attach additional pages as
necessary)
5- 89
-------
Green Environmental Management Systems (GEMS) Guidebook Sample GEMS Documents
5-92
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll455
9443.1989(08)
AUG11 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of RCRA Authorities Regarding U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers Dredge Sediments
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste (OS -300)
TO: Basil G. Constantelos, Director
Waste Management Division
Region V
This memorandum responds to your May 30, 1989, request for
clarification concerning RCRA authorities to regulate dredged
sediments that exhibit one of more characteristics of a
hazardous waste. As you stated, EPA's policy regarding such
materials is defined in the January 23, 1986, memorandum from
Marcia Williams to David Stringham. However, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACOE) published a Federal Register
notice on April 26, 1988 (53 FR 14902), in which USACOE
concluded that dredged materials are not solid waste and,
therefore, not subject to RCRA. These contradictory statutory
interpretations and policies have caused confusion in properly
implementing RCRA authorities over dredged sediments.
The Agency's policy regarding the applicability of RCRA to
dredged sediments remains unchanged from the January 23, 1986,
memorandum. The pertinent points of this policy are: 1) point
source discharges subject to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) are exempt from RCRA, 2) hazardous wastes dumped into
surface water in a manner that does not trigger Section 402 of
the CWA are subject to RCRA regulation, as well as any sediments
that are contaminated by such discharges (under the contained-in
rule), and 3) in cases where the pollutants discharged into
surface water are not subject to RCRA, sediments would be
regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA only when they are dredged
from the surface waters and only if they exhibit one or more
characteristics of hazardous wastes.
The Office of Solid Waste and the Office of General Counsel
are currently evaluating the best approach to take in addressing
USACOE's April 26, 1988, Federal Register notice. I agree
that a definitive statement of RCRA authorities over dredge
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/47E569A7CC27B06C852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
sediments is needed to clarify the regulatory requirements.
Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. Should
you have any questions, your staff should contact Mitch Kidwell,
of my staff, at FTS 475-8551.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/47E569A7CC27B06C852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12238
PPC 9444.1984(07)
BALLAST FLUID CLASSIFICATION
May 30, 1984
W. H. Yancey
NL Baroid
P.O. Box 1675
Houston, TX 77001
Dear Mr. Yancey:
This is to confirm our May 29, 1984 telephone conversation
regarding your letter to Alan Corson dated May 17, 1984, regarding
ballast fluid classification. I hope this discussion clarifies
your question on the formaldehyde.
Formaldehyde is listed (as U122) in 40 CFR 261.33(f). This
listing refers only to discarded commercial chemical products,
off-specification species, container residues, and spill residues
having the generic name "formaldehyde." The comment in Section
261.33(d) explains that the term "commercial chemical product"
refers to a substance manufactured for commercial use which is
commercially pure or a technical grade and formulations in which
the chemical is the sole active ingredient. It does not refer
to a material, such as a process waste, that contains any of the
substances listed in 261.33(e) or 261.33(f). To be considered
a hazardous waste, such process wastes will be listed in either
Sections 261.31 or 261.32 or be identified as a hazardous waste
by characteristics as set forth in the regulations.
In other words, formaldehyde (and sodium pentachlorophenate)
is being used to keep down growth in the ballast fluid. The fluid
is not considered to be the commercial chemical product formaldehyde.
Ship ballast fluid would have to be specifically listed as a hazardous
waste stream or be hazardous on the basis of the characteristics
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity), as explained
above.
If you have any further questions, feel free to call me at (202)
382-4804. You should also be able to contact the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline tollfree at (800) 424-9346 for assistance with any aspect
of the RCRA regulations.
Sincerely yours,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/57D910FlC19E797E852565DA006F07... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Irene Horner
Studies and Methods Branch (WH-562B)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/57D910FlC19E797E852565DA006F07... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 5
Faxback 13293
9441.1989(27a)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
June 6, 1989
Julie Wanslow
Hazardous Waste Section
NMEID
1190 Saint Francis Street
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503
Dear Ms. Wanslow:
In response to your phone conversation of March 22, 1989, with
Mike Fitzpatrick of my staff, we have prepared the following
explanations to clarify the boundaries of the oil field RCRA
exemption as discussed in the December 1987 EPA Report to Congress
(RTC) and given final definition in the July 1988 regulatory
determination.
The scope of the exemption as defined in the RTC and
regulatory determination is based on the legislative history and
Sections 3001(b)(2)(A) and 8002(m) of RCRA. Using these sources the
Agency has identified three separate criteria to be used when
defining specific waste streams that are exempt. These criteria are
listed on pages 11-18 and 11-19 of the RTC (enclosed.)
In regard to pipeline or gathering line-related wastes, the
following excerpts from the criteria in the RTC may prove helpful:
"Primary field operations encompass those activities
occurring at or near the well head, but prior to the
transport of oil from an individual field facility or a
centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline
or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a
refiner.... Waste generated by the transportation process
itself are not exempt because they are not intrinsically
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EClE7CADF57DF4C4852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 5
associated with primary field operations ...
Transportation for the oil and gas industry may be for
short or long distances, [emphasis added]
According to the Manual of Oil and Gas Terms (sixth edition)
there are many terms in common usage within the industry and
applied to the various pipelines associated with oil and gas
production and transportation (see enclosed definition of
"pipeline"). Feeder lines may or may not be exempt depending on the
point of custody transfer or other site-specific factors relating
to transportation from the primary field of operation as defined in
the RTC. Although the Agency used the term "gathering line" in the
RTC in reference to a generally small diameter pipe within a
primary field operation, the term "gathering line" itself should
not be used as the determining factor in defining the scope of the
exemption. Rather, the applicability of the criteria in the RTC to
the particular line in question should be used in determining the
scope of the exemption.
As for gas plant cooling tower wastes, the July 6, 1988,
regulatory determination identifies "cooling tower blowdown" as
exempt and "gas plant cooling tower cleaning wastes" as non-exempt.
The difference between the two is that blowdown is comprised only
of water, scale or other wastes generated by the actual operation
of the cooling tower; whereas cleaning wastes include any solvents,
scrubbing agents or other cleaning materials introduced into the
process solely to remove buildup or otherwise clean the equipment
and are not included as part of the functional operation of the
cooling tower. Since these cleaning wastes can come from any
cooling tower, they are not intrinsically derived from primary
field operations for natural gas production. The determining factor
for defining the exemption is not the frequency with which the
cooling tower is blown down, either with or without cleaning
agents, but whether the resulting waste is solely derived from the
normal operation of the tower for natural gas production or from
any added cleaning materials.
I trust these explanations will enable you to better determine
the scope of the RCRA exemption as applied to the specific waste
streams within your jurisdiction. If you have any further questions
please contact Mike Fitzpatrick at (202) 475-6783.
Dan Derkics
Chief
Large Volume Waste Section
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EClE7CADF57DF4C4852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 5
cc: Mike Fitzpatrick
Ivy Main, Office of General Counsel
Enclosure
1. Exempt wastes must be associated with measures (1) to
locate oil or gas deposits, (2) to remove oil or natural
gas from the ground, or (3) to remove impurities from
such substances, provided that the purification process
is an integral part of primary field operations (see
footnote 5).
2. Only waste streams intrinsic to the exploration for, or
the development and production of, crude oil and natural
gas are subject to exemption. Waste streams generated at
oil and gas facilities that are not uniquely associated
with the exploration, development, or production
activities are not exempt. (Examples would include spent
solvents from equipment cleanup or air emissions from
diesel engines used to operate drilling rigs.)
Clearly those substances that are extracted from the
ground or injected into the ground to facilitate the
drilling, operation, or maintenance of a well or to
enhance the recovery of oil and gas are considered to be
uniquely associated with primary field operations.
Additionally, the injection of materials into the
pipeline at the wellhead which keep the lines from
freezing or which serve as solvents to prevent paraffin
accumulation is intrinsically associated with primary
field operations. With regard to injection for enhanced
recovery, the injected materials must function primarily
to enhance recovery of oil and gas and must be recognized
by the Agency as being appropriate for enhanced recovery.
An example would be produced water. In this context,
"primarily functions" means that the main reason for
injecting the materials is to enhance recovery of oil and
gas rather than to serve as a means for disposing of
those materials.
3. Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes
intrinsically derived from primary field operations
associated with the exploration, development, or
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EClE7CADF57DF4C4852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 5
production of crude oil, natural gas, or geothermal
energy are subject to exemption. Primary field operations
encompass production-related activities but not
transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect
to oil production, primary field operations encompass
those activities occurring at or near the wellhead, but
prior to the transport of oil from an individual field
facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier
(i.e., pipeline or trucking concern) for transport to a
refinery or to a refiner. With respect to natural gas
production, primary field operations are those activities
occurring at or near the wellhead or at the gas plant but
prior to that point at which the gas is transferred from
an individual field facility, a centrally located
facility, or a gas plant to a carrier for transport to
market.
Primary field operations may encompass the primary,
secondary, and tertiary production of oil or gas. Wastes
generated by the transportation process itself are not
exempt because they are not intrinsically associated with
primary field operations. An example would be pigging
waste from pipeline pumping stations.
Transportation for the oil and gas industry may be for
short or long distances. Wastes associated with
manufacturing are not exempt because they are not
associated with exploration, development, or production
and hence are not intrinsically associated with primary
field operations.
Using these definitions, Table II-l presents definitions of
exempted wastes as defined by EPA for the purposes of this study.
Note that this is a partial list only. Although it includes all the
major streams that EPA has considered in the preparation of this
report, others may exist. In that case, the definitions listed
above would be applied to determine their status under RCRA.
Waste Volume Estimation Methodology
Information concerning volumes of wastes from oil and gas
exploration, development, and production operations is not
routinely collected nationwide, making it necessary to develop
methods for estimating these volumes by indirect methods in order
to comply with the Section 8002(m) requirement to present such
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EClE7CADF57DF4C4852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 5
estimates to Congress. For this study, estimates were compiled
independently by EPA and by the American Petroleum Institute (API)
using different methods. Both are discussed below.
Estimating Volumes of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings
EPA considered several different methodologies for determining
volume estimates for produced water and drilling fluid.
Footnote
5. Thus, wastes associated with such processes as oil
refining, petrochemical-related manufacturing, or
electricity generation are not exempt because those
processes do not occur at the primary field operations.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/EClE7CADF57DF4C4852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Faxback 13530
9444.1992(01)
RCRA/Superfund/OUST Hotline Monthly Report Question
March 1992
2. Commercial Chemical Product Definition in 261.33
A manufacturer intends to discard an unused formulation which contains two chemicals that serve as
active ingredients. Only one of the chemicals is listed in 40 CFR 261.33. A comment in 261.33; d) stales
that "[t]he phrase 'commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical immediate having the
generic name listed in...' refers to a chemical substance which is manufactured or formulated lor
commercial or manufacturing use and which consists of the commercially pure grade of the chemical,
any technical grades of the chemical that are produced or marketed, and all formulations in which the
chemical is the sole active ingredient." (Emphasis added.) Does the term "sole active ingredient" rcfer
only to chemicals which are listed in 261.33(e) and (f)? If a product contains two active ingredients,
only one of which is listed, would the discarded product be regulated as a P- or U-listed waste'?
The discarded formulation would not be regulated as P- or U-listed waste when discarded. In order to be
regulated as a P- or U-listed waste, a waste must meet all of the listing criteria. The listings in 26 .33 do
not include chemical mixtures where the listed chemical is not the sole active ingredient, and do ii<>\
apply to chemicals that have been used for their intended purpose (54 FR 31335; July 28,! lAS(/;. in ihe
scenario described above, while the discarded formulation meets the criterion of being unused, it
contains more than one active ingredient. It is not necessary for a chemical to be listed in 261.33(e) or
(f) in order to meet the definition of an active ingredient. An active ingredient is defined as a component
or mixture that performs the function of the product. "Sole active ingredient" means the active ingredient
is the only chemically active component for the function of the product. If a formulation has more than
one active ingredient, the formulation, when discarded, would not be within the scope of the listing in
261.33, regardless of whether only one or both active ingredients are listed.
Generators, however, must be sure to correctly determine whether a particular constituent performs the
function of the product, or only serves an ancillary function, such as mobilizing or preserving the active
ingredient. For example, fillers, solvent carriers, propellants, and other components with no pesticidal
role are functionally inert in pesticide formulations and therefore are not active ingredients. In cases
where a hazardous constituent from 261.33(e) or (f) is a functionally inert component of a commercial
chemical product, e.g., a solvent carrier, its presence does not prevent the formulation containing
another P- or U-listed constituent as the sole active ingredient from being a P- or U-hst waste (internal
Agency memorandum dated May 3, 1989).
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/HTMLdocs/regchemicalsl.htm 3/17/04
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll305
9443.1987(30)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
NOV30 1987
Mr. Phillip C. McGuire
Associate Director, Law Enforcement
Department of the Treasury
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Washington, D.C. 20226
Dear Mr. McGuire:
Thank you for your October 14, 1987, letter regarding the
disposal of explosive materials under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). We have reviewed the information you
provided concerning the detonation of seized explosives that you
believe would not fall under the RCRA Subtitle C program. We
think, however, that the seized explosives may indeed be a solid
waste from the moment a decision is made that the explosives
must be destroyed and not returned to the original owners.
The basis for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
opinion is that the explosives are not being used for their
originally-intended purpose (e.g., demolition of a building,
military use, etc.), but rather are being detonated to discard
the materials. The explosives, therefore, would meet the
definition of a solid waste as defined in 40 CFR Section
261.2(a) and (b). If these explosives exhibit the
characteristic of reactivity as defined in 40 CFR 261.23, they
would be subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulations for
storage, treatment and disposal. For example, detonation of
reactive waste is considered a form of thermal treatment that is
subject to Section 265.382, and shipments to the disposal site
are subject to 40 CFR Parts 262 and 263.
We recognize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
(BATF) has considerable experience in handling explosives. Your
internal procedures appear to be comparable to EPA's rules in
many respects. There are, however, some differences that may
need to be examined. For example, you state that the detonation
areas must be at least 1,000 feet from buildings, woods, etc.
EPA's regulations (Section 265.382) require farther distances
for quantities in excess of 100 Ibs.
-2-
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/CF4275COD6603F57852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
I would like to suggest that EPA staff meet with your staff
to discuss how to reconcile the RCRA rules as they apply to BATF
detonation activities. Rulemaking efforts may be required of
both agencies to resolve any inconsistencies. In order to
schedule a meeting that will be mutually convenient, please
contact Mike Petruska, of my staff, on 475-8551. We believe
that this meeting will provide the opportunity to discuss
several points including what rulemakings may have to be
undertaken by either agency, and what exemptions may be
possible.
If I can be any further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
J. Winston Porter
Assistance Administrator
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/CF4275COD6603F57852565DA006F03... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11121
9441.1986(03)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN 7 1986
Ms. Elizabeth Rose (6H-CE)
EPA Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, TX 75270
Dear Ms. Rose:
This letter is in response to your recent telephone
conversation with Mr. David Topping of my staff. Specifically,
you requested information concerning the definition of hazardous
waste contained in 40 CFR Part 261 and the delisting criteria
related to leachate levels.
261.3(a)(2)(iii) the deals with wastes which are included
in Subpart D solely because they meet the characteristics of
hazardous waste described in Subpart C (i.e., ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity). Thus, a mixture of D002
waste (included solely for corrosivity) and a solid waste would
not be hazardous if the mixture no longer exhibits the characteristic
of corrosivity, nor any other hazardous waste characteristics.
however, waste which are listed in Subpart D because of the presence
of specific hazardous constituents (e.g., K048, K049, and K051,
all of which are listed for hexavalent chromium and lead) remain
hazardous unless thy are excluded from the list under 260.20 and
260.22 (i.e., delisted).
The delisting criteria included a sliding regulatory scale
which dictates allowable leachate levels for specific volumes of
wastes. For wastes which are typically disposed of in a landfill,
this scale is described at 50 FR 7882, February 26, 1985 and 50
FR 48886, November 27, 1985. In general, the allowed leachate
levels for landfilled wastes range from 32% the drinking water
standards for small volumes of wastes (< 475 yd 3) to approximately
6x the drinking water standards for large volumes of waste
(> 5000 yd3). Also, as required by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984, the Agency's evaluation of petitioned
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/lFAE68B639A9933B852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
wastes is not restricted to the constituents for which the waste
was orginally listed. Rather, the Agency evaluates all factors
(including additional constituents) which could reasonable be
expected to be present and would cause the waste to be hazardous.
It should also be noted that the type of leachate test to be performed
may vary, depending upon the nature of the waste being evaluated.
For example, oily petroleum refinery wastes are typically subjected
to the EP for Oily Waste procedure rather than the standard EP
leachate test.
-2-
Evaluation criteria for wastes that are subject to disposal
other than in landfills (e.g., land treatment or management in
surface impoundments) are currently being developed; in fact, the
evaluation criteria for waste that are land treated was proposed
on November 27, 1985 (50 FR 48943). While these models have not
yet been made final, it is expected that the allowed leachate
levels for these disposal scenarios will be more strigent than
those described above for landfilled wastes.
Should you have any further questions concerning the hazardous
waste definitions or the delisting program, please contact me or
Mr. David Topping of my staff at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/lFAE68B639A9933B852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
EPA 530-R-97-005b
NTIS SUB-9224-97-002
Frequently Asked Questions on Mixed Waste
What is mixed waste?
Mixed waste is waste that contains a hazardous waste component and a
radioactive material component. A hazardous waste is either listed
under 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D, and/or exhibits a characteristic
described in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart C. Radioactive material must be
classified as source, special nuclear, or byproduct material subject
to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA) (42 U.S.C. n201 et seq.).
How is mixed waste regulated?
Mixed waste is jointly regulated under both RCRA and the AEA. RCRA
regulates the hazardous waste portion of the waste as any other
hazardous waste, while the AEA regulates the RCRA-exempt radioactive
portion (52 FR 15939; May 1, 1987).
Who regulates mixed waste?
Mixed waste is regulated by EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), and the Department of Energy (DOE). EPA regulates the
hazardous waste portion, while the NRC or DOE regulate the
radioactive portion. The NRC typically regulates mixed wastes from
commercial and non-DOE federal facilities, while DOE regulates
materials from DOE facilities.
Who generates mixed waste?
Mixed waste is typically generated by certain federal facilities,
nuclear power plants, industrial sites, research laboratories, and
medical institutions (Mixed Waste Incineration: (1) Background,
EPA402-F-95-004).
Do the land disposal restrictions apply to mixed waste?
Mixed waste, regardless of its type of radioactive element, is
hazardous waste and consequently subject to RCRA hazardous waste
regulations, including the land disposal restrictions. Treatment
standards for hazardous wastes are found in n268.40 of the RCRA
regulations. In some cases special treatment standards are listed for
mixed wastes, such as for radioactive lead solids (D008) and
elemental mercury contaminated with radioactive materials (D009).
When no special standards are listed, the normal treatment standards
for the particular waste code apply (55 FR 22644; June 1, 1990).
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B4ACE14D2B832651852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
How are any inconsistencies that may arise between RCRA and AEA
regulation resolved?
Section 1006 of the RCRA statute provides that if application of both
RCRA and AEA regulations creates a conflict, the AEA regulation would
take precedence to the extent of the inconsistency between the
regulations (OSWER Directive 9541.00-6; also 52 FR 15940; May 1,
1987) .
Fax-on-Demand 14079
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/B4ACE14D2B832651852565DA006FO... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FaxbackllOOS
9451.1980(02)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV. 18 1980
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Perm Lincoln Parkway West
Pittsburg, Pennsylvania 15205
Dear Ms. Cooper
This is in response to your letter of November 5, 1980, to
Ms. Filomena Chau requesting an interpretation of our hazardous
waste management regulation.
You indicated that your company hires many independent contractors
and they, in turn, often hire subcontractors to perform various
services including painting, janitorial services, boiler cleaning
and construction. You indicate that these contractors and
subcontractors generate wastes and that some of these wastes may
be hazardous wastes. You state that you normally require your
contractors to remove their wastes from your premises and you indicate
that they may or may not require waste removal by their subcontractors.
Finally, you say that you would like to continue the practice of
having contractors remove their waste but would like to have the
option of assuming this responsibility.
By implication, you are asking who is the generator of hazardous
waste, your company or your contractors (or his subcontractor) EPA
contends that both parties or, as the case may be, all three parties
are generators and are jointly and severally liable for complying
with the generator standards in Part 262 of our regulations (see 45
Fed. Reg. 331410-33148). We do not object to and, in fact, prefer
that only one of these parties, by mutual agreement (e.g., a contract)
perform these responsibilities in fact. We will reserve the right,
however, to hold both or all three parties liable for these
responsibilities in any enforcement actions we might take as a result
of a violation of the regulations. This interpretation parallels
the interpretation we have taken and discussed in the preamble to a
recent amendment to our regulations (see 45 Fed. Reg. 72026-72027,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/01334D2E6CB630DC852565DA006F0229 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
October 30, 1980).
-2-
Consequently, either your company, your contractor or his
subcontractor can assume responsibility for removing hazardous
wastes generated on your premises and further assume the responsibility
for complying with Part 262 of our regulation, as your company
prefers. But your company, in any case, will have liability for
proper performance of these responsibilities.
We will plan to issue this interpretation in a Regulatory
Interpretation Memorandum in the near future. Pending such issuance,
you can consider this letter to be an official interpretation on
this matter.
Sincerely yours
Gary N. Dietrich
Associate Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste
bcc: Filomena Chau w/incoming
Mike Barclay w/incoming
Regional A&HM Division Directors w/incoming
Mobay Chemical Corporation
Novembers, 1980
Ms. Filomena Chau
Office of Solid Waste (WH 562)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Independent Contractor Generators
Dear Ms. Chau:
I have had several conversations with regional and headquarters'
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/01334D2E6CB630DC852565DA006F0229 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
staff regarding the regulatory status of independent contractors
who generate hazardous waste on sites owned or leased by us.
None of these persons has been able to point to specific
affirmative regulations that clearly set forth the responsibilities of the
owner and the independent contractor under these
circumstances.
In the manufacture of chemicals and maintenance and construction
of plants, many independent contractors are used. These
contractors and their subcontractors may generate hazardous
waste in the course of performance of their contracts. Examples
of contractors who might generate hazardous waste include
consulting engineers, painting contractors, janitorial services,
boiler cleaning services, industrial cleaners, construction
contractors and common carriers. In many of our contracts we
would oblige the contractor to remove waste from our premises.
These contractors may or may not contract in the same manner
with their subcontractors. We would like to be able to continue
-2-
NovemberS, 1980
Ms. Filomena Chau
the practice of having the contractors remove waste from our
premises, but we would also like to have the option of being
able to take the waste from them for disposal.
Please advise us of the proper procedures to follow in each
instance. If appropriate, we would appreciate issuance of a
Regulatory Interpretation Memorandum.
Very truly yours,
Original Document signed
Julie R. Cooper
Attorney
JRC:my
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/01334D2E6CB630DC852565DA006F0229 8/18/2004
-------
9441.193"(32)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
APRIL 87
3. Multiple Generator Location and Consolidation
A conpany owns several small factories in different counties. Each
factory generates less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per
rtontn, and is subject to reduced regulation under $261.5. Options
for disposal of waste from conditionally exempt generators are
provided in $261.5(f)(3). (a) May the conditionally exempt generators
transport waste to one of the company's facilities for consolidation
and subsequent shipment to a RCRA disposal facility? (b) Does the
facility of the generator who is consolidating the waste qualify as
a "transfer facility"? (c) Does the generator who consolidates the
waste become a full quantity generator if he ships more than 1000 kg
of hazardous waste from his site per month? (or a 100-1000 kg/mo
generator if he ships between 100 and 1000 kg of waste per month?)
(a) Under 5261.5(f)(3) in order to remain exempt from certain
regulations, a conditionally exempt snail quantity
generator may ensure delivery of his hazardous waste to a
storage, treatment, or disposal faclity that is one the
foil-Ming types of facilities:
(i.) permitted under Part 270 of 40 CFR; or
(ii.) in interim status under Parts 265 and 270
of 40 CFR; or
(iii.) authorized to manage hazardous waste by a
state with a hazardous waste management
program approved under Part 271 of 40 CFR; or
-3-
-------
Page 1 of 6
April 12, 1999
Chris Bryant
The Technical Group, Inc.
1300 I Street, NW
Suite 1000 West
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Bryant:
Thank you for your letter of May 3, 1998 requesting clarification about the status under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of spent or unused fluorescent lamps that
are sent for reclamation and that exhibit the Toxicity Characteristic (TC) because of the
presence of mercury.
As you know, the regulatory status under the federal RCRA regulatory program of a
secondary material being recycled depends upon both the type of material and the type of
recycling being conducted. Some materials that are reclaimed are not solid wastes under the
federal program and thus are not regulated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) agrees with the State of Ohio that unused mercury lamps are commercial chemical
products and are not solid wastes if reclaimed. However, EPA considers used mercury
lamps to be spent materials and to be solid wastes under the federal program, if reclaimed.
(For further information, see enclosed March 24, 1994 memorandum from Michael Shapiro,
Director, Office of Solid Waste, EPA, to Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors,
EPA Regions I-X.) Thus, generators of spent mercury-containing lamps that exhibit the TC
are subject to federal regulations under RCRA Subtitle C governing hazardous waste
management for the management of these lamps in states that are not authorized to manage
these wastes. Generators are subject to all applicable requirements of 40 CFR parts 260
through 268, including the on-site management, pre-transport, and manifesting requirements
of 40 CFR part 262. Although your letter did not specifically request information regarding
mercury-containing electronic devices, it should be noted that EPAis position on these
devices would be the same as that described above for mercury-containing lamps.
You should also be aware that EPA is considering adding spent mercury-containing lamps to
the scope of the federal universal waste program (see proposed rule at 59 Fed. Reg. 38288,
July 27, 1994). If this happens, a state could decide to adopt that portion of the federal
universal waste rule, thus allowing handlers in that state to manage these lamps under the
regulatory structure of the universal waste program. Even if spent mercury-containing lamps
are not added to the scope of the federal universal waste program, authorized states have
been given the authority to add materials to the scope of their state=s universal waste
program. Therefore, if a particular state has adopted the universal waste program and adds
spent mercury-containing lamps, handlers in that state could also manage these lamps under
the regulatory structure of the universal waste program. Handlers in such states who choose
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/DA4725F0617651A8852569C9006470E4 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 6
to manage their spent mercury-containing lamps as universal waste would then be subject to
a streamlined set of requirements for the collection, storage, and transportation of such
wastes.
You also ask whether the Agency would pursue an enforcement action against a generator in
Ohio that does not manage their lamps as hazardous wastes. The Agency has a policy
against giving definitive assurances that it will not proceed with formal enforcement actions
in situations like this.
We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request. If you have any additional
questions regarding fluorescent lamps, please contact Marilyn Goode at (703) 308-8800. For
questions regarding regulatory enforcement, please contact Caroline Ahearn at (202) 564-
4022.
Sincerely,
Stephen F. Heare, Acting Director
Permits and State Programs Division (5303W)
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Elaine Stanley, OECA
Dave Bussard, HWID
Brian Grant, OGC
Sylvia Horwitz, OGC
Betsy Smidinger, OECA
Sonya Sasseville, PSPD
Chad Cliburn, Region V
Jeff Gaines, PSPD
Larry Benintend, Ohio EPA
Faxback 14468
Faxbackll822
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/DA4725F0617651A8852569C9006470E4 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 6
9441.1994(07)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
March 24, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Spent Material
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I -X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify when a secondary material meets the
definition of "spent material." 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
further processing." 40 CFR 261.1(c)(l). A number of EPA Regions have requested
assistance from EPA Headquarters on making regulatory determinations for secondary
materials that may
meet the regulatory definition of spent material. For many secondary materials this
determination is important because spent materials being reclaimed are solid wastes. 40 CFR
261.2(c)(3). However, sludges and byproducts that exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous
waste and commercial chemical products (whether listed or characteristic) are not solid
wastes when reclaimed. 40 CFR 261.2(c).
In particular, EPA Headquarters has been asked whether in order to meet the definition of
spent material, a material must: 1) be spent as a result of contamination, and 2) be
nonfunctional in the sense that it could not continue to be used for its original purpose. We
have consistently interpreted this definition as applying to "materials that have been used
and are no longer fit for use without being regenerated." 50 FR at 618 (January 4, 1985); 48
FR at 14476 (April 4, 1983). We thus consider "contamination", as used in the definition of
spent material, to be any impurity, factor or circumstance which causes the material to be
taken out of service for reprocessing. (See also 50 FR at 624, indicating that the reference to
contamination was added to clarify that a material such as a solvent may continue to be used
for its original, though not identical, purpose and not yet be classified as a solid waste.)
Similarly, we consider the part of the definition stating that a spent material Acan no longer
serve the purpose for which it was produced® as being satisfied when the material is no
longer serving its original purpose and is being reprocessed instead. EPA has consistently
maintained this interpretation since it promulgated the definition of spent material.See 50 FR
at 650 (January 4, 1985), indicating that spent batteries, spent mercury, spent acids and
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/DA4725F0617651A8852569C9006470E4 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 6
caustics remain subject to regulation when reclaimed regardless of the reason these wastes
are removed from service, November 6, 1986 letter from Matt Straus to H. Bzura stating that
copper etchants sent for reclamation were defined as "spent materials (i.e., materials that
have been used [sic] are no longer fit for use without being regenerated, reclaimed, or
otherwise reprocessed)." See also April 14, 1989 later from Stephan Cochran to Robert
Oleszko indicating that ignitron tubes containing mercury sent for reclamation were spent
materials irrespective of the reason that the tube was taken out of service.
This is the only interpretation that makes environmental sense, since once used materials are
taken out of service and sent for reclamation they pose the same potential risks and are
handled in the same manner regardless of the reason they are taken out of service. Put in
terms of a specific example, lead acid batteries that are taken out of service and sent to a
lead reclaimer pose the same risks and are handled the same way no matter how many or
how few physical and chemical impurities they contain, and no matter how much or how
little the presence of impurities contributes to the decision to stop using the battery in the
first place. See United States v. Ilco Inc., 996 F. 2d 1126 (11th Cir. 1993), where the court
held that all batteries sent to a secondary lead smelter for recovery were "spent materials"
without regard for the reason the batteries were taken out of service.
As another example, when a generator removes mercury-bearing thermostats from buildings
as part of an upgrade to the building's heating system, the thermostats could continue to be
used for the remaining portion of their useful lives. However, assuming the generator
intends to ship these thermostats to a reclamation facility for mercury recovery, these
thermostats would be considered to be spent materials irrespective of the reason for their
removal and the fact that the thermostats were potentially capable of being used as
thermostats in another building.
Background/Analysis
Under RCRA Subtitle C regulations, a spent material is "any material that has been used and
as a result of contamination can longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without
processing." 40 CFR 261.1(c)(l). This definition was promulgated in the 1985 final rule
amending the definition of solid waste. 50 FR 614, January 4, 1985.
The preamble to the final rule makes it clear that the "as a result of contamination" language
was added to avoid classifying as waste a used material that was actually being put to further
direct use. 50 FR at 624. The preamble gives the example of a solvent that is not clean
enough to clean circuit boards but still clean enough for use as a metal degreaser.
The reason the "as a result of contamination" language was chosen is because many spent
materials such as solvents and spent activated carbon typically become spent because of
impurities. The Agency did not intend to restrict the definition of spent materials to only
those materials which became spent as a result of this type of contamination. On the
contrary, in the same rule that the Agency defined spent material, EPA promulgated
regulatory requirements under Subtitle C for spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed. The
Agency explicitly classified spent lead-acid batteries as spent materials in the final rule. 50
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/DA4725F0617651A8852569C9006470E4 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 6
FR at 625. These batteries become "spent" for a variety of reasons (e.g., overcharging,
frozen electrolyte, leakage) all of which EPA regards as being "contamination" for purposes
of the definition.
Regarding whether a material must be nonfunctional to meet the definition of spent material,
the fact that a material can continue to be used for its original purpose is not relevant to the
issue of whether or not it is a spent material when it is clear from the facts that the material
will not be used but instead will be treated by reclamation. The mere potential for continued
original use does not preclude a material from being defined as spent. As stated above, the
fact that it is actually removed from service establishes, as to this generator, that it can no
longer serve its original purpose.
If all that were required to avoid RCRA Subtitle C regulation would be a showing that a
secondary material could continue to be used, then generators would be able to circumvent
RCRA simply through changing their operating practices to remove secondary materials just
prior to that material being unfit for its original use. Thus, spent solvents that are heavily
contaminated but might still be fit for metal degreasing (even though they were being sent to
be regenerated into new solvents), spent lead-acid batteries that still had a charge (or were
capable of holding a charge), and mercury-bearing thermostats removed from buildings sent
for reclamation would not be subject to RCRA regulation in spite of the fact that the
generator was no longer using the material but instead was sending it to be treated by
reclamation.
Clearly, this result is not consistent with the cradle-to-grave purpose of RCRA Subtitle C
regulation. Used materials taken out of service and sent for reclamation also pose the same
risks and are handled in the same manner regardless of the reason they are taken out of
service. For this reason, EPA has consistently interpreted spent materials as including
materials which could continue to be used for their original purpose but are, in fact, being
taken out of service for reclamation, showing that for this generator they can no longer serve
the purpose for which they were producedSee May 20, 1987 letter from Matthew Straus to
Peter Russell indicating that spent pickle liquor becomes a spent material/solid waste when
it is removed from pickling line baths for reclamation regardless if it can continue to be
used. See also July 15, 1990 letter from Sylvia Lowrance to Ralph Eschborn indicating that
photographic fixer bath sent for reclamation is a spent material even though the solution
could continue to be used as a fixer, (see footnote 2).
Conclusion
Because spent materials being reclaimed (or to be reclaimed) are within the definition of
solid waste, it is important to be able to distinguish among spent materials, other categories
of solid wastes such as sludges, and products which are still in use that have not been
discarded. Spent materials are distinguished from products and other categories of solid
wastes in that they have been used previously and have been taken out of service and are
going to be treated by reclamation. Examples of spent materials include spent lead-acid
batteries, used mercury switches, spent solvents, spent catalysts and spent etchants.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/DA4725F0617651A8852569C9006470E4 8/18/2004
-------
Page 6 of 6
This memorandum states the Agency's consistent interpretation of the existing regulations.
However, EPA recognizes the issues regarding the regulatory definition of spent material
and we may consider revising the regulatory definition in the future. If you have further
questions on this issue, please call Mike Petruska of my staff at (202) 260-8551.
cc: Susan Bromm
Susan O'Keefe
NEIC, Frank Covington
ASTSWMO, Tom Kennedy
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/DA4725F0617651A8852569C9006470E4 8/18/2004
-------
9444.1987(12)
SOIL CONTAMINATED WITH USED AND UNUSED PESTICIDES
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
APR 18 1987
K. Seller
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
7272 Cleanwater Lane, LU-11
Olympia, Washington 98504-6811
Dear Ms. Seller:
I recently received your letter of February 26,1987, in which
you request clarification as to whether excavated soils,
contaminated with 2,4,5-T, Simazine, 2,4-D, Dicambia, and Bromacil,
are F027 wastes. The site in question was county public works yard
where a pesticide product was mixed with water as a carrier, prior to
application on the county roadsides. Contamination occurred from
spillage of both unused and used pesticide solutions.
The F027 listing designates, as acute hazardous waste (H),
formulations containing tri-, tetra-, or pentachlorphenol or
discarded unused formulations containing compounds derived from these
chlorophenols. Whether the contaminated soil contains a listed
hazardous waste is dependent on: (a) whether the 2,4,5-T got onto
the soil through the use of the chemical or by being discarded, and
(b) whether the 2,4,5-T was in fact a discarded formulation as stated
in Sec. 261.31.
Soil, which is contaminated with unused 2,4,5-T, that had been
discarded, would contain a listed hazardous waste, namely F027. This
contaminated soil, which contains a hazardous waste, is therefore
subject to the Subtitle C regulations.
Soils, which are contaminated with 2,4,5-T, as a function of its
use, would not be considered to contain hazardous waste. These
contaminated soils may, however, be hazardous if they are excavated
to be discarded, and if they meet the hazardous waste
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12903
-------
characteristics, i.e., if the EP leachate concentration exceeds the
levels specified in Sec.261.24(b).
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12903
-------
-2-
To my knowledge, there are currently no commercial treatment or
disposal facilities permitted to accept listed dioxin wastes. You
also questioned whether any treatment standards have been established
for dioxin wastes. According to 40 CFR 264.343, incinerators burning
hazardous wastes F020-F023, F026, and F027 must achieve a destruction
and removal efficiency of 99.9999% for each principal organic
hazardous constituent specified in its permit. Effective Nov. 8,
1988, these same wastes are restricted from land disposal if an
extract of the waste or the treatment residual of the waste (using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)) is equal to or
greater than 1 ppb of dioxin.
Please feel free to call Doreen Sterling, of my staff, at
202-475-6775, if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON, INC.
FAXBACK 12903
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK12549
ANTI-NEOPLASTIC AGENTS IN HOSPITAL WASTES, DISPOSAL OF
9442.1986(02)
JAN 30 1986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Disposal of Anti-Neoplastic Agents in Hospital Wastes
FROM: Jeff Denit, Deputy Director
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562)
TO: Kenneth D. Feigner, Chief
EPA, Region X
Waste Management Branch
The issue regarding possible hazards posed by anti-neoplastic
drugs has been brought to our attention within the last couple of
years. With large increases in both the numbers of anti-neoplasties
available for use in chemotherapy and the number of patients being
treated with these drugs, hospital personnel have express con-
cern with handling and disposal of these chemicals (and materials
contaminated with these chemicals).
Anti-neoplasties, as a class of chemicals, are not regulated
under RCRA. However, the following are listed as hazardous waste
under 40 CFR. 261.33(f):
U035 Chlorambucil
U058 Cyclophosphamide
U059 Daunomycin
UlSOMelphalan
UOlOMitomycinC
U206 Streptozotocin
U237 Uracil mustard
However, since these wastes are identified only as "toxic"
wastes, under 261.22(f) they are subject to the standard
small quantity generator exclusion. As a practical matter, this
means that unless large volumes of the chemicals are discarded
(i.e., 100 kg/mo or more) which in most cases is unlikely, or
the facility is a large quantity generator, the majority of
these wastes will remain unregulated.
The Agency is aware that manufacturers and health care
facilities recommend incineration of anti-neoplasties and materials
contaminated with these chemicals. Although there is no concensus
among health care professionals as to the appropriate temperature
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/84EOEBD8AOA8414D852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
necessary for destruction, many facilities are incinerating
these wastes at temperatures between 1800 -2200 F. Since
the Agency has not investigated the efficiencies of incinerating
these wastes, we have not provided guidance or taken a position
with respect to this issue.
At this time, we have no plans to commit resources to the
study of anti-neoplasties or to initiate any further rulemaking
action. We recommend that State officials (in Seattle) contact
the manufacturers of these drugs to gather information on recom-
mended handling and disposal practices.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/84EOEBD8AOA8414D852565DA006F... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of4
Faxback 11822
9441.1994(07)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
March 24, 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Spent Material
FROM: Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify when a secondary
material meets the definition of "spent material." 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 further processing." 40 CFR 261. l(c)(l). A number
of EPA Regions have requested assistance from EPA Headquarters on
making regulatory determinations for secondary materials that may
meet the regulatory definition of spent material. For many
secondary materials this determination is important because spent
materials being reclaimed are solid wastes. 40 CFR 261.2(c)(3).
However, sludges and byproducts that exhibit a characteristic of a
hazardous waste and commercial chemical products (whether listed or
characteristic) are not solid wastes when reclaimed. 40 CFR
261.2(c).
In particular, EPA Headquarters has been asked whether in
order to meet the definition of spent material, a material must: 1)
be spent as a result of contamination, and 2) be nonfunctional in
the sense that it could not continue to be used for its original
purpose. We have consistently interpreted this definition as
applying to "materials that have been used and are no longer fit
for use without being regenerated." 50 FR at 618 (January 4, 1985);
48 FR at 14476 (April 4, 1983). We thus consider "contamination",
as used in the definition of spent material, to be any impurity,
factor or circumstance which causes the material to be taken out of
service for reprocessing. (See also 50 FR at 624, indicating that
the reference to contamination was added to clarify that a material
such as a solvent may continue to be used for its original, though
not identical, purpose and not yet be classified as a solid waste.)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8D46F076812A58D0852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of4
Similarly, we consider the part of the definition stating that
a spent material "can no longer serve the purpose for which it was
produced" as being satisfied when the material is no longer serving
its original purpose and is being reprocessed instead. EPA has
consistently maintained this interpretation since it promulgated
the definition of spent material (see footnote 1).
This is the only interpretation that makes environmental
sense, since once used materials are taken out of service and sent
for reclamation they pose the same potential risks and are handled
in the same manner regardless of the reason they are taken out of
service. Put in terms of a specific example, lead acid batteries
that are taken out of service and sent to a lead reclaimer pose the
same risks and are handled the same way no matter how many or how
few physical and chemical impurities they contain, and no matter
how much or how little the presence of impurities contributes to
the decision to stop using the battery in the first place. See
United States v. Ilco Inc., 996 F. 2d 1126 (11th Cir. 1993), where
the court held that all batteries sent to a secondary lead smelter
for recovery were "spent materials" without regard for the reason
the batteries were taken out of service.
As another example, when a generator removes mercury-bearing
thermostats from buildings as part of an upgrade to the building's
heating system, the thermostats could continue to be used for the
remaining portion of their useful lives. However, assuming the
generator intends to ship these thermostats to a reclamation
facility for mercury recovery, these thermostats would be
considered to be spent materials irrespective of the reason for
their removal and the fact that the thermostats were potentially
capable of being used as thermostats in another building.
B ackground/Analy si s
Under RCRA Subtitle C regulations, a spent material is "any
material that has been used and as a result of contamination can
longer serve the purpose for which it was produced without
processing." 40 CFR 261.1(c)(l). This definition was promulgated
in the 1985 final rule amending the definition of solid waste. 50
FR 614, January 4, 1985.
The preamble to the final rule makes it clear that the "as a
result of contamination" language was added to avoid classifying as
waste a used material that was actually being put to further direct
use. 50 FR at 624. The preamble gives the example of a solvent that
is not clean enough to clean circuit boards but still clean enough
for use as a metal degreaser.
The reason the "as a result of contamination" language was
chosen is because many spent materials such as solvents and spent
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8D46F076812A58D0852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page3 of 4
activated carbon typically become spent because of impurities. The
Agency did not intend to restrict the definition of spent materials
to only those materials which became spent as a result of this type
of contamination. On the contrary, in the same rule that the Agency
defined spent material, EPA promulgated regulatory requirements
under Subtitle C for spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed. The
Agency explicitly classified spent lead-acid batteries as spent
materials in the final rule. 50 FR at 625. These batteries become
"spent" for a variety of reasons (e.g., overcharging, frozen
electrolyte, leakage) all of which EPA regards as being
"contamination" for purposes of the definition.
Regarding whether a material must be nonfunctional to meet the
definition of spent material, the fact that a material can continue
to be used for its original purpose is not relevant to the issue of
whether or not it is a spent material when it is clear from the
facts that the material will not be used but instead will be
treated by reclamation. The mere potential for continued original
use does not preclude a material from being defined as spent. As
stated above, the fact that it is actually removed from service
establishes, as to this generator, that it can no longer serve its
original purpose.
If all that were required to avoid RCRA Subtitle C regulation
would be a showing that a secondary material could continue to be
used, then generators would be able to circumvent RCRA simply
through changing their operating practices to remove secondary
materials just prior to that material being unfit for its original
use. Thus, spent solvents that are heavily contaminated but might
still be fit for metal degreasing (even though they were being sent
to be regenerated into new solvents), spent lead-acid batteries
that still had a charge (or were capable of holding a charge), and
mercury-bearing thermostats removed from buildings sent for
reclamation would not be subject to RCRA regulation in spite of the
fact that the generator was no longer using the material but
instead was sending it to be treated by reclamation.
Clearly, this result is not consistent with the
cradle-to-grave purpose of RCRA Subtitle C regulation. Used
materials taken out of service and sent for reclamation also pose
the same risks and are handled in the same manner regardless of the
reason they are taken out of service. For this reason, EPA has
consistently interpreted spent materials as including materials
which could continue to be used for their original purpose but are,
in fact, being taken out of service for reclamation, showing that
for this generator they can no longer serve the purpose for which
they were produced (see footnote 2).
Conclusion
Because spent materials being reclaimed (or to be reclaimed)
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8D46F076812A58D0852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of4
are within the definition of solid waste, it is important to be
able to distinguish among spent materials, other categories of
solid wastes such as sludges, and products which are still in use
that have not been discarded. Spent materials are distinguished
from products and other categories of solid wastes in that they
have been used previously and have been taken out of service and
are going to be treated by reclamation. Examples of spent materials
include spent lead-acid batteries, used mercury switches, spent
solvents, spent catalysts and spent etchants.
This memorandum states the Agency's consistent interpretation
of the existing regulations. However, EPA recognizes the issues
regarding the regulatory definition of spent material and we may
consider revising the regulatory definition in the future. If you
have further questions on this issue, please call Mike Petruska of
my staff at (202) 260-8551.
cc: Susan Bromm
Susan O'Keefe
NEIC, Frank Covington
ASTSWMO, Tom Kennedy
1 See 50 FR at 650 (January 4, 1985), indicating that spent
batteries, spent mercury, spent acids and caustics remain
subject to regulation when reclaimed regardless of the
reason these wastes are removed from service, November 6,
1986 letter from Matt Straus to H. Bzura stating that
copper etchants sent for reclamation were defined as
"spent materials (i.e., materials that have been used
[sic] are no longer fit for use without being
regenerated, reclaimed, or otherwise reprocessed)." See
also April 14, 1989 later from Stephan Cochran to Robert
Oleszko indicating that ignitron tubes containing mercury
sent for reclamation were spent materials irrespective of
the reason that the tube was taken out of service.
2 See May 20, 1987 letter from Matthew Straus to Peter
Russell indicating that spent pickle liquor becomes a
spent material/solid waste when it is removed from
pickling line baths for reclamation regardless if it can
continue to be used. See also July 15, 1990 letter from
Sylvia Lowrance to Ralph Eschborn indicating that
photographic fixer bath sent for reclamation is a spent
material even though the solution could continue to be
used as a fixer.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/8D46F076812A58D0852565DA006F05... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12196
PPC 9444.1984(01)
CYANIDE-SALT CONTAINING WASTES IN METAL HEAT TREATING OPERATIONS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: Mar 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Clarification of the Listings for Metal Heat Treating
F010, F011, andF012.
FROM: Matthew A. Straus, Acting Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562)
TO: James H. Scarbrough, Chief
Residuals Management Branch
Air & Waste Management Division
Region IV
This memorandum is in response to your question regarding
the scope of the cyanide listings for metal heat treating
operations (EPA Hazardous Waste Nos. F010, F011, and F012). In
particular, you asked whether the form of cyanide (i.e., complex
cyanide or free cyanide) was germane in determining whether one
had a listed waste. In short, the answer is no. In listing
these wastes as hazardous, the Agency was (and is still)
concerned with the management (or management) of cyanide wastes
(both complex cyanide and cyanide salts). If the Agency felt
that a distinction was necessary, it would have done so in the
listing. For example, EPA Hazardous Waste No. F012 would have
been listed as follows:
"Quenching wastewater treatment sludges from metal heat
treating operations where complexed cyanides are used in the
process (except for precious metals that heat treating quenching
wastewater treatment sludges)."
In addition, you should be aware that the form of cyanide often
changes during the heat treating operation or subsequent
treatment; therefore, although you may begin with cyanide salts
(free cyanide) your waste may be primarily complex cyanide. The
waste listings take this into account by differentiating between
the form of cyanide present in the waste (i.e., only cyanide-salt
containing wastes (free cyanides) are listed as posing a
reactivity hazard).
furthermore, it should be noted that although complex
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/10AlA35EAED6F4FD852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
cyanides are less toxic than free cyanides, complex cyanide-
bearing wastes are of concern because of their potential to
undergo photodecomposition to form toxic hydrogen cyanide and
free cyanide decomposition by-products. (See Listing Background
document for Cyanide Wastes, Response to Comments Section,
Comment No. 3 for more details.)! Therefore, if the metal heat
treating process uses cyanides in any form, the process is
covered by the hazardous waste listings.
1 This document is included in the document 261.31 and
261.32-Listing off Hazardous Wastes (Finalization of May
19, 1980 Hazardous Waste List), #1941.28 November 14,
1980.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/10AlA35EAED6F4FD852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12501
9433.1985(05)
NOV27 1985
DELISTING PETITION, USE OF VHS MODEL
Honorable Dan Glickman
Member, United States
House of Representatives
U.S. Court House
Box 403-Room 224
Wichita, Kansas 67201
Dear Mr. Glickman:
This letter is in response to your inquiry of October 29,
1985, concerning the delisting petition filed with the Agency by
Boeing Military Airplane Corporation for its Wichita, Kansas
facility. The Agency has proposed (in the Federal Register, on
February 26, 1985) the use of a vertical and horizontal spread
(VHS) model to aid in the evaluation of delisting petitions.
After addressing the public comments received on the model, this
model was made final (with few adjustments) on November 4, 1985;
it will be used to assist us in making delisting evaluations.
The VHS model uses leachate data and waste volume estimates in
order to predict waste toxicant concentrations in ground water
at a downstream compliance point, and allows the comparison of
predicted values with appropriate health-based numbers. The
Agency's use of this model involves several reasonable worst
case assumptions concerning the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. These assumptions are based on the reviews of the technical
literature and informal surveys of States and State Solid and
Hazardous Waste agencies, and are not based on site-specific
factors. The Agency believes that the VHS model is quite
conservative, and represents a reasonable worst case for the
factors considered.
The Agency has considered the use of site-specific factors
in its delisting evaluations. Specifically, the local geographical,
hydrogeological, and demographic conditions were considered as
factors that could affect the Agency's decisions. Once a waste
is delisted, however, there is no guarantee that the waste will
be managed at the site that was evaluated. That is, the generator
of the waste is under no obligation to manage the waste at a
particular site. Therefore, we believe the use of site-specific
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/A22COAEF7D958DAD852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
factors are inappropriate. The Agency also considered placing
conditions on the delisting decisions that would require specific
waste management. This option was also rejected since such an
evaluation would essentially be the same as the permitting
process. The Agency feels that if management conditions need to
be specified to ensure that a particular waste does not damage
human health or the environment, the waste is hazardous and
should be managed at a site that is fully permitted to handle
that waste.
I would also like to point out that the Agency does
consider ground-water data from a facility as part of the
delisting evaluation. The lack of ground-water contamination
is viewed as being supportive of a petition; however, this
information is indicative of what has happened at the site
receiving the waste and not what will happen. Therefore,
ground-water data alone are not sufficient to determine
whether a waste is non-hazardous.
I am hopeful that this response addresses your concerns.
If you have any questions, please contact my office at your
convenience.
Sincerely yours,
Original Document signed
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
bcc: GWTF
Nancy H. Fussell, Boeing
Faye Sandberg, EPA Region VII
Congressional Liaison/Craig Deremer, EPA
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/A22COAEF7D958DAD852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
9441.:939;G5)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 89
2. Drip Gas Exclusion
Drip gas if collected from a natural gas line located at the production site. Is this
condensate exempt from being a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5)?
According to 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5), "Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other
wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude
oil, natural gas or geothermal energy..." are not subject to regulation as
hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, if the drip gas is
collected from lines that are associated with movement of the natural gas on-
site (i.e. the exploration, development, or production site) then the drip gas is
exempt from being a hazardous waste. An example is drip gas from gathering
lines on the production site that lead to an on-site central storage tank.
On the other hand, if the drip gas is collected from lines that are used for the
off-site movement of natural gas, the drip gas is not excluded under 40 CFR
261.4(b)(5). For example, drip gas collected from lines used to transport
natural gas from the production site to an off-site distribution center would
not be excluded under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(5).
The rationale behind this on-site/off-site distinction arises from the
legislative history of RCRA Section 3001(b)(2)(A) which is directed to
"...drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas...." The
legislative history discusses "other wastes" as follows:
The term "other wastes associated" is specifically included to
designate waste materials intrinsically derived from primary
field operations associated with the exploration, development,
or production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy. It
would cover such substances as: hydrocarbon bearing soil in
and around related facilities; drill cuttings; and materials (such
as hydrocarbons, water, sand, and emulsion) produced from a
well in conjunction with crude oil, natural gas or geothermal
energy; and the accumulated material (such as hydrocarbons,
water, sand and emulsion) from production separators, fluid
treating vessels, storage vessels, and production
impoundments.
The phrase "intrinsically derived from the primary field operations" is
intended to differentiate exploration, development, and production
operations from transportation (from the point of custody transfer or of
production separation and dehydration) and manufacturing operations.
-------
unu
FEBRUARY 89
2. Drip Gas Exclusjori ((^ont'd)
EPA has outlined 3 criteria as a test of whether a particular waste qualifies fo*
the exemption.! The criterion that addresses the on-site/off-site issue is as
follows:
Drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes intrinsically derived from
primary field operations associated with the exploration, development, or
production of crude oil, natural gas or geothermal energy are subject to
exemption. Primary field operations encompass production-related activities
but not transportation or manufacturing activities. With respect to oil
production, primary field operations encompass those activities usually
occurring at or near the wellhead, but prior to the transfer of oil from an
individual field facility or a centrally located facility to a carrier (i.e., pipeline
or trucking concern) for transport to a refinery or to a refiner.
With respect to natural gas production, primary field operations are those
activities occurring at or near the wellhead or at the gas plant but prior to the
point at which the gas is transferred from an individual field facility, a
centrally located facility, or a gas plant to a carrier for transport to market.
Primary field operations encompass the primary, secondary, a-d tertiary
production of oil or gas.
Wastes generated by the transportation process itself are not exemp 'Because
they are not intrinsically associated with primary field operations. An
example would be pigging waste from pipeline pumping stations.
Transportation (for the oil and gas industry) may be for short or long
distances....
Thus, drip gas collected from lines associated with transport of natural gas
from the production site to an off-site distribution center would not be
covered by the exemption.
ISee "Management of Wastes from the Exploration. Development and Production of Crude Oil.
Natural Gas, and Geothennal Energy/ Report to Congreta, December 1987, pp. 74. A listing of
wastes covered by the exemption appears in EPA's "Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Exploration. Development and Production Wastes.* S3 ffi 23*46 (July 6,1988).
Source: Mike Fitzpatrick (202)475-6783
Research: Kenneth Leigh Mitchell, Ph.D. (202)382-3000
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11459
9444.1989(07)
APRIL 21 1989
Mr. Thomas R. Mastalerz
Technical Sales Representative
GSX Services, Inc.
P.O. Drawer C
Greenbrier, Tennessee 37073-0903
Dear Mr. Mastalerz:
This letter is in response to your letter dated July 31,
1989, in which you asked for clarification of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations as they pertain
to "U" and "P" listed wastes found at 40 CFR Section 261.33(e)
and (f).
When characterizing any commercial chemical product (CCP) as
a hazardous waste under Subtitle C or RCRA, a person must first
determine if the CCP can be defined as a solid waste (see 40 CFR
261.2). If the CCP is a solid waste, the CCP would also be a
hazardous waste if it is either a "U" or "P" listed waste in 40
CFR Section 261.33(e) or (f) and/or if it exhibits a
characteristic of a hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR Subpart
C or Part 261. If the CCP is not defined as a solid waste, it
cannot be a hazardous waste.
As stated in 40 CFR Section 261.33(b), "The following
materials or items are hazardous wastes if and when they are
discarded or intended to be discarded...any off-specification
commercial chemical product or manufacturing chemical
intermediate which, if it met specifications, would have the
generic name listed in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section."
Section 261.33(d) provides that commercial chemical products on
the "U" and "P" lists would also include commercially pure grades
and technical grades of that chemical.
The July 28, 1989 Federal Register (54 FR 31336) explains
that the "U" and "P" lists do not apply to chemicals that have
been used for their intended purposes. If the laboratory's
"chemical A (U???)" described in your letter is "unused" and
still remains a technical grade of that chemical after the 0.5%
- 5.0% contamination you indicated, then the chemical must be
classified as a U listed waste when discarded or intended for
discard/disposal. In addition, if the laboratory's "unused"
chemical A was no longer considered a technical or commercially
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/622C36CD88D449F3852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
pure grade due to contamination, it would be considered an off-
specification species of that chemical. As the November 25, 1980
Federal Register (48 FR 78540) explains, "off-specification"
-2-
materials that, if they met the specification, would be
commercial chemical products or manufacturing chemical
intermediates" would be listed hazardous wastes when discarded or
intended for discard/disposal.
If you have a CCP that has been used, then it would not be a
"U" or "P" listed waste. It may, however, still exhibit one or
more of the characteristics of a hazardous waste defined in 40
CFR Part 261 Subpart C. It is the responsibility of the
generator to make this determination.
You should also be aware of the fact that if the CCP were a
solvent (i.e., used for its solvent properties) and it was spent,
it may meet one of the spent solvent hazardous waste listings
found at 40 CFR Section 261.31 (Hazardous Waste Nos. F001 through
F005).
Finally, please be advised that States may have regulations
that are more stringent or broader-in-scope than those of the
Federal government. You should always check with the appropriate
state agency.
If you should have any further questions, please call the
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-424-9346.
Sincerely,
Devereaux Barnes
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/622C36CD88D449F3852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20460
November 4, 1994
The Honorable Tim Johnson
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Johnson:
Thank you for your letter of October 24, 1994 to Administrator Browner encouraging the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to adopt changes to current RCRA regulations regarding
university laboratories. Specifically, you urge EPA to exempt universities from regulations which require
that hazardous waste generators obtain EPA identification numbers for each site at which hazardous
waste is generated.
The regulations at 40 CFR 262.12 require generators who "treat, store, dispose of, transport,
or offer for transportation hazardous waste..." to have an EPA Identification number. Many colleges
and universities have asked for clarification on the issue of hazardous waste generator identification
numbers because the physical layouts of campuses can confuse the issue of how many identification
numbers are needed.
In 40 CFR 260.10, EPA defines "Individual Generation Site" as:
.. .the contiguous site at or on which one or more hazardous wastes are generated. An individual
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant, may have one or more source of hazardous
waste but is considered a single or individual generation site if the site or property is contiguous.
Many universities are divided by public roads or other right-of-ways that they do not control. If
the entry and exit between two parts of a campus are directly across from each other, or across the
junction of two crossroads, they are considered geographically contiguous. However, if a person must
travel along a public road to go from one part of a campus to another, the sites are considered non-
contagious.
A metropolitan campus may be constructed on a number of city blocks, creating a situation
where campus buildings are separated by city streets and it is necessary to travel along public streets to
go from one part of the campus to another. In these cases, each generation site (e.g., each city block or
each part of campus) must be assigned its own EPA identification number and hazardous wastes
-------
transported from one site to another must be accompanied by a manifest. This includes hazardous
waste transported from one campus building to another building where the buildings are divided by a
public street. This requirement was established to ensure that hazardous wastes transported along
public highways are properly described on a manifest so that they can be identified in the case of an
emergency.
In your example of South Dakota University, two streets run through the university and waste
from various parts of the campus are consolidated in one area. Because of the varying configurations of
colleges and universities, it is difficult to determine from your description whether waste would need to
be transported along public right-of-ways to reach a consolidation point in another section of the
campus. If the campus is divided by a road and waste does not need to travel along the road to reach
another portion of its campus, it may be considered an individual generation site.
Please be aware that states with authorized programs may impose more stringent requirements.
Generally, when questions are based on site-specific factors, the determination is best made by the
State or EPA Region implementing the RCRA program for a particular state.
We are aware that universities are interested in developing alternative ways of tracking waste
shipments that would also ensure the waste is safely managed, and are certainly willing to consider
proposals that would be most cost efficient while still protective. This type of new tracking system
would require changes to our regulations, and of course we would have to consider such changes in light
of our competing priorities.. If resources permit, the Agency will continue to analyze this issue to see if a
change in the regulations for non-contiguous sites is warranted.
We hope this information satisfies your concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Michael Shapiro, Director
Office of Solid Waste
FaxBack# 11884
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 12850
9441.1987(10)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
FEBRUARY 87
1. Small Quantity Generator Determination
A recycler regenerates listed spent solvent (F005) that he receives
from off-site. The recycler burns the still bottoms and a portion
of the reclaimed solvent on-site in an industrial furnace. He
sells the remaining reclaimed solvent to two companies: one that will
burn it as fuel and one that will use the solvent for its solvent
properties. How does the recycler count the still bottoms and
reclaimed solvent for the purpose of small quantity generator monthly
quantity determinations?
The recycler must include the still bottoms in his quantity
determinations because they are hazardous wastes generated on-
site and burned for energy recovery. As a hazardous waste
fuel, they are subject to 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart D. According
to 261.5(c), a generator must count wastes subject to Part 266
subpart D in his monthly quantity determination. The reclaimed
solvent fuels that are burned on-site and marketed off-site are
subject to Part 266 Subpart D and the counting requirements.
The only waste quantity that the recycler does not include in
his quantity determinations is the reclaimed solvent that will
be used for its solvent properties. 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2)(i)
exempts reclaimed materials that will be used beneficially from
regulation as waste as long as they are not burned for energy
recovery or used in a manner constituting disposal. Because
the reclaimed solvent will be used as solvent and not a fuel
or product applied to the land, it would not be included in the
monthly quantity determinations.
Source: Mike Petruska (202) 475-8551
Specialist: Jennifer Brock (202) 382-3112
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw\rcra.nsf/Documents/EOBBE2DE4EOC25D3852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 13247
9571.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JANUARY 89
1. Ore and Mineral Extraction, Beneficiation and Processing Exclusion
Applicability
The owner/operator of a taconite ore mining and processing facility uses
several different processes to increase the taconite ore's concentration.
These processes include a grinding and magnetic separation process that
constitutes beneficiation. This beneficiation process incorporates the use
of Whitmore grease for mechanical lubrication. The Whitmore grease is
removed once every ten years and is sent for disposal. Is this grease, which
exhibits the characteristic of EP toxicity, exempt from being a hazardous
waste pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.4 (b)(7)?
In the November 19, 1980 Federal Register (45 FR 76620), the EPA
promulgated regulations excluding solid waste from the extraction,
beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals from the definition
of hazardous waste. The preamble to this Federal Register stated this
exclusion applied to wastes produced in, and unique to the exploration,
mining, milling, smelting and refining of ores and minerals. The
exclusion did not apply to solid wastes, such as spent solvents,
pesticide wastes, and discarded commercial chemical products, that were
not unique to the mining and processing operations (45 FR 76619).
Since 1960, common mining and processing operations have included the
long-term application of Whitmore grease to heavily used machinery,
gears and other difficult to access equipment. However, Whitmore
grease is not limited to the mining industry, but can be used on any
industrial equipment where short term grease applications are limited
by difficult access and heavy use. Therefore, because the Whitmore
grease is not unique to mining operations, it is not excluded pursuant
to 40 CFR Section 261.4 (b)(7). The grease that can no longer be used
for its intended purpose and that is going for disposal would be a
solid waste pursuant to 40 CFR Section 261.1 (c)(l) and 40 CFR Section
261.2, respectively [see January 4, 1985 Federal Register (50 FR 663)].
This solid waste will be a hazardous waste if it meets a listing under
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW\rcra.nsf/Documents/B42E09BAE4B25783852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D or exhibits any characteristic under 40 CFR
Part 261 SupartC.
Source: Bob Hall (202) 475-8814
Research: Jace Cuje (202) 382-3000
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW\rcra.nsf/Documents/B42E09BAE4B25783852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbacklll82
9444.1986(20)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 29 1986
Mr. William L. Warren
Warren, Goldberg, Berman, and Lubitz
112 Nassau Street
P.O. Box 645
Princeton, New Jersey 08542
Dear Mr. Warren:
This is in response to your letter of August 26, 1986,
in which you request that EPA confirm that soil contaminated
with Chlordane, as a result of application of that pesticide
in the normal course of agricultural use, would not automatically
be considered a hazardous waste.
The pesticide Chlordane is a listed commercial chemical
product (U036; see 40 CFR 261.33(f)) that becomes a hazardous
waste when discarded or intended to be discarded. The Agency
did not intend to cover those cases when the chemical is
released into the environment as a result of use. (See, for
example, the enclosed memo regarding the regulatory status of
pesticide applicator washing rinse water.) In addition, 40 CFR
261.2(c)(l)(B)(ii) specifically states that commercial chemical
products listed in Section 261.33 are not solid wastes (and,
thus, not hazardous wastes) if they are applied to the land
and that is their ordinary manner of use. Therefore, the
contaminated soil would be treated as a hazardous waste (if
it is dug up) only if it exhibits one or more of the four
RCRA hazardous waste characteristics defined in 40 CFR 261.21
through 261.24.
Please feel free to contact Mr. Matthew A. Straus if you
have any further questions; Mr. Straus can be reached at (202)
475-8551.
Sincerely,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/F7379E8C7B979BF5852565DA006F0329 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Eileen B. Claussen
Director
Characterization and
Assessment Division
Enclosure
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/F7379E8C7B979BF5852565DA006F0329 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
FAXBACK 12732
COUNTING DRY CLEANING INDUSTRY WASTE ONLY AFTER REMOVAL FROM THE
PROCESS -SQG
RULE
9441.1986(67)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 8 1986
Re: File #15579
Honorable Frank H. Murkowski
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Murkowski:
Thank you for your August 8, 1986, letter on behalf of
your constituent, Mr. George Kelly, regarding the potential
impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regu-
lations on the dry-cleaning industry.
Unfortunately, the article which Mr. Kelly enclosed
provided an incorrect explanation of our Small Quantity
Generator (SQG) rule issued under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The RCRA rules actually require
dry cleaning hazardous wastes to be counted for purposes of
determining a dry cleaner's regulatory status only when
they are physically removed from the dry cleaning process
as wastes.
The two type of hazardous wastes typically generated
by dry cleaners are filter cartridges containing listed
spent solvents and still bottoms from solvent reclamation.
Under our counting rules, these wastes are only counted as
hazardous waste when they are removed from the dry cleaning
process for subsequent management, including accumulation,
transportation, treatment, or disposal. Under no circumstances
are these materials regulated under the hazardous waste
rules while they are in the dry cleaning machine.
The so-called single counting system referred to in
the article actually simplified the counting of hazardous
waste by eliminating the need to count the same waste more
than once in a calendar month. It is intended to apply to
regulated materials which are used and reused over and over
during a calendar month. However, this rule only comes
into play if the hazardous waste is subject to counting.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5F8D6CF72FA7266F852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
Since the solvents in the dry cleaning machine are not
considered to be solid or hazardous wastes while part of a
closed loop reclamation process (see 51 Federal Register
25422, July 14, 1986), they are not subject to counting
while in the dry cleaning machine. However, when the spent
solvents contained in filter cartridges are removed from
the dry cleaning machine, they are no longer exempt from
regulation. The still bottoms from solvent reclamation,
while solid and hazardous wastes, are not required to be
counted until they exit the unit and become subject to
substantive regulation (see 51 Federal Register 10152,
March 24, 1986 and 40 CFR 261.5(c)).
I trust that this explanation will clarify the confusion
that exists over the article that Mr. Kelly attached. For
additional information, I have enclosed a copy of a handbook
we have developed for small businesses to help them comply
with the new statutorily mandated regulations for small
quantity generators. Should Mr. Kelly have any additional
questions on the hazardous waste regulations, he should
feel free to contact Bob Axelrad, of my staff, at (202)
382-4761. If I can be of further assistance, please let me
know.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
Enclosure
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/5F8D6CF72FA7266F852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 11110
9433.1985(04)
OCT 23 1985
Mr. Ronald Panicucci
LAN Associate
662 Goffle Road
Hawthorne, New Jersey 07506
Dear Mr. Panicucci:
This is in response to your letter, dated September 25,
1985, concerning the liability of an industry once a waste
is delisted. In particular, your request clarification of
the generator's liability if a waste that is delisted and
disposed of in a non-hazardous waste landfill is, at some
point in the future, considered hazardous again.
In general, after a waste has been delisted, it is
no longer subject to the RCRA hazardous waste regulation.
However, the generator is still liable for any damage the
waste may cause and can be held responsible under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
or can be sued by any citizen for damage incurred. In
response to your concern over revoking a previous delisting
decision, if a delisting were revoked it would not effect
any waste that has already been disposed as non-hazardous,
since the waste was considered non-hazardous at the time of
disposal (i.e., you would not be required, under RCRA, to
dig up the waste). However, as indicated earlier, you still
may be held responsible under CERCLA if it is shown at your
waste contaminated the environment.
Should you have any further questions regarding this
matter, please contact Mr. James Poppiti at (202) 382-4788.
Sincerely yours,
Original Document signed
J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/7EF2E59B9FlD33AF852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 5
Faxbackll377
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE NO. 9574.00-1
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
NOV 1 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; Clarification of Issue Pertaining to Household
Hazardous Waste Collection Programs
FROM: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
TO: Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
As you know, the Agency enthusiastically supports
household hazardous waste (HHW) collection and management
programs. As part of this support, EPA has sponsored annual
HHW conferences since 1986. The first collection programs
began in 1981. As of October 1988, over 1300 collection
programs have been set up in 44 States and more programs are
being planned all the time. EPA believes these programs are
important because they: (1) promote citizen awareness
regarding proper handling of HHW; (2) reduce the amount of HHW
in the municipal solid waste stream which ultimately is
taken to municipal solid waste combustors or landfills; (3) limit
the amount of HHW which is dumped down a drain and ultimately
discharged to a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or is
dumped indiscriminately; (4) remove a greater amount of HHW
from the home, thereby reducing potential safety hazards; and
(5) help to reduce the risk of injuries to sanitation workers.
Several issues have been raised pertaining to HHW
collection programs. These issues include the liability of
collection program sponsors under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); EPA's
recommendations regarding the management of HHW; and the
regulatory status of HHW that contains dioxin.
-2-
This memorandum clarifies our position on these issues.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AE70DBOB64BA4586852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 5
You should note, however, that State positions may vary; the
State agency should be contacted for details on the State's
policies or regulations regarding HHW.
1. What does EPA recommend regarding management of HHW
collected in HHW collection programs?
As you know, all household wastes are exempt by
definition from the Federal hazardous waste regulations
promulgated under Subtitle C of RCRA. Section 261.4(b)(l)
unconditionally exempts household wastes, including HHW, from
the Subtitle C regulations even when accumulated in large
quantities. This exemption also applies to HHW collected
during a HHW collection program. However, when household
wastes are mixed with hazardous wastes from small quantity
generators, this resulting mixture is subject to the small
quantity generator rules in Section 261.5. For this reason,
sponsors of HHW collection programs should be careful to limit
the participation in their programs to households to avoid the
possibility of receiving regulated hazardous wastes from
commercial or industrial sources and triggering all or some of
the Subtitle C controls on this waste.
Household waste, including HHW, is subject to the
regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA. The current Subtitle D
regulations governing the disposal of any solid waste are the
"Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" (40 CFR Part 257). These
regulations are general environmental performance standards
that are implemented by the States. On August 30, 1988 (see
53 FR 33314) EPA proposed new rules for municipal solid waste
landfills at 40 CFR Part 258. HHW can legally be disposed in
any solid waste disposal facility, including a municipal solid
waste landfill, that is in compliance with the existing
"Criteria" and State and local requirements.
Although HHW is exempt from Federal RCRA Subtitle C
hazardous waste regulations, EPA recommends that sponsors of
HHW collection programs manage the collected HHW as a
hazardous waste. When a community has already gone to the
effort of expense of collecting these materials, Subtitle C
controls provide a greater level of environmental protection.
In selecting a management option, the Agency recommends that
program sponsors follow the waste management hierarchy of:
-3-
(1) Reusing and recycling as much waste as possible;
(2 Treating waste in a hazardous waste treatment
facility; and, finally,
(3) Disposing of remaining waste in a hazardous waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AE70DBOB64BA4586852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 5
landfill. 1
The Agency also recommends the use of licensed hazardous
waste transporters who will properly identify, label,
manifest, and transport the collected wastes for recycling,
treatment, or disposal. Although sponsors are not required to
manage HHW as a hazardous waste, it is clear from seeing the
programs in action, that, in fact, sponsors usually contract
with hazardous waste management professionals to run the
programs. These contractors generally manage the HHW as a
hazardous waste and usually make efforts to reuse and recycle
the waste.
2. What is the regulatory status of HHW that contains dioxin?
As stated above, HHW is unconditionally exempt from
Federal RCRA Subtitle C regulation. This exemption includes
HHW that contains dioxin, such as pesticides. Like any
household waste, HHW that contains dioxin must be disposed
of in accordance with EPA's rules under Subtitle D of
RCRA.
The RCRA land disposal restrictions rule issued
November 8, 1986, applies only to those dioxin-bearing
wastes that are specifically listed as hazardous wastes
under Subtitle C of RCRA. Therefore, this rule does not
apply to any HHW and does not prohibit hazardous waste land
disposal facilities from receiving any HHW, even those
potentially containing dioxin.2 Although dioxin-containing
HHW are exempt from EPA's land disposal restrictions rule,
we understand that, due to public perception concerns,
some Subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities
currently do not accept dioxin-bearing HHW. EPA will
explore options with State and local governments so that a
solution for this problem can be found. For example, we
are looking at ways to encourage the waste management
industry to reconsider their position and accept these
wastes. Some communities have chosen to temporarily
store this dioxin-bearing HHW until a more permanent
management option can be found. -
ITo the extent that non-hazardous liquids are not
containerized in accordance with Sections 40 CFR 264.314(d),
265.314(c), 2674.316, and 265.316, such liquids are subject to
the non-hazardous liquids restrictions set forth at Sections
264.314(e) and 265.314(f). Likewise, the land disposal restrictions do not
apply to
any other HHW.
-4-
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AE70DBOB64BA4586852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 5
3. What liability do HHW collection programs sponsors have
under Subtitle C of RCRA?
As stated above, Section 261.4(b)(10, exempts household
wastes, including, HHW, from the Federal Subtitle C
regulations. As a result, handlers of HHW are not potentially
liable under Subtitle C of RCRA for failure to follow the
regulations and are not required to manage collected HHW in
Subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities. As
previously mentioned, however, EPA recommends that this waste
be handled as a Subtitle C hazardous waste.
4. What liability do sponsors of HHW collection programs have
under CERCLA?
CERCLA does not contain an exclusion from liability for
household waste or an exclusion based on the amount of waste
generated. Any waste that qualifies as a hazardous substance
under CERCLA is subject to the liability provisions of Section
107. Hazardous substances are defined under Section 101(14)
and designated under Section 102(a) of CERCLA. HHW may
qualify as a "hazardous substance" if it contains any
substance listed in Table 302.4 of 40 CFR Part 302. If a
household waste contains a substance that is covered under
these CERCLA sections (whether or not it is a RCRA hazardous
waste), potential CERCLA liability exists.
Communities should recognize that potential liability
under CERCLA applies regardless of whether the HHW has picked
up as part of a community's routine waste collection service
and disposed of in a municipal waste landfill (RCRA Subtitle
D) or if the HHW was gathered as part of special collection
program and taken to a hazardous waste landfill (RCRA Subtitle
C). The additional safeguards provided by HHW collection and
Subtitle C management may reduce the likelihood of
environmental and human health impacts and, therefore, may
also reduce potential CERCLA liability.
I hope this information will assist you in addressing
questions regarding HHW collection and management programs.
We are providing copies of this memorandum to States and the
major waste management trade associations. I request that you
make this information available to any other interested
parties in your Region. If you require additional information
or clarification on these issues, please contact Allen Maples
of the Municipal Solid Waste Program at (202) 382-4683.
cc: State Solid and Hazardous Waste Directors
Bryan W. Dixon, ASTSWMO
Dana Duxbury, Consultant to Tufts University, CEM
William Forester, APWA
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AE70DBOB64BA4586852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 5
H. Lanier Hickman, GRCDA
Sheila Prindiville, NSWMA
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Subtitle D Coordinators, Regions I-X
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AE70DBOB64BA4586852565DA006F... 8/18/2004
-------
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIC
f WASHINGTON, DC. 204«0
-**-
Honorable Buddy Roemer
House of Representatives
Washington, *3.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Roemer:
you for your letter requesting information on the
toxicity and regulation of isobutane and butane Bastes. The
Agency has promulgated, regulations which address these chemicals
as wastes.
Isobutane and butane are hydrocarbon gases at normal
temperatures. When these chemicals are containerized and
1L «»«:•* M«*i, f.'ia containers meet the definition of solid waste
as outlined in 40 CFR 260.41 (solid liquid, semi-solid or
cont-iin-il j-*seous material). Isobutane and butane also
would meet the definition of an ignitable hazardous waste,
as defined in 40 CFR 261 .21 (a) (3) . If, however, the chemicals
are released from the container, they would volatilize and
would no longer meet the definition of solid waste. In
addition, 40 CFR 261.7 provides guidance on residues of
hazardous waste in empty containers. If residues of the
chemicals remain in an empty container, the chemicals are
not *-tV>j
-------
I would like to suggest that EPA staff meet with your staff
to discuss how to reconcile the RCRA rules as they apply to BATF
detonation activities. Rulemaking efforts may be required of
both agencies to resolve any inconsistencies, in order to
schedule a meeting that will be mutually convenient, please
contact Mike Petruska, of my staff, on 475-8551. we believe
that this meeting will provide the opportunity to discuss
several points including what rulemakings may have to be
undertaken by either agency, and what exemptions may be
possible.
If I can be of any further assistance-, please let me know.
-xSincerely,
, Winston Porter
jsistant Administrator
-------
,.NtOS£,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 1
1 CONGRESS STREET, SUITE 1100
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02114-2023
March 27, 2000
Mr. Thomas P. Balf
Nexus Environmental Partners
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
Dear Mr. Balf:
This letter is a reply to your February 4, 2000 and March 1, 2000 e-mails to Lisa Papetti of EP
New England's Office of Environmental Stewardship requesting interpretations of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. Your questions specifically relate to the
generation and transportation of hazardous waste at a campus location:
Question One
A university that is a large quantity generator (LQG) of hazardous waste has a remote location
that is a very small quantity generator (VSQG) of hazardous waste. Can the university send
RCRA and DOT trained university personnel to the remote facility and transport hazardous waste
back to the main accumulation area/LQG?
The federal regulations allow shipments of hazardous waste to entities "authorized to manage
hazardous waste" by authorized states. See 40 C.F.R § 261.5(f)(3)(iii) and (g)93)(iii).
The State of Vermont is authorized by EPA to implement regulations found at Vermont
Regulation Section 7-306(c)(2XD). This regulation allows a conditionally exempt small quantity
generator to ensure delivery of waste to another site in Vermont owned and operated by the same
owner as the conditionally exempt small quantity generator that meets the small quantity or large
quantity generator standards. Vermont's authorized regulations also allow a conditionally
exempt small quantity generator to transport his or her own waste without a permit as long as the
generator complies with Section 7-306(c)(3).
EPA is currently working with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA
DEP) and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH DBS) to authorize
similar regulations in those states.
Toll Free -1-888-372-7341
Internet Ad dress (U RL) http://www.epa.gov
Recycle/Recyclable Printed w ith Vegetable Oil B ased Inks on Re cycled Pa per (Minim urn 25 % Po stconsu mer)
-------
Mr. Thomas P. Balf
Page 2
March 27, 2000
Question Two
A private entity is conducting activities in a research building located on property that is
contiguous with that of a university/LQG and under the same EPA identification number. Can
the university send RCRA and DOT trained university staff to the private entity and transport
hazardous waste back to the main accumulation area/LQG? Are there different requirements if
the building is a non-university building? Are there different requirements if reimbursement is
provided for services?
Transportation of hazardous waste throughout a contiguous property is not required to be
accompanied by a manifest and 40 C.F.R § 263 transporter requirements do not apply. The
person who identifies themselves as the generator of the waste by use of an EPA identification
number also takes responsibility for management of hazardous waste from the time it is
generated on-site until it reaches its final destination. This responsibility includes any measures
taken to address releases, emergency coordinator duties and training. If a state has issued one
EPA identification number to the university and the private entity as a whole, the generator (in
this case, the university) remains fully responsible regardless of any business or other agreement
made by an entity located on the generator's property.
EPA allows states flexibility in issuance of EPA identification numbers, and some states issue
separate numbers to distinct entities at one location. You may want to check with the New
England states to clarify the issuance of EPA identification numbers in this scenario. Generators
with separate identification numbers are individually responsible for their waste.
If you have any further questions, please contact Lisa Papetti of EP New England's Office of
Environmental Stewardship at (617) 918-1756.
Sincerely,
Kevin Me Sweeney
Associate Director of Waste Policy
cc: K. Rota, EPA-OES D. Sattler, CT DEP
L. Papetti, EPA-OES L. Hellested, RI DEM
G. Gosbee, EPA-OEP S. Ladner, ME DEP
M. Hoagland, EPA-OSRR P. Marshall, VT DEC
J. Fowley, EPA-ORC
J. Miller, MA DEP
J. Duclos,NHDES
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbackll213
9441.1987(06)
JAN 27 1987
Paul P. Didier, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Dear Paul:
Thank you for your letter of December 9, 1986, requesting
an interpretation of 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iii), regarding the
regulatory status of listed wastes which were listed solely
because they exhibit a characteristic and whether they must
go through the delisting procedures of 260.22 in order to
become non-hazardous.
Your interpretation of the provision is largely correct.
The existing regulations do allow wastes which are listed in
Subpart D solely because they exhibit a characteristic of
hazardous waste identified in Subpart C to be mixed with
solid waste and become unregulated, provided that the resultant
mixture no longer exhibits any characteristic of hazardous
waste. The provisions of 260.22 notwithstanding,
261.3(a)(2)(iii) is, in essence, a form of self-implementing
delisting.
In the case of still bottoms produced from the distillation
of waste acetone (F003), those still bottoms would remain
hazardous waste unless mixed with another solid waste such
that the resultant mixture no longer exhibited a characteristic.
Such a mixture would not currently be required to go through
the delisting procedures. Despite the apparent contradiction,
however, this provision only applies to mixtures of solid
wastes and hazardous wastes. Thus, these still bottoms would
technically remain hazardous until formally delisted unless
they were mixed with a solid waste, even if the still bottoms
did not exhibit a characteristic of their own.
-2-
While the mixing of a solid waste and a hazardous waste
would technically meet the definition of treatment, you should
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/52C140FF5166E5AC852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
be aware that generators may perform treatment in their
accumulation tanks or containers without a permit provided
that it is performed strictly in accordance with 262.34.
The enclosed memorandum provides additional detail on this
policy interpretation.
It is also worth noting that we perceive a number of
problems with the mixture rule provision and are considering
proposing a change to the regulations. However, no such
proposal is likely in the near future due to other priorities.
I hope that this has been responsive to your request. If
we can be of any additional help on this issue, please do not
hesitate to contact Matt Straus, of my staff, on (202) 475-8851.
Sincerely,
Marcia Williams, Director
Office of Solid Waste
Enclosure
cc: Dave Stringham, Region V
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/52C140FF5166E5AC852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxback 11471
9441.1989(49)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SEP 28 1989
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Waste Identification for a Bottling Facility
FROM: Devereaux Barnes, Director
Characterization and Assessment Division
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch (2AWM-HWC)
This memorandum is in response to your memorandum dated
September 11, 1989, in which you requested waste identification
clarification on two issues concerning Fisher Scientific, Inc.
The first issue revolves around the containerizing of
commercial chemical products. The facility takes product in
bulk form and containerizes it in smaller vessels via a process
line. During the process, some residual material from
commercial chemical product number one (e.g., toluene) remains
in the process line after purging with pressurized nitrogen
gas. When the next bulk order is processed, which involves a
chemically different product (e.g., trichloroethylene)
commercial chemical product number one contaminates the first
few vessels of commercial chemical product number two. This
impure product is emptied into a common holding tank (i.e.,
becomes waste). You ask for the regulatory status of this
waste. This waste is an off-specification commercial chemical
product and as such is a listed hazardous waste. In the above
example, commercial chemical product number two clearly is not
used for its solvent properties and, because it is mixed with
commercial chemical product number one, the resulting mixture
would be correctly designated as an off-specification
commercial chemical product.
The second issue concerns characteristic waste (nitric
acid). The characterization of solid waste as hazardous is
dictated by the regulations under RCRA and appropriate State
regulations. The Department of Transportation regulations do
not overlap in this particular instance; thus it is correct to
state that 49 CFR Section 172.101 has no correlation to, and
does not supersede, 40 CFR Section 261.21. If the waste meets
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/F29AEC61D61C9F70852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
the description under Section 261.21, then the waste is
classified as Hazardous Waste No. D001; if the waste meets the
-2-
description under Section 261.22, then it is classified as
Hazardous Waste No. D002.
If you have any additional questions on these issues,
please feel free to contact Mr. Stephen Cochran of my staff at
FTS 382-4769.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/F29AEC61D61C9F70852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
February 4, 1986
Mr. Thomas J. Dufficy
Senior Counsel
National Association of
Photographic Manufactures, Inc.
600 Mamaroneck Avenue
Harrison, New York 10528
Dear Mr. Dufficy:
This in response to your letter dated January 16, 1986, concerning the regulatory status of photographic
films and papers under Subtitle C of RCRA. As you state in your letter, representative samples of high volume
sensitized products —unprocessed and processed Industrial Radiographic and Kodacolor VR 400 films—were
tested using the extraction procedure (EP) toxicity test; these films did not exhibit EP toxicity. The Radiographic
films, you state, have the highest silver coverage (i.e., approximately 49 troy ounces per 1000 ft2) and, thus,
represents the worst case. The Kodacolor VR 400 film is representative, you believe, of the amateur films
processed by photo finishers and also has the highest silver coverage of the amateur films (i.e., approximately 34
troy ounces per 1000 ft2). Based on this test data, you believe that used photographic films and papers are not
subject to the hazardous waste rules.
As you are aware, solid wastes are defined as hazardous under RCRA if they are listed or exhibit one or
more of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or EP toxicity). Since
photographic films and papers are not specifically listed, they would only be defined as hazardous if they exhibit
any of the hazardous waste characteristics. The test data provided in your letter appears to demonstrate that used
photographic films or papers are not EP toxic. I assume you have reached a similar determination that
photographic films and paper also are not ignitable, corrosive, or reactive. Based on these conclusions,
photographic films and paper, in and of themselves, do not appear to be hazardous under RCRA and therefore,
are not subject to the EPA hazardous waste management regulations
Under 40 C.F.R. §261 (e.g, photographic films and papers being shipped for recovery of silver are not
subject to regulation). \l You should be aware, however, that although this data appears to support your claim
that photographic films and paper are not hazardous, each generator is still responsible for making this
determination. Moreover, wastes not hazardous under EPA regulations may be hazardous under authorized State
programs. Requirements of authorized programs that are more stringent that EPA requirements are federally
enforceable.
-------
Faxbacklll27
Please feel free to give me a call if I can be of any further assistance; my telephone number is (202) 475-
8551.
Sincerely yours,
Matthew A. Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch (WH-562B)
I/ In your letter, you indicate that photographic films and papers would not be considered a spent material since they are
not contaminated through use. I do not agree with this interpretation of the rules (i.e., used photographic films and paper
would be defined as a spent material); however, since these materials are not hazardous under RCRA, this point is moot.
-------
Page 1 of 5
Faxback 11364
9444.1988(14)
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
AUG26 1988
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance for Secondary Lead Smelter Variances
FROM: Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
TO: Waste Management
Division Directors, Regions I-X
This memorandum provides guidance to assist you in handling
variance requests you may receive from secondary lead smelters.
Owners and operators of secondary lead smelters are likely to
request variances from being classified as a solid waste for
their lead plates and groups that are stored in storage piles.
More detailed information is included in the attached report
from Midwest Research Institute. Questions in this area should
be addressed to Filomena Chau or Mike Petruska at FTS 382-4795
or 475-8551.
A. General.
Section 260.30(c) provides that the Regional Administrator
may grant a variance from classification as a solid waste for
those materials that have been reclaimed but must be reclaimed
further before recovery is completed if, after initial
reclamation, the resulting material is "commodity-like." This
determination is to be based on five factors specified at
Section 260.3 l(c)(l)-(5), and "other relevant factors"
(pararaph (c)(6)).
Secondary lead smelters reclaim lead from spent lead acid
batteries (a characteristic hazardous waste). An intermediate
step in this reclamation process is the breaking and component
separation of batteries, which results in partially-reclaimed
lead-bearing material known as "plates" and "groups." These
materials may be stored in piles and subsequently fed to blast
or reverberatory furnaces for re-smelting. Under certain
conditions, these plates and groups may meet the criteria in
Section 260.3 l(c) and, therefore, would not be a solid or
hazardous waste.
In some instances, the granting of a variance for plates and
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/06272F147E3F2469852565DA006F0410 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 5
groups could lead to a smelter becoming exempt from the need to
comply with the interim status requirements or obtain a permit.
For example, if a smelter can set up an operation where incoming
batteries are introduced directly into the recycling operation
without prior storage, and where emission control dust (K069) is
recycled either without storage or stored under Section 262.34,
the smelter would have no activities subject to permitting
(absent the plate and group storage pile).
B. Factors 1-4.
After analysis of a considerable body of information, OSW
has determined that secondary lead smelters on a national (or
"generic") basis meet the criteria of Section 260.3 l(c)()-(4).
The basis for this determination is summarized below. (For more
details, see the attached draft report from Midwest Research
Institute (MRI).)
The first factor (paragraph (c)(l)) is the degree of
processing a material has undergone and the degree of
further processing that is required (for the resulting
material to be "commodity-like"). Available
information indicates that the battery-breaking and
component separation steps can be labor-intensive and
often represent a significant percentage of the
resources required to recycle a battery; we would view
these steps, then, to account for a substantial amount
of processing.
The second factor (paragraph (c)(2)) is the value of
the material after initial reclamation. We have
determined that plates and groups do have significant
market value, i.e., prices for plates and groups are
listed in industry publications, and until recently
smelters have purchased large amounts of plates and
groups from independent battery breakers.
The third factor (paragraph (c)(3)) is the degree to
which the reclaimed material is like an analagous raw
material. We have determined that plates and groups
are similar to galena ore in terms of lead
concentration, and based on available data do not
contain significant amounts of hazardous constituents
not found in galena. (Arsenic concentrations do appear
to be slightly higher in the plates and groups, but we
note that small amounts of arsenic are viewed as
desirable in secondary lead smelting as an alloying
metal; therefore, our determination is that
the slightly higher arsenic concentrations in lead
plates and groups do not change the conclusion that it
is substantially comparable in composition to galena
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/06272F147E3F2469852565DA006F0410 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 5
ore.)
The fourth factor (paragraph (c)(4)) is the extent to
which an end market for the reclaimed material is
guaranteed. Typically, secondary lead smelters break
and separate batteries at the smelter site. This
arrangement provides an end market for the partially
reclaimed material because it is unlikely a smelter
would close without processing remaining plates and
groups. We do not, however, reach such a conclusion
for independent battery breakers. The end market value
for their broken batteries is heavily dependent on lead
prices, and has been very insecure for the past several
years.
C. Storage and Handling Practices.
Section 260.31(c)(5) identifies as a factor, "the
extent to which the reclaimed material is handled to minimize
loss." OSW reviewed information on plate and group storage and
handling practices at most secondary lead smelters in the U.S.
We are unable to reach any conclusions on a national basis for
this industry because the available information indicates a wide
variation in practices (i.e., some smelters store the lead
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes loss while others
do not). Each smelter facility will have to be evaluated
individually to determine if the standard in paragraph (c)(5) is
achieved. Factors that Regional (or State) personnel may want
to consider include:
Whether the storage pile is under a roof;
Whether the pile is on an impervious base, e.g., coated
concrete;
Whether the runoff controls are in place, e.g., retaining
walls, drainage collections, etc.;
Whether wind dispersion controls, e.g., sprinklers,
vents, etc., are in place.
Plate and group piles may be evaluated in a manner similar to
those hazardous waste piles considered for the limited exemption
under 40 CFR Section 264.250(c), which calls for consideration
of these same sorts of factors.
Also relevant is a comparison of storage and handling
practices at the secondary lead smelters to handling practices
employed by primary lead smelters for galena ore. Available
information indicates that galena ore is always stored under
cover, but galena storage areas are not always totally
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/06272F147E3F2469852565DA006F0410 8/18/2004
-------
Page 4 of 5
enclosed. Therefore, some outdoor plate and group storage areas
may meet the paragraph (c)(5) factor without being enclosed in a
building, but a plate and group pile without any cover would
appear much less likely to satisfy the "minimize loss"
criterion.
Finally, while concrete pads are the norm for plate and
group storage areas, typically the top layers of these pads
(which may be an asphalt liner_ become damaged by the acid
remaining on the plates and groups, and by front-end loader
traffic and, therefore, have to be periodically replaced.
Normal maintenance of a plate and group pad includes periodic
replacement of the top (i.e., "sacrificial") layers. Therefore,
part of the paragraph (c)(5) evaluation should include a review
of the smelter's pad replacement schedule. Consideration should
be given to requirements for coating and concrete pads with an
acid resistent material.
In summary, a plate and group pile that is stored under
cover, where run off and wind disposal is controlled, and where
pad replacement prevents soil contamination, would appear to
meet the paragraph (c)(5) "minimize loss" criterion.
D. Other Relevant Factors.
Under Section 260.31(c)(6), the Regional Administrator
may consider other relevant factors in the determination of
whether to grant the variance. These factors may be raised by
the petitioner, the Agency, or other interested parties. As OSW
has evaluated information on secondary lead smelters, the
following additional factors have been raised as potential
concerns. Although these factors may not be directly applicable
to the Regional Administrator's decision to grant a variance,
they may be relevant in, for example, assigning priorities to
evaluate a facility's petition.
1. Economics of battery recycling. Recent EPA studies
indicate that national battery recycling rates, while apparently
stable at this time, have experienced a long term decline over
the past 30 years. The result is that more batteries are
disposed of, often in municipal landfills. In addition, loss of
recycling capacity (i.e., smelter closures) has placed
generators in some regions (e.g., the Pacific northwest) in the
position where they must transport batteries long distances to
recycle. This obviously adversely affects recycling rates.
Environmental compliance costs may be a major component of a
secondary smelter's capital and operating expenses. The next
few years may be critical for many of these smelters, as they
face the choice of full RCRA compliance and permitting versus
facility closure. Prompt processing of variance petitions may
allow well-run operations, for example, to expand operations
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/06272F147E3F2469852565DA006F0410 8/18/2004
-------
Page 5 of 5
without the need for a permit modification (or perhaps without a
permit at all), and thereby maintain or increase regional
recycling rates, even if other facilities close.
2. Corrective action. Facilities in the secondary lead
smelting industry have had problems in the past and some are
currently involved in clean-up activities. One implication of
granting a variance is that certain facilities, as noted above,
may become exempt from permitting and interim status
requirements an, therefore, the corrective action provisions of
RCRA Section 3004(u) and 3008(h) would no longer apply (CERCLA
Section 106 and RCRA Section 7003 actions would not be affected
by granting the variance.) The Regional Administrator may want
to consider the need for clean-up at a site under paragraph
(c)(6), or at least in the timing of when a variance is
granted. For example, final granting of a variance could be
considered as part of clean-up action at the facility.
In summary, disposal of spent lead-acid batteries is
becoming a serious national problem. One means to increase
battery recycling rates is to exclude plate and group storage
piles at those secondary lead smelter facilities that meet the
Section 260.31(c) criteria from classification as solid waste.
If a secondary lead smelter facility stores and handles its
plates and groups in a manner that minimizes losses and
otherwise runs a sound operation (as evidenced by, for example,
clean-up of past releases), OSW would deem it appropriate and
certainly consistent with national policy for the Regional
Administrator to grant the solid waste variance.
Attachment
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/06272F147E3F2469852565DA006F0410 8/18/2004
-------
Fage 1 ot 1
Faxback 13335
9444.1989(14)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE SUMMARY
NOVEMBER 1989
3. 40 CFR Section 261.33: Spills of Commercial Chemical Products
Any residues or contaminated soils, waters or other debris"...resulting from
the cleanup of a spill into or on any land or water of any commercial
chemical product or manufacturing chemical intermediate having the generic
name listed in paragraph (e) or (f)..." of Section 261.33 are hazardous
wastes if and when they are intended to be discarded. (40 CFR 261.33(d))
Does 40 CFR 261.33 only apply to spills "into or on any land or water," or
are other types of spills covered (i.e., debris that result from a cleanup of
a spill wholly contained within a building)?
In the November 25, 1980 Federal Register EPA states that the purpose
of 40 CFR Section 261.33 is to regulate the listed chemical products
(and spill residues thereof) as hazardous wastes when they are
discarded or intended to be discarded. (45 FR 78540) Although not
specifically stated in Section 261.33(d), EPA intends that this section
apply to all spill residues, regardless of where the spill occurs. The
scope of this regulation includes not only spills on land or into
water, but also other types of spills.
Source: Ron Josephson, OSW (202) 475-6715
Research: Sean White
-------
9441.1986(64)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 86
6. SQG Quantity Determinations
The new small quantity generator (SQG) regulations, effective
Septarber 22, 1986, establish standards under 40 CFR 261. 5(c)
and (d) for counting hazardous waste generated on a monthly
basis. 40 CFR 261.5(d)(3) states that an SQG need not include
spent materials that have been reclaijned and
S^S^L?" q*ra^ *<«»*«*». prcvidey
been counted once. The regulation does not specify,
whether this allc^nce applies only within a^Sh
"*
** ****>!*• if an SQG oomts and
a solvent on-site in October and uses it again in
, must the SQG include the spent solvent in^
quantity determination for November?
Yes; the SQG must include the reused material in the quantity
determination for the subsequent ronth, assuming that itbec
l
All
JiL^S^19 °CC?rS ^ * 1R^-to-n«th basis, so the "multiple
costing exemption only applies within one month. Therefore,
a SQG would only count a material once if the SQG reclaims and
reuses it more than once within one month, in addition, the SQG
8^r2J!02-?ie ana*nce *« 40 CFR 261.5(c) (51 PR 10174) which
excludes fron monthly counting wastes that are suBJect only to
waste identification. RCRA §3010 notification. reeoWepinVand
ltS^J*??rt rec*ui«n«Ks. Tne SQG must count wastes that are
5?*^ of Part 262 traanifesting, on-site accunulation,
•6(b) or (c), or Part 266 Subparts C, D, or F.
Source: Bob Axelrad (202) 382-4769
Research: Jennifer Brock
-------
Page 1 of2
Faxbacklll54
9443.1986(11)
MAY 12 1986
Mr. William R. Blackburn
Travenol Laboratories, Inc.
Deerfield, Illinois 60015
Dear Mr. Blackburn:
This is in response to the letters you have submitted
to the Agency in which you raise a number of questions for
our consideration. First, let me apologize for the time it
has taken to respond to your letters; I hop this has not
created any problems for you. You first request that we
confirm that the deionization (DI) acid that is generated
at Travenol's plant in Cleveland, Mississippi is not a
waste. Based on the information provided, I/ we agree with
you that the DI acid is not a waste, and therefore, is not
subject to the Federal hazardous waste, rules, In particular,
before a material can be a hazardous waste, on must first
determine whether the material is a solid waste. In general,
corrosive materials that are neutralized are normally considered
wastes. However, where such corrosive materials can be
shown to: (1) meet relevant specs with regard to contamination
levels, (2) be as effective as the virgin material for which
they substitute, and (3) be used under controlled conditions,
we believe such materials may not be wastes. The information
provided in your letters clearly indicate that the DI acid
generated at your Cleveland plant is beneficially reused and,
therefore, is not a waste. As a result, this material is
not subject to Federal hazardous waste rules. This
material would be subject, however, to any State regulations.
With respect to your request regarding the exclusion
and whether it applies retroactively under the old regulations,
we believe that since the DI acid has always been beneficially
I/ See letters dated: November 14, 1985, from William R.
Blackburn to Jack Lehman; December 5, 1985, rom Michael Smith
to Robert Tonetti; January 13, 1986, from Michael Smith
to Matthew Straus; February 6, 1985, from William R. Blackburn
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AlCD239FE7A71157852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of2
to Matthew Straus; and April 17, 1986, from Michael Smith
to Matthew A. Straus.
-2-
recycled and since this acid is neither listed nor a sludge,
this material is not now (and has never been) subject to
regulation. Therefore, Travenol does not need to go through
closure for this impoundment; we have discussed this inter-
pretation with our Office of General Counsel and they agree.
Finally, you requested written explanation as to why no
hazardous waste permit is required to dispose of the alcohol
to the drain; a verbal response was provided to you by
Ms. Irene Horner. A written response, however, has been
prepared and should be sent to you shortly.
Please feel free to give me a call if you have any
further questions.
Sincerely,
Original Document signed
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/AlCD239FE7A71157852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20480
JUN ' 6 BS8 .
SOLID WASTE AND EMEBGENO'
}
James K. Petros
Union Carbide Corporation
39 Old Ridgebury Road
Danbury, CT 06817-0001
Dear Mr. Petros:
This is in response to your letter of March 3, 1987,* in
which you requested clarification of the domestic sewage
exclusion (DSE) which is set forth at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(1). in
particular, you requested clarification on the following issues:
o Does the DSE apply to mixtures of industrial waste and
sanitary waste generated at a facility?
o Must the sewer line in which mixing occurs be owned by the
POTW for the DSE to apply?
o Does the DSE apply when mixing occurs within the property
boundary of the POTW?
In the preamble to the May 19, 1980 regulations, EPA set
forth the rationale for the DSE. The exclusion states that a
mixture of domestic waste with industrial waste is covered by
the exclusion. The exclusion is not based on health or
environmental considerations but rather congressional intent.
The rationale for the exclusion was that mixed waste streams
that pass through sever systems to POTWs will be subject to
controls under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Agency's
pretreatment program provides a regulatory basis for EPA and
local communities to control the introduction of wastes into
sewage treatment systems that may present environmental
problems.
While the letter vas dated March 3, 1987, we assume you
meant March 3, 1988, since we did not receive the letter
until March of 1988.
-------
- 2 -
You asked for clarification on whether the DSE applies to
mixtures of industrial waste and sanitary waste generated at an
industrial facility. The answer is no; the DSE applies only
when an industrial waste enters the public sewer system in which
it will be mixed with untreated sanitary waste generated from a
non-industrial source (i.e., sewage from a domestic source). .A
discharge from an industrial facility, even when it is mixed
with sanitary waste is still an industrial discharge. The sewer
line in which mixing occurs must be publicly owned in order for
the DSE to apply.
In order to qualify for the exclusion, the 1980 preamble
states that mixing must occur prior to treatment and storage at
the POTW. The POTW boundary is a reasonable interpretation of
when treatment and storage commences. In the July 15, 1985
final rule (50 FR 28702) which codified the Hazardous and Solid
Wastes Amendments (HSWA), EPA distinguished between those POTW»s
requiring a RCRA permit by rule and those for which none is
required. As stated in the rule, a RCRA permit is required for
hazardous wastes which arrive at a POTW by truclc, rail, or pipe
that do not carry domestic sewage. Implicit in this definition
is that a pipe from an industrial user, when connected inside
the POTW property boundary is a dedicated pipe and the POTW
would therefore require a RCRA permit if the waste is hazardous.
I believe this answers all of your questions. Any further
questions on this issue should be directed to Paul Connor in the
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits at 475-7718.
Sincerely,
Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director
Office of Solid Waste
-------
9441.1953,30}
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
JUNE 88
3. Household Hazardous Waste
As a part of a consent decree, a firm which caused a plume of ground-water
contaminated with RCRA listed waste, is required to install carbon filters in
all affected homes with water wells. When the firm returns to change these
filters, they wish to collect and ship them for regeneration. Will these filters
be covered by the household hazardous waste exclusion in Section 261.4(b)(l)?
Yes, Section 261.4(b)(l) defines "household waste" as any material derived
from households. Since the carbon filter was installed in a home, it is
household waste when removed. There is no significant difference
between filters installed by the firm and ones installed by a homeowner on
his own initiative. The household hazardous waste exclusion would
apply to the filters when they are sent for regeneration.
Source: Carrie Wehling (202) 382-7706
Research: Randall Eicher
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxback 13622
9444.1993(05)
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
September 1993
RCRA
1. Nitroglycerin Pills as Commercial Chemical Products
A pharmaceutical company manufactures pills that contain a low
percentage of nitroglycerine, with inert ingredients making up the
remainder of the content. The manufacturer must throw away a batch
of pills that has exceeded its shelf life. When discarded, are the
pills a hazardous waste? If so, what waste code would apply?
The pills discarded by the manufacturer are a hazardous waste
with the waste code P081. Several hundred commercial chemical
products are listed in 40 CRF 261.33(e) and (f). Nitroglycerine
is listed in 261.33(f) with the waste code PO81. The Comment in
261.33(d) defines the term "commercial chemical product" as unused
chemicals that are either (1) pure or technical grades, or (2)
formulations that contain the listed chemical as the only active
ingredient. The P- and U- listings apply to such unused
formulations of commercial chemical products regardless of the
concentration of the sole active ingredient; except for the
listings for warfarin and salts (P001 and U248) and zinc phosphide
(P122 and U249), there is no critical percentage or cut-off
concentration of the sole active ingredient that will cause a waste
to fall within, or be excluded from, the listing. In this example,
the pills constitute a formulation containing nitroglycerine as the
sole active ingredient. Since the pills have not been used for
their intended purpose (simply incorporating the nitroglycerine
into the formulation does not constitute use), and nitroglycerine
is the only component serving the function of the product (i.e., as
medicine), the discarded pills are appropriately classified as
hazardous waste PO81.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/5E4FlDOB3791ACBF852565DA006F08... 8/19/2004
-------
Page 1 of 1
Faxbackl3311
9432.1989(01)
RCRA/SUPERFUND HOTLINE MONTHLY SUMMARY
AUGUST 89
3. Clarification of Electroplating Listings
The background document which supported the listing of F006 initially
included electroless plating within the scope of the definition of
electroplating. However, the December 2, 1986 Federal Register (54 FR 43351)
clarified EPA's interpretation of the definition of electroplating as it
pertained to the F006 listing. The clarification states that electroless
plating was not considered an electroplating process. Would electroless
plating baths which contain small concentrations of cyanide meet the FOOT
listing when disposed?
No. Although the December 2, 1986, clarification was written
specifically for the F006 listing, the definition of electroplating may
be applied analogously to the FOOT, F008 and F009 listings. Therefore,
plating bath solutions from electroless plating operations will not
meet the FOOT listing when disposed. The bath would be regulated,
however, if it exhibited one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous waste.
Source: David Topping (202) 382-7737
Research: Kent Morey
http://yosemite.epa.gov/osw/rcra.nsf/Documents/651B9B4309E33BD2852565DA006F06E9 8/18/2004
-------
AUG I T
Joseph E. Micticci, D.D.S.
Bellevue Medical Building
660 Lincoln Avenue
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15202
Dear Dr. Micucci:
This letter responds to your July 30, 1989, request for
information regarding the regulatory status of scrap dental
amalgam under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and potential liability under section 107 of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA). These issues will be addressed separately.
Dental amalgam is not specifically listed as a hazardous
waste under RCRA. The burden on the generator is to then
determine whether the amalgam exhibits a characteristic of a
hazardous waste. You indicated in your letter that the American
Dental Association (ADA) has conducted research that indicates
that amalgam does not exhibit the characteristic of EP
toxicity. If true, the amalgam would not be a hazardous waste.
However, the responsibility for determining the regulatory
status of a waste is borne by the individual generator (who may
cite the ADA research as applying knowledge of his waste in
determining the regulatory status).
You also state that your collections of amalgam for
recycling or refining are not expected to exceed 100 kg per
month. A generator (in thi» case, the dentist or dental supply
house) of less than 100 kg per month of total hazardous waste
(not any one particular hazardous waste) or 1 kg per month of
acute hazardous waste is considered a conditionally exempt small
quantity generator. The wastes generated by such a generator is
exempt from regulation provided the generator complies with the
provisions found at 40 CFR 261.5. If, however, the amalgam is
not a hazardous vasts, this exempt status would not apply since
there would b« no need for the exemption.
RegardijJM your potential liability under section 107 of
CERCLA, thjpliability is not dependent upon a material's RCRA
regulatory status. Rather, section 107 states that in the event
of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance,
any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for
disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for
transport for disposal or treatment of hazardous substances
owned or possessed by such person shall be liable for the costs.
of response. This liability is based upon a person's
EPA PMB 13204 03-70)
OFFICIAL FILE COP
-------
- 2 -
contribu
subi
are certa
CERCLA a
constitue:
the release or threatened release of hazardous
necessarily "wastes,1* although hazardous wastes
included) as defined under section 101(14) of the
_ Should your dental amalgam be composed of any
that meet the definition of CERCLA hazardous
substances, and there is a release from the reclamation facility
(or disposal facility) that received your amalgam, you may be
subject to joint and several liability in an enforcement
action. However, each enforcement action is case-specific and
liability would be determined by the implementing agency in
coordination with the principle responsible parties.
The regulatory status of amalgam provided in this letter
applies to Federal regulations. State regulations may be more
stringent, and I encourage you to contact your State regulatory
agency for an interpretation of the applicable State
regulations. Should you have any further questions regarding
the status or CERCIA liability of your scrap amalgam, you may
contact the RCRA/CERCLA Hotline at 1-800-424-9346, or may
contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at (202) 475-8551.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Petruska
Acting Chief
Waste Characterization Branch
!!i!!!!!l 1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
6s-332-MiTCH-PDISK-MK-8/16/89-WCB023
i i i i t t i i i i i t i >
TMOU }
JUKNAMC}
OATC \
IPA Pw» 1
aaw da-re)
eoMCtntatMC
M
••*••»** ••*•*•**•
• ••••<
OMICUl PILE <
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK 12810
PPC 9444.1986(28)
SPENT FLUIDIZED BED MEDIA AND CHANGES UNDER
INTERIM STATUS
December 5, 1986
Mr. Eliot Cooper
Director of Environmental Affairs
Waste-Tech Services, Inc.
18400 W. 10th Avenue
Golden, CO 80401
Dear Mr. Cooper:
Thank you for your letter of November 17, 1986, in which you
request clarification of the regulatory status of spent fluidized
bed media used during the destruction of listed hazardous waste
as well as clarification of facility changes allowed under
interim status.
Under the RCRA regulations, spent fluidized bed media would
not be considered to be a hazardous waste via application of 40
CFR 261.33(d) since the spent media would not be considered to
have been derived from the treatment of a hazardous waste. In
addition, the mixture rule in 40 CFR 261.3(a)(2)(iv) does not
apply since the fluidized bed media is not a solid waste at the
time it becomes mixed with a hazardous waste. Nevertheless,
spent fluidized bed media contaminated with a listed hazardous
waste (or, in this case, a waste derived from a listed hazardous
waste) would still be subject to regulation since it contains a
hazardous waste. See 261.3(c)(a) and (d)(2). Therefore, the
treatment, storage, or disposal of spent fluidized bed media
contaminated with hazardous waste must be handled as if the
fluidized bed media itself were a hazardous waste. However, if
the fluidized bed media, as a result of the incineration process
or as result of other treatment, no longer contains a hazardous
waste, it would no longer be subject to regulation under Subtitle
C of RCRA. In this case, no delisting petition would be
required.
Your second question concerns whether an interim status
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4E56539165ClE58B852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
facility may add a new incinerator if the facility currently does
not have an incineration process. The answer is yes, provided
that the conditions specified in 40 CFR 270.72 are met. Under
270.72(c), owners or operators wishing to make any changes in or
additions to the processes of treatment, storage, or disposal at
an interim status facility are required to submit a revised Part
A and a justification for the change to the regulating agency for
approval. EPA or an authorized State may approve these changes
only when they are necessary to prevent a threat to human health
and the environment due to an emergency situation, or when they
are necessary to comply with Federal regulations (including the
-2-
interim status standards of 40 CFR Part 265) or State or local
laws. This provision does not preclude the addition of a
completely new process (e.g., incineration) at an interim status
facility that currently does not have such a process.
It should be noted, however, that 270.72(e) limits the
scope of any changes that take place at interim status facilities
by prohibiting changes that require a capital expenditure greater
the 50% of capital cost for the construction of a comparable
entirely new hazardous waste management facility. Therefore,
this provision (known as the "reconstruction" limit) may restrict
the extent of a change even if the addition of a new process is
allowed under 270.72(c).
The above response to your two questions describes the
operation of the Federal RCRA program for the situations you
outlined in your letter. However, 42 States now have final
authorization to operate the RCRA program in lieu of EPA. Some
State requirements may be more stringent or more restrictive than
the Federal program in these two areas. If you have specific
concerns regarding your operation in Colorado, I recommend that
you contact Mary Gearhart in the Colorado Department of Health
(303-331-4830) since the State has RCRA authorization.
If you have any further questions on the Federal RCRA
requirements, please feel free to contact Larry Wapensky in EPA's
Region VIII office in Denver (303-293-1660).
Sincerely,
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4E56539165ClE58B852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
Marcia E. Williams
Director
Office of Solid Waste
cc: Larry Wapensky, EPA Region VIII
Mary Gearhart, Colorado Department of Health
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/4E56539165ClE58B852565DA006F02... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 1 of 3
FAXBACK 12320
PPC 9433.1984(03)
SPENT PICKLE LIQUOR GENERATED FROM PORCELAIN ENAMEL INDUSTRY, DELISTING
OF
10-23-84
Mr. John C. Oliver
Porcelain Enamel Institute, Inc.
1911 North Fort Myer Drive
Arlington, Virginia 22209
Dear John:
As we have discussed previously, the Agency considers
its July 27 interpretation (see enclosure) of the spent pickle
liquor listing to be the correct reading of the hazardous waste
regulations. Therefore, the spent pickle liquor (as well as
any sludge generated from the treatment of the spent pickle
liquor) that is generated from the procelain enamel industry
is considered to be a listed hazardous waste-namely, EPA
Hazardous Waste No. K062. In order for the industry to
change the regulatory status of this waste, they will need to
submit an industry-wide rulemaking petition. I/ At your
request, we have made a preliminary assessment of the number
of plants to be sampled and the specific toxicants that
would need to be evaluated to support an industry-wide exclusion
petition for the Procelain Enameling Category. In addition,
the petition should address the requirements cited in 40 CFR
260.20. We would not view an industry-wide petition as
applying to plants that are integrated with electroplating
operations and generating wastes covered by the F006-F009
listings. Wastes of this type would have to be evaluated
independently.
We estimate that in order to obtain a 95% degree of
confidence that you have a representative sample of the
industry you will need to sample 20 integrated and 5 non-
integrated facilities. (If most integrated procelain enameling
plants are integrated with electroplating operations under
the circumstances described above, then we would accept
sample from a lesser number of integrated facilities, since
I/ Of course, any person may submit a site-specific delisting
petition pursuant to 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22.
the petition would not be addressing porcelain enamel plants
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/A122851DB7BC4449852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 2 of 3
that are integrated wth electroplating operations.) These
figures were determined using an approximate sampling rule
developed by OSHA. This type of sampling approach has been
successfully used in the past by the Institute for Scrap
Iron and Steel in a similar study for EPA. The actual number
of samples which should be analyzed cannot be identified as
precisely. However, a sufficient number of samples should
be taken from each facility which would represent the variable
nature of the waste. In this regard, composited samples
representing any variability in raw materials or process
would be the best approach in minimizing the overall analytical
burden.
Sample analysis should include determination of a limited
number of both inorganic and organic constituents and tests
for the four hazardous waste characteristics (i.e., ignitability;
corrosivity, reactivity, and Extraction Procedure (EP) toxicity).
The specific constituents that should be analyzed for in the
wastes are as follows:
Category Constituent II
Inorganic Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cadmium
Selenium
Category Constituent
Organic Carbon tetrachloride
Chi or ethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
1 -dichloroethylene
trans 1,2-dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1.2-dichloropropane
1.3-dichloropropylene
Tetra chloroehtanes
Tetrachloroethylene
II The metals should be analyzed using the Extraction Procedure
(EP) toxicity test and for their total metal content.
Tri chl oropropane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Benzene
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/A122851DB7BC4449852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
-------
Page 3 of 3
Ethyl Benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
The organic constituents were selected due to the likelihood
that both halogenated and non-halogenated solvents are used
at integrated facilities, and that these facilities are going
painting operations. However, if you have information which
would indicate that some of these toxicants are not expected
to be in the waste from integrated facilities, we will consider
this information to determine whether analysis for these
contaminants is necessary. We will require that all these
contaminants (i.e., organic and inorganic toxicants) be
analyzed for at the 20 integrated facilities; however, since
the non-integrated facilities are not expected to contain
significant levels of organics, we will only require that
two of the five non-integrated facilities be analyzed for
the organics. All five non-integrated facilities should be
analyzed for the inorganic contaminants. Test methods for
these constituents are provided in the Methods Manual "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste " SW-846.
We believe it is in the industry's best interest to
proceed with a deli sting, whether or not it pursues the
pending litigation. EPA will expedite processing of the
petition no matter how the litigation is proceeding. If you
decide to move forward with an industry-wide petition and
need specific information on sampling and analysis methods,
please call Jim Poppiti at (202) 382-4690.
Sincerely,
Matthew Straus, Chief
Waste Identification Branch
WH-562B/JPOPPITI/pes/475-8551/10-23-84/DiskJP840120
http://yosemite.epa.gov/OSW/rcra.nsf/Documents/A122851DB7BC4449852565DA006FO... 8/18/2004
------- |