EPA RCRA DELISTING PROGRAM
GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR THE PETITIONER
PRO^°
March 23, 2000
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO REGION 6 DELISTING 1
1.1 Purpose of EPA Delisting Guidance 1
1.2 Use of the EPA Delisting Guidance 1
1.3 Availability of Additional Guidance 1
1.4 Delisting Guidance Manual Organization 2
SECTION 2: EPA DELISTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW 5
2.1 Regulatory Basis and Intent of Delisting 5
2.2 Regulatory Impact of a Delisting Decision 7
2.3 Petition Information 9
SECTION 3: FRAMEWORK FOR DELISTING PETITIONS 15
SECTION 4: WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 17
4.1 Basis for Waste Listing 17
4.2 History of Waste Generation 18
4.3 Waste Volume 18
4.4 Waste Management History 19
SECTION 5: WASTE PROCESS INFORMATION 20
5.1 General Information 20
5.2 Special Information 23
SECTION 6: DELISTING ANALYTICAL PLAN SOP 25
6.1 Identifying Constituents of Concern and
Hazardous Waste Characteristics (Step 1) 26
6.2 Identifying Constituents of Concern for Special
Waste Categories (Step 2) 30
6.3 Conducting an Engineering Analysis to Complete
Your List of Constituents of Concern (Step 3) 30
6.4 Identifying Analytes (Step 4) 31
ii
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont) Page
6.5 Demonstrating Without Laboratory Analyses that
Certain Constituents Are Not Present in Your
Waste at Hazardous Levels (Steps 5 and 6) 32
6.6 Selecting Appropriate Analytical Methods (Step 7) 33
6.7 Identifying Quality Control (QC) Protocols (Step 8) 35
6.8 Summary of Appropriate Analytical Plan Information 37
SECTION 7: DELISTING SAMPLING PLAN SOP 38
7.1 Defining Sampling Objectives 38
7.2 Selection of an Appropriate Sampling Strategy 39
7.3 Sampling Plan Considerations 41
7.4 Examples of Sampling Strategies for Delisting
Demonstrations 43
7.5 Recommended Elements of a Written Sampling Plan 48
SECTION 8: WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION 50
8.1 Waste Sampling Information 50
8.2 Waste Analysis Information 53
8.3 Quality Control Information 55
LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT
1 STEPS TO IDENTIFY CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND
DEVELOP AN ANALYTICAL PLAN 27
2 ANALYSES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND HAZARDOUS
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS 28
3 CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR WASTES FROM PETROLEUM
PROCESSES 29
iii
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
APPENDICES
A. FRAMEWORK FOR EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE DELISTING PETITIONS
B. CHECKLIST OF REQUESTED PETITION INFORMATION
C. USE OF RANDOM NUMBER TABLE
D. PRE-PETITION SCOPING MEETING CHECKLIST
E. LIST OF EPA REGIONAL DELISTING CONTACTS
F. LIST OF EPA STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICES AND STATES AUTHORIZED FOR
DELISTING
G. POLICY ISSUES
1. AMENDMENT TO SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS; GROUNDWATER
DATA IN DELISTING DECISIONS
2. NOTICE OF DELISTING STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
3. OIL & GREASE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
4. MEMO - NATIONAL POLICY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DELISTINGS PETITIONS
H. REGION SPECIFIC DELISTING GUIDANCE
1. Region 2 - Delisting Information
2. Region 3 - Quality Control Reguirements for Delisting
3. Region 6 - Elements of Region 6's Delisting Evaluation Process
I. EVALUATION FORM
IV
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION TO EPA DELISTING
1.1 Purpose of Delisting Guidance
This manual gives guidance to those who are interested in submitting a
petition to exclude or "delist" a listed hazardous waste produced at a particular
facility from the lists of hazardous wastes in 40 CFR Part 2 61, Subpart D. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that a specific listed
waste produced at a particular facility may not meet the standards for which the
waste was originally listed. The 40 CFR §§ 260.20 and 260.22 contain procedures
where any individual can petition the Agency for a regulatory amendment to
exclude a listed waste produced at a particular facility. In general, the effect
of an exclusion is to allow the management of the excluded waste as a non-
hazardous solid waste.
1.2 Use of the Delisting Guidance
This guidance manual will help you decide if you want to prepare a
petition. It will also show you how to prepare a petition. Section 2 provides
information on the regulatory basis and intent of delisting, which wastes may be
eligible for a delisting, and the elements of the delisting process. Subseguent
sections provide guidance in meeting the specific information needs for delisting
petitions. We recommend that you read the entire manual and become fully
familiar with the petition review process and information needs before going on
with petition preparation.
Within this guidance manual, we often recommend other EPA-published
documents for more detailed information or guidance. The review of additional
documents particularly applies to identifying appropriate analytical methods for
waste testing. Waste testing information can be found in the EPA publication
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods," SW-846.
If you choose to use a commercial laboratory experienced in analyzing waste
matrices, the laboratory must be familiar with SW-846 protocols (including all
updates) . You may order SW-8 4 6 and other EPA publications from the Government
Printing Office by calling (202) 783-3238.
Appendix A to this manual contains a "Framework for Delisting Petitions"
which you may use while preparing a delisting petition. The format of the
Framework follows the order of information needs addressed within the main body
of the guidance manual.
1.3 Availability of Additional Guidance
After review, you may still need additional or more specific guidance. To
get further guidance, you may write to any of the regional offices (see Appendix
E) . For general information regarding the hazardous waste regulations, you may
contact the RCRA Hotline, toll-free at (800) 424-9346.
1
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
1. 4 Delisting Guidance Manual Organization
The remaining sections and content of this manual are summarized below.
Section 2.0 - DELISTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
This section discusses the regulatory basis and intent of delisting,
the impact of a delisting decision, and the elements of the
delisting process.
Section 3.0 - FRAMEWORK FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
This section presents guidance in providing administrative
information (e.g., name and address of the petitioner and names of
contacts).
Section 4.0 - WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
This section presents guidance in describing the petitioned waste
and past, present, and future waste management practices.
Section 5.0 - WASTE PROCESS INFORMATION
This section presents guidance in describing facility operations,
processes and materials contributing to the petitioned waste, and
current waste management operations.
Section 6.0 - DELISTING ANALYTICAL PLAN SOP
This section provides guidance in identifying the constituents of
concern for the petitioned waste and developing a plan for waste
testing.
Section 7.0 - DELISTING SAMPLING PLAN SOP
This section provides guidance in writing a plan for collecting
representative samples of the petitioned waste.
Section 8.0 - WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION
This section provides guidance in supplying appropriate waste
sampling and analysis information.
Appendix A - FRAMEWORK FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
This appendix contains a delisting petition framework for use in
preparing delisting documentation.
2
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Appendix B - CHECKLIST OF REQUESTED PETITION INFORMATION
This appendix contains a checklist that summarizes the information
requested for most delisting petitions.
Appendix C - USE OF RANDOM NUMBER TABLE
This appendix contains guidance in using a random number table to
choose waste sampling points.
Appendix D - PRE-PETITION SCOPING MEETING CHECKLIST
This appendix provides a list of some of the topics and information
that will be discussed in the Pre-Petition Scoping Meeting.
Appendix E - LIST OF EPA REGIONAL DELISTING CONTACTS
This appendix contains list of the EPA regional delisting contacts.
Appendix F - LIST OF STATE HAZARDOUS WASTE OFFICES AND
STATES AUTHORIZED FOR DELISTING
This appendix contains a list of the state hazardous waste offices
in EPA and a list of the states authorized for the delisting
program.
Appendix G - POLICY ISSUES
AMENDMENT TO SUBPART C - RULEMAKING PETITIONS; USE OF GROUND-WATER
DATA IN DELISTING DECISIONS
This contains a copy of a Federal Register notice (5 4 FR 41930.
October 12, 1989) to amend the regulations and clarify Agency
authority to consider ground-water monitoring data in the evaluation
of delisting petitions.
NOTICE OF DELISTING STRATEGIES AND PROCEDURES
This contains a copy of a Federal Register notice (53 FR 6822, March
3, 1988), that clarifies certain delisting policies, including the
policy of petition dismissal.
OIL & GREASE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
This contains a copy of a Federal Register
14, 1999) to delete Method 9070 and 9071
replaces it with Method 1664.
Appendix G - POLICY ISSUES (continued)
MEMO -NATIONAL POLICY FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DELISTING PETITIONS
notice (64 FR 2 6315. May
for oil and grease and
3
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
This contains the July 1, 1998, memo from Elizabeth Cotsworth to
state the national policy as pertains to "conditional delistings "
and the recommended "reopener language" for delisting petitions.
Appendix H - REGION SPECIFIC DELISTING GUIDANCE
This appendix contains a list of guidance that is specific to
petitioners in specific regions.
Appendix I - EVALUATION FORM
This appendix contains an evaluation form for users of this manual
to complete so that EPA may improve future guidance documents.
4
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 2
DELISTING PROGRAM OVERVIEW
We believe that each delisting petitioner should understand the regulatory
basis and intent of the delisting process. Each petitioner should also
understand the delisting program and the steps followed during the petition
review and decision-making process. This understanding will help the delisting
process for both the petitioner and the Agency.
This section gives an overview of the delisting program. It begins by
discussing the regulatory framework and the regulatory impact of a waste
exclusion. We then provide instructions on how to send a delisting petition and
a description of how petitions are processed from petition receipt to final
rulemaking.
2.1 Regulatory Basis and Intent of Delisting
Under the regulations implementing Subtitle C of RCRA, wastes are
designated as hazardous in two ways:
(1) solid wastes that exhibit certain characteristics (those listed in 40
CFR Part 2 61, Subpart C) and
(2) solid wastes that are specifically listed as hazardous (those listed
in 40 CFR Part 2 61, Subpart D).
According to Subpart C, wastes that are characteristically hazardous remain so
until they no longer exhibit the characteristic. You (the generator) are
responsible to find out whether a solid waste exhibits a hazardous waste
characteristic.
The Agency found that a number of wastes should be broadly listed in
Subpart D as hazardous for several reasons:
(1) the wastes may contain significant levels of toxic and/or carcinogenic
constituents,
(2) the wastes exhibit one or more of the hazardous waste
characteristics., and/or
(3) the wastes may cause specific detrimental effects on the environment.
Subpart D identifies wastes as hazardous according to the following categories:
! Wastes generated from non-specific sources (40 CFR §261.31). The
respective EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers for such wastes are preceded
by an "F" (e.g., F019 Wastewater treatment sludges from the chemical
conversion coating of aluminum).
5
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
\ Wastes generated from specific sources (40 CFR §261.32). The
respective EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers for such wastes are preceded
by a "K" (e.g., K061 - Emission control dust/sludge from the primary
production of steel in electric furnaces).
! Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification species,
container residues, and spill residues thereof (40 CFR §261.33)- The
respective EPA Hazardous Waste Numbers for such wastes are preceded
by a "P" (e.g., P056 - Fluorine) or a "U" (e.g., U019 Benzene).
The three-digit number following the "F", "K", "P", or "U" code has no
special significance, other than that it identifies a particular listed waste in
a particular hazardous waste category.
There are two other ways in which a solid waste can be designated as a
listed hazardous waste: (1) any mixture of listed hazardous waste and solid waste
is also a listed hazardous waste (40 CFR § 261.3(a) (2) (iv) , the "mixture rule");
and (2) any solid waste generated from the storage, treatment, or disposal of a
listed hazardous waste is itself a listed hazardous waste (40 CFR § 261.3(c) (2)
(i) , the "derived-from rule") . These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and
remain hazardous wastes until excluded. On December 6, 1991, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the "mixture/derived from" rules and
remanded them to the Agency on procedural grounds (Shell Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F.2d
741 (D.C. Cir. 1991)). On March 3, 1992, EPA reinstated the mixture and derived-
from rules, and solicited comments on other ways to regulate waste mixtures and
residues (57 FR 7628).These rules became final on October 30, 1992. See (57 FR
49278). You should consult these references for more information regarding
mixtures derived from wastes.
We recognize that a listed waste generated at a particular facility may not
be hazardous. Individual wastes may vary depending on raw materials, industrial
processes, and other factors. Therefore, 40 CFR §§ 260.20 and 260.22 contain a
procedure whereby anyone can petition EPA to exclude or "delist" such a listed
waste.
Originally, the overall intent of the delisting process was to ease the
regulatory burden on handlers of listed waste improperly captured by the broad
listing definitions. Delisting has since evolved to also include listed wastes
that are sufficiently treated such that they no longer pose a health threat.
To be eligible for an exclusion, a listed waste must not:
! Meet the criteria for which it was listed.
! Exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics.
In addition, a listed waste must not exhibit any other factors (including
additional constituents) that could cause the waste to be a hazardous waste,
unless we find out that such factors do not warrant characterizing the waste as
hazardous.
A listed waste may also exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic. For
6
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
example, a wastewater treatment sludge from electroplating operations that is
listed as EPA Hazardous Waste Number F006 may exhibit the characteristic of
toxicity for lead. Because it exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic, this
waste (and any characteristic hazardous waste) is not eligible for delisting (40
CFR § 260.22(d)(3)).
2.2 Regulatory Impact of a Delisting Decision
The submittal of a delisting petition does not automatically relieve you
from any of the hazardous waste management reguirements. Until a delisting
decision becomes effective (i.e., on the effective date of the Final Exclusion
Rule), your petitioned waste is still considered a listed hazardous waste and
subject to regulation under 40 CFR Parts 2 60 through 2 68 and the permitting
standards of 40 CFR Part 270. If we deny your petition, your waste remains
hazardous. If we grant your petition, you will receive one of the three types
of exclusions -- a standard exclusion, a conditional exclusion, or an upfront
exclusion.
Standard Exclusions - We grant standard exclusions when a petition adeguately
demonstrates that the candidate waste meets the delisting criteria. A waste that
receives a standard exclusion is no longer subject to regulation as a listed
hazardous waste. Depending on the waste characteristics, the exclusion may need
limited further testing of the waste. Standard exclusions generally fall into
one of two categories, depending on the type of petitioned waste.
These categories are:
! Standard exclusions for "Source Wastes" - A "source waste" is a waste that
is-currently generated (typically, as a discharge from a specific point in
a process) and will be generated in the future. These exclusions typically
apply only to wastes generated after the effective date of the exclusion.
! "One-time" Standard Exclusions - "One-time" exclusions are granted for
discrete volumes of wastes, typically generated in the past, such as the
waste contained in a surface impoundment. For example, an electroplating
facility that treats process wastewaters in an on-site wastewater
treatment system sends a petition to delist a wastewater treatment sludge,
which is listed as EPA Hazardous Waste No. F006. The petitioner claims
that the manufacturing and treatment processes operate continuously and
the raw materials do not change and are not expected to change in the
future. If our evaluation of the petition shows that the waste meets the
delisting criteria, the petitioner would likely receive a standard waste
exclusion.
! Conditional Exclusions - We grant conditional exclusions when the
petitioned waste meets the criteria for delisting, yet we believe the
waste may exhibit future variability that may be of concern. Under a
conditional exclusion, we set up post-exclusion testing reguirements that
the petitioner must meet prior to waste disposal.
7
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
For example, a pharmaceutical manufacturer produces many products from
different processes at its facility. All process wastewaters, some of
which are listed wastes, are combined and incinerated on site. The
manufacturer sends a petition to delist the bottom ash generated by the
incinerator. The petition shows that the composition of the influent to
the incinerator is variable although the petitioner believes the petition
data sufficiently characterize this variability. Because of the many
different contributing processes, however, we are concerned that the waste
composition may exhibit future variability that was not sufficiently
characterized. Therefore, if our evaluation shows that the waste meets the
delisting criteria, the petitioner would likely receive a conditional
waste exclusion, which includes testing and data verification on batches
of the bottom ash prior to disposal. Only those batches that meet the
conditions provided in the final exclusion could be managed as non-
hazardous waste; the remainder must either be re-treated or managed as
hazardous.
! Upfront Exclusions - We grant upfront exclusions for wastes and/or waste
residues that have not yet been generated, but will be generated in the
future, based on available information (e.g., pilot-scale system data)
that demonstrates that the petitioned waste will most likely meet the
delisting criteria. For example, if you are considering installing a new
waste treatment system, you may sends a petition for an upfront exclusion
of the waste that will be generated. Our decision on your upfront
petition will be based on an evaluation of the characteristics of your
untreated waste, process descriptions, and data from a bench- or pilot-
scale waste treatment process. If you meet the criteria for a delisting,
your upfront exclusion would need testing from the full-scale treatment
system to verify that, once on-line, the full-scale system is operating as
described in your petition.
For example, a landfill received an F006 waste and generates a hazardous
leachate. Operators would like to construct and operate a leachate
treatment system to render the leachate non-hazardous. However, they do
not want to initiate construction of the full-scale treatment system until
they are confident that the treated leachate can be delisted. Therefore,
operators performs pilot-scale studies on the treatment system and sends
a petition for an upfront delisting. If we decide to grant an exclusion,
the treated leachate would receive an upfront delisting with verification
testing reguirements, which must be met when the full-scale system becomes
operational. The full-scale verification testing reguirements may involve
more than one round of waste characterization (e.g., testing every batch
before disposal) to address any concerns regarding waste variability.
Should the full-scale process become operational and generate the
petitioned waste during the review of your petition, you must also send the full-
scale process information and waste analysis data.
2.2.1 What an Exclusion Will Do
8
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Once delisted, your petitioned waste is no longer considered a listed
hazardous waste and, thus, you may manage it as a non-hazardous solid waste
(under Subtitle D).
Please note:
! You remain obligated to find out whether your waste remains non-
hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics.
! You must treat, store, or dispose your excluded waste in an on-site
facility; or make sure that the waste is delivered to an off-site
storage, treatment, or disposal facility; either of which is
permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage municipal or
industrial solid waste.
! We urge you to contact your State regulatory authority to find out
the status of your excluded waste under State law.
A reminder:
! Your exclusion only applies to the waste covered by your original
demonstration.
! A process change to any aspect of your manufacturing or treatment
processes generating the petitioned waste may change the composition
of your waste and thus your waste may not be covered by the
exclusion.
! When processes are altered such that a significant change in waste
composition or waste volume occurs, the new waste must be managed as
hazardous until a new exclusion is granted, and you must file a new
petition for the altered waste.
2 . 3 Petition Information
The reguirements for delisting petitions as set forth in 40 CFR § 260.20
and 260.22 state that each petition must include certain information.
Furthermore, as stated in 40 CFR § 260.22(j), we may reguest any additional
information reasonably needed to evaluate a submitted petition.
Appendix B contains a checklist which summarizes the information that should be
submitted for most delisting petitions.
You may use this checklist, in conjunction with the remaining sections of
this manual, as a guide during petition development. However, delisting petition
information reguirements depend on the petitioned waste type and, therefore, this
list is not meant to be comprehensive. Thus, all petitioners should follow the
detailed guidance found in each referenced section of this manual to identify all
information needs. Again, prior to sending a formal petition, you are needed to
9
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
meet in person and discuss with our staff the nature and extent of information
that should be included in your petition.
If you are sending your petition to a state which is authorized to grant
delistings, you should recognize that the state's delisting program may reguest
additional information. You should contact their hazardous waste office for its
specific delisting reguirements.
2.3.1 Submitting the Petition
As stated in 40 CFR § 260.22(a), anyone seeking to exclude (delist) a waste
generated at a particular facility from the lists in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261
may send a petition to the Administrator. Only a waste identified as a listed
waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261 can be considered for delisting.
You must send a separate petition for each distinct waste generator. In
particular, separate petitions must be submitted for wastes generated at
different facility locations, even if the contributing processes and raw
materials are similar. This reguirement is necessary because an amendment to 40
CFR Part 261 for an exclusion only applies to a waste produced at a particular
facility.
You also should consider whether your petition should be submitted to the
State in which the petitioned waste is generated/managed, to the Federal
government (i e., the EPA), or to both the State and Federal authorities. Some
States are authorized to make delisting decisions without any review by the
Federal government. Alternatively, a petitioner may need to get a State delisting
in addition to the Federal delisting to legally manage the waste as a non-
hazardous waste. In all cases, however, if the waste is transported to another
state, a delisting granted by an authorized State does not exempt the waste from
regulation as hazardous.
Currently, there are 19 states which have been authorized for delisting.
You will find a list of those states in Appendix F. A delisting issued by an
authorized State is only in effect within that State. If the petitioner wishes
to also transport its waste to an unauthorized State and manage it as non-
hazardous there, an additional EPA delisting is reguired. The waste remains
listed in all other States. If your State is not authorized, send your petition
to the appropriate Regional office. The original copy of the petition should
be sent by certified mail to the regional contacts listed in Appendix E. And a
copy should be provided to your State Hazardous Waste Office. (See Appendix F)
Should your petition to delist be approved, you will be needed to provide
a one-time notice to each State's hazardous waste office through which/to which
your petitioned waste will be transported.
You may assert a business confidentiality claim covering information
submitted as part of your petition. Confidentiality claims may be asserted at
any time, but should be applied only to the specific portions of your submittal
which need to remain confidential. If you choose to assert a confidential
10
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
business information (CBI) claim for certain petition information, you should
specify this intent in the letter transmitting your petition. In the letter, you
should clearly identify which information should be treated as CBI and specify
the pages of your petition containing that information. The CBI claim should be
identified in red on each page containing CBI. Disclosure and C treatment of
information declared as CBI will be in strict accordance with the procedures set
forth in 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B (42 FR 36902-36924, September 1, 1976, as
amended by 43 FR 39997, September 8, 1978, and 44 FR 17673, March 23, 1979) . All
pages marked as containing CBI information are logged in with our CBI Document
Control Officer, who is responsible for the security of the information.
You must include a certification statement signed by an authorized
representative with your petition and with each petition addendum, including the
submission of any additional information we reguest. This certification
statement can be found in 40 CFR § 260.22 (i) (12) . If, at any time during the
delisting petition process, any petition information becomes inaccurate, you must
notify us of the new information (e.g., changes in names of contacts, facility
ownership, waste management practices, waste generation rates, raw materials, the
process operating cycle).
Our intent is to review petitions in chronological order of receipt. For
example, a petition received in May of 1999 will typically have higher priority
in the review process than a petition submitted in January of 2 000. You will be
notified by a letter acknowledging receipt of your petition. This letter will
also identify the individual assigned to review your petition. You may contact
this person regarding petition status.
The appropriate State hazardous waste office will be notified that we have
received a delisting petition from a facility located in their State.
2.3.2 Petition Completeness Review bv the Acrencv
During the review of a delisting petition:
! The Agency first confirms whether the petitioned waste is listed as
hazardous in 40 CFR Part 261, Subpart D and, therefore, eligible for
an exclusion.
! If the waste is a listed waste, then we conduct a completeness
review to find out whether the petition is seriously deficient. A
seriously deficient delisting petition generally lacks necessary
information that needs more than 15 days to collect and send. If
our review shows that a petition is seriously deficient, we will
notify you by letter and phone of EPA's intent to dismiss the
petition and provide an opportunity for you to respond.
If your petition is not seriously deficient:
! will find out whether any additional information is necessary to
conduct a complete technical review.
11
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
\ In cases where available information supports petition denial,
information needed to complete the petition will not be requested.
! If additional information is needed to complete our evaluation,
will send you a letter outlining the requested information. You
will have up to 15 days from receipt of the letter to send all of
the requested information.
! If EPA does not receive a complete response to our additional
information request within the designated time period, we will begin
the denial process or the petitioner may request to withdraw the
petition.
EPA urges you to send the requested information as soon as it is available.
We recommend this because early submittal will (1) allow us to identify any
remaining deficiencies related to the additional information submittal, and (2)
provide you with the opportunity to address the remaining deficiencies. The
additional information request letter will also offer you the option to withdraw
your petition and resubmit a complete petition at a later date. When your
petition is complete, we will perform a technical evaluation of all submitted
information.
If your petition is found to be seriously deficient, or if you have not
provided a complete response to our request for further information within the
designated time period, you will be notified by letter that we intend to begin
the denial process or the petitioner may request to withdraw your petition. A
withdrawal will remove your petition from the review process and close your
petition file. In the event of petition withdrawal, you may send a new petition
after you collect all the necessary information. Resubmitted petitions received
will be reviewed in the chronological order of the new submission.
2.3.3 Petition Technical Review
In order for your waste to be excluded, as stated in 40 CFR § 260.22, your
petition must demonstrate that the waste:
! Does not meet the criteria for which it was listed.
! Does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (i.e.,
ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity).
! Does not exhibit any additional factors, including additional
constituents, which may cause the waste to be a hazardous waste
(unless we find that such factors do not warrant characterizing the
waste as hazardous).
Delisting petitions are evaluated on a waste-specific basis. In our
technical evaluation, we often use appropriate fate and transport models that
rely on waste-specific information (e.g., waste volume, constituent concentration
data) to predict the potential environmental impact of the petitioned waste. In
12
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
selecting appropriate models, we choose a reasonable worst-case management
scenario and consider plausible exposure routes for the hazardous constituents
found to be present in the petitioned waste.
In some cases, we also consider ground-water monitoring data during
technical evaluation. In general, you should send ground-water monitoring
information if you currently manage, or ever have managed, the petitioned waste
in a land-based waste management unit for which a ground-water monitoring system
is reguired under 40 CFR Part 264 or 265 or authorized state eguivalent; if
collection of such information is mandated under other Federal, state, or local
reguirements; or if such information is otherwise available for the unit. In
cases where the petitioned waste is managed in a land-based waste management
unit, we assess relevant information to find out whether the petitioned waste has
adversely impacted the underlying ground water. Appendix G contains a copy of a
Federal Register notice to amend 40 CFR § 260.22 that clarifies our ground-water
monitoring information reguirements.
Once the technical evaluation has been completed, EPA will decide whether
to grant or deny your petition. If we believe the waste is hazardous and thus
decide to deny your petition, we will first send you a letter notifying you of
our intent. In this denial letter, we will offer you the option to withdraw the
petition to avoid publication of a negative finding in the Federal Register.
If a petition recommended for denial is not withdrawn or if we believe that
a petitioned waste is non-hazardous and should be granted an exclusion, a draft
Federal Register notice is prepared. The review process then moves on to
promulgation of the delisting decision.
2.3.4 Promulgation of Decisions
In accordance with 40 CFR § 260.20(c), Agency-proposed decisions on
delisting petitions are published in the Federal Register. Upon completion of
the technical evaluation (as long as a petition is not withdrawn before then),
a Federal Register notice is drafted that presents information about the
petitioned waste, our evaluation of the petitioned waste, and our proposed
decision to grant or deny the petition. Once drafted, the delisting Federal
Register notice is peer reviewed by EPA representatives. After evaluating peer
review comments and revising the notice as necessary, the Region then sends the
notice to its Office of Regional Council (ORC). If the ORC agrees with the
decision, the notice is sent through various EPA management levels for review and
approval. Final approval for waste exclusions must be received from the Regional
Administrator (or delegated representative). Final approval for petition denials
must be received from the Regional Administrator (or delegated representative).
Upon publication of a proposed rule, a complete copy of the delisting
petition and all supporting data are provided to the EPA RCRA docket office. EPA
provides the public with an opportunity to comment before a decision is finished,
in accordance with 40 CFR § 260.20(c) as mandated by the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The public comment period for proposed notices
on delisting decisions is usually 45 days. During this time, interested persons
13
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
may send written comments on the proposed regulation.
A final notice is published in the Federal Register once all public
comments on the proposed Notice are addressed. Final delisting rules typically
become effective as of the date of publication in the Federal Recri s t er. HSWA
amended Section 3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become effective in less than six
months when the regulated community does not need the six-month period to come
into compliance. In the case of a final delisting petition denial, the
petitioner must to continue managing the waste as hazardous and thus a period of
compliance is not necessary. In the case of a final exclusion, a six-month
period generally is not necessary to come into compliance because the final rule
reduces the existing waste management reguirements. A final decision that
excludes a petitioned waste also amends 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix IX, to include
the delisted waste.
14
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 3
FRAMEWORK FOR DELISTING PETITIONS
This section informs you how to provide the needed administrative
information in the delisting petition application. The Region needs this
information to identify the petitioner, the location of the petitioned waste,
sources for additional information, and the reguested delisting action for the
petitioned waste, as well as to get an overview of the need and basis for the
delisting action. We also ask that you sign a statement certifying that
information contained in the petition is not false.
The regulatory basis for most of the administrative information that should
be provided is found in 40 CFR § 260.20 and § 260.22; and is identified within
parentheses, when applicable. The information reguested in this section
corresponds with Part 1 of the "Framework for Delisting Petitions" found in
Appendix A. You should include the following administrative information in your
petition:
! The name and mailing address of the individual or firm sending the
petition (40 CFR § 260.20(b)(1)).
The names, titles, addresses, and telephone numbers of people to contact
for additional information pertaining to the petition. (You should notify us if
these designated contacts change after petition submission.)
! The name and location of the facility responsible for generating the
waste covered by the petition (40 CFR § 260.22 (i) (4)), and the
facility RCRA identification number. This information should also
be provided for the location of the petitioned waste, if different
from the generating facility.
! A description of the proposed delisting action which is supported by
the remainder of the petition (40 CFR § 260.20(b) (3)) . For example,
a company may petition to exclude a hazardous waste from a non-
specific or specific source from the lists of hazardous wastes or to
amend a previously granted exclusion.
! A statement of your interest in the proposed delisting action (40
CFR § 260.20(b)(2)) and a statement of the need and justification
for the proposed action (40 CFR § 260.20(b) (4)). The latter
statement should explain why you need the waste delisted and why you
believe it should be delisted.
! The following certification statement signed by the generator or an
authorized representative (40 CFR § 260.22 (i) (12)):
"I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am
familiar with the information submitted in this demonstration and all attached
documents, and that, based on my inguiry of those individuals immediately
responsible for getting the information, I believe that the submitted information
15
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties
for sending false information, including the possibility of fine and
imprisonment."
An "authorized representative" is a person responsible for the overall
operation of a facility or an operational unit (for example, a plant manager,
superintendent, or person of eguivalent responsibility) (See 40 CFR § 260.10.).
Consultants or other outside parties should not sign the certification statement.
The name and title of the authorized representative should be typed under the
signature.
16
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
This section tells you how to provide information that describes the waste
and waste quantity that you are petitioning to delist. The regulatory basis for
this information is found in 40 CFR § 260.22 (i) (6) . We need the information to
fully understand the specific type and amount of waste for which a delisting is
requested. The information should be complete and accurate.
This section also tells you how to provide information about the past,
present, and future management of the waste. EPA requests this information to
evaluate historical waste management practices and to identify the most likely
management scenario for the waste if the petition is granted. The information
requested in this section corresponds with Part 2 of the "Framework for Delisting
Petitions" found in Appendix A.
This section is organized as follows:
4.1 Basis for Waste Listing
4.2 History of Waste Generation
4.3 Waste Volume
4.4 Waste Management History
4.1 Basis for Waste Listing
SECTION 4
WASTE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION
and one or more listed
§ 261.3(a)(2) (iii-iv);
the appropriate hazardous
waste, and a description
You should clearly and completely describe why your waste is classified as
a listed hazardous waste. The basis for listing hazardous wastes is found in 40
CFR Part 261. The lists of hazardous wastes are presented in 40 CFR § 261.31
(hazardous wastes from non-specific sources), § 261.32 (hazardous wastes from
specific sources), and § 261.33 (discarded commercial chemical products, off-
specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof).
You should provide the following information, as appropriate, regarding the
petitioned waste:
! The EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s), the appropriate hazardous waste
description(s) for the petitioned waste (i.e., the appropriate waste
listing description (s) found in 40 CFR Part 261) and the common name(s),
if any, that may be used for the waste at the facility (e.g., Tank No. 2
sludge). If the petitioned waste is:
A mixture of two or more listed hazardous wastes, provide the EPA
Hazardous Waste Number and appropriate hazardous waste description
for each listed waste. Also identify the common name(s) of each
waste, if any.
A mixture of one or more solid waste(s)
hazardous wastes, as described in 40 CFR
provide the EPA Hazardous Waste Number(s),
waste description for each listed hazardous
17
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
of the solid waste (s) that are mixed with the listed waste (s) . Also
identify the common name(s), as appropriate.
Generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of one or more
listed hazardous wastes (or solid and listed hazardous waste
mixture), as described in 40 CFR § 261.3(c) (2) (i) ; provide the
Hazardous Waste Number and appropriate hazardous waste description
for each listed hazardous waste, a description of each solid waste
(if applicable), and a description of the petitioned waste (e.g., if
the petition is for an ash generated from the incineration of listed
Hazardous Waste Nos. F002, F004, and F005, present the reguested
information on all three hazardous waste numbers and then describe
the ash). Identify the common name(s).
The physical form of the petitioned waste (e.g., sludge, liguid, solid,
ash) . If the waste is considered a sludge or a liguid, provide an estimate
(e.g., a range) of the percentage of solids in the waste (through analysis
of the waste).
4.2 History of Waste Generation
You should show in your petition which of the following applies to your
waste (one or more may apply):
! The waste has been generated in the past.
! The waste is presently being generated.
! The waste will be generated in the future.
If the waste is presently being generated or was generated in the past, we
also reguest that you provide the year when waste generation began (and ended,
if applicable) at your facility.
4.3 Waste Volume
You should provide an estimate of the waste volume that you are petitioning
to delist. [Reminder: A waste exclusion, typically will only apply to that waste
volume documented in the delisting petition.] If the petitioned waste is a fixed
guantity (or will be when generated in the future), simply estimate that volume.
This guantity may be obtained from information such as unit dimensions or
operating records.
If the waste is (or will be) generated on a routine or continuous basis
(e.g., from a process point discharge), based on your operating records (pilot-
or full-scale, as appropriate) estimate the following generation rates:
Average volume generated monthly.
Average volume generated annually.
Maximum volume generated monthly.
Maximum volume generated annually.
18
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
You should also describe the method of calculation used to estimate the
fixed quantity or generation rates. If volume is not a convenient measurement,
you may instead provide the weight of the waste (clearly indicate the units) and
a representative value for the density of the waste.
4.4 Waste Management History
A description of your past, present, and future disposal methods is needed
to evaluate historical waste management practices. We also need this information
to identify the most likely waste management scenario should your petition be
granted. Therefore, you should provide the following information:
I
How the waste is managed at the present and the names, locations,
and waste management methods of any off-site waste management
facilities used.
How the waste was managed in the past, if different from the
present, and the names, locations, and waste management methods of
any off-site waste management facilities used.
How the waste will be managed if your delisting petition is granted;
and, if known, the names, locations, and waste management methods of
any off-site waste management facilities you may use.
19
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 5
WASTE PROCESS INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide information on all processes and raw
materials contributing to your petitioned waste. The regulatory basis for this
information is found in 40 CFR § 260.22 (i) (5) . EPA needs this information to
find out whether the petitioned waste was characterized with respect to all
delisting constituents of concern potentially present due to the contributing
processes.
Provide information on waste management operations if the petitioned waste
is (or was) managed in land-based units or derived from waste management
operations (e.g., excavated soils remaining from unit closure). Provide
sufficient detail to understand all processes generating and contributing to the
petitioned waste, how and where in the processes the waste is (or was) formed,
and how hazardous constituents may enter the waste. From this information, we
will verify the waste listing and also find out whether there are likely to be
any hazardous constituents in the waste other than those identified in your
petition, and whether other hazardous constituents are likely to be formed in the
production and/or treatment processes or during waste management. The
information reguested in this section corresponds with Section C of the
"Framework for Delisting Petitions" found in Appendix A.
This section is divided into two major subsections: 5.1, "General
Information" and 5.2, "Special Information." Section 5.1 explains how to
provide information on processes and materials that may contribute to your waste.
Section 5.2 identifies the additional information that should be provided in a
petition for the delisting of a waste that is not currently generated ("upfront
exclusion") and for a waste generated by a multiple waste treatment facility
(MWTF).
If you wish, you may assert a confidential business information (CBI) claim
for any of the information submitted. Section 2.3 of this Guidance Manual
describes how to assert a CBI claim.
5.1 General Information
You should provide the information noted below to fully describe general
operations, manufacturing and waste treatment processes, process materials, waste
management operations, and any other facility operations that might contribute
to the petitioned waste. If your petition is for an upfront exclusion or for a
waste generated by in MWTF, you should provide all the information reguested
below, as appropriate, and also provide the information described in Section 5.2,
"Special Information."
5.1.1 General Operations
You should provide the following information regarding general operations
at the generating facility:
20
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
¦ General descriptions of facility business area(s) and operations,
including all appropriate standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes.
! A listing and description of products manufactured and wastes
(including all hazardous wastes) generated at the facility.
! A description of the manufacturing and waste treatment areas and
waste management units along with schematics showing the general
layout at the facility.
! A description of the regulatory status of all on-site waste
treatment, storage and disposal units, including a listing of all
hazardous waste permits and other permits (e.g., NPDES) issued under
Federal and State environmental statutes. Provide the permit
numbers in this listing.
5.1.2 Manufacturing Processes
You should provide the following appropriate information on all
manufacturing processes that may contribute to the petitioned waste:
I
I
A description and a schematic of all "pre-process" steps used to
prepare materials for processing before the primary manufacturing
operations, including descriptions of such operations as surface and
eguipment preparation (e.g., machining, degreasing, cleaning,
coating). Identify all pre-process material inputs and outputs in
your descriptions and schematics.
A description and schematic of each step of each manufacturing
process contributing to the petitioned waste. The description and
schematic should include each process step, reactions occurring, and
material inputs and outputs. Identify any reaction intermediates
and byproducts formed during the manufacturing process. Also
describe and indicate on the schematic each waste produced and how
each waste is managed.
A description of all manufacturing process eguipment, eguipment
functions, and the ranges of the operating parameters.
A description of all operating cycles (e.g., batch cycles versus
continuous operation; start-up, shut-down, and other process
transients; and maintenance and cleaning operations) on a daily,
weekly, or other period basis, as appropriate. Identify periods
when process wastes are not generated (e.g., plant shutdowns or
routine eguipment maintenance).
An assessment of the extent that all contributing manufacturing
processes, operations, process materials, or generated wastes have
varied in the past and may vary in the future, whether due to
21
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
manufacturing processes or seasonal variations in production.
5.1.3 Waste Treatment Processes
If your waste is not generated directly from a manufacturing process, then
you should provide the following information:
! A description and schematic of each step of each waste treatment
process contributing to the petitioned waste. The description and
schematic should include each process step, reactions occurring,
flow rates, material inputs, and waste inputs and outputs.
! A description of the composition, rate of input (including periodic
inputs), and source of all non-process wastes (e.g., sanitary
wastes) entering the waste treatment processes.
! An indication in the process description and schematic of exactly
where the petitioned waste is generated, if applicable.
! A description of all treatment process eguipment, eguipment
functions, and the ranges of operating parameters.
! A description of all operating cycles (e.g., batch cycles versus
continuous operation: start-up, shut-down, and other process
transients: and maintenance and cleaning operations) on a daily,
weekly, or other period basis as appropriate. Identify periods when
treatment wastes are not generated (e.g., plant shutdowns or routine
eguipment (maintenance).
! An assessment of the extent that all contributing treatment
processes, operations, process materials, or generated wastes have
varied in the past and may vary in the future, whether due to
manufacturing processes or seasonal variations in production.
5.1.4 Process Materials
The following information should be provided by all petitioners:
! A listing of all materials used in the manufacturing and treatment
processes and waste management operations (as appropriate)
contributing to the petitioned waste. Examples of materials to be
included are: raw materials, feed chemicals (including catalysts),
treatment chemicals, oils and hydraulic fluids, and surface
preparation materials (e.g., solvents, acids, cleaners).
! For each material listed, describe its function in the processes and
specify the approximate guantities used annually.
! Provide Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for all non-elemental
22
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
and trade name materials, or other descriptive information that
identifies the composition of the material (e.g., a listing of
hazardous constituents in a material) . MSDSs alone may not
completely identify the delisting hazardous constituents of concern
present in a material. MSDSs needed by the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) only list those constituents considered
hazardous by OSHA. Therefore, you should also provide the
composition for each material and list any other delisting
constituents of concern which are present in the material yet not
listed on the MSDS.
! Specify the source, guality (i.e., recycled or virgin), and guantity
of oil, grease, and hydraulic fluids entering the processes.
5.1.5 Waste Management Operations
If your petitioned waste is or has been managed in on-site land-based units
(or in dedicated off-site land-based units), you should provide the following
information:
! A description of each waste management unit including unit
construction; detailed schematic showing (as appropriate) unit
dimensions; history; purpose and descriptions of any unit design and
operating changes; estimated surface area; estimated unit capacity
volume; and all waste and material inputs which have occurred
throughout the life of each unit, if known.
If your petition is for an upfront waste exclusion or a waste that is
generated by an MWTF, then you also should provide the information discussed
below in Section 5.2, "Special Information." Otherwise, if your petition is for
a waste that currently exists, then you may proceed to Section 6, "Delisting
Analytical Plan SOP."
5.2 Special Information
This section provides process information guidance for those petitioners
reguesting an upfront exclusion for a waste that is not currently generated, yet
will be in the future, or for the exclusion of a waste that is generated by a
multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF).
Petitioning for an upfront exclusion has the advantage of allowing the
applicant to know what treatment levels for constituents should be sufficient to
render specific wastes non-hazardous, before investing in new or modified waste
treatment systems. Petitions for such wastes should include all of the process
and raw material information reguested above, as applicable, for the bench-scale
or pilot-scale process, as well as for all operating full-scale processes that
will contribute to the petitioned waste. In addition, the petitioner should
provide sufficient information to show that the bench-scale or pilot-scale
23
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
process is producing a waste that is similar to the waste that will be produced
by the full-scale process. If the full-scale process becomes operational during
the review of your petition, you should also send full-scale process information
and analytical data.
If your petition is for an upfront exclusion, you should provide the following
information:
! A discussion explaining why you believe that the bench-scale or
pilot-scale process demonstration adeguately models the proposed
full-scale process.
! A detailed description of any real or potential differences between
the two processes (e.g., flow rates).
! A description of the impact of these differences on the character of
the petitioned waste.
Multiple waste treatment facilities (MWTFs) typically receive large numbers of
individual waste shipments having a wide variety of compositions. I f vour
petitioned waste is generated bv an MWTF. vou should send the following
information:
! A procedure for prescreening clients and wastes and a detailed
description of how this procedure will be carried outed, should your
waste be excluded.
! A description of procedures by which you will make sure that: (1)
treatment levels needed by an exclusion are maintained and (2) a
hazardous waste is not disposed improperly as non-hazardous.
24
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 6
DELISTING ANALYTICAL PLAN SOP
This SOP tells you how to identify the delisting constituents of concern
for your particular waste and how to write an analytical plan for the testing of
waste samples. Analytical plan development should precede sampling plan
development because sampling protocols (e.g., number and type of sample
containers) will depend on the analytes evaluated.
As discussed below, your analytical plan should include the test methods
generally applicable to all delisting demonstrations (see Section 1), any special
test methods applicable to your particular type of waste, and any other
constituents of concern identified by an engineering analysis (see Section 3).
The information described in this section corresponds with Part 4 of the
"Framework for Delisting Petitions" found in Appendix A.
This section is organized as follows so that each step in analytical plan
development is seguentially discussed:
6.1 Identifying Constituents of Concern and Hazardous Waste
Characteristics (Step 1)
6.2 Identifying Constituents of Concern for Special Waste Categories
(Step 2)
6.3 Conducting an Engineering Analysis to Complete Your List of
Constituents of Concern (Step 3)
6.4 Identifying Analytes (Step 4)
6.5 Demonstrating Without Laboratory Analyses that Certain Constituents
Are Not Present in Your Waste at Hazardous Levels (Steps 5 and 6)
6.6 Selecting Appropriate Waste Analytical Methods (Step 7)
6.7 Identifying Quality Control (QC) Protocols (Step 8)
6.8 Summary of Appropriate Analytical Plan Information
Exhibit 2, summarizes the above steps in analytical plan development. We
recommend that you review Exhibit 2, before proceeding.
The EPA publication "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods," SW-846 (SW-846), is an appropriate reference for the
analysis and characterization of solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) Program.
25
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
6.1 Identifying Constituents of Concern and Hazardous Waste Characteristics
(Step 1)
In preparing an analytical plan, you should write a complete list of the
hazardous constituents of concern in your waste. For this list, you should
address the full universe of delisting constituents of concern found in 40 CFR
Part 261, Appendix VIII and the following constituents not found in Appendix
VIII: acetone, ethylbenzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-2 pentanone, styrene, and
xylenes (total). You should demonstrate that these delisting constituents of
concern are not present in your waste at hazardous levels based on analytical
data, mass balance demonstrations, or other appropriate information.
You should first identify the constituents of concern and hazardous waste
characteristics that in general should be addressed by all delisting petitions.
Specifically, information should be provided for the hazardous constituents used
as the criteria for listing your petitioned waste and all of the hazardous waste
characteristics defined in 40 CFR §§ 261.21 through 261.24. The regulatory basis
for these reguirements may be found in 40 CFR §§ 260.22(c), 260.22(d), and
260.22(e). In addition, we generally reguest analyses for total oil and grease,
total cyanide, total sulfide, and total constituent levels of all inorganic and
organic constituents of concern.
Exhibit 1 lists the analyses concerning waste constituents and
characteristics that we typically reguest petitioners to provide. Section 6
("Delisting Analytical Plan SOP") provides additional information regarding the
appropriate SW-846 test methods.
As noted in Exhibit 2, Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP)
analyses are currently reguested for delisting demonstrations. The Toxicity
Characteristic Rule (55 FR 11798, March 29, 1990) replaced the Extraction
Procedure (EP) with the TCLP as the needed procedure for testing wastes for the
toxicity characteristic. The TCLP also is used for other Agency programs, and
the procedure is found in SW-846 as Method 1311.
In subseguent steps, you shoi
concern by adding all other hazardous
petitioned waste based on: (1) the
below, and (2) the results of an
materials contributing to your waste.
d complete your list of constituent of
constituents which may be present in your
special analytical methodologies discussed
engineering analysis of all process and
26
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Exhibit 1
STEPS TO IDENTIFY CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND WRITE AN ANALYTICAL PLAN
1. Develop a list of constituents of concern and hazardous waste
characteristics that in general should be addressed by all delisting
petitions.
2. Identify whether your particular waste may need any special analyses and
add the appropriate additional analyses to your list. For example:
If your waste is generated from petroleum refining operations, add
the constituents of concern for petroleum refining wastes (listed in
Exhibit 3).
If your waste is generated from stabilization processes, add the
Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP).
If your waste may contain dioxins, add dioxin/furan analysis using
SW-846 Method 8290.
3. Conduct an engineering analysis to identify whether any other delisting
constituents of concern may be present in your waste. Add these
constituents to your list.
4. Based on the list developed during Steps 1, 2, and 3, identify those
constituents for which testing will be conducted.
5. Develop, for petition inclusion, mass balance demonstrations to estimate
levels in your waste of all constituents of concern on your list for which
testing will not be conducted.
6. Develop, for petition inclusion, an explanation for why any remaining
delisting constituent of concern will not appear in your waste.
7. Choose appropriate analytical methods for constituents
to be tested.
8. Identify guality control (QC) protocols for waste testing.
27
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Exhibit 2
ANALYSES FOR CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN AND HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
! One sample with Total constituent analyses for the entire Part 2 64
Appendix IX constituent list.
! Multiple pH testing. TCLP analyses using three different extraction
fluids in a pH range from 3-11.
! Total oil and grease analysis.
! Total constituent analyses for the toxicity characteristic (TC) metals
currently listed under 40 CFR § 261.24, and nickel, cyanide, and sulfide.
! Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) analyses for the TC
metals, nickel, and cyanide. For cyanide analyses, deionized water should
be used in place of the acid leaching medium. If the petitioned waste
contains at or above one percent total oil and grease, we prefer that you
conduct the Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP; SW-846 Method
1330) analysis and use the TCLP in place of the EP.
! Total constituent and TCLP (or OWEP if appropriate) analyses for any other
inorganic that was used as a criterion for listing yet is not included in
the above, or that is a potential constituent of concern. If the levels
of total chromium in your waste exceed one percent, we recommend that you
also try to analyze for the level of hexavalent chromium present.
! Analyses for the characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, or
reactivity; or provide a detailed explanation regarding why the waste does
not exhibit a given characteristic. You should, however, send results
from reactive sulfide and reactive cyanide testing if total sulfide and
total cyanide levels exceed 500 and 250 parts per million, respectively.
! Total constituent and TCLP analyses for the organic constituents listed
under 40 CFR § 2 61.24.
! Total constituent and TCLP analyses for any other organic constituents of
concern that could potentially be present in the waste. You do not need
to conduct TCLP analyses if the constituent is not detected in the total
constituent analysis using an appropriate SW-846 method with an adeguate
guantitation limit.
28
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Exhibit 3
CONSTITUENTS OF CONCERN FOR WASTES FROM PETROLEUM PROCESSES
Inorganics
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Cyanide
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Vanadium
Zinc
Orcranics
Acenaphthene
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon disulfide
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Chrysene
Cresols
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Di-n-butyl phthalate
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
7,12-Dimethylbenz(a)anthracene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Di-n-octyl phthalate
1,4-Dioxane
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene dibromide
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Nitrobenzene
Phenol
Pyrene
Pyridine
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Xylenes (total)
29
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
6.2 Identifying Constituents of Concern for Special Waste Categories (Step 2)
You should find out whether your waste may need special analytical
methodologies because it falls into one of the following categories.
6.2.1 Petroleum Industry Wastes
If petroleum industry processes have contributed to your petitioned waste,
then the constituents of concern identified in Exhibit 3, should be included on
your list. We identified these constituents of concern based on our knowledge
of the processes and raw materials typical to the petroleum industry. You may
have already included some of these constituents (e.g., toxicity characteristic
constituents).
6.2.2 Stabilized Wastes
If your petitioned waste is generated from the chemical stabilization of
a listed waste, then you should guantify leachable metal concentrations using the
Multiple Extraction Procedure (MEP), SW-846 Method 1320, as well as by TCLP
analyses. We need MEP test results for stabilized wastes to assess the long term
stability of the waste. You should change the MEP by using the TCLP in place of
the EP in Method 1320.
6.2.3 Dioxin Wastes
If your petitioned waste may contain dioxins, either because the chemicals
may be contained in the waste before treatment or may be formed during treatment
(e.g., incineration or other thermal treatment of chlorinated phenols), you
should perform dioxin/furan analysis using SW-846 Method 8290. Method 8290 uses
high-resolution gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS)
and has lower detection limits than SW-846 Method 8280.
6.3 Conducting an Engineering Analysis to Complete Your T.i st of Constituents
of Concern (Step 3)
A complete engineering analysis of all processes and materials contributing
to your waste should be conducted to identify other delisting constituents of
concern potentially present in your waste. During the engineering analysis, you
should consider all available information on contributing processes and raw
materials, including (but not limited to) Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs),
production data, and process rates. You should identify the constituents of all
raw materials, intermediate products, by-products, and final products of
contributing processes. If the petitioned waste is or was contained in a land-
based waste management unit, you should identify all past waste disposal
practices and information regarding all of the processes and raw materials
contributing to the disposed wastes.
As stated previously, the list of delisting constituents of concern includes
those presented in 40 CFR Part 2 61, Appendix VIII, as well as acetone,
30
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
ethylbenzene, isophorone, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, styrene, and xylenes (total) .
Any of these constituents that may be present in your waste based on your
engineering analysis should be considered a constituent of concern for your
waste.
You may not be able to identify with certainty all of the constituents of
concern for a petitioned waste because complete process and raw material
information is not available. For example, this situation often applies to
leachates collected from landfills which have accepted many different hazardous
wastes over a long period of time and for which the waste types and waste sources
are not fully documented. This situation may also apply if your facility is a
multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF) and receives wastes of varying
compositions from many off-site sources. In such cases, you should assume that
all or most of the delisting constituents of concern may be present in your
waste.
Once the engineering analysis is conducted, your list of constituents of
concern is complete. This list can be sent to EPA (e.g., in conjunction with
your sampling plan) for a completeness evaluation before investing in sampling
and analysis and final petition preparation. If you choose this option, please
also provide process, raw material composition and MSDS information and as much
detail as possible from your engineering analysis so that we may better evaluate
your preliminary submittal. For example, if a reactant is simply described as
"technical benzene" and you do not include the MSDS, we will not be able to
confirm or refute the presence of toluene and other aromatics (and their by-
products) in the waste stream. On the other hand, an MSDS describing the
reactant as "90 percent benzene, 9 percent toluene, 1 percent xylenes and less
than 10 parts per million (ppm) sulfur" clarifies that these constituents may be
present in your waste stream.
6.4 Identifying Analvtes (Step 4)
The next step is the identification of those constituents for which testing
will be conducted. This step initiates development of your analytical plan. For
analytical testing purposes, you should include: (1) the analyses discussed in
Exhibit 3, and (2) the analyses for other constituents of concern which can be
guantitated using appropriate SW-846 test methods.
If any constituent that may be present does not have an appropriate
analytical method, as is the case for some 40 CFR Part 261, Appendix VIII
constituents, a mass balance demonstration may be conducted to estimate
constituent levels in the waste. Levels of all constituents potentially present
in the waste should be guantitated, either by analytical testing or by mass
balance demonstrations. The next section provides guidance in conducting mass
balance demonstrations.
31
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
6.5 Demonstrating Without Laboratory Analyses that Certain Constituents Are
Not Present in Your Waste at Hazardous Levels (Steps 5 and 6)
Instead of analytical testing (and for those constituents without
appropriate SW-846 test methods), your demonstration may be based on mass balance
demonstrations (Step 5), as long as you have performed the testing outlined in
Exhibit 3. This demonstration also may be made through another adeguate
explanation (e.g., by showing that the constituent is not used in processes at
your facility and cannot appear in your waste) . If a mass balance demonstration
is used instead of analytical testing to guantitate a constituent of concern, the
demonstration should describe the raw materials used, the guantities used in the
process(es), and the expected constituent levels in the waste.
For example, consider a wastewater generated by a process involving the
production of aniline by the reduction of nitrobenzene. Based on facility data,
for each 100 pounds of nitrobenzene used in the process, 72 pounds of aniline are
formed. Based on the chemical reactions known to occur, therefore, 95 pounds of
nitrobenzene are reacted per 100 pounds of nitrobenzene used. Furthermore, 200
gallons of wastewater result from the production of each 72 pounds of aniline.
Therefore, assuming that all of the unreacted nitrobenzene ends up in the
wastewater, the maximum concentration of nitrobenzene in the wastewater will be
about 3,000 ppm. The following eguation demonstrates how this is estimated:
5 lbs (1 gal/8.345 lbs) (1/200 gal) =
(5 parts nitrobenzene/1,669 parts wastewater) (1/10~6) = 3000 ppm
Chemical reactions occurring in contributing processes should also be
included in mass balance eguations to predict the types and relative amounts of
by-products resulting from a reaction. Unfortunately, demonstrating that a
chemical reaction does not actually produce traces of hazardous substances can
sometimes be difficult. For example, reactions involving chlorinated phenols
might produce some chlorinated dibenzodioxins, which are considered hazardous at
trace levels, although it is not a very probable reaction in most circumstances.
For cases where a constituent is hazardous at trace levels, a mass balance
eguation may not be sufficient to demonstrate that the constituent is not present
at levels of concern. For these situations, analytical data should be submitted
instead of a mass balance demonstration.
In some instances, constructing a mass balance eguation for particular
substances may be difficult based on the manner in which the substances are used
in the process. For example, chemicals present in mixtures used in maintenance,
cleanup, and other non-process applications may be difficult to guantitate. In
such cases, you should list the known constituents in each mixture and estimate
the amounts entering contributing processes based on usage rates. Additionally,
constructing a mass balance eguation for the fate of constituents from wastes
contained in a land-based waste management unit may also be very difficult. When
mass balance eguations are difficult or not practical, you should instead rely
on laboratory analyses using appropriate methods to guantitate constituent levels
32
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
in your waste.
As noted in Exhibit 3, you may also send an explanation instead of
analytical test results to show that the petitioned waste cannot exhibit a
particular hazardous waste characteristic. For example, consider a petition for
a sludge generated from treating electroplating process wastewaters with a liguid
content of about 75 percent. An explanation discussing the high water content
may be sufficient to demonstrate that the waste is not ignitable. However, if
information on the manufacturing processes shows that flammable organic solvents
may appear in the waste due to solvent cleaning operations, then actual testing
for ignitability may be appropriate. Similarly, if the waste pH is neutral, more
extensive testing for the corrosivity characteristic (i.e., to find out if the
waste corrodes steel) may not be necessary.
Once you have addressed constituents of concern identified for your
particular waste, you should also address why any remaining delisting
constituents of concern will not appear in your waste (Step 6) . If the
constituent was not included in your list of constituents of concern because
amounts used are expected only to appear in media that are not the subject of
your petition (e.g., process effluent), you may support your hypothesis with a
mass balance demonstration.
6.6 Selecting Appropriate Waste Analytical Methods (Step 1)
In this section, we review appropriate analyses and provide guidance in
choosing appropriate test methods. Most of the test methods for the delisting
constituents of concern may be found in SW-846, and its updates. The associated
guality control procedures for analyzing a waste in support of a delisting
petition are presented in Chapter One of SW-84 6 and in the specific SW-84 6
method.
6.6.1 Choosing the Appropriate Test Method
There are three main variables to consider when making this choice, namely,
(1) the constituent or parameter to be guantitated, (2) the waste matrix, and (3)
the minimum level at which the constituent should be guantitated. You should
consider the test methods discussed above in Sections 1) and 2), and review
Chapter Two in SW-846, entitled "Choosing the Correct Procedure."
The above references will help you identify the appropriate analysis for
a given constituent and waste matrix. Some tests will have only one appropriate
method for the given constituent or matrix, whereas other tests will have more
than one appropriate method. The selected method should be appropriate for the-
waste matrix. For example, SW-846 Method 7470, "Mercury in Liguid Waste" and
Method 7471, "Mercury in Solid or Semisolid Waste" should each be used only when
analyzing a waste with the specified matrix (liguid or solid).
Detection limits vary with analytical methods. Although method detection
limits (MDLs) are important, in general, we reguest that petitioners use
33
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
estimated quantitation limits (EQLs) instead of MDLs.
If you think that an analytical method other than that found in SW-846 is
more appropriate for quantitating a particular constituent, approval to use such
a method should be sought before conducting the sampling and analysis.
6.6.2 Summary of the Analyses Appropriate for Delisting Petitions
In summary, testing methodologies appropriate for all petitions generally
include:
! Total oil and grease analysis.
! One sample with Total constituent analyses for the entire Part 2 64
Appendix IX constituent list.
! Total constituent analyses for the TC metals, nickel, cyanide,
sulfide, any other inorganic constituent of concern for your waste.
! TCLP analyses (or OWEP analyses if appropriate) for the TC metals,
nickel, cyanide (using deionized water as the leaching medium), and
any other inorganic constituent of concern for your waste.
! Total constituent and TCLP analyses for the TC organic constituents
and any other organic constituent of concern for your waste.
! Multiple pH testing. TCLP analyses using three different extraction
fluids in a pH range from 3-11.
You also should address all of the other hazardous waste characteristics
through laboratory analyses or, for some properties in particular matrices
through some other demonstration.
Total oil and grease analysis finds the percent of total sample mass that
is oil and grease. SW-846 Method 1664 or 9071B may be appropriate; each method
involves drying the waste and then extracting oil and grease with an organic
solvent (e.g.,n-hexane). See 64 FR 26315, May 14, 1999.
If the total oil and grease content of your waste is one percent or more,
you should use the Extraction Procedure for Oily Wastes (OWEP), SW-846 Method
1330, to quantitate the leachable levels of all metals of concern. You should
also use the TCLP in place of the EP in Method 1330. If the total oil and grease
content is less than one percent, you should use TCLP analyses. You should send
results from TCLP (or OWEP) and total constituent analyses for the TC metals
listed in Table 1 of 40 CFR § 261.24, as well as for nickel and any other
inorganic of concern for your waste. Chapter Three of SW-84 6 provides guidance
on total constituent analyses for various metals.
34
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
You should analyze for total cyanide content in your waste, as described
in Chapter Five of SW-846 using Method 9010 or 9012. If the cyanide analysis
shows the presence of an interference in the waste and produces poor precision
on replicate analyses, you should note and explain the interference in your
petition. You also should analyze for total sulfide content in your waste, as
described in Chapter Five of SW-846 using Method 9030.
Total levels and TCLP leachate concentrations of the TC organic constituents
should also be guantitated, as well as analyses for any other organic constituent
of concern for your waste, if appropriate methods are available. Applicable
methods can be found in Chapter Four of SW-84 6. Typically, if an organic
constituent is not found in the waste using appropriate analytical methods for
total concentrations, you may not need to conduct the TCLP analysis. We will
evaluate the applicability of the TCLP for organics in problem matrices (such as
oily wastes) on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, you are needed to demonstrate that your waste does not exhibit any
of the four hazardous waste characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity,
reactivity, and toxicity. This demonstration may take the form of a detailed
explanation regarding why the waste does not exhibit a characteristic property.
40 CFR § 261.20 through 261.24 explain what basis finds that a waste exhibits one
of the characteristics.
If you cannot demonstrate in a written explanation that your waste does not
exhibit a characteristic, then you should instead test the waste appropriately.
Applicable methods for the testing of ignitability, corrosivity, and reactivity
can be found in Chapters 7 and 8 of SW-846. As noted above, you should, at a
minimum, test for the toxicity characteristic constituents using the TCLP (or
OWEP if appropriate) , and address whether the toxicity characteristic would be
exhibited for any of the TC constituents. SW-846 Methods 9010/9012 and 9030
measure reactive cyanide and sulfide, respectively. In addition, the Defense
Logistics Agency's Explosives Hazard Classification Procedures (DLAR 8220.1)
prescribe a blasting-cap test for characterizing explosiveness. If you are
dealing with a waste listed because it is explosive, you may want to contact the
EPA for further guidance on test methods.
6.7 Identifying Quality Control (OC) Protocols (Step 8)
Laboratory guality control information demonstrates the validity of the
analytical data submitted with your petition. Certain specific guality control
information should be generated simultaneously with each analytical method. If
you do not have the necessary personnel or laboratory resources in-house to
conduct the testing program using the appropriate QC protocols, you should
contract with a commercial laboratory or a consulting analytical chemist with the
necessary resources and experience.
Chapter One of SW-846 contains a general discussion on the QC protocols for
waste analysis. The general procedures, however, do not replace the specific QC
methodologies described under each SW-846 test method which should also be
35
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
followed. Chapter One of SW-846 discusses planning for a Quality Assurance and
Control Program to make sure that all data are of known quality, to show when
corrective action is needed, and to outline the procedure to correct out-of-
control situations. In addition, the chapter discusses certain general quality
control data appropriate for all analytical methods. Examples of these
methodologies are given below.
6.7.1 Matrix Spike and Matrix Spike Duplicate Analyses
These analyses are measures of analytical accuracy and precision performed
by splitting a sample spiked with known quantities of stock solutions of the
analyte in question into duplicates, conducting the appropriate analysis, and
calculating the percent recovery of each spiked analyte. These percent
recoveries show the accuracy of the analysis. The relative percent difference
between the samples shows the precision of analysis for the analyte in the
specific matrix. The frequency at which the matrix spike and matrix spike
duplicate analyses should be performed is discussed within most SW-846 analytical
methods.
6.7.2 Method Blank Analyses
These analyses are artificial, laboratory-made samples carried through the
entire analytical procedure that are used to document any contamination resulting
from the analytical procedures. A method blank is often a sample of analyte-free
water or solvent.
6.7.3 Surrogate Spikes
These analyses are needed for most organic analyses to measure and evaluate
analytical accuracy. Surrogate compounds, which are spiked into each sample, are
chosen on the basis of similar chemical structure to the substance of interest,
with consideration for physical properties as well. (Frequently, isotopic
isomers are selected as surrogate compounds.) The analysis procedures found in
SW-846 will indicate which surrogates are to be used. Percent recovery of the
surrogate spike is then calculated and used to evaluate analytical accuracy.
6.7.4 Field PC Analyses
These analyses monitor the introduction of any variables during the
sampling process. Field QC analyses may include trip blanks and equipment blanks.
Trip blanks are samples of analyte-free water or solvent brought to the field in
sealed containers and transported unopened back to the laboratory along with the
actual samples. Equipment blanks are used to document adequate decontamination
of sampling equipment and are actually passed through the sampling equipment
before sampling.
Trip blanks document contamination attributable to sample shipment and
handling procedures.
36
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
This section provided a brief discussion of some of the Quality Control
methodologies appropriate for all analyses. We recommend that you review Chapter
One of SW-846, in addition to the specific QC procedures for each method, before
performing your waste testing. If these methodologies are not met, we may not
consider your analytical data valid or your petition complete. In addition,
refer to the Quality Assurance (QA) SOP for guidance on developing a QA Plan for
your Delisting Petition.
6. 8 Summary of Appropriate Analytical Plan Information
In summary, you should send with your petition:
! A complete list of the constituents of concern identified for your
petitioned waste. Identify which of these constituents were
guantitated by laboratory analysis in support of your petition.
! Mass balance demonstrations for those constituents of concern in
your list for which analyses were not conducted.
! A discussion explaining why any other delisting
concern is not on the constituent of concern
petitioned waste.
! A discussion explaining why your petitioned waste does not exhibit
any hazardous waste characteristic for which analysis was not
conducted.
constituent of
list for your
37
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 7
DELISTING SAMPLING PLAN SOP
This section tells you how to write a plan for sampling the petitioned
waste. Analytical data must be from a sufficient number of representative
samples, but in no case less than four. collected over a period of time
sufficient to represent the uniformity of the petitioned waste. The regulatory
basis for this reguirement is found in 40 CFR §260.22 (h) . Information in this
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) will help you write a sampling plan that makes
sure that samples are representative of the petitioned waste and that sample
integrity is maintained until analysis.
As noted in the SOP for Analytical Plan Development, the EPA publication
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste: Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846, (SW-
846) is the reference for the analyses of solid wastes under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program. SW-84 6 also contains guidance in
developing plans for solid waste sampling. This section of the SOP summarizes
and refers to certain sampling plan development considerations discussed in SW-
846 and addresses sampling plan considerations and needs specific to delisting
demonstrations.
Guidance in sampling plan development may also be obtained from other EPA-
published guidance manuals or other standard reference sources, such as documents
published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) . The
development of a scientifically credible sampling plan is a critical element
unigue to each delisting petition demonstration. Please contact EPA (See Section
2) if you need more guidance than given in this manual or additional references.
The information described in this section corresponds with Part 5 of the
"Framework for Delisting Petitions" found in Appendix A.
This SOP is organized as follows:
1) Defining Sampling Objectives
2) Selection of an Appropriate Sampling Strategy
3) Sampling Plan Considerations
4) Examples of Sampling Strategies for Delisting Demonstrations
5) Recommended Elements of a Written Sampling Plan
The "Waste Sampling and Analysis Information, " SOP, will provide
specific guidance on what information concerning your sampling procedures should
be submitted with your delisting petition.
7.1 Defining Sampling Objectives
You should define the objectives of your sampling effort as the first step
in sampling plan development. Once defined, these objectives should be
considered throughout the development of the sampling strategy.
38
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
The primary objective of any waste sampling effort is to get valid
information that can be used to describe the chemical and physical nature of a
waste. Specific objectives should be defined based on such considerations as:
1. Compliance with the regulatory reguirement for representativeness
found in 40 CFR § 260.22(h) (i.e., characterizing temporal and
spatial constituent variability in the waste).
2. Meeting the data guality assurance objectives (e.g., accuracy and
precision) defined in SW-846.
3. Familiarity with the analytical parameters (as identified during
analytical plan development).
4. Whether the waste is continuously generated, not yet generated
(e.g., pilot-scale process for future wastes), or located in a
container or in a land-based waste management unit.
You can refer to SW-846 for additional guidance regarding specific sampling
objectives. All personnel involved in sampling plan development and the actual
sampling effort should be familiar with and understand the basis for the defined
objectives. This understanding by your personnel will maintain sampling program
consistency and guality.
7.2 Selection of an Appropriate Sampling Strategy
It is important to collect representative samples for your delisting
petition because the resulting analytical data will be used to characterize the
entire waste stream. These samples should be non-biased and "sufficient to
represent" your waste. Otherwise, re-sampling may be needed.
As stated in 40 CFR § 260.22(h), you must collect and analyze at least four
representative samples of the petitioned waste. The actual number of samples
sufficient to represent the variability or uniformity of your waste will likely
be more than four; the number of samples must be determined on a waste- and unit-
specific basis.
With respect to most wastes. We also reguest that each sample be a
composite of independent grab samples collected over a certain period of time
(e.g., for continuously generated wastes) or area (e.g., for wastes held in a
container or unit) . The number of grab samples adeguate to make up each
composite sample will be waste- and unit-specific.
Additionally, the analytical testing to be performed may impact sample
collection. Specifically volatile organic analysis is typically performed on
individual grab samples rather than on composite samples. This practice
eliminates the possibility or volatile organic loss due to sample compositing.
In some cases, compositing of samples under laboratory conditions may be
appropriate. In any case, the volatile organic sample aliguot should be
39
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
appropriately packaged and sent to the laboratory as soon as feasible to avoid
exceedance of the analytical holding time. Generally, other types of analysis
can be performed on aliguots from the composite sample.
Waste variability can be categorized as spatial (area) or temporal (in
time) and both types can act separately or together to influence waste
composition. The following sections provide general guidance in selecting
sampling strategies for wastes that may exhibit temporal and/or spatial
variability. Section 4 provides more specific delisting guidance regarding
sampling strategy considerations and reguirements for various scenarios (e.g.,
process discharge points, drums, and surface impoundments).
7.2.1 Temporal Variability
Temporal (relating to time) variability occurs when a periodic fluctuation
in process or raw material also causes a fluctuation in physical or chemical
output (e.g., a change in waste characteristics). Temporal variability is often
exhibited in wastes generated from process point discharges, such as waste
characteristics that periodically vary due to changes in product outputs.
Temporal variation may depend on whether the generating processes are continuous
or batch operations. Continuous processes are more likely to generate a fairly
homogeneous waste than batch operations. Batch operations involve processes that
may be freguently stopped and started or involve changes in raw materials or
product lines. Batch operations, therefore, usually generate waste with
temporal variability. To account for this greater variability, a waste generated
by batch operations needs more freguent sampling over time than a waste generated
by continuous operations.
Temporal composite sampling is usually needed to get representative
samples from either continuous or batch process wastes that may exhibit
variability over time. This method involves collecting a number of independent
grab samples of egual volume at predetermined time intervals (e.g., every two
hours) over a certain time period of waste generation (e.g., during one 8-hour
operating shift). The grab samples are composited in egual proportions and a
sample aliguot is collected from the composite at the end of the time period.
The time intervals for grab sampling and compositing are predetermined based on
known process operating shifts and known discharge variations over time.
If your waste exhibits temporal variability and you use this strategy to get
representative samples, you should collect and analyze enough composite samples
to sufficiently characterize expected waste variability over the life of the
process. For a delisting demonstration petitioners typically collect and analyze
at least four composite samples over a period of at least one month. You should,
however, be able to defend your entire sampling strategy and actual sampling
activities.
The freguency of grab sample collection and the number of composite samples
will ultimately depend on the process and its operating schedule and known
periodic variations in waste composition. The greater the potential for waste
40
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
composition variability, the greater the number of composite samples needed to
characterize the waste.
The schedule for sampling should be developed by personnel who are familiar
with the process and understand the importance of collecting a representative
sample. The needed volume of waste per sample must also be found out beforehand.
The needed volume, the preservation technigues and number of different types of
containers (for a single sample) are dictated by the analyses to be performed and
the waste matrix. Sample volume, therefore, should be identified by the
individuals selected to perform waste analyses.
7.2.2 Spatial Variability
Spatial (relating to space) variability may be vertical or horizontal and
is often exhibited by a waste contained in a tank, drum, pile, landfill, or
surface impoundment. Contained wastes usually vary more in a vertical than a
horizontal direction due to the settling of solids, variations in densities of
liguid phases, and periodic (temporal) variations in the composition of the waste
entering the container or management unit. However, horizontal variation can
also occur when the routine for waste deposition is altered (e.g., the relocation
of influent points at a surface impoundment or the one-time discharge of a volume
of waste). Factors such as waste unit design, waste influent locations, and
mixing device location and usage rates can also affect the waste deposition
patterns and spatial variability within the unit.
You should characterize the waste's spatial variability in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. This consideration usually needs collecting
a complete vertical (i.e., "full-depth" core) sample of the waste. Actual sample
locations can be found through randomly selected points on an imaginary
horizontal grid overlaying the waste unit. The actual number of samples
collected will depend on the area of the containment unit and the expected degree
of both vertical and/or horizontal spatial variability.
7.3 Sampling Plan Considerations
During the selection of an appropriate sampling strategy and development of
the waste sampling plan, you should consider a number of factors. These factors
include waste properties, site factors (e.g., processes), sampling eguipment,
sample containers and preservatives, personnel health and safety, guality control
(QC) , and sample handling and documentation. Each of these factors interact and
should be fully understood and addressed before finalizing a sampling strategy
and initiating sample collection. To account for all factors, personnel
designing the sampling plan should include: (1) an analytical chemist, (2) a
facility engineer familiar with contributing processes, waste properties, and
site factors, (3) a guality control representative, and (4) experienced field
samplers.
7.3.1 Waste Properties
41
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
The physical and chemical properties of your waste are the most important
factors to be addressed in a sampling plan because waste properties affect many
aspects of your sampling effort. For example, waste properties (e.g., liguid or
solid) will determine the type of sampling eguipment that has to be used and
whether spatial variation has to be addressed in the sampling strategy.
Sampling eguipment should be selected based upon whether the waste is a
viscous or a free-flowing liguid or a hard, soft, powdery, or monolithic solid.
The waste's physical state will also affect the type of sample container needed.
Wide-mouth containers are used for most solids, sludges, or liguids with large
amounts of suspended matter and narrow-mouth containers are usually used for
liguid and flowing samples. If the physical state and composition of the waste
allows random heterogeneity or stratification of liguid phases or solids, then
your sampling strategy for getting representative samples should address these
characteristics. The number of samples collected should be dictated by the
volume of sample waste (e.g., based on the area and depth of a waste management
unit).
7.3.2 Site Factors
Site factors include such items as waste accessibility, waste generation and
handling practices, transitory (changing) process events (e.g., process start-up
and shut-down), and hazards. These factors will influence the sampling strategy
and personnel health and safety. Site factors should be thoroughly examined
during sampling plan development to ensure a successful sampling effort. You
should, of course, be familiar with the waste generation, waste handling and/or
management practices, and transitory process events to ensure collection of
representative samples.
7.3.3 Sampling Equipment
When choosing the sampling devices, you should consider waste properties and
site factors, as noted above. Sampling devices should also be selected based on
the analytes to be guantitated. For example, if the waste will be analyzed for
volatile organics, you should choose a sampling device that will minimize sample
agitation. You should also consider ease of use under the site conditions and
the degree of hazard associated with using a given device.
Commonly used sampling devices include dippers, weighted bottles, coliwasas
(composite liguid waste samplers), thiefs, triers, and augers. SW-846 contains
descriptions of these and other sampling eguipment.
Disposable sampling devices should be used when practical. Examples of
disposal sampling eguipment include trowels, thiefs, coliwasas, and buckets. If
use of disposable devices is not feasible, then the sampling device should be
decontaminated after collecting each sample. Containers used for sample
compositing, such as buckets, should also be decontaminated before sampling and
disposed or decontaminated after each compositing event.
Besides sampling devices, you also will use other types of eguipment during
42
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
the sampling effort. We recommend that you write a detailed list of all types
of equipment that may be needed during the sampling effort.
7.3.4 Sample Containers and Preservatives
All samples should be placed in containers of a size and construction
appropriate for the planned analyses. SW-84 6 identifies appropriate containers
and preservatives for SW-846 analytical methods.
Containers for collecting and storing waste samples before analysis are
usually made of plastic or glass. Sample containers should be compatible with
the waste and not interfere with sample integrity. A list of appropriate
containers is presented in SW-846. Your laboratory should be responsible for
guaranteeing that the appropriate containers are available for both waste and
quality control (QC) samples based on the planned analysis.
7.3.5 Quality Control and Sample Handling and Documentation
Quality assurance procedures are employed to measure how well quality
control (QC) objectives are met. The analytical QC methodologies for a delisting
demonstration are discussed in the Analytical Plan SOP. As noted in that SOP,
trip and equipment sample blanks should be collected to monitor the introduction
of any variables during sampling. SW-846 contains guidance regarding the
collection frequency of these sample blanks.
In addition to collecting field QC samples, quality control procedures
include sample handling and documentation protocols. Waste sample containers
should be properly handled and stored to make sure that the samples are
chemically and physically representative of the sampled waste. In addition,
proper sample labeling and documentation of sample collection, preservation, and
chain-of-custody procedures should be followed to maintain sample integrity.
Chain-of-custody procedures include documenting sample collection activities,
sample shipment, and laboratory processing to make sure that sample results are
fully traceable back to sample collection. All persons having custody of the
samples should follow the procedures discussed in SW-846.
7.4 Examples of Sampling Strategies for Delisting Demonstrations
In this section, examples of sampling strategies are presented for the
following sampling locations: pipes and other process discharges, drums,
landfills, and surface impoundments. We also describe approaches for dealing
with "hot spots" within a unit and collecting representative samples at MWTFs.
Diagrams and descriptions of sampling equipment mentioned in this section can be
found in SW-84 6.
The variety of waste properties and the uniqueness of each sampling
situation necessitates a thorough examination of options for acquiring
representative samples. We believe the procedures discussed here represent the
best approaches to sampling under each respective waste scenario. However, the
most appropriate sampling strategy for your waste may be somewhat different and
43
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
should be devised by personnel familiar with the specific waste properties, site
factors, and sampling objectives.
7.4.1 Pipes and Other Process Discharges
Representative samples from pipes and other process discharges are best
obtained through time-composite sampling, which is described in Section 2).
Composite sampling may be performed manually or through the use of automatic
compositers. The following discussion assumes that manual compositing is
performed.
There are two basic types of process discharges: (1) liguid or slurry
discharges, and (2) solid or semi-solid discharges. Liguids or slurries are
generally sampled from pipes, valves, or sluiceways. Solid process discharges
are often sampled from conveyor belts or filter presses.
For liguids and free-flowing slurries, a dipper-type sampler can be used.
The size of the dipper beaker should be directly related to the stream flow rate.
A dipper should be used to sample only one waste stream; any sampling eguipment
which comes in contact with the waste should be decontaminated or replaced before
collecting the next sample.
Before collection of an actual grab sample, the dipper should be first
rinsed in the waste stream to be sampled. The dipper should then be passed in
one sweeping motion through the discharge stream so that the beaker is filled in
one pass. The whole stream flow should be sampled, not just the edge of the
stream. If the cross-sectional area of the stream is large compared to the size
of the beaker, more than one pass may be necessary to sweep the entire cross
section of the stream and fill the beaker. Each grab sample should be of about
the same volume and emptied into a larger container for compositing. After
collecting all of the grab samples, the entire contents in the compositing
container should be mixed well before collecting a sample aliguot for analysis.
(Typically, aliguots for volatile analysis are collected from a grab sample and
not from the composite sample.)
Solid or semi-solid wastes on a conveyer belt can be sampled with a trowel,
scoop, or shovel. A shovel should be chosen or fabricated to match the width and
general contour of the belt as closely as possible. The grab samples can be
taken at any point along the belt, as long as the entire width of the belt is
sampled. Any fines or liguid present on the belt at the sampling point should
be included in the sample.
Regardless of the waste type, the freguency of sampling and the number of
independent grab samples combined to form a composite sample depend on the
variability of the waste over time and on the time span which the sample is meant
to represent. If you are sampling point-discharges from a fully continuous
operation, independent grab samples can be collected periodically (e.g., every
four hours during a 24-hour period of operation) and combined to form a daily
composite. As an alternative, one independent grab sample can be collected from
44
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
the continuous process per work day for a 5-day work week and the daily grab
samples combined into a weekly composite. You are needed to collect at least
four composite samples over a period adequate to gather representative waste
samples (typically not less than one month).
The sampling of a waste generated by a process that is not fully continuous
(e.g., transient operating cycles or batch operations) usually needs a greater
number of composite samples, composed of fewer grab samples, to sufficiently
characterize waste variability. Again, the sampling period and number of
composite samples will vary for each petitioned waste and will depend on which
scenario is best for getting the most representative samples. Therefore, it is
important that the individuals designing the sampling strategy are familiar with
the known temporal variability of the waste stream.
Solid discharges, such as filter cakes, often fall from a press or plate-
and-frame filter into a hopper or storage area. In this case, a composite sample
representative of a certain waste generation period may be obtained by sampling
the waste from the storage container after a period of accumulation. For
example, filter cake can be allowed to accumulate in a storage container for 24
hours, and then random core grab samples can be taken using a simple two-
dimensional random sampling strategy. The sampling of filter cake from a storage
container needs the use of a thief or a trier, depending on the total liquid
content of the material. A coliwasa could also be used if the solids content is
low. The core samples can be combined to form a composite representative of a
24-hour period of waste generation. This procedure should be repeated enough
times to get the required number of samples (e.g., four composite samples over
one month).
If phase separation of the waste has occurred, such as exhibited by the
appearance of a liquid in the storage container, the waste should be mixed well
before drawing the samples. Excessive agitation of the waste, however, must be
avoided if volatile analysis will be performed.
7.4.2 Drums
If the petitioned waste is contained in drums, then each drum should be
sampled. If there are too many drums for this to be practical, then a
representative number of individual drums must be randomly selected for sampling.
Random selection is easily done by consecutively assigning a number to each drum
and then using a random number table to choose the drums to be sampled. Guidance
in using a random number table may be found in Appendix C of this manual.
For each drum, a single core sample representative of the entire depth of
the drum along its axis is sufficient. Equipment used for sampling waste in
drums includes weighted bottles, coliwasas, thiefs, and triers. Coliwasas and
weighted bottles are best suited for sampling liquids and free-flowing slurries;
if the sample is comprised of dry granules or a powder, a drum thief should be
used. A trier should be used to sample moist or sticky solids.
7.4.3 Landfills and Surface Impoundments
45
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Before sampling landfills or surface impoundments, the complete history of
waste discharge to the unit must be reviewed and understood. Such a review can
provide a better understanding of whether any waste stratification and spatial
variability has occurred. Regardless of whether variability has occurred, it is
important to get vertical samples representative of the entire unit depth,
including the bottom. Hollow-stem augers combined with split-spoon samplers are
freguently used for sampling landfills. Triers or modified triers may also be
used.
Generally, on-site and dedicated units contain wastes generated and managed
by fairly continuous processes and methods. As long as no process changes or one-
time discharges have occurred during the life of the waste units, random number
sampling procedures or fixed transect and offset sampling procedures are
suitable. These procedures are summarized below:
7.4.4 Random Sampling Procedure
1. On a diagram, divide the unit to be sampled into sections of egual area.
If the unit area is under 40,000 sguare feet, then divide the unit into
four egual guadrants. If the unit area is over 40, 000 sguare feet, then
divide the unit into egual sections of not more than 10, 000 sguare feet
each.
2. Divide each guadrant or section into an imaginary 10 x 10 grid to get 100
rectangles of egual size. Number the grid lines in each dimension from 1
to 9.
3. For each section, find out the number
five grab samples per section composite
This number will depend on the degree
the unit.
of sampling points necessary (e.g.,
sample) to characterize the waste,
of known spatial variability within
4. Select a two-digit number using a random number table. Repeat this
procedure until you have one two-digit number for each sampling point in
the section. (A random number table is provided in Appendix C of this
manual.)
5. Locate those grid intersections with coordinates corresponding to each of
the two-digit random numbers. These intersections are the locations of the
randomly selected sampling points.
6. Collect a full-core sample at each sampling point (i.e., samples should be
collected across the entire vertical depth, from top to bottom of the
unit).
7. Combine and mix the samples from each section to form a homogeneous
composite sample representative of each section. Do not, however, combine
samples from different Sections.
For example, a surface impoundment of 10,000 sguare feet should be divided
46
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
into four quadrants of 2,500 square feet each. In each quadrant, five full-core
samples should be collected and composited, resultinq in four composite samples,
one from each quadrant. Similarly, a landfill of 60,000 square feet would be
divided into six sections of 10,000 square feet each, yieldinq six composite
samples. At a minimum, we need the collection and analyses of four
representative samples per unit.
7.4.5 Fixed Transect and Offset Sampling Procedure
Waste units without a well documented history of waste manaqement should be
sampled more extensively (e.g., greater number of samples per unit and fewer qrab
samples for each composite sample) than units with complete documentation. More
extensive samplinq is appropriate to fully characterize the potential variability
of the petitioned waste.
These types of units also are best sampled usinq a fixed transect method
with an offset samplinq procedure rather than a random samplinq procedure. In
this method, a qrid is formed similar to that for the random samplinq procedure.
The samples, however, are collected at different points (non-random) alonq a qrid
line with a specified offset. In cases where the waste deposition pattern has
varied in a reqular manner, the samplinq plan should be modified to account for
any waste deposition chanqes that are known to exist.
7.4.6 Hot Spots
Sometimes a localized area of contamination (a "hot spot") is known or
expected to exist within a contained waste that otherwise exhibits comparatively
low concentrations of constituents. Hot spots are often caused by the discharqe
of a concentrated material (dumpinq) at a specific location. The waste
discharqed in the specific area should be characterized separately from the rest
of the contained waste to determine the boundaries of the hot spot.
Hot spots are sampled usinq procedures and equipment similar to that
described for samplinq landfills and surface impoundments. For contained wastes
known or expected to have hot spots, it is best to use the fixed transect and
offset samplinq procedure. We usually request more than the minimum of four
samples to characterize a petitioned waste expected to contain hot spots,
reqardless of the unit area. In such cases, additional samples (e.g., qrab
samples without compositinq) should be collected to verify the locations and
exact boundaries of all hot spots. If necessary, you may contact us for further
quidance reqardinq the samplinq of wastes expected to have hot spots.
7.4.7 Multiple Waste Treatment Facilities
Multiple waste treatment facilities (MWTFs) typically receive larqe numbers
of individual waste shipments from a variety of off-site processes. This
practice results in qreater variability of constituent concentrations and thus
makes it more challenqinq to collect representative samples. Therefore, the MWTF
petitioner has fewer options for collectinq samples that adequately demonstrate
47
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
that the petitioned waste is not hazardous. To get representative samples, the
following guidelines are suggested:
I
Collect and analyze as many samples as are deemed necessary to
characterize the known variability in constituent concentrations in the
treatment residue generated over one year (e.g., eight weekly composite
samples collected over a period of two months).
Find out what percentage of waste treated annually was represented by the
sampling period. You should try to represent wastes from a majority of
your clients.
Explain in your petition why the remaining percentage of the waste is not
expected to contain any other hazardous constituents of concern, different
levels of constituents of concern, or other different characteristics than
that represented by the sampling period.
7.5 Recommended Elements of a Written Sampling Plan
A written sampling plan makes sure that proper planning has taken place and
that planned procedures are followed during the actual sampling effort. A good
sampling plan should contain the following information:
! Objectives of the sampling effort.
! Description of the waste to be sampled.
! Description of the sampling strategy.
! Names and professional gualifications of all sampling team members.
! Description of all planned sampling and QC procedures, including
location of sampling points, sample numbering, on-site sample
preservation methods, sample containers, sample shipment, and
documentation.
! Decontamination and health and safety procedures.
! Analytical lab to be used and analyses to be performed.
! Health and safety plan.
! Sampling eguipment list.
A formal, written sampling plan is not necessary as part of a delisting
petition. You may send your written sampling plan to EPA for review before
sample collection and submittal of a formal delisting petition. If you choose
this option, you should also send the process and waste management information
48
-------
requested in Sections 4 and 5 of this Guidance
analytes. Based on this information, we will
provide guidance before you dedicate additional
and analysis.
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
Manual, and a complete list of
review your sampling plan and
resources to sample collection
49
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
SECTION 8
WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS INFORMATION
This section tells you how to provide waste sampling and analysis
information. You should send this sampling and analysis information to
support your contention that the petitioned waste should be removed from the
lists of hazardous wastes found in 40 CFR Part 261. The regulatory basis for
reguesting most of this information is found in 40 CFR § 260.22(i).
The information reguested in this section corresponds with Part 5 of the
"Framework for Delisting Petitions" found in Appendix A. This section is
divided into two major subsections: 8.1, "Waste Sampling Information" and 8.2,
"Waste Analysis Information."
As noted in Section 6 ("Delisting Analytical Plan SOP") and Section 7
("Delisting Sampling Plan SOP"), you have the option of sending, for our
review, a draft plan outlining future sample collection and analysis efforts
before committing resources to actual sample analysis and petition
preparation. If you choose this option, then you should note and document
that you did so when sending your formal petition.
8.1 Waste Sampling Information
We will review information on waste sampling efforts to find out
whether:
! Collected samples sufficiently represent the variability or
uniformity of the petitioned waste.
! Waste sampling was conducted by gualified personnel.
! Sample integrity was maintained through analyses.
To demonstrate that collected samples are sufficiently representative of
the petitioned waste, you should include the following information in your
petition:
! Identification of which process point discharges, containment
areas (e.g., lagoons), or other areas (e.g., soils) were sampled
and why these areas were selected for sample collection.
! A description of the technigues and guidelines used to select
waste sampling points (e.g., random sampling procedure or fixed
transect and offset sampling procedure).
! A general description of the sampling and subsampling (i.e.,
transferring aliguots of a sample to containers specific to
certain analyses) procedures used during the sample collection
50
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
process, including the particular days and times selected for
sample collection, the number of grab samples collected for each
composite sample, and why these procedures were used.
! A description of the sampling devices used for sample collection
and the basis for selecting the devices.
! Identification of any deviations from your original sampling plan
and strategy and the impact of these deviations on waste
characterization.
! A detailed discussion explaining why you believe the samples
collected are non-biased and sufficiently represent the petitioned
waste. This explanation should fully address the potential for
waste uniformity or spatial and temporal variability and how the
strategy ensured collection of representative samples.
You should demonstrate that waste sampling was conducted by qualified
personnel. Therefore, you should provide the following information:
! The name and address of the organization(s) or company(s)
responsible for designing the sampling strategy and collecting the
samples, if sampling assistance was obtained from outside the
petitioning facility.
! The names, affiliations, titles, and qualifications (a resume will
suffice) of all personnel (in-house and otherwise) who designed
the sampling plan and the quality control plan and those
individuals responsible for sample collection.
We also request sample-specific information to show that sample
integrity was maintained. Therefore, you should include the following
information for each sample collected for analysis:
! The sample identification number, as it appears in your field
logbook and other records.
! Whether or not the sample is a waste sample or a quality control
sample.
! A detailed description of how the sample was collected and its
point of collection from the petitioned waste including whether
the sample is a composite of grabs, the number of grab samples
collected for the composite sample, the sampling location for each
grab sample, the volume of each grab sample, and the volume of the
composite sample. The general sampling location (e.g., which
quadrant of a surface impoundment) and the specific sampling point
(e.g., specific location in the quadrant) should be provided. You
may refer to numbered sampling points shown in a diagram.
51
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
A description of how the sample was composited (e.g., equipment
used and manner of mixing).
A physical description of the sample at time of collect on (e.g.,
color, odor, whether phase separation occurred soon after
collection).
The time and date when each grab sample was collected and the time
when the sample was composited, as applicable.
The handling and preparation techniques used for each sample
(including types of containers used and techniques employed for
container preparation) and types and amounts of preservatives
used.
Petitioners should also include some of the more general information
about sample collection so that we may evaluate sample representativeness and
integrity. This information includes:
! An indication as to whether any facility activities separate from
sampling occurred at the same time and might have affected sample
representativeness (such as fossil-fueled motors being used
nearby).
! A description of weather conditions during sample collection (if
sampling is conducted outdoors).
! A description of sampling device decontamination between samples.
Alternatively, note when new devices were used for each sample.
! A description of the quality control procedures and documentation
system used to track sample location and maintain sample integrity
during transportation to the laboratory. You may simply state
that you followed the chain-of-custody system specified in SW-846,
if you have done so. You may also provide copies of the chain-of-
custody forms, but this is not a requirement.
If you have collected samples to characterize a localized area of
contamination (a "hot spot," see Section 7.4) within the petitioned waste,
then you should also provide the following information:
! Your basis for believing a hot spot may or does exist (e.g.,
records of a one-time discharge of a concentrated material at a
specific location).
! The known or predicted location (on a diagram) and the dimensions
(e.g., depth, width and length) of the hot spot.
! Identification of the samples specifically collected to
characterize the hot spot.
52
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
\ An explanation for why samples adequate represent the hot spot.
If you have collected samples to characterize a waste generated by a
multiple waste treatment facility (MWTF), then you should also provide the
following information:
! A listing and description (based on your knowledge) of the
untreated wastes that were treated and are represented by the
treatment residue samples collected during the sampling period.
! The percentage of wastes treated annually that was represented by
the sampling period.
! A listing and brief description of the untreated wastes that also
are treated at the facility but were not represented by the
sampling period.
! A discussion explaining why the wastes not represented by the
sampling period are not expected to contain any other hazardous
constituents of concern, different-levels of constituents of
concern, or other different characteristics than those represented
by the sampling period.
8.2 Waste Analysis Information
Based on the analytical results reported in your petition, we will find
out whether your waste exhibits a hazardous waste characteristic (if you chose
analysis for the demonstration) and whether any of the tested constituents are
present at levels of regulatory concern. Besides analytical results, you
should also provide sufficient information to demonstrate whether:
! Waste sampling was conducted by qualified personnel.
! the data are valid (e.g., results from quality control analyses
supporting data validity)
! Sample integrity was maintained through analyses.
Some of the information requested below is routinely supplied on reports
from an analytical laboratory. However, we suggest that you inform your
laboratory of the specific information we prefer for delisting petitions to
ensure complete data submittals.
You should demonstrate that laboratory analyses were conducted by
qualified personnel. Therefore, you should provide the following information:
! The name and address of the organization(s) or company(s)
responsible for sample analyses, if analytical assistance from
outside the petitioning facility was gotten.
53
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
\ The names, affiliations, titles, and qualifications (a resume will
suffice) of all personnel (in-house and otherwise) who conducted
analyses or were responsible for data reduction, validation, and
laboratory quality control.
Your petition should clearly specify analytical information for each
analytical test conducted, includinq testinq for the hazardous waste
characteristics, total oil and qrease, inorqanic constituents (leachinq
procedure and total results), and orqanic constituents (leachinq procedure and
total concentration results).
For each sample, you should report the followinq information:
! Sample identification number as loqqed durinq collection and as
assiqned by the laboratory.
! Type of sample (e.q., waste sample, waste sample replicate,
equipment blank, trip blank).
! Date of sample receipt by the laboratory.
For each analysis performed on each sample, you should report the
followinq information:
! The sample preparation method and reference for the method (e.q.,
SW-846 Method 3500) .
! The date of sample workup or preparation.
! Initials (or name) of the person conductinq each analysis.
! The date each extraction and analysis was performed.
! The test method used and the source of the test method (e.q., SW-
846 Method 8020).
! The specific constituent, parameter, or hazard for which analysis
was conducted.
! The test results, expressed in appropriate units (e.q., mq/L,
mq/kq).
! Basis for each analysis (e.q., wet weiqht, dry weiqht). We prefer
that this basis is the state in which the waste will be disposed,
if allowed by the test.
! The estimated quantitation limits (EQLs). While method detection
limits (MDLs) are of concern, we also evaluate EQLs for delistinq
54
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
purposes. EQLs are provided in SW-846 and should be discussed in
all petitions.
! The names and model numbers of all equipment used during analysis.
! All other information necessary to fully interpret the test
procedures or results (e.g., percentage solids in the waste,
solvent(s) used during oil and grease extraction, extraction
method used during semi-volatile analysis).
8.3 Quality Control Information
We also request that laboratory quality control (QC) procedures be
performed and the results reported. You should report the methods taken to
make sure the quality of sample analysis so that we can fully and accurately
evaluate the validity of the waste sample results.
Chapter One of SW-846 is an excellent source for general guidance
regarding quality control procedures. Each SW-846 test method has specific QC
requirements that should also be followed.
For each QC analysis, you should report the analytical information
listed above, as appropriate (e.g., date of analysis, person conducting the
analysis, sample identification number, units, method source). You should
also report the information specific to each type of QC analysis that is
listed below. You should present your own acceptance criteria, which should
be at least as stringent as the criteria specified for each method in SW-846.
Section 6.7 of this guidance manual, "Identifying Quality Control (QC)
Protocols (Step 8)," provides more guidance regarding QC procedures. You
should follow the QC procedures and criteria of each analysis method as
documented in the method source (e.g., SW-846), otherwise, we may not consider
your analytical data valid or your petition complete.
Each type of analysis should have a method blank, matrix spike, and a
matrix duplicate or matrix spike duplicate. The appropriate frequencies for
performing these QC analyses are discussed in SW-846. For each method blank,
you should report the concentration of each analyte in the sample. For each
matrix spike, you should report:
! The name of the matrix spike analyte added.
! Concentration of the matrix spike analyte in the unspiked sample.
! The amount of the matrix spike analyte added.
! Concentration of the matrix spike in the spiked sample.
! The calculated percent recovery of the matrix spike and method of
calculation.
55
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
\ The acceptance criterion for recovery of the matrix spike.
In addition to the information listed above, for each matrix spike
duplicate pair, you should report:
! The measured amount of the matrix spike in both spiked samples.
! The relative percent difference (RPD) between the two analytical
results. The calculation for the RPD is:
(XI - X2/X)100), where XI = first value, X2 = second value,
and X = mean value = (XI + X2)/2.
! The acceptance criterion for RPD of each matrix spike compound.
Most organic analyses need specific surrogate spikes, depending on the
method. Surrogates are specific constituents that are similar in chemical
structure and physical properties to a substance of interest, but are not in
the waste itself. (Deuterated compounds, in which deuterium replaces hydrogen
in a given compound, are popular surrogates.) We reguest that the surrogates
listed with the method in SW-846 be used. You should report the same type of
information as listed above for matrix spikes .
Finally, you should provide the following information:
! Were waste analytical data corrected based on guality control
results (e.g., spike recoveries) and, if so, how was any
correction made?
! Explain any inconsistencies or deviations found in the reported
analytical results. This discussion should include any observed
analytical interferences and what actions were taken to resolve
the problems.
Data Validation
The petitioner should demonstrate that the submitted data is valid. all
data should be compared against specific criteria. Data should be gualified
according to guidance and any bias (high or low) should be identified. In
addition to SW-846, EPA Laboratory Data Validation Functional Guidelines for
Evaluating Inorganics Analysis (EPA/540/R/94/083) and EPA Laboratory Data
Validation Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organics Analysis
(EPA/540/R/94/082) should be referred to for guidance. The petition should
thoroughly evaluate all data for validity using the QA/QC procedures and
criteria outlined here.
Although not initially needed, the inclusion of a third party validation
report within the delisting petition would be beneficial to the review
process. An independent validation report or resampling could be need if the
56
-------
EPA Hazardous Waste Delisting Program
evaluation of the data shows sampling or analysis problems that could render
the data unusable for delisting purposes. Due to review time constraints, the
petition could be denied if an additional report or resampling is needed.
The petition could also be denied should some of the data be found to be
unacceptable, rendering less than the needed minimum number of samples (4).
The EPA suggests that the petitioner consider this possibility when preparing
a sampling plan.
57
------- |