DSHW-2018-003277 - 0901a068807eab49

Div of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Dominion Energy Services, Inc
5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060
DominionEnergy com
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Donitan9 2018 0.1 Energy®
s Ik\AL_ZO( - 0 0 3Z1 1
April 3, 2018
Mr. Scott T. Anderson
Director
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
RE: Dominion Energy: Request for Determination for Leather PPE
Dear Mr. Anderson:
Dominion Energy respectfully requests a determination by the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality as to whether a waste stream consisting of discarded leather
personal protective equipment (PPE) that exceeds the regulatory threshold for the
hazardous waste toxicity characteristic for chromium meets the hazardous waste
exclusion of 40 CFR §261.4(b)(6)(i).
The regulatory exclusion 40 CFR §261.4(b)(6)(i) identifies three criteria that waste must
meet in order to be exempt from regulation as hazardous waste, as a solid waste that are
hazardous solely because they exhibit the toxicity characteristic for chromium. The three
conditions that must be met in order to meet the exclusion are: 1) The chromium in the
waste is exclusively (or nearly exclusively) trivalent chromium; 2) the waste is generated
from an industrial process which uses trivalent chromium exclusively (or nearly
exclusively) and the process does not generate hexavalent chromium; and 3) the waste is
typically and frequently managed in non-oxidizing environments.
40 CFR § 261.4(b)(6)(ii) identifies specific wastes that EPA has determined meet the
criteria, including, in paragraph (G), "Waste scrap leather from the leather tanning
industry, the shoe manufacturing industry, and other leather products manufacturing
industries." Discarded leather PPE is analogous to waste scrap leather from the tanning
industry.
It is my understanding Robert Springer of EPA's Office of Solid Waste issued a letter on
March 18, 2003 that allowed authorized states to exclude these wastes as hazardous
waste on a case by case basis. I have attached letters issued by other states in which
Dominion Energy operates that exempt these leather gloves and PPE based on the
existing exemption for characteristic waste whose characteristic quality is driven by
Chromium III content. Please see the following attachments from peer state agencies for
your consideration.
Dominion Energy appreciates the Department's consideration of these issues and looks
forward to receiving your response. Please contact me at [phone] if there are any
questions or require further information.
Respectfully,
Jason E. Williams
Director, Environmental
Enclosures
icKeo /O062,44 52.0 AM EN.-bocumeti+ rbe,:
NCDETirt l'vez6-Pc- Corttcreondeiva
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Waste Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue Dexter R. Matthews
Govemor Director Dee Freeman
Secretary
June 2, 2010
Leona Sheffey, Manager
Waste Permitting and Compliance
Tennessee Valley Authority
1101 M Hillsborough Street, 5D Lookout Place
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
RE: Leather Product Disposal
Tennessee Valley Authority
Dear Ms. Sheffey:
This office has reviewed your facility's February 1, 2010 request that leather products such as gloves and shoes not be considered a hazardous waste when discarded. Analysis included with the request showed that the tested
gloves failed TCLP for chromium. It was further demonstrated that the chromium in the gloves was predominantly
chromium III. This waste does not meet the requirement of an exclusion under 40 CFR 261.4(b)(6)(ii), adopted by
reference at 15A NCAC 13A .0106(a), in that these wastes are not included in the list of specific exemptions. However, a March 18, 2003 letter by Robert Springer of EPA's Office of Solid Waste is allowing authorized states
to exclude these wastes as hazardous wastes on a case by case basis. Your request also included letters from
Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky and Alabama that allow this exclusion.
Based on the information provided, the North Carolina Hazardous Waste Section approves the exclusion of leather gloves and shoes from hazardous waste requirements. This exclusion applies only to the chromium
contamination as originally contained in the gloves and shoes as long as the conditions and the processes
generating this waste do not change. If you have any questions, please contact Doug Roberts at [phone].
Respectfully,
Lebeed Kady
Hazardous Waste Section
cc: Doug Roberts
Mike Wlliford
Elizabeth Cannon Lebeed Kady Helen Cotton
Ann Preston Xe eroyks, 2V-C, e. SR C.
IŠ . ripcigesGeuys), Le
g. /1:4Ai..P 511 - 8 . P
JUN 0 8 7.010

,Pne 1646 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1646 NO Carolina Phone: [phone] I FAX: [phone] Internet: www.wastenotnc.org
An Equal Oppottungly %Manage Action Employei atitrally
P.02/03 MAY-16-2007 09:06
OTE PROTECT PROsPER
DO Bull Street Aumbia, SC 29201.105
•
Aptil 26, 2004
Mr. Gerald Beaumont
Beaumont and Associates
209 Asheton Way
Simpsonville, SC 29681-4903
RE: Applicadon of R.61-79.261.4 (b)(6) Exclusion for Leather Gloves and Shocs.
Dear Mr. Beaumont,
This letter is in response to your April 14, 2004 letter in which you reques: the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control Pepartmeni:
to provide an interpretation of the South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management
Regulations (SCHWMRs) exclusion Under 261.4(b)(6).
Specifically, your letter referenced leather gloves and shoes used in your
client's operadons. First, let me clarify that 261.4(b)(6)(ii)(G) excludes, as a
hazardous waste, only leather trimmings and scrap leather from specific industrie:; such as leather tannin° shoe manufacturing, and other leather product
xxianufacturing. Secondly, the specific industries referenced in 261.4(b)(6)(ii)(G)
must meet all the standards in paragraph 261.4(b)(6)(i) for the specific waste to be
excluded as a hazardous waste.
Under the exclusion in the 261.4(b)(6) of the SCHWMRs, the waste will fail the TCLP test exclusively for chromium, or is listed in Subpart 13 (listed wastes) clue
to the presence of chromium, and does not exhibit any other hazardous waste
characteristics of Subpart C. Please refer to the attached correspondence (M. Shapiro I
to D. Gallo, 6/1 1/96), in which it is clarified: "...EPA originally exempted specijì.. l ND L-1-
wastes from the leather tanning and finishing industry based upon information
submitted to EPA to determine that the wastes 1) contained chromium exclusively or
nearly exclusively in the trivalent form, 2) were generated from an industrial process
using trivalent clu-omium exclusively (or nearly exclusively), and the process doe:.
not generate hexavaletu chromium, and 3) the waste is typically and _frequently
managed in non-oxidizing environments."
Based on the above, and provided that the conditions a the exclusion in
R.61-79.261.4 (b)(6)(i) remain lave and applicable to the leather products menriorwc1
in your, letter, then the waste gloves and shoes that are the object of your inquiry 'will
not be considered a hazardous waste. Please note that this interpretation is based on
L; 7 C GLINA ? ?. T7.4171.-7 C•F AND m +4 7 l' Z.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009.max
1
MAY-16-2007 09:06 P.03/03

Litton to Beaumont
4-26-04
Page 2
your assertion that the gloves and shoes are not contaminated with any other
hazardous waste. In addition, please note that it is the generator's responsibility to
make a waste determination and to comply with appropriate inanagement stimdarctl.
If you havc any further questions, please feel free to contact Johnny Tapia st
[phone], or myself at [phone].
Sincerely,
jeelca
John T. Litton, P.E., Director
Waste Management Division
Bureau of Land and Waste Management
Attachment
cc: Miscellaneous File
Wednesday, Marsh 11, 2009.max
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr. SE. Suite 1154 East Tower. Atlanta. GA 30334-0900
Chris Clark. Commissioner
Environmental Protection Division
F. Allen Barnes. Director
[phone]
Cynthia Anderson
Manager, Regulatory Interface
Environmental Permitting and Compliance
5D Lookout Place.
Tennessee Valley Authority
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
September 13, 2010
CERTIFIED MAIL
Return Receipt Requested
RE: Request for Exemption, Leather Gloves and Shoes
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) has completed review of your request for
exemption of "discarded leather products" that fail the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test for chromium only. You requested the exemption pursuant to
40CFR261.4(b)(6)(i), which is incorporated by reference in the Georgia Rules for
Hazardous Waste Management at 391-3-11-.07(1). The referenced rule states that:
"Wastes which fail the test for Toxicity Characteristic because chromium is
present...and which do not fail the test for the Toxicity Characteristic for
any other constituent, if it is shown by a waste generator or by waste
generators that:
(A) The chromium in the waste is exclusively (or nearly exclusively)
trivalent chromium; and
(B) The waste is generated from an industrial process which uses trivalent
chromium exclusively (or nearly exclusively) and the process does not
generate hexavalent chromium; and
(C)The waste is typically and frequently managed in non-oxidizing
environments."
are solid wastes that are not hazardous wastes. EPD finds that your request meets the
three-part test of the rule. Specifically, based on data supplied by TVA, hexavalent
chromium averages 0.62% in the gloves, both before and after use, and TVA will
segregate gloves used in high hexavalent chromium areas and manage them as D007
hazardous waste. Further, EPD assumes that discarded gloves will be landfilled,
fulfilling the "non-oxidizing environment" portion of the test. Provided that TVA manages
their gloves pursuant to the above conditions, EPD concurs that they are exempt from
TVA Leather Gloves
August 31, 2010
Page 2
management as hazardous waste. However, deviation from these conditions may
subject the gloves to management as D007 hazardous waste. Based on communication
from TVA, it is EPD's understanding that shoes/boots referenced in your
correspondence are the personal property of employees, and therefore, upon discard,
would fall under the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator exemption at
40CFR261.5 or the household hazardous waste exemption at 40CFR261.4(b)(1). EPD
reminds TVA that, should the "discarded leather products" fail the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) for any other constituent, or become listed through the
mixture rule at 40CFR261.3(a)(2)(iv), they must be managed pursuant to the
appropriate hazardous waste code/listing.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Jim McNamara,
Amy Potter or Chituru Wokpara at [phone].
Sincerely,
Mark Smith
Branch Chief
Land Protection Branch
File: Variance - 2010
SARDRIVEVariance\TVA LeatherLtrl.doc
STATE OF TENNESSEE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION
Division of Solid Waste Management
Fifth Floor, L & C Tower
401 Church Street
Nashville, Tennessee 37243 — 1535
solid.waste(&,tn.gov
September 9, 2011 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
# 7005 1820 0001 5863 7810
Ms. Brenda Brickhouse
Vice President — Environmental Permits & Compliance
Tennessee Valley Authority
1101 Market Street
Chattanooga, TN 37402
RE: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
Personal Use Leather Products Exemption
Tennessee Rule 1200-01-11-.02(1)(d)2(vi)
Dear Ms. Brickhouse:
The Division of Solid Waste Management ("the Division" or "DSWM") has reviewed
your August 18, 2011, request for the evaluation of an exemption for personal use leather
products (boots, gloves, aprons, shoes, etc.) and concurs that an exemption is applicable
based on the review of TVA's product contamination study for manufactured leather
work products used at TVA Tennessee facilities, and the comments and arguments
associated with the conditions for the exclusion found in Tennessee Rule 1200-01-11-
.02(1)(d)2(vi). TVA's data indicates that the chromium present in these leather products
comes from the leather tanning process used in manufacturing the leather products and
appears to be exclusively (or nearly exclusively) trivalent chromium. The data also
indicates that chromium is the only contaminant.
The Division wants to emphasize that this exemption is applicable only as long as the
regulatory conditions and processes that generate the leather products do not change. A
new waste determination will be required if a new industrial process arises that could
introduce to the leather products a new hazardous contaminant or significantly increase
the existing hexavalent chromium concentration. The TVA could then potentially be
required to manage the leather waste as hazardous waste.
The Division believes that a "reasonable determination" has been made equivalent to the
April 26, 2004, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control letter,
as approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on November 12,
2004. The Division's determination also satisfies the November 12, 2004, EPA
recommendation to TVA to contact the regulatory agencies in the States where TVA
facilities are located and seek concurrence for the exemption. TVA has acted on this
evaluation request in a logical and professional manner, and as such, the Division's
concurrence is in line with prior exemption evaluations and awards from the States of
Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
Brenda Brickhouse
September 9, 2011
Page 2
If you have questions concerning this determination, please contact Mr. Joe Putnam at
[phone] or at [e-mail] or Mr. Robert Nakamoto at [phone] or
at [e-mail]. Thank you for your inquiry on this important subject as well
as the supporting documentation and research that you staff provided.
Sincerely,
Original Signed
Mike Apple
Director
cc: Hector Danois, State Liaison, Senior Enforcement Specialist, RCRA/OPA
Enforcement & Compliance Branch, EPA, Region 4
Garey L. Mabry, Program Manager, DSWM Hazardous Waste Management Program
Glen Pugh, Program Manager, DSWM Solid Waste Management Program
DSWM Field Office Managers and Supervisors
Joe Putnam, Regulatory Compliance Section
Dave Jarrett, Regulatory Compliance Section
Ruby Cable, Regulatory Compliance Section
Central File -35
December 21, 2005
Re: Regulatory interpretation of 401 KAR 31:010, Section 4(2)(f)(1):
Determination Letter
Discarded Leather Products as Hazardous Waste Exemption
Dear Mr.
The Kentucky Division of Waste Management (Division) has received on
August 23, 2005 and additional supportive information on November 16, 2005 to
your request for regulatory status of discarded leather products, including gloves
and boots, that meet the conditions of the exclusion pursuant 401 KAR 31:010,
Section 4(2)(f)(1).
The Division's understands that the leather products used at are generally clothing
items commonly used to protect skin, and prevent burns, cuts and abrasions.
Thesaiducts include standard styles of leather gloves and leather boots. And,
that has found that these leather products (gloves and boots) generally
exhibit the toxicity characteristic for chromium due to the chromium used in the
leather tanning process.
The Division had reviewed your request and agrees that the leather
products consisting of boots and gloves used for skin protection meet the
conditions of the exclusion pursuant 401 KAR 31:010, Section 4(2)(f)(1). The
Division agrees that wastes failed the test for the toxicity characteristic because
chromium is present and do not fail the test for the toxicity characteristic for any
other constituent or are not listed due to the presence of any other constituent.
Also the Division agrees that the chromium in the waste is exclusively (or nearly
exclusively) trivalent chromium; and that the waste is generated from an
industrial process which uses trivalent chromium exclusively (or nearly
exclusively) and the process does not generate hexavalent chromium.
However, the Division makes aware that this exemption applies as
long as the conditions and process generating this waste do not change. This
means that in the event of new industrials processes being incorporated and that
they could contributed to other contaminant (i.e. solvents) or additional sources
of chromium (i.e. some paints) a new waste determination will be required. The
Division also understands that generators are "required to be correct in their
determination" [Faxback 11599], and an incorrect determination made, would
leave a generator vulnerable to enforcement action." [Faxback 11958]
[November 20, 1997; 62 FR 62083].
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact
Maridely M. Loyselle of my staff at [phone], extension 220.
Sincerely, tar E-Signed by Webb, April VERIFY authentidty with ApproveIt

April J. Webb P.E., Manager
Hazardous Waste Branch
Division of Waste Management
AJW/mml
c: Caron Falconer, EPA Region IV
Maridely M. Loyselle, Hazardous Waste Branch
Madisonville Field Office
File Room
Reading File
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
HALEY BARBOUR
GOVERNOR
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
TRUDY D. FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECIOR
December 17, 2009
Ms. Denice Funderburk
Senior Hazardous Waste Specialist
Environmental Permitting and Compliance
TVA Office of Environrnental Research
1101 Market Street, LP 5D
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Dear Ms. Funderburk:
On September 11, 2009 this agency received your email request to review the Tennessee
Valley Authority's (TVA) use of leather gloves at facilities located in the state of
Mississippi. TVA has conducted independent studies of several types of gloves that
could be utilized at their facilities and determined that these unused gloves would fail
TCLP for chromium. As part of this request you have supplied supporting analytical
data, regulatory findings from other states, and a USEPA policy position on discarded
leather products.
Based on a review of the supporting data, it is the position of this Agency that the leather
gloves presently being utilized for personal protection at TVA facilities in Mississippi do
meet the conditions for exclusion as a hazardous waste based on Mississippi Hazardous
Waste Management Regulation MHWMR 261.4(6)(6). This exclusion will apply to this
specific waste stream as long as conditions of use and/or exposure to addition hazardous
constituents do not change from the industrial use scenario, as detailed in your original
request for regulatory interpretation. Changes to the processes that the gloves are
exposed to, or use in a manner inconsistent with those detailed in your original request,
would place the burden of knowledge on TVA.
OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL
PosT OFFICE Box 2261 • JACKSON. Mississirri 39225-2261• TEL [phone] • FAX: [phone] • www.deq.state.ms.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
A copy of this letter should be sent and added to the operating record of each facility in
the State of Mississippi that is subject to the above finding. If you have any additional
questions please feel free to contact me at 601-961-5220.
DaA,02 e
David K. Peacock
Technical Support Branch
Environmental Compliance & Enforcement Division