DSHW-2009-008124 - 0901a0688013b24b

^ ^- JflN 09 '96 03:24Pri THIO!j|L E-519E P. 1/2
R9)E
To: Otis Willoughby J4N 9 1996 C.x/.uii r
F«#= 801-538.6715 ""/^t'^^Zi, lAOIMILt
Re: Contained in rule and spill cleanup ^^ tepartmeDt ef EflWniflmen' ^
Date: Janua7 9, 1996
Pages: I, including this cover sheet.
Otis, I have attached a copy ofthe Federal EPA comments on the contained in rule and how it
applies to spill cleanup. My question is in regards to the statement that says" the authorized
state has the discretion to determine contaminate-specific health based levels such that ifthe
concentrations ofthe hazardous v^^aste constituents were below those levels the media would
no longer contain the waste".
Does this allow the state to allow cleanups to health based standards using a mechanism
similar to the Corrective Action rule? It seems that on a cases by case basis this determination
could be made for small spills. In other words, is there a way to know ifyou have completed
a voluntary spill cleanup rather than excavate to background in the low part per billion range or
do a full blown closure using a risk assessment?
We ofttimes find ourselves doing a voluntary deanup on a small one gallon spill and have a
hard time knowing when to stop digging, Roll off size quantities of soil have been generated
from very small quantities of solvent spilled on asphalt as we attempt to clean soil to
background. Also, it is difficult to determine what background is without numerous soil
samples. The result is a large amount of soil, with little or no contamination, being sent off as
hazardous waste and high analytical and disposal cost with little benefit to human health or the
environment. Is there a way to use the contianed in rule provisions in this type of situation?
Thanks Otis!
^^^J\^^^y^ -Af^^^^OC^.
From tfie desk of...
PAUL HANCOCK
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
THtOKOL ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE
DISPOSAL
P.O. BOX 689
BRIGHAM CITY . UTAH 84302-0689
801-663-3344
Fax: [phone]
'§-zm 09 '96 03:24PM THIOKgL E-519E
^
apply. Instead, under the agency's "con-
tained-in' policy, such media contaminated
with listed hazardous waste must itself be
treated as listed hazardous waste until the
listed waste has been removed. [Hence; the
soil carries the F003 code regardless of
whether it is sull ignitable,]"
[November 4, 1992; W31; 3 pages]
Tetrachioride-Contaminated
Soil
QA leaking tank results in virgin catbon
tetrachloride contaminating the sur-
rounding soil. What is the regulatory status
of this contaminated soil? Is it subject to
hazardous waste management requirements?
A"The carbon tetrachloride tbat leaked
from the tank is considered to be 'dis-
carded' and would be identified as U211
listed hazardous waste. Under EPA's reg-
ulatory definition of hazardous waste in
§261.3(c)(l), soils that contain hazardous
wastes must be managed as if they were
hazardous wastes until or unless they no
longer contain the lisled waste, exhibit a char-
acteristic, or are delisted (see 57 FR "UIIS:
August 18, 1992), Under the 'contained-in
policy,' the authorized state or EPA has the
discretion to determine contaminant-specific
health-based levels such that if the concen-
tradons of the hazardous waste consdnienis
wetB beiow those levels, the media would no
longer be considered to contain the waste.
This applies to "U" listed wastes and other
listed wastes. The health-based levels used in i
making contained-in determinations are es-1
tablished on a site-specific basis, in accord- j
ance with general siate or fedeial guidelines, i
or by means ofa site-specific risk assessment.
This discretion is available to the State Ad-
ministrator in an authorized state or other-,
wise is vested in the EPA Regional Admin-1
istrator."
\
(October \5. 1992; 6399; 4 pages] \
k What if soil contaminant levels are be- [
"low the state's remedial requirements?
I
A'The state may determine that the soil
does not contain hazardous waste. If
such Is the case, and the state is authorized
for the RCRA program, there would be no
RCRA hazardous waste management re-
quirements applicable to the soil before or
f P. 2/2
during excavations incident to che removal of
the tank."
[October 15.1992; 6399; 4 pages]
Leacnate-Contaminated
Ground Water
When ground water is contaminated
with hazaidous waste leachate. does it
become hazardous waste under the mixture
rule?
Q:
A"To answer this question, one fu^t has
to determine the status of ground water.
Under the regulations, ground water con-
tained in the aquifer is not considered a solid
waste since it is not 'discarded' in the sense
of being abandoned, recycled, or inherendy
waste-like as those terms are defuied in the
regulations [5261.2(aHd)]. Therefore, con-
. taminated ground waiercaruiot be considered
a hazardous waste via the mixnire njlc (i.e..
to have a hazardous waste mixture, a hazard-
ous waste must be mixed with a iolid wo5ie\
see §261.3(a)(2)(iv)). Nevertheless, ground
water contaminated with hazardous waste
leachate is still subject to regulation since ic
conrainj a hazaidous waste. Therefore, the
treatmeni. storage, or disposal of ground
water contaminated with hazardous waste
leachate must be handled as if the ground
water itself were hazardous since hazardous
waste leachate is subject to regulation under
Subtitle C of RCRA. However, ifthe ground
water is treated such that it no longer contains
a hazardous waste, the ground water would
no longer be subject to regulation under Sub-
title C of RCRA."
[November 13, 1986; 6367; 2 pages]
Waste Minimization
lis the practice of diluting a charac-
teristically hazardous waste into used
oil to render the mixture nonhazardous con-
sidered waste minimization?
A"Waste minimization, as defined by
HSWA [Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984], means 1) reduction
of the total volume or quantity of hazardous
waste; 2) reduction ofthe toxicity of hazard-
ous waste; or 3) both, as long as the reduction
is consistent with the goal of minimizing
present and AiWre threats to human health
land the environment. The type of dilution
described above does not reduce volume and
Q^
does not appear to reduce the amount of toxic
constituents in the mixture."
[October 28. 1992; 6401; 7 pages]
Bevill Exclusion
Gold/iVlercury Amalgam
Retorting Waste
|Is the solid waste that is generated from
'gold/mercury amalgam retorting con-
sidered beneficiaiion and extraction waste
subject to the Bevill exclusion found at
5261.4(b)(7), or is it subject to Subtitle C
requirements?
A"Based upon the information provided.
EPA would interpret the retorting op-
eradon to be mineral processing. Specifi-
cally, 'heating operations such as smelting
(i.e., any metallurgical operation in which
metal is separated by fusion from impurities)
and fire-refining (e.g., retorting) are clearly
and have always been considered within the
realm of mineral processing. Here, the physi-
cal structure of the ore or minenl is de-
stroyed, and neither the product stream nor
the waste stream(s) arising from the opera-
tion bear any close physical/chemical resem-
blance to the ore or mineral entering the
operation.' [See 54 FR 36618: September 1,
1989.]
"Mineral processing wastes do not reuin
the Bevill exclusion unless they are one of the
20 permanently exempt mineral processing
wastes listed in §261.4(b)(7)(i).H:xx). No re-
torting wastes are among the 20 permanently
exempt mineral processing wastes. There-
fore. EPA believes that any solid waste gen-
erated from the retorting operation is no
longer covered by the Bevill exciusion in
§261.4(b)(7).
"According to the information provided.
the site ceased operations in the 1960s, and
cleanup of the site will involve removal of
contaminated soil and debris. The Septem-
ber 1, 1989 rule does not impose Subtitle C
requirements on mineral processing wastes
disposed in Alaska prior to March 1, 1990,
unless those wastes are actively managed.
Active management includes physical distur-
bance of the wastes (see 54 FR 36597),
Therefore, ifthe retort wastes were actively
managed (i.e., removed for disposal) after
March 1, 1990, the wastes would be subject
Tlie Hazardous Waste Consultant: July/August 199S
©Elsevier Science Inc. 0738-0232;95/S0-i-$9.5O
4,9