JOHN SPElLMAN

Governor'

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

Mail Stop PV-l1 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 459-6000

September 28, 1982

Mr. John R. Spencer

Regional Administrator

Region X

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, Washington 98101

Dear Mr. Spencer:

~§©[?:uw~~

OCT 11982

WASTE ,.t~~!'~GEMENT BRANCH

This will acknowledge receipt of your June 7 and August 31, 1982 letters regarding EPA's review of the State's Application for RCRA Interim Authorization. In

your reviews of the application,you determined that additional information is

necessary before the application can be considered complete.

The following parts of the letter and attachment hereto will be for the purpose of addressing those incomplete areas of the application that you have identified.

We will address each incomplete issue in the order that they appear in the letters.

June 7, 1982 Letter:

1. The application is incomplete as submitted because the Attorney

General's statement is stamped "draft" and is unsigned. Attached

is Addendum #1 which is a signed final Attorney General's statement.

2. There is the lack of a statement as to whether or not the state

seeks authority over regulating dangerous waste activities on

Indian lands. See page 22 of Addendum #1.

3. The state must show that the dangerous waste aspects of energy facilities under the jurisdiction of the Energy Facility Site

Evaluation Council (EFSEC) are controlled. See attached Addendum

#1, pages 5-8.

4. The Authorization Plan does not include any discussions on how

the state will attempt to meet the increased resource levels

which the state deems are necessary to carry out the program.

The attached Addendum #2 responds to this issue in the context

of the Authorization Plan.

5. The Authorization Plan needs to describe how dangerous waste

activities will be controlled at energy facilities. See response

in Addendum #3.

I

/

f

/

.'
Mr. John R. Spencer

September 23, 1982

Page 2

6. The state needs to identify the specific liability insurance

requirements that will be applied to permitted facilities since

these requirements are not identified in the regulations. The

attached Addenda #1 and #4 addresses this issue in the context

of an addition to the Memorandum of Agreement (Addendum #4) and

by an assurance in the Attorney General's statement, page 16,

item H (Addendum #1).

August 20, 1982 Letter:

Universe of Waste Regulated

1. See Addendum #5

2. See Addendum #6

3. See Addendum #7

4. See Addendum #8

5. See Addendum #9

6. See Addendum #10

Transporter Standards - Spills

7. See Addendum #11

Manifest System - Designating TSD Facility

8. See Addendum #12

Seismic Siting Standards (follow-up to comment #3, June 11, 1982 letter)

9. See Addendum #13

Attorney General IS Statement

Comments w.ill be submitted separately by the Attorney General to address

any outstanding questions or comments under this section.

Responses to June 11, 1982 Letter to Earl Tower

Most items under this letter have been addressed in the above responses

to the June 7th and August 20th letters, however, there were some

comments that were not, so the following is an attempt to respond to

them.

Final Standards for Tanks

4. See Addendum #14
.»:

Mr. John R. Spencer

September 23, 1982

Page 3

Incinerator Standards - Ignitable Wastes

~. See Addendum #15

Public Notice for Permits Issuance

6. See Addendum #16

Manifest System - Interstate Shipments

1. See Addendum #17

The foregoing information is our full response to issues of incompleteness

that have been raised. I would appreciate your expeditious review of this

information so that we can rapidly proceed towards achieving Interim Authorization approval.

Sincerely, .

.: •• &27;-t'?-J ( . 'IYuc.tLl) " boi1'ct1 d W. Moos . Oi'rector

OWM: kb

Attachments

cc: Ken Feigner
r "">-,

~'. - .. " .. "

ADDENDUM 112

TO THE AUTHORIZATION PLAN UNDER

ITEM III (ADMI~ISTRATIVE NEEDS)

A. Item - The state is currently maintaining a minimum program pace at

current levels of funding. This minimum level exists as a result of

a lack of full funding from federal and state sources. In an attempt

to move towards full funding the department will be considering over

the next several months alternative sources of funding~ i.e.~ user

fees~ assessments on volumes of dangerous waste~ etc.

B. Possible Problem - if it is decided that new source or sources of

revenue are to be pursued for increasing the program pace and that

new legislation is required the possibility exists in the current

economic climate that we may be unsuccessful in our attempts to

secure new revenues.

C. Schedule - Consideration of new funding sources will occur over the

next six months. When a decision is made on a course of action to

follow) specific mileposts can then be established to reflect what

type of funding mechanisms will be sought arid how they will be established.
-r>,

c·'·

ADDENDUM 113

TO TIlE AUTIlORlZATION PLAN

UNDER ITEM II (REGULATORY NEEDS)

The department and the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) will

develop during interim authorization the necessary procedures and memorandum

of agreement (MOA) to assure the control of dangerous waste activities at

energy facilities.

Since the number of energy facilities which may be regulated are few, the

volume of waste generated comparatively small, and the fact that the Department and EFSEC are moving towards developing procedures and a ¥~A it would

seem any question on substantial equivalence is met.

It is the intent of the Department to work with EFSEC within the next six

months to develop the necessary procedures and MOA to assure control of

dangerous waste activities at energy facilities.

31,
ADDENDUM 114

TO THE MEMORAIIDUM OF AGREEMENTS TO BE

INCLUDED UNDER ITEM II, C, 2

The state agrees to apply the liability insurance requirements specified in

40 CFR 264 subpart H to all permitted facilities handling RCRA hazardous

wastes.

37
ADDENDUH 115

The Washington Department of Ecology approach to regulating carcinogens at

the 10,000 ppm level has been criticized since application of that criteria

to an EPA designated waste may result in delisting. Such wastes may not have

been delisted by EPA since their delisting process uses a variety of factors

and standards on a case-by-case basis. This creates the possibility of less

stringent waste coverage for Washington wastes.

To make this dicussion less hypothetical Todd Kimmel of EPA's waste characterization branch identified organic carcinogens that were the basis for listing

wastes. Betty Wiese of EPA's Region X staff asked for a printout of notifers

in Region X that fell under the listed wastes in question. With the exception

of three listed waste streams, FOOl, F002, and KOOl, the listing waste streams

are either absent or rarely encountered in the state.

Two of the listed waste streams, FOOl and FD02, contain halogenated hydrocarbons that the Department regulates down to the 100 ppm level. Creosote

is a "B" category waste that would be regulated down to 1000 ppm levels

under acute toxicity criteria.

Given the very limited possibility that any wastes in Washington will go

unregulated and the much broader universe of Washington wastes that WDOE

captures and EPA do.es not, the Department believes the regulation meets the

substantially equivalent test. The Department will use the intervening

period to monitor any significant wastes that so escape designation and

might cause a problem for final authorization. This will also allow for

changes in EPA's delisting approach to consider a more generic approach.

EPA has taken this approach recently for Appendix VIII substances that are

in ignitable wastes to qualify for lesser incinerator regulation (100 ppm

has been chosen). (See response in Addendum 1115).
..-.....

ADDENDUM 116

The comment dealt with the Washington Department of Ecology extraction

method which uses a buffered acetic acid solution for the leach test.

The Department is willing to use EPA methods with the exception of continuous pH monitoring. The Department proposes to monitor pH for the

first six hours and at the end of the 24 hour period. This will avoid

expensive 24 hour monitoring or the use of continuous pH monitors. Any

severe pH changes that occur between the 6th and the 24th hour will trigger

further testing.

J1
ADDENDUM 117

Discarded Chemical Products -- Our regulations appear to cover only offspecification DCP, and to miss chemical products which are not off-spec.

The wording problem occurs in vIAC 173-303-081(1) (a) with the phrase " ...

if it had met specifications... ", implying that DCP whi.ch do meet specifications may not be covered. It is possible that an Attorney General's

statement could be written stating that this is intended to include DCP

which do meet specifications as well as those which do not.

The following amendment should be committed to prior to applying for Final

Authorization: replace " .•• if it had met specifications would have ... "

with" ..• has .•. ".

In the meantime, it is certain the DCP which might escape designation under

WAC 173-303-081 would be captured by either WAC 173-303-084 or our Criteria,

except that EPA would capture several DCP at the 2.2 1bs. limit, while we

would not capture them with the Dangerous Waste Mixtures or Criteria until

they exceeded 400 1bs. However, since both ours and EPA's experience has

shown that there are very few DCP being designated at all, it is questionable that this difference will be significant.

Furthermore, it can be argued that if EPA approves our Criteria and determines that our exemption process is equivalent, that this is a moot issue

because a generator with a DCP not captured by the Criteria would be exempt

under a "de1isting" process judged by EPA to be equivalent.
ADD E~"DUM 118

Sludge waste management prior to recycling -- sludges which are being recycled

are required by EPA to meet the same recycling standards as listed wastes.

WAC 173-303-120 does not specifically address sludges. EPA is concerned that

under WDOE's rules, sludges designated by the Characteristics may escape prerecycling requirements.

In general, we believe that all wastes which meet EPA's definition of sludge

and which would be caught by the Characteristics would also be designated by

the Dangerous Waste Mixtures or Criteria sections. By being so designated,

the sludge would be subject to either the recycling requirements for listed

wastes (Mixtures) or else subject to full regulation (Criteria designated

wastes will receive no recycling benefits). An analysis of sludges and characteristics follows.

Ignitability -- We are not aware of any sludges which could meet the characteristic of ignitability. Some sludges may have heat recovery value, but

we know of no sludges with flashpoints at or below 140 0 F., of any sludges

which could spontaneously generate a fire through friction or moisture absorption, or of any sludges which are oxidizers or compressed gases.

Corrosivity -- Sludges are not, by definition, liquid or aqueous so that a

sludge's pH will not be a factor considered for designation. We are not aware

of any sludges which could corrode steel at the rate of 0.25 inch per year.

Thus,we do not believe that any sludges will be designated for corrosivity.

In fact, sludges which might meet the characteristic of corrosivity will also

be toxic enough to kill fish and be designated by our Criteria. Such sludges

would then be subject to transport and management standards prior to recycling.

Reactivity The only reactivity characteristics that we believe a sludge

could exhibit are that it might generate toxic gases when mixed with water

or that it might contain cyanide or sulfide. If this were the case, we are

convinced that our Criteria such as fish toxicity would capture such sludges

and subject them to pre-recycling standards.

EP Toxicity -- We believe that sludges generated in this state which exhibit

the characteristic of EP toxicity would rarely be recycled and even so would,

in most cases, be designated by our Criteria.

In addition to the above, we suggest that because EPA is very close to issuing more comprehensive recycling standards, the concern over recycled sludges

is one to be addressed more appropriately at the time of Final Authorization.

In the meantime, the state will look closely at recycled sludges to determine

if there are any which EPA would cover and which ~IDOE might not equivalently

regulate. We believe that there will not be any.
~:...-.,

ADDENDUM 119

Definition of solid waste EPA has asked whether or not the state's

definition of solid waste is as comprehensive as EPA's.

While EPA's and WDOE's definitions are different, we believe that our definition

is as comprehensive as EPA's with one possible exception. EPA includes

solid waste which "sometimes is discarded." This implies that while one

generator may reuse or sell something as a material, if another generator

discards the same material then both generators would have to consider it a

solid waste. Our definitions of was~e and solid waste would allow the

generator reusing or reselling the material to avoid defining his material

as a solid waste.

EPA is currently in the process of redefining "solid waste" with respect to

recycling. Since WDOE is committed to implementing EPA's recycling standards

to achieve Final Authorization, we believe it would be most appropriate to

address this issue at that time.

In the interim, we believe that adequate protection exists in the Dangerous

Waste Regulations and other department rules (e.g., Water Pollution Control)

to be able to address situations where reused or sold materials may be a

risk to public health or the environment.
._.~

ADDENDill1 1110

Dcfintion of disposal -- EPA is concerned that our disposal definition is

not as comprehensive as EPA's.

WDOE's definition for "disposal" includes "discharge of any dangerous

wastes into or on any land or water." Our definition of "discharge" covers

any "accidental or intentional release of dangerous waste into the environment." We believe that such release includes the terms used by EPA in their

definition of "disposal". as release is general enough to include every term

EPA employs and then some.
· -.,,,.

ADDENDUM fIll

Transporter responsibility to clean up spills during transport -- EPA

indicated that '-lAC 173-303-145 refers to "person responsible for a spill or

discharge" and may result in cleanup delays while the responsible person is

identified. EPA's rules automatically designate the transporter as the person

who must cleanup a spill during transport.

WAC 173-303-270 requries the transporter to comply with WAC 173-303-145 in

the event of a spill or discharge during transport. We believe that by

identifying the transporter as the person who must comply with WAC 173-303-

145, we have clearly made him the individual responsible for spill cleanup

and other actions which may be required under WAC 173-303-145. Thus there

is no need to identify the "person responsible" in the case of spills or

discharges during transport because WAC 173-303-270 specifically requires

the transporter to be responsible.
ADDENDUM 1/12

The department's intent is to prevent designated dangerous waste shipments

from going to facilities which have not been permitted or approved by EPA

or an authorized state. This intent is set forth in WAC 173-303-141 as

requiring dangerous wastes to go to a facility approved by the department.

However, WAC 173-303-141 states that "unless otherwise authorized by the

department", dangerous wastes may only be sent to facilities approved by

this state. We will include in the MOA a statement that the department

authorizes shipment of dangerous waste to facilities not permitted by the

department only if those facilities are permitted or approved by EPA or by

a state with authorization from EPA.
...-...

-.....\

ADDENDUM 1.'13

rr>.

: ..-;.

Seismic siting standards -- EPA does not allow new facilities to be sited

within 200 feet of a fault, although they do believe that some exemptions

may be made. \{DOE allows siting within 200 feet for certain facilities.

The department believes that the risk from dangerous wastes is low enough

that management of them wi t hLn 200 feet of a fault is appropriate, provided

that the facility undertakes an engineering program designed to protect the

wastes from release in the event of fault movement. The fact also that

this provision is only made for solid and semi-solid wastes will insure that

liquid wastes in containers, tanks, or surface impoundments will not be

exposed to a catastrophic fault movement which could result in leakage.

A facility's "earthquake proofing" efforts will be reviewed by the department to assure that in the event of fault movement: 1) the solid and semisolid dangerous wastes will not be released, and; 2) clean up operations

afterward can either guarantee the retrieval and removal of the wastes, or

else guarantee the continued integrity of their containment.

Extremely ~azardous waste facilities are never to be located within 200

feet of a fault because of their risk. We believe that the concept of

allowing "dangerous waste only" facilities to provide "fault proofing" is

substantially equivalent to EPA's intent to exempt certain facilities

under certain conditions.
.-,

.. -' .

ADDENDUM tf14

The EPA connnent relates to the regulations governing underground tanks,

that cannot be entered for inspection. The state standards allow such

underground tanks if they can be externally inspected, or they have

secondary containment structures that .allow for monitoring containment

and removal of leaks. Such tanks could also be permitted if the applicant can show that leakage testing methods and frequencies are approved

by the .Department. These qualifiers seem to respond to the concerns

over undetected leaks. It is in keeping with the department's performance oriented standards; it is also consistent with the department's

philosophy to avoid blanket prohibitions where possible. This was

strongly communicated to the department by the Ad Hoc Committee.

Nonetheless the department has no knowledge of any new tanks that will

be constructed in this category and so that any discussion of the

regulated community and stringency is hypothetical. EPA will have oversight of major permits that might include such underground tanks. The

department will attempt to screen out any such authorization and confine

itself to underground storage authorizations for non-RCRA wastes.
iP',., -..--

ADDENDUM 1115

r:

Incinerator standards for ignitable wastes -- EPA is concerned that wastes

which are designated for ignitability should be burned in regulated

incinerators when the waste contains Appendix VIII constitutents. WDOE

would only require regulated incineration if an ignitable waste also contained concentrations of toxic, persistent or carcinogenic Appendix VIII

constituents sufficient to designate it as a Dangerous Waste Mixture

under WAC 173-303-084.

The department believes that this is a moot issue in Washington state. We

are convinced that nearly all wastes designated for ignitability are being

burned for heat recovery and thus recycled. As recycled "characteristic

wastes", they are totally exempt from the incinerator requirements, regardless of the fact that they may contain Appendix VIII constituents. We

know of no wastes designated solely for ignitability that are being sent

to regulated incinerators. They are being sent to heat recovery operations

and are thus outside of both our and EPA's control, which results in this

being a non-issue for both: agencies.
ADDENDUM 1116

Public notice for permit actions -- EPA indicated that some of our public

participation procedures were inadequate or not equivalent.

We will commit in the !10A to provide both publication of notice in a daily

newspaper and radio broadcast. In the MOA, we will also commit to following

the same procedures for minor permits as for major permits.
t~\., ~;....i

ADDENDUM fIl7

Interstate shipments, exception reports -- EPA requires that when an

exception report is received by the state for a waste shipped out of

state, the state of origin must inform the state of destination of the

exception.

We will· commit to do this in the MOA.

r:': ... '

\ ... ",