JOHNSPElLMAN Governor' STATEOFWASHINGTON 

### DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY Mail StopPV-l1 • Olympia, Washington 98504 • (206) 459-6000 

### September 28, 1982

Mr. JohnR. Spencer Regional Administrator Region X U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, Washington 98101 DearMr. Spencer:

# ~§©[?:uw~~ OCT 

# 11982 WASTE**,.t~~!'~GEMENT** 

### BRANCH



### Thiswill acknowledge receiptof your June 7andAugust 31, 1982 letters regardingEPA's reviewofthe State's Application forRCRA InterimAuthorization. In your reviews of the application,you determined thatadditional information is necessarybeforetheapplication can beconsidered complete. The following parts ofthe letterand attachmentheretowill befor the purpose ofaddressing those incomplete areas of the application thatyou haveidentified. Wewill address each incomplete issue in theorder thatthey appear in the letters. June 7, 1982 Letter: 1. The application is incomplete as submittedbecause the Attorney General's statementis stamped "draft" andis unsigned. Attached is Addendum#1 which is asigned final Attorney General's statement. 2. There is the lack of astatementas to whether or not the state seeks authorityover regulating dangerous waste activities on Indian lands. See page22 ofAddendum#1. 3. The statemustshow that the dangerous waste aspects of energy facilities under the jurisdictionof the Energy Facility Site EvaluationCouncil (EFSEC)arecontrolled. SeeattachedAddendum #1, 

### pages 5-8. 4. TheAuthorization Plan does not include anydiscussions onhow the statewill attemptto meet the increased resource levels which the statedeems are necessary to carry out the program. The attachedAddendum#2 responds to this issue in the context of theAuthorization Plan. 5. TheAuthorization Plan needs to describe howdangerous waste activities will becontrolled atenergy facilities. Seeresponse inAddendum#3. I 

### / f

# /

.'

### Mr. JohnR. Spencer September23, 1982 Page 2

6. The state needs to identify the specific liability insurance requirements thatwill beapplied to permitted facilities since these requirements are not identified in the regulations. The attachedAddenda #1 and#4 addresses this issue in the context ofan addition to the MemorandumofAgreement (Addendum#4) and byanassurance in theAttorney General's statement, page16, item H(Addendum#1). August20, 1982 Letter: Universe ofWaste Regulated 1. SeeAddendum#5 2. SeeAddendum#6 3. SeeAddendum#7 4. SeeAddendum#8 5. SeeAddendum#9 6. SeeAddendum#10 Transporter Standards - Spills 7. SeeAddendum#11 ManifestSystem

- Designating TSD Facility 8. SeeAddendum#12 SeismicSiting Standards (follow-up to comment#3, June 11, 

### 1982 letter) 9. SeeAddendum#13 Attorney GeneralIS 

### Statement Comments w.ill besubmitted separately by the Attorney General to address anyoutstanding questions or comments underthis section. Responses to June 11, 1982 Letter to Earl Tower Mostitems underthis letterhave beenaddressed in the aboveresponses to the June 7th andAugust 20th letters, however, thereweresome comments thatwerenot, so the following is anattempt to respond to them. Final Standards forTanks 4. SeeAddendum#14.»: 

### Mr. JohnR. Spencer September23, 1982 Page 3

IncineratorStandards - Ignitable Wastes**~.** 

### SeeAddendum#15 Public Notice for Permits Issuance 6. SeeAddendum#16 Manifest System

- Interstate Shipments 1. SeeAddendum#17 The foregoing information is ourfull response to issues ofincompleteness thathavebeen raised. Iwould appreciateyourexpeditious review ofthis informationsothatwe canrapidly proceed towards achieving InterimAuthorization approval. Sincerely,

. 

# .: ••&27;-t'?-J (

.'IY 

## uc.

# tLl)

"boi1'ct1dW. Moos

. Oi'rector OWM:kb Attachments
cc: Ken Feignerr "">-,**~'.** - ..

".. "

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 lackof 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 onvolumes 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 newlegislation is required the possibility exists in the current economic climate that we maybe unsuccessful in our attempts to secure newrevenues. 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 TIlEAUTIlORlZATION 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 ofdangerous waste activities at energy facilities. Since the number of energy facilities whichmaybe regulated are few, the volume ofwaste 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 workwith 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.



### 37ADDENDUH 

### 115

TheWashington Department of Ecology approach to regulating carcinogens at the 10,000 ppm level has been criticized since application of that criteria toanEPA designated waste may result in delisting. Suchwastes 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 Xstaff asked for a printout of notifers inRegion Xthat 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, FOOland FD02, contain halogenated hydrocarbons that the Department regulates down to the 100 ppmlevel. Creosote is a "B" category waste that would be regulated down to 1000 ppmlevels under acute toxicity criteria. Given the very limited possibility that any wastes inWashington will go unregulated and the much broader universe ofWashington wastes thatWDOE captures and EPAdo.esnot, 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. EPAhas 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 commentdealt with the Washington Department of Ecology extraction method whichuses a buffered acetic acid solution for the leach test. The Department is willing to use EPAmethods with the exception of continuous pHmonitoring. The Department proposes to monitor pHfor 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.



# J1ADDENDUM 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 maynot 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 themeantime, it is certain the DCP whichmight escape designationunder 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 canbe 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, webelieve 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. Bybeing 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). Ananalysis of sludges and characteristics follows. Ignitability

-- We are not aware of any sludges which could meet the characteristic of ignitability. Somesludges mayhave heat recoveryvalue, but we knowof no sludges with flashpoints at or below 1400 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 pHwill 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 whichmight 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 webelieve 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 EPtoxicity would rarely be recycled and even so would, inmost 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 atrecycled 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'sdefinitionsare different, webelieve 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, webelieve 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 maybe 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 whomust 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 personwhomust comply withWAC 173-303- 145, wehave clearly made him the individual responsible for spill cleanup and other actions whichmay be required under WAC 173-303-145. Thus there is no need to identify the "personresponsible" 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 maybe made. \{DOE allows siting within 200 feet for certain facilities. The department believes that the risk from dangerous wastes is low enough that management ofthem wi thLn 200 feet of a fault is appropriate, provided that the facility undertakes an engineering programdesigned to protect the wastes fromrelease 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. Afacility'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-RCRAwastes.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 theymay containAppendix VIII constituents. We knowof 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 -- EPArequires that when an exception report is received by 

### the state for a waste shipped out of state, the state of originmust inform the state of destination of the exception. Wewill·commit to do this in the MOA.



## r:':



## ... ' 

# \

...



# ",