UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029

February 12, 2004

David C. Ward, Manager

Environmental Safety Health & Safeguards Department

BWX Technologies, Inc.

Nuclear Products Division

P.O. Box 785

Lynchburg, VA 24505-0785

Dear Mr. Ward:

We have reviewed the petition submitted by BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT) dated 

February 21, 2003, for delisting of certain wastes. The wastes which are the subject of this 

petition are sludges located in two on-site waste management units and wastewater (to the extent 

that it is classified as F006). Specifically, the two waste management units which contain the 

subject sludge are Final Effluent Ponds (FEPs) Nos. 1 and 2, and the wastewater in question is 

the wastewater being treated in FEP No. 2 (to the extent the Virginia Department of 

Environmental Quality or EPA classifies these wastewaters as F006).

The listing description for F006 is, “Wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating 

operations, except from the following processes...” It is, and always has been, Agency policy

that the mixture rule does not apply to the liquid in a wastewater treatment unit that manages 

unlisted liquid waste, even if that liquid generates a hazardous sludge that settles to the bottom of 

the unit. This policy, however, does not apply if the sludge is dredged up or scoured from the 

bottom of the unit as a result of operation of the unit, and physically mixes with the liquid. 

Since the F006 listing describes a “wastewater treatment sludge” and not a “wastewater ” as the 

listed waste, and in light of the above mentioned policy, EPA does not understand how the 

wastewater in FEP No. 2 would be considered a F006 listed waste. We note that the petition 

does not describe how or whether samples of this wastewater will be collected and analyzed, and, 

therefore, the petition would be considered to be seriously deficient with regard to this waste 

stream. If you intend to pursue delisting of the wastewater, we need additional information 

explaining why you feel the F006 listing applies to the wastewater, and how you intend to collect 

environmental data to show that this waste should be delisted.

In addition, please address the following questions or comments:

Waste Description
2

1. In order to complete the profile of wastes entering the FEPs, please describe any

unanticipated discharges to the FEPs which have occurred over the operating life of these 

units.

2. Please explain the method used to estimate the volume of sludge currently residing in 

the FEPs.

Waste Sampling

3. The Sludge Sampling Plan indicates that after freezing, the sample core will be 

sprayed with deionized water to remove the outer surface layer of ice that forms from 

contact with the tube. This step appears to be unnecessary. The FEP sludge is expected 

to contain water.

4. The Sludge Sampling Plan indicates that any water from the aluminum pan (in which 

the frozen cores are allowed to thaw) will be decanted. Again, this step appears to be 

unnecessary since the sludge is expected to contain liquid.

5. The Sludge Sampling Plan does not describe the collection of samples to support the 

analysis of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Grab samples are typically collected for 

this type of analysis. Homogenization of samples during the sample preparation phase of 

the plan would not be compatible with VOC analysis.

Sample Container and Equipment Preparation

6. The Sludge Sampling Plan does not identify the type of sample containers that will be 

used.

7. The Sludge Sampling Plan does not indicate which/how sample preservatives will be 

used, or the amount of sample preservative that will be used.

8. The Sludge Sampling Plan does not specify maximum sample holding times.

9. Prior to the sampling event, BWXT (or its contractor) must determine the number of 

sample containers that will be needed and the sample volumes to be collected. BWXT 

needs to make sure that adequate waste is available for waste sample analysis, and field 

and laboratory control samples.

Sample Labeling
3

10. The Sludge Sampling Plan did not provide information on how sample container 

labels, sample log sheets, chain-of-custody records, and field log books will be used to 

document sampling activities. The Sludge Sampling Plan indicates only that samples 

will be transported after chain-of-custody forms have been completed. The Sludge 

Sampling Plan needs to describe how field activities will be recorded, and what forms 

will be used to record information.

Sample Shipment

11. It is recommended that a chain-of-custody seal be placed over each sample container 

top after the sample is collected. At the very least, it is recommended that a chain-ofcustody seal be placed over the shipping cooler lid to verify the absence of sample 

tampering during shipment.

12. It is recommended that the cooler be delivered to the laboratory on the day samples 

are prepared (i.e., the day frozen samples are thawed and homogenized). The Sludge 

Sampling Plan did not identify when coolers will be delivered to the laboratory. 

Sample Analyses

13. The petition and Sludge Sampling Plan indicate that TCLP analyses will be 

performed for metals and organic compounds. It is unclear whether the TCLP extract 

will be analyzed for the full suite of Appendix VIII constituents (as appropriate) or only

those constituents listed in 40 CFR Section 261.24.

14. During the Phase 1 sampling event, at least one sample from FEP Nos. 1 and 2 must 

be analyzed using a multiple leachate testing protocol. This protocol requires the testing 

of all constituents using the TCLP procedure but substituting the specified extraction 

fluid with, (a) distilled deionized water, and (b)an alkaline solution of sodium hydroxide 

with a pH between 10 and 12.

15. The petition and Sludge Sampling Plan must be revised to include analysis of the 

FEP sludge samples for total sulfide. 

16. The petition and Sludge Sampling Plan must be revised to include analysis of the 

FEP sludge samples for total oil and grease content.

Analytical Methods
4

17. The petition and the Sludge Sampling Plan must be revised to include the specific 

preparative, cleanup and determinative methods that will be used for all analytes. One 

possible format for presenting this information is shown in the example below:

Preparation Cleanup Analytical

Method Method Method

Total Appendix IX volatiles 5035 NA 8260B

Total Appendix IX herbicides 8151A 3620B 8151A

TCLP Appendix IX semivolatiles 1311/3510 3640A 8270C

Detection Limits

18. The Sludge Sampling Plan did not provide detailed information regarding analytical 

detection limits and is, therefore, incomplete. Detection limits are laboratory and 

instrument-specific. In order to properly evaluate the analytical methods that will be 

used, the laboratory needs to generate its own detection limits to assure that it meets the 

project DQOs with respect to sensitivity and detection. For example, Method 6010 is 

probably appropriate for most of the target metals and can typically detect concentrations 

significantly below the delisting maximum allowable concentrations. However, this 

method may not be suitable for selenium or lead if the laboratory is required to reach the 

delisting health-based levels. The Sludge Sampling Plan must provide the 

laboratory-generated detection limits, using the methods and instruments that will be used 

during the actual analysis. 

Data Validation

19. The petition must include provisions specifying third party data validation for all 

analytical data. Data validation should be performed in accordance with the Region III 

Modifications to the National Functional Guidelines for Data Review. Please refer to the 

list of references in the attached “Region III QAPP Preparation Checklist” for the specific 

data validation documents.

Quality Assurance Project Plan

20. The petition does not include a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). In all 

cases involving the collection of environmental data, both a Sampling and Analysis Plan 

(S/A Plan) and a QAPP must be prepared. These two plans can be prepared either as 

separate plans or as one combined document. 

Quality Control Samples
5

21. The Sludge Sampling Plan states that one field duplicate will be collected during the 

field event. This frequency must be revised so that one field duplicate is collected for 

every twenty (20) samples or each sample batch, whichever is greater.

22. The Sludge Sampling Plan must include provisions for ensuring that samples are 

maintained at 4 o C until they are received by the laboratory. Temperature blanks are one 

way to evaluate the potential effects of sample transportation on data quality. One 

temperature blank is included in each sample cooler. Upon receipt by the laboratory, the 

temperature of the water in the temperature blank vial must be 4 o C, plus or minus 2 

degrees. 

Laboratory Quality Assurance

23. The Sludge Sampling Plan does not specify the analytical laboratory (or 

laboratories) to be used for analysis of the sludge samples, nor does it contain the 

analytical laboratory’s QA procedures. This requirement can be addressed by, (a) 

including the laboratory’s QA manual and, (b) the results of the laboratory’s most recent 

proficiency testing for each type of analysis that it will be performing. However, in lieu 

of proficiency testing results, we will accept a current certificate of accreditation for the 

specified types of analyses from an organization such as NELAP (the National

Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program). 

Hazardous Waste Characteristics

24. Section XI (Conclusions), Subsection D states that, “The data to be generated will 

demonstrate that the FEP Sludge does not exhibit any hazardous waste characteristic.” 

The sampling and analysis proposed in the petition does not address all of the hazardous 

waste characteristics. Characteristics can be addressed by testing, or in some cases, by

presenting other information which is sufficient to show that the subject waste could not 

exhibit that particular characteristic based on process knowledge. For example, the 

characteristic of reactivity can be addressed in part by testing for cyanide and sulfide; 

however, other categories of reactivity are usually addressed through process knowledge. 

If testing is not done for a particular hazardous waste characteristic, the final submission 

must still specifically address that characteristic, and provide information to support the 

conclusion that the waste does not possess the property described by the characteristic. 

In order to assist you in addressing the QAPP requirements, I am enclosing a copy of the 

Region III QAPP Preparation Checklist. This document is also available electronically. If the 

electronic version would be useful to you, please let me know.
6

If you have any questions regarding the review comments contained in this letter, please 

feel free to contact me at the address above, by phone at 215-814-3395, or by e-mail at 

friedman.davidm@epa.gov.

Sincerely,

David M. Friedman

Delisting Coordinator

Waste and Chemicals Management Division

EPA Region III

ATTACHMENT

CC: John Storton (BWXT)

Mike Jacobi

Cynthia Nadolski

Hassan Vakili (VADEQ)