Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2002-0028-0122
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-10-14T04:00Z

DATE:
September
8,
2003
PARTICIPANTS:
David
Spanfelner
(
DuPont)
and
Lisa
Lauer
(
EPA)

SUBJECT:
Call
between
EPA
and
DuPont
concerning
DuPont's
comment
to
the
proposed
addition
of
direct
monitoring
as
a
compliance
method
for
the
headworks
exemption.

The
purpose
of
this
call,
which
was
initiated
via
email
by
EPA
(
Attachment
A),
was
to
clarify
statements
made
in
DuPont's
comments
submitted
on
the
proposed
headworks
revisions
(
Document
ID#
RCRA­
2002­
0028­
0015).
In
their
comments,
DuPont
requested
that
EPA
clarify
that
when
a
facility
chooses
one
compliance
option,
it
does
not
preclude
the
facility
from
switching
to
the
other
compliance
option
or
from
using
both
options
in
combination.
DuPont
offered
various
examples
to
support
the
statement
but
was
not
clear
regarding
the
interpretation
of
the
example
that
requested
approval
for
"
 
using
a
combination
of
the
two
approaches
to
demonstrate
compliance."
EPA
interpreted
this
example
to
mean
that
a
facility
could
concurrently
perform
mass
balance
and
direct
monitoring
and
then
report
the
result
of
the
option
that
best
showed
compliance,
and
DuPont
was
contacted
in
order
to
ensure
that
this
interpretation
was
correct.

During
the
phone
conversation,
DuPont
clarified
that
EPA's
translation
of
the
example
is
a
correct
interpretation.
DuPont
stated
that
it
seemed
clear
that
performing
the
direct
monitoring
option
at
the
headworks
location
would
catch
chemical
not
being
used
as
solvent,
and
they
wanted
to
ensure
that
if
the
facility
could
not
demonstrate
compliance
with
direct
monitoring,
the
facility
could
then
use
mass
balance.

In
addition,
DuPont
reiterated
their
submitted
comment
that
they
supported
having
an
informal
description
of
the
headworks
location
but
that
facilities
could
more
accurately
reflect
solvent
concentrations
if
sampling
was
allowed
to
occur
closer
to
the
point
of
generation
(
i.
e.,
upstream
of
the
headworks
location).
Attachment
A
Lisa
Lauer
07/
25/
03
02:
39
PM
To:
david.
p.
spanfelner@
usa.
dupont.
com
cc:
Laura
Coughlan/
DC/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
Question
Regarding
Headworks
Proposed
Rule
Comment
(
Docket
#
RCRA
­
2002­
0029)

Dear
Mr.
Spanfelner,

Thank
you
for
submitting
comments
on
our
Proposed
Rule:
"
Revision
of
Wastewater
Treatment
Exemptions
for
Hazardous
W
reviewing
your
comments,
a
question
arose
regarding
your
response
concerning
direct
monitoring.

In
the
comment
in
question,
DuPont
expresses
concern
that
the
proposed
regulatory
text
may
be
misinterpreted
as
only
allow
direct
monitoring
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
headworks
exemption.
It
was
then
requested
that
we
provide
further
cla
Specifically,
to
"
clearly
articulate"
that
we
are
not
eliminating
the
use
of
one
option
when
the
other
is
chosen
or
eliminating
a
c
After
reading
your
examples,
there
was
confusion
as
to
the
meaning
of
the
second
example,
"
from
using
a
combination
of
the
demonstrate
compliance."
We
are
interpreting
that
example
as:
"
concurrently
performing
direct
monitoring
and
mass
balance
result
of
the
option
that
best
shows
compliance."
Is
this
a
correct
interpretation
of
your
example?
If
this
interpretation
is
incor
further
clarification.
(
Please
note
that
all
correspondence
will
be
submitted
to
the
docket
.)

Thank
you
in
advance
for
your
timely
response.
If
you
have
any
questions
regarding
our
request,
please
do
not
hesitate
to
co
Sincerely,
Lisa
Lauer
_____________________________________
Lisa
M.
Lauer
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Hazardous
Waste
Identification
Division
Office
of
Solid
Waste
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Mail
Code
5304W
Voice:
703­
308­
7418
Fax:
703­
308­
0522