Document ID: EPA-R03-RCRA-2010-0132-0010
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2010-10-07T04:00Z

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

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

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-of- custody 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

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

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.

	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)