Compliance Corner.

Contaminated Debris Standards

As with contaminated soil, debris is very different in physical form from the process wastes that EPA evaluated when establishing LDR treatment standards. The definition of debris in §268.2(g) is:

“Debris means solid material exceeding a 60 mm particle size that is intended for disposal and that is: a manufactured object; or plant or animal matter; or natural geologic material. However, the following materials are not debris: any material for which a specific treatment standard is provided in Subpart D, Part 268, namely lead-acid batteries, cadmium batteries, and radioactive lead solids; process residuals such as smelter slag and residues from the treatment of waste, wastewater, sludges, or air emission residues; and intact containers of hazardous waste that are not ruptured and that retain at least 75% of their original volume. A mixture of debris that has not been treated to the standards provided by §268.45 and other material is subject to regulation as debris if the mixture is comprised primarily of debris, by volume, based on visual inspection.”

Several aspects of the debris definition warrant discussion:

1. Debris is material larger than 2.5 inches (60 mm) in one dimension.
2. Debris is material intended for disposal. When manufacturing operations are shut down, a very common material that is encountered is metallic equipment and components that might be contaminated with hazardous constituents. If this material is recycled instead of disposed of, it is not “debris” subject to the LDR debris standards. In other words, recycling rather than disposing of material may eliminate the need to comply with the debris standards.
3. Examples of manufactured objects that are “debris” include gloves and other personal protective equipment, solder paste wipes, pipes, pumps, valves, etc. that will be disposed of (perhaps due to radioactive contamination that makes them nonrecyclable). [RO 14660]
4. An example of plant matter “debris” is a tree stump.
5. An example of geologic material “debris” is a rock.
6. The language about intact containers addresses drums that might be dug up as part of a remediation project. If the drums contain hazardous waste and are intact, the contents of the drums must be treated to meet §268.40 standards for whatever waste codes are associated with the contained wastes. Intact drums of hazardous waste are not eligible for the more lenient alternative treatment standards for debris. On the other hand, if a ruptured drum is excavated, it may be managed under the debris standards.
7. The language about material being primarily debris based on visual inspection implies it is not necessary to run a sieve analysis to determine if a waste is mostly debris, as opposed to something else (e.g., soil). A visual assessment is all that is required.

Three options for managing hazardous debris

Debris can be hazardous if it 1) exhibits a characteristic (e.g., toxicity), or 2) contains a listed hazardous waste. [§268.2(h)]

Generators or TSDFs have three options for managing hazardous debris:

1. They can manage the debris according to the treatment standards of §268.40 for whatever waste codes apply to the debris. This is generally a very poor option because not only are the §268.40 standards relatively stringent, but most of them are concentration-based. This means debris treated to these standards would have to be sampled and analyzed. Sampling and analysis of nonhomogeneous materials can be very difficult. Also, if this option is chosen, listed debris that is treated remains a listed waste under the derived-from rule.
2. If the debris contains very low levels of contaminants, a no-longer-contains determination can be requested from the regulators. This is codified in §261.3(f)(2) of the regulations.
3. The debris can be managed under the alternative treatment standards of §268.45, which were specifically crafted for dealing with this difficult class of wastes. This option is almost always the best approach for dealing with contaminated debris.

Interpreting the alternative treatment standards table for debris

If the alternative treatment standards for debris are chosen, numerous treatment options are provided in Table 1 of §268.45. For our discussion, consider the piece of concrete slab illustrated in Figure 1. The slab, which had previously been contaminated by spills of F001 spent solvent, has been demolished and will be disposed of. Since the slab itself is F001 listed debris under the contained-in policy, it must meet LDR standards prior to disposal. Because the alternative debris standards of §268.45 are almost always the best option, we consult Table 1 in that section of the regulations for treatment options.

Table 1 is divided into three main categories: A) extraction technologies, B) destruction technologies, and C) immobilization technologies. Our first step is to think of an easy and inexpensive way to clean a demolished piece of concrete slab, and then check to see if that method is given in Table 1. Water washing seems like an easy treatment method, and it appears as technology A.2.a: “Water Washing and Spraying: Application of water sprays or water baths of sufficient temperature, pressure, residence time, agitation, surfactants, acids, bases, and detergents to remove hazardous contaminants from debris surfaces and surface pores or to remove contaminated debris surface layers.”

Before we can use this technology, however, we must check the right-hand column of Table 1 to see if water washing can be used where F001–F005 spent solvents are involved. This column has a restriction for concrete: “Contaminant must be soluble to at least 5% by weight in water solution or 5% by weight in emulsion….” To comply with this restriction, we will have to add a surfactant or some other type of cleaning agent to the water that is capable of solubilizing the solvent constituents.

Finally, we must check the performance standards of the center column to determine how well water washing must work. This column also has a standard for concrete: “Debris must be no more than 1.2 cm (0.5 inch) in one dimension….” Clearly, we don’t want to have to comply with this standard because it would require crushing the concrete slab to 0.5-inch particles prior to washing.

With these concepts in mind, we browse through the other technologies of Table 1 and decide “Scarification, Grinding, and Planing” can be done relatively easily while meeting both the contaminant restrictions (none) and the performance standard (removal of at least 0.6 cm of the surface layer, and treatment to a clean debris surface).

When the piece of slab is treated using this extraction technology, if we meet the treatment standard in the center column, the slab is rendered nonhazardous (refer to Figure 1). We can then haul it to a Subtitle D landfill for disposal. [§268.45(c)] The other residue from treatment (grinding dust) carries the F001 code and must meet the appropriate treatment standard in §268.40 before land disposal.

If we started with a type of debris for which we choose an immobilization technology in Table 1, the treated debris would still be a hazardous waste and could only be disposed of in a Subtitle C unit. [§268.45(c)]

The treatment technologies listed in Table 1 that are most applicable to mercury-containing debris are macroencapsulation and microencapsulation, although retorting can also be effective. The technology options in Table 1 do not distinguish between debris containing high and low levels of mercury, as the §268.40 standards do for nondebris mercury wastes. [RO 14685]

Constituents subject to treatment

If debris exhibits the toxicity characteristic (i.e., it carries waste codes D004–D043), the constituents subject to treatment are those that create the characteristic. [§268.45(b)(1)]

If debris is contaminated with listed wastes, the contaminants subject to treatment are those identified in the §268.40 table of treatment standards for the associated listed waste code. For example, if concrete is contaminated with F006 waste, the contaminants subject to treatment are cadmium, chromium, cyanides, lead, nickel, and silver.

Is debris treatment subject to permitting?

One of the most difficult aspects of managing contaminated debris under the LDR program is the “treatment requires a permit” issue. When hazardous debris is treated, including treatment by the alternative methods of §268.45, a permit is required, unless one of the permitting exemptions applies.

Containment buildings

EPA’s strategy for dealing with contaminated debris involves “containment buildings” as defined in Parts 264/265, Subpart DD. These are specially designed enclosed buildings where debris can be accumulated and treated. The buildings are constructed to prevent releases of fugitive dust emissions and, when used to manage liquids, typically have an impermeable floor, a collection system to remove liquids from this primary barrier, and an underlying secondary containment system with leak detection/liquid collection systems. Though somewhat uncommon, they may be found at facilities managing large quantities of hazardous debris (e.g., government facilities and large manufacturing sites that frequently shut down and decommission equipment/processes).

Containment buildings can be put into operation at the three types of RCRA facilities (generator sites, interim status facilities, and permitted facilities) using different approaches, as discussed below. [RO 13609]

Generator sites

Under the 90-day accumulation provisions in §262.17(a)(4) and the 180-day accumulation provisions in §262.16(b)(5), generators may accumulate/treat hazardous debris in containment buildings that are in compliance with the Part 265, Subpart DD standards. A certification by a qualified professional engineer that the building meets design standards must be placed in the facilities records prior to operating the unit.

Interim status facilities

Interim status facilities may add new or additional treatment or storage capacity (such as containment buildings) using the provisions of §270.72(a)(2–3). The facility must submit a revised Part A permit application and a justification explaining the need for the change, which must be approved by the authorized agency before starting construction.

Permitted facilities

If a permitted facility is converting an enclosed hazardous waste pile into a containment building, a Class 2 permit modification is required. [§270.42, Appendix I, Item I-6] Construction to implement Class 2 changes can generally start within 60 days after submitting the modification request. [§270.42(b)(8)] If the agency does not respond within 90 days (or 120 days if it requests an extension), the facility is automatically authorized to operate the containment building for 180 days if it complies with Part 265, Subpart DD standards. If the agency still hasn’t responded after this automatic authorization expires, the facility is authorized to operate for the life of the permit. [§270.42(b)(6)(iii–v)]

If a permitted facility already has a containment building and wants to increase its capacity by up to 25%, it may also use the Class 2 permit modification process to do so. [§270.42, Appendix I, Item M-1-b]

Class 3 permit modifications are required at facilities with no existing containment building capacity. [§270.42, Appendix I, Item M-1-a] Class 3 permit modifications require formal agency approval and no deadline is imposed on the agency for taking action. Temporary authorizations for 180 days (with a 180-day extension) are also provided under §270.42(e).