FAXBACK 12443



9487.1985(04)

AUG 7 1985

LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTES IN LANDFILLS

Mr. Peter S. Daley
Director, Research and Development
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Technical Center
150 West 137th Street
Riverdale, Illinois 60627

Dear Mr. Daley:

This is in response to your letter of June 24, 1985, in
which you requested clarification of a number of procedural
matters dealing with the management of liquid hazardous wastes
in landfills.

Your first issue concerns the use of the Paint Filter Liquids
Test for containerized materials. You are correct in your under-
standing that the Paint Filter Liquids Test (Federal Register,
April 30, 1985) applies to containerized materials only as a
means to verify, where needed, that there are no "free-standing"
liquids. The current regulations (264.314 and 265.314) prohibit
the disposal in landfills of "free-standing liquids" in containers,
not "free liquids" (see 47 Federal Register 12316, March 22,1982).
The March 22 preamble described free-standing liquids as those
that form distinct pools or layers above or below the waste in a
container. The preamble further states that where it is difficult
to determine whether a layer is a free-standing liquid, the paint
filter test can be used. Where there are no distinct layers or
pools of liquid at the surface or within the waste there are no
free-standing liquids. Free-standing liquids are a subset of
free liquids. Thus, the waste might contain free liquids (in
accordance with the Paint Filter Liquids Test) but might not be
classified as containing free-standing liquid. On the other
hand, all free-standing liquids are free liquids.

In the March 22, 1982, rule and preamble, the Agency stated
that landfill operators should use readily available, technically
feasible techniques, such as decanting of free-standing liquids
from containers or other removal methods, or absorbing or solidifying
the free-standing liquids in containers, to eliminate free-standing
liquids prior to landfilling. In most cases, determining the
presence or absence of free-standing liquids will not be
difficult. Where it is difficult to determine whether a
given substance is a free-standing liquid, the preamble
stated that the paint filter test can be used.

The promulgation of the Paint Filter Liquids Test on
April 30, 1985, does not change how the current requirements
for containers (i.e., free-standing liquids) should be complied
with. Your suggestion to supplement visual inspections with
routine paint filter testing is a good quality control
practice.

Your second issue concerns the stabilization of liquids
standing on bulk loads manifested as solids. You state that
these liquids could be the result of rain, snow, or transporta-
tion vibrations, and that this occurrence can be especially
troublesome at sites without treatment permits if stabilization
of this liquid in situ is considered "treatment." You propose
to apply a stabilization agent to these standing liquids
on bulk loads and verify the effectiveness of this action by
the use of the Paint Filter Liquids Test rather than turning
away such loads at the gate. If the standing liquid layer
is not poured off or decanted, then your concept of applying
a stabilization agent to the surface of the load can be
performed. However, as you pointed out, this treatment
would require a treatment permit. There is no exemption or
exception to the treatment definition for the chemical treatment
of bulk liquids.

A facility that does not have a treatment permit may be
able to use the exemption that applies to wastes and absorbents
when they are added to a container for the first time
(§270.1(c)(2)(vii)). (See 47 Federal Register 8304). If
the standing liquid on the bulk load can be decanted or
otherwise removed, this liquid can be placed in a container
with absorbents, or an absorbent can be added without requiring
a treatment permit. The disposal of the container must
comply with the current requirements for containers.

Another provision in the regulations allows the use of
new treatment processes at interim status facilities to
facilitate compliance with new regulatory provisions. Under
§270.72(c), an owner or operator of a hazardous waste management
facility having interim status may file an amended Part A
application for a change in treatment, storage, or disposal
processes, or the addition of such processes, if the change
is necessary to comply with Federal regulations or State or
local laws. Any such change in the Part A would have to be
approved by EPA or an authorized State.

As a matter of clarification, we assume that by "in situ"
you mean the waste is treated in the bulk container or other
container, tank, or device, and do not mean treatment in the
landfill since all bulk hazardous wastes must be treated
prior to placement in the landfill.

Your third issue concerns the disposal of bulk liquid
wastes to which the generator has added an absorbent. You
believe that such waste can be chemically stabilized through
the addition of sufficient stabilization reagents, and that
the resulting product will pass the Paint Filter Liquids
Test. You asked for guidance on the acceptability of this.

Based on the recent amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), we believe the Congress intended
that liquid wastes that can be safely incinerated or otherwise
treated or that can be reclaimed and reused, especially
organic liquids, should be so treated or reclaimed. Further,
we believe the language of Section 3004(c)(1) or RCRA prohibiting
the landfilling of liquids that are solely treated by the
use of absorbents is intended to encourage such treatment or
reclamation. Therefore, generators should be discouraged
from simply adding absorbent materials to such wastes.

On the other hand, Congress also intended that the ban
on landfilling absorbent-treated liquid waste should not be
construed to restrict the landfilling of chemically stabilized
or treated wastes. Therefore, it is our belief that bulk
liquid wastes to which an absorbent has been added can be
chemically stabilized and can be landfilled after being
stabilized. We believe this type of activity is consistent
with the intent of Congress and is acceptable as long as the
chemical stabilization is in compliance with the bulk
hazardous liquid waste guidance (e.g., the treated waste
passes the Paint Filter Liquids Test).

Your fourth and last issue concerns the containerization
and solidification of bulk liquid wastes. You asked whether
on a non-routine basis, certain bulk wastes could be solidified
and landfilled in containers. This is allowable under our
interpretation of the statute. Disposal of these containers
in the landfill must, of course, comply with the current
disposal requirements for containers (40 CFR 264.314 or
265.314).

I hope these responses fully answer your questions; if
you should have additional concerns or comments, please feel
free to contact Mr. Paul Cassidy of my staff, at 202-382-4682.

The Agency is still considering all comments, including
yours, that have been received on the bulk hazardous liquid
waste guidance. We hope to issue revised guidance as soon as
possible.

Sincerely,


John P. Lehman
Director
Waste Management and
Economics Division


cc: Ken Shuster
Paul Cassidy
Barbara Pace
RCRA Division Directors: Regions I - X



WH-565E:PCassidy:WSM:382-4658