Cenco_1989 FILE DOCKET-OCR

u u
RECORD OF COMMUNICATION
TO: File
FROM: Mark Wikins
SUBJECT: NCAPS for Central Transport Facility
DATE/TIME: 8/22/94
_Phone Coll _Discussion _Field Trip _Conference _X Other(Specify)
SUMMARY OF COMMUNICATION:
('JL£ f G
iJ,.JrRtu fEIWSf/Jf!.T
tJ ~D DJ./6 I '1 <g 5J-/ 0
@
Attached is the final NCAPS ranking and associated Corrective Action
Stabilization Questionnaire completed for Central Transport's Charlotte
facility. A file search of the NC Hazardous waste Section's (Section)
Permitting and Superfund files was conducted to gather data necessary to
complete the questionnaire. The entire facility, including the contiguous
CENCO property was evaluated. All SWMUs at the facility were considered
during the evaluation.
As indicated, on-site contamination occurs in soils, ground water, and in
sediments in a pond. The facility is located in an industrial/residential
area. Nearby residences are located hydraulically upgradient from the site.
Some of these residences still rely on ground water from wells as their
source of water. Odors from the facility have been a serious problem at the
site in the 1980's. The construction of a new wastewater treatment facility
and improved product unloading procedures have significantly reduced air
releases. Odors were detected during site visits by Section personnel
however. Evidence was discovered to show that local residents fish in the
pond on site. This pond is separated from the facility by a chain-link fence
which surrounds the majority of the property. Access to this pond is
essentially unrestricted. Access to the remainder of the property is highly
restricted.
The facility has undergone a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) in 1993-94. A
ground water assessment of the on-site Hazardous Waste Management Unit
(landfill) has been completed. Currently, the facility is conducting post-
closure monitoring for the ground water contamination associated with the
lagoon.
cc: William F. Hamner
James A. Carter
·\ ' '. •. ' ..
' .
' • •
-nr--11 · -r .. ! -If •. • •
' . _,,.··
VUN O 9 1992
RCRA PRIORITIZATION SYSTEM SCORING SUMMli~·;;:,1,;;;;, v;,t;:;:~ .;~:;ii(:,;
FOR
CName of FaciHty) C.ENrfcJ\L fR4-N~f'17i2_1
EPA SITE NUMBER: <Number> fJ C. D () 11 fl I ~1 3 51/ i!J
CCity <State)
CJl-A-12 L D 7T'f_ ! Al C..
SCORED BY: <Name) /J( II tJ1 /... t I tJ ':i
,1-/'. ""'II 17 _ ''A~--;,J,_,;;~ 5rcnH OF COrnnjiatjonl I\ k vt:: -NJ<_. ff'r-"
ON (Patel "D/ z z /9'1
GROUND WATER ROUTE SCORE : 3 {p (SCORE)
SURFACE WATER ROUTE SCORE: 31-/ (SCORE)
AIR ROUTE SCORE
ON-SITE SCORE
MIGRATION SCORE
B-2
: ,;?0 (SCORE}
3;/. <scOREl
: 3 I (SCORE)
/ • •
CALCULATE GROUND WATER SCORE CS.,>
I( A • 45, then 5911 equals: A g /:2d t 34) 11 (! e2 t 2e2l • S911(a)
479.7
If A • 0 or IO. then S811 equals:
(Ob+2bt3b)xC] +A•Q if Q >4S, then Q • 4S
Q x (24 + 3d) x (le2 + 2e2) / 479.7 • s,,.
To calculate 3d:
If Total Eguals
I to JO cu yds
II to 62
Then 3d Eouals 1-{5 x(1.:;"fJ./) x{C?z• ;.;i)~ 65)(1'1)(20)
111, 7 471,/
63 to 125
126 to 250
251 to 625
626 to I ,2SO
1,2'."I to 2,500
2,500 or more
I
2
3
4 s
6
7
8
Jf le or 2e equals zero, then (I e2 + 2e2) • zero
If A • 45, then go to D and E
If A,. 0 or 10, then go to B, C, D, and E
Note:
/I /00
1111.1 -3&
a The value 479.7 standardizes the ground water route score to a value between 0 and 100.
'• .... • '''V" . , • Technical Ability to Implement .Stabilization
Activities
12. In what phase does the contaminant exist
under ambient site conditions?
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
Solid
Light non-aqueous phase liquids
(LNAPLs)
Dense non-aqueous phase liquids
(DNAPLs)
Dissolved in ground water or
surtace water
Gaseous
Other
13. Are one or more of the following major
chemical groupings of concern at the
facility?
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( }
( )
Volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and/or semi-volatiles
Polynuclear aromatics (PAHs)
Pesticides
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
and/or dioxins
Other organics
lnorganics and metals
l;xplosives
Other ~~~~~~~~~~
14. Are appropriate stabilization technologies
available to prevent the further spread of
contamination, based on contaminant
characteristics and the facility's
environmental setting? [See Attachment
A for a listing of potential stabilization
technologies.] •
( ) Yes; Indicate possible course of
action.
( ) No; Indicate why stabilization
technologies are not appropriate;
then go to Question 19.
•
15. Has the RF!, or another environmental
investigation, provided the srte
characterization and waS1e release data
needed to design and implement a
stabilization activity?
( ) Yes
( ) No
If No, can these data be obtained taster'
than the data needed to implement the
final correcti'l'e measures?
( ) Yes
( ) No
Timing and Other Procedural Issues
Associa1ed with Stabilization
, 6.
17.
Can stabilization activities be implemented
more quickly than the final corrective
measures?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) Uncertain
Additional explanatory notes:
Can stabilization activities be incorporated
into the final corrective measures at some
point in the future?
( ) Yes
( ) No
( ) UnceFlain
Additional explanatory notes:
• • • Conclusion
18. Is this facility· an appropriate candidate for
stabilization activities?
( ) Yes
( ) No, not feasible
( ) No, not required
Explain final decision, using additional
sheets n necessary.
,..·.·
•· ..• ·· •
4
Question 3
. . • •
If corrective action activities have been initiated, are they being carried out
under a permit or an enforcement order?
Corrective action activities are usually carried out under the authority ot either a RCRA
operating or post-closure permit, or under a RCRA §3008(h) administrative order. The authority used
for an ongoing corrective action project at a particular facility will affect the ease with which a
stabilization strategy can be incorporated into an existing compliance schedule. The extra time
needed for public comment, State concurrence, and other administrative requirements associated wiih
modifying or revising either a permit or an order (to incorporate stabilizatien) should be taken into
account when considering whether stabiliZation is appropriate for a given facility because as the time
required to address procedural requirements increases, the benefits potentially derived from
stabilization decrease.
Question 4 Have interim measures, if required or completed [See Question 2), been
successful in preventing the further spread of contamination at the facility?
tt interim measures have been implemented at a facility and they have been successful in
preventing the further spread of contamination from all signfficant releases, stabilization has. in effect.
been accomplished. In this case, additional stabilization measures should not be required.
Conversely, if interim measures have not been carried out, or if they have not been successful in
limiting the spread of contamination, stabilization measures should eventually be considered for this
facility.
EPA is currently evaluating facilities for stabilization based upon the
priority ranking a facility receives under the RCRA National
Corrective Action Prioritization System. At this time, the Agency is
only evaluating those facilities that have been ranked as "high"
priorities. Therefore, the attached questionnaire need only be
completed when evaluating those facilities ranked as high priorities
and where interim actions are not yet under way or have been
unsuccessful in preventing the further spread of contamination at
the facility.
Facility Releases and Exposure Concerns
Question 5 To what media have contaminant releases from the facility occurred or been
suspected of occurring?
Releases of hazardous materials to any environmental media are a serious concern.
StabiliZation measures are generally technically feasible for any of the four environmental media
(ground water, surface water, air, or soils), and stabilization should be considered wherever this type
of action could limit the further spread of contaminant migration.
Question 6 Are contaminant releases migrating off-site?
Off-site migration of contaminants generally indicates the need tor some stabilization measure
to limit contaminant movement until final corrective measures can be implemented.
2
IJ
I ---.. . , • •
Questions 7a and 7b Are humans currently being exposed to contaminants released from
the facility?
Is there a potential for human exposure to the contaminants released
from the facility over the next five to 10 years?
The actual occurrence, or the near-to mid-term (i.e., within five to 10 years) potential, of
human exposure to released contaminants is a factor supporting the implementation of stabilization
measures. The type of exposure that has occurred is an important consideration in determining the .
type of stabilization measure employed for a facility or SWMU. The stabilization measure considered
should eliminate or significantly reduce the human exposure levels at and' near the facility.
The make-up of the exposed population (e.g., facility employees, nearby home owners,
school children, nursing hOme residents) and the duration of exposure are factors that should be
consi<;Jered when determining the type of stabilization or corrective measure to be implemented.
Exposure of high-risk populations, such as children, may require the implementation of ·real-time··
stabilization measures, perhaps even emergency measures, to immediately reduce the contaminant .
levels near that population sooner than may be possible with final corrective measures.
The potential short-term and long-term effects of human exposure to released contaminants
should be considered when determining the need tor stabilization measures. Any significant exposure
concern is a factor in favor of implementing stabilization measures.
Questions ea and Sb Are environmental receptors currently being exposed to contaminants
released from the facility?
Is there a potential that environmental receptors could be exposed to
the contaminanis released from the facility over the next five to 1 O
years?
The existence of potential threats to the environment from the release of hazardous
constituents is to be considered a factor in favor of implementing stabilization measures.
Environmental receptors include terrestrial and aquatic organisms, food chain plants and animals, vital
ecology or potential natural resources, and Class I or other aquifers. The time frame over which these
threats may materialize (i.e., will the threat materialize before final corrective measures can be
implemented) should be used to determine the immediacy of the need for stabilization measures.
Anticipated Final Corrective Measures
Question 9 If already identified or planned, would final corrective measures be able to be
implemented in time to adequately address any existing or short-term threat to
human health and the environment? ·
Final corrective measures, which sometimes can be identified early in the RFI, should always
be d!'lsigned to reduce or eliminate, to the degree practicable, both short-term and long-term risks
posed by the release of hazardous constituents. If final corrective measures are currently being
planned or constructed, it is unlikely that any relatively new stabilization measures could be
implemented fast enough to be more effective in reducing short-term threats to human health and the
environment. Therefore, if final corrective measures have reached the planning stages, it should be
considered a !actor against the implementation of stabilization measu ·es. ·
3
•
• • . .
Questions 1 O and 1 t Could a stabilization initiatiVe at this facility reduce the present or near·term
(e.g., less than two years) risks to human health and the environment?
If a stabilization activity were n6t begun, would the threat to human health. <md-
the environment significantly increase before final corrective measures could
be implemented?
If it can be determined that a 'fast-track,' or quickly implementable, stabilization measure could
significantly reduce the present or near.future risks to human health and the environment, stabilization
measures should be favorably considered. Similarly, if it can be determined that the absence of
stabilization measures would result in a significantly greater risk to human health and the environment,
stabilization measures should be favorably considered.
Technical Ability to Implement Stablllzatlon Activities
Question 12 In what phase does the contaminant exist under ambient site conditions?
The physical phase of a contaminant will affect the technical practicability of stabilization. See
Attachment A for a preliminary analysis of types of waste constituents that may be stabilized by
various remediation technologies.
Question 13 Are one or more of the following major chemical groupings of concern at the
facility?
Some contaminants are more amenable to stabilization techniques than others. See
Attachment A for a preliminary analysis of types of waste constituents that may be sta.bilized by
various remediation technologies.
Question 14 Are appropriate stabmzation technologies available to prevent the further
spread of contamination, based on contaminant characteristics and the
facility's environmental setting? [See Attachment A for a listing of potential
stabilization technologies.]
The implementation of stabilization measures is, of course, dependent upon the availability of
appropriate technologies and techniques. Attachment A fists a series of hazardous waste site
remediation tecmologies and techniques that have potential applicability for stabilization of certain
wastes under certain conditions. If there are no identified technologies appropriate for stabilizing
contamination. facHity, this evaluation.is complete and the rest of this questionnaire need not be
completed. r ·; . .
Question 15 Has the RFI, or another environmentai investigation, provided the site
characterization and waste release data needed to design and implement a
stabilization actiVity? If No, can these data be obtained faster than the data
needed to· implement the final correctiVe measures?
Stabilization measures should not be considefed for implementation until adequate site
characterization and waste release data are available. Gathering data specifically for stabilization is
not a wortllwhne endeavor ff the data for a final corrective measure are more readily available or
quicker to obtain.
4
-·
L_
• •
Timing and Other Procedural Issues Associated with Stablll<:atlon
Question 16 Can stabilization activities be implemented more quickly than the final
corrective measures?
Generally, stabilization measures should not be implemented unless they can be put in place
more quickly and/or more efficiently, or will be effective significantly sooner than final corrective
measures.
Question 17 Can stabilization activities be incorporated into the final corrective measures at
some point in the future?
Stabilization measures should generally be amenable to incorporation into the final corrective
action project. Measures that cannot be successfully integrated into the overall site remediation
should be able to significantly and predictably reduce threats to human health or the environment, or
produce some other beneficial effects deemed important by the Administrator.
Conclusion
Question 18 Is this facility an appropriate candidate for stabilization activities?
The decision of whether or not to implement stabilization measures at a facility is a
professional judgment that should be based upon a careful weighing of factors such as those
described above. There may also be other site-specific factors that enter into the decision, and these
factors and their consequences should be documented in an appropriate manner.
In most cases, stabilization should ontY be implemented it it offers some cl.ear advantages (in
terms of protecting human health and the environment) over waiting for the implementation of final
corrective measures. The stabilization measure used at a facility shOuld be at least a part of the final
corrective measure, with changes in timing and short-term goals (limiting contaminant movement
versus contaminant cleanup) being the major points setting it apart from the final measures.
5
• •
I
I -
···-~·-------------
• •
RECOMMENDED PROCESS FOR IMPLEMENTING STABILIZATION AT FACILITIES
CURRENTLY UNDERTAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION
Background
In FY 1991, EPA Regions and States began reviewing facilrties currently in the corrective
action 'pipeline• to determine the need to pursue stabilization measures. Procedurally, the Agency
anticipates that stabilization will involve an initial evaluation of RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
information in order to identify the need for stabilization techniques. Subsequent information
gathering during the RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) will be focused to support technical decisions
regarding the stabilization approach chosen and implementing the technical "fix.'
For facilities that are not yet permitted or under an enforcement order, it will be relatively easy
for the Agency ti; develop flexible schedules of compliance (SOCs) that allow for stabilization-focused
data gathering and subsequent implementation of stabilization activities prior to completing the RFI.
Many facilities, however, are already initiating corrective action activities under permits or enforcement
orders. Some of those facilities have submitted RFI workplans for review; others are proceeding to
implement approved RFI workplans. Although these workplans and socs may include provisions for
interim measures, they do not necessarily include conditions requiring the owner/operator ta gather
data necessary to support stabilization decisions early in the RFI process. The following process is
proposed as a means of implementing stabilization at these facimies.
Initial Criteria for Pursuing Stabill.zatlon Activities
The corrective action program will implement stabilization consistent wrth the Agency's overall
objective of addressing the 'Worst sites first.' Thus, the Agency will direct program resources and the
implementation of stabilization actiVities at specific facilrties (and specific units at those facilrties)
according to their priority under the National Corrective Action Prioritization System.
Assuming that high priority facilities with RFls imposed under an SOC represent the •worst
sites." the inrtial determinant for pursuing stabilization activities is whether the site can benefrt from
stabilization. Each Region will make this determination based on the information provided in the
Corrective Action Stabilization Questionnaire. If additional measures can be taken to prevent the
further spread of contamination or threats ta human health and the environment, the Agency will
proceed with further ;steps toward implementing stabilization actiVities.
Among those high priority facilities that can benefit from stabilization, the Agency will focus
first on those with the most serious releases or exposure potential. In addition, timing of stabilization
activities at ttiewfacilities may be affected by the cooperation of the owner/operator (o/o), the status
al the RFI workpi.n, and whether interim measures are included in the existing permit or order. The
proposed procedures for implementing stabilization activities based on these initial parameters are
discussed below.
Procedures for Implementing Stabilization ActlvHles
Informal negotiations to revise the RF! workplan (whether approved or in draft form) and
incorporate stabilization activities should be the initial step in implementing stabilization activities. The
Agency must thoroughly document all agreements in the administrative record. In most cases. a
permit/order modification will not be necessary, provided that the current permit/order requires the o/o
ta conduct investigations or implement cleanup measures as required by 'the current, approved RFI
warkplan. • Althaugh informal negotiations will typically be the fastest and .easiest route to
implementing stabilization activities, the Agency may want ta consider immediately pursuing an
enforcement alternative when dealing with a previously uncooperative a/o.
• •
2
If the o/o is uncooperative or informal negotiation fails to produce an agreement for pursuing
stabilization, the Agency has several available options:
• If the facility is permitted, the Agency can issue a §3008(a) order to enforce permit
conditions, depending on the language in the permit (e.g., whether the SOC is broad
enough to cover stabilization activities), or initiate a permit modffication requiring
stabilization activities to be implemented. As a worst case scenario, the Agency could
take steps to suspend or revoke the facility's operating pe[mit for violation of permit
conditions (again depending on the language in the permit).
• If the facility is under an enforcement order, e.g., a RCRA §3008(h) consent order,
which usually includes stipulated penalties for non-compliance, the Agency could:
Enforce the current order through a §3008(a) order, which would assess
penalties for non-compliance with the te[_mS of the initial order; or
Issue a second §3008(h} unilateral order requiring stabilization activities to be
implemented.
Under each of these options, the Agency should be prepared to document and defend its
stabilization decisions with a strong finding of fact. This is especially true if the facility is operating
under an approved RFI workplan that does not contain interim measures provisions.
The Agency can also take action under §7003, if the site may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to health or the environment. The Regions are strongly encouraged to
consider this option. Additionally, it may be appropriate to pursue criminal enforcer:nent actions where
applicable.
, ... '
"'• ~·:
f .......
PAGE 2 -
•
January 7, 1993
NORTH CAROLINA
•
We would appreciate any information you might be able to provide concerning these companies
and individuals, including the following:
1. Whether these company(s) have reported hazardous waste activities, including a
brief description of their activities in your state and responsible individuals.
2. Current compliance status, i.e. whether "in" or "out" of compliance. If out of
compliance, a brief description of violations and/or copies of appropriate
documents would be helpful.
3. Whether these company(s) have a history of hazardous waste violations.
This information will become part of an agency investigation preliminary to agency action which
may result in enforcement action against these company(s) and/or individuals as Potential
Responsible Partys (PRP's). Please contact Bob Snyder, Hazardous Waste Program, at (407)
894-7555 if there are questions about this request or if you have additional information you
believe will be helpful.
S~ely, ;dif~.<d~+
· Program Manager, ~dous Waste
RTS/jw/ss/wk
cc: Michael Redig, POER-Tallahassee
Robert J. Stamper, Office of State Attorney
Everett Wilson, Property Owner
•
co: Gary Honbarrier, President
Central Transport, Inc,
Raymond B. Ludwiszewski
Acting Assistant Adminsitrator
Gerald A. Bryan, Director
•
Office of compliance Analysis and Program Operations
(LE-133)
Frederick F. Stiehl
Associat Enforcement Counsel for Water Enforcement
(LE-134W)
Pasquale Alberico, Acting Director
Office of Criminal Enforcement (LE-134X)
Greer c. Tidwell
Regional Adminstrator
EPA Region IV
John R. Barker
Regional counsel
EPA Region IV
James H. Prange
Assistant Director
Office of Criminal Investigations
NEIC
Resident Agent-in-Charge
NEIC Off ice of Criminal Investigations
EPA Region IV
Thomas D. Ashcraft
U.S. Attorney
Room 260, United States Courthouse
401 west Trade st.
Charlotte, N.C. 28202
Joseph G. Block, Chief
Environmental Crimes Section
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 2385
L'Enfant Plaza Station
Washington, D.c. 20026
. , ' • •
REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FROM THE LIST OF VIOLATING FACILITIES
(Mandatory Listing)
Section 15.20 of the regulations governing the Contractor
Listing Program (40 CFR Part 15) provides that, once listed, a
facility "shall remain on the List of Violating Facilities until
the [EPA] Assistant Administrator [for Enforcement and compliance
Monitoring] certifies that the condition giving rise to mandatory
listing has been corrected." Section 15.22 of the regulations
provides that a request for removal must set forth, with speci-
ficity, the proposed basis for removal from the List under section
15.20.
A request for removal from the List of Violating Facilities
should specifically address each matter identified below:
r. Name and address of person requesting removal
Na~e and location of facility
Crminal Docket Number, District Court, Date of Judgment
Status: (conviction, appeal, reversal, etc.)
II. The technical circumstances at the facility that constituted
the "condition" which gave rise to the listing under the
Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act (or both), including any
environmental consequences of those circumstances.
III. All actions that the facility has taken to correct the
condition which gave rise to the listing. Identify all
permits, standards, SIPS, tests, waivers, exemptions, etc.,
that are necessary to effect such correction. Describe,
with supporting documentation, any modifications to plant,
equipment or procedures that have been undertaken to correct
the condition which gave rise to the listing, including
evidence demonstrating that the facility can operate and is
operating in accordance with the requirements of the statutory
provisions under which the conviction occurred and EPA
regulations promulgated thereunder. Please identify the
evidence which supports such a conclusion and any state or
EPA approval required.
rv. Identify what actions, if any, remain to be taken that are
necessary to correct the condition(sl which gave rise to
the listing. Please identify the schedule for such actions
and whether such a schedule has been approved by the state
or EPA.
v. Please describe in detail the current status of the facility's.
compliance with the Clean Air Act or clean Water Act
requirements which the facility was found to be violating.
Please identify and supply documentation or other evidence
which supports each assertion made above.
•' .'
. ' .... • •
-2-
VI. Information submitted must be signed and sworn by a respon-
sible company official. The declaration also must include
an acknowledgment that the statement and supporting informa-
tion is being submitted in regard to a matter within the
jurisdiction of this Agency and is subject to the sanctions
of 18 u.s.c. SlOOl for false statement.
l
Are! Fox, Kintner, Plotkin &\ahn
fr/e. '. G "'v~
{V{]) O'f (o/ L/RSYO
In Maryland
7475 Wisconsin Avenue
Bethe!;:da, Maryland 20814-341.3
[phone]
Marc L. Fleischaker
[phone]
1050 Connecticut Avenue. N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20036-5339
In Virginia
8000 Towers Crescent Orive
Vietnna, Virgini.a 22182-2733
(703) 847"5800
December 20, 1990 DEG 2 7 1990
Mr. Robert Glaser, P.G., Hydrogeologist
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources
Solid Waste Management Division
Hazardous waste Section
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Re: Central Transport, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina Terminal
Dear Mr. Glaser:
This letter authorizes your office to communicate
directly with O'Brien & Gere on technical matters in
connection with the lagoon closure at Central Transport,
Inc.'s Charlotte facility, instead of communicating first
with legal counsel on behalf of Central Transport, Inc.
Since O'Brien & Gere personnel work directly with you on a
regular basis anyhow, we think this "official" arrangement
will facilitate communication. We would appreciate it,
however, if you would copy us on all correspondence which you
address to O'Brien and Gere.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact. us.
cc: Mr. Glen Simpson
Sincerely,
II/;:,~ '()%,,,,,,/,.A
J;{~c L. Fleischaker
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin
& Kahn
/kj, -!/ f11~ '1'<•
Jphn J. Ddyle, Jr.
Weinstein & Sturges
Mr. George B. Rest, P.E.
Ms. Terry L. Norman
Mr. Michael Wittner
Telephone: [phone] Cable: ARFOX Telex: WU 892672 ID 440266 Facsimile: [phone]
1
Mr. Jerry Rhodes
March 30, 1989
-Page 2 -
• •
listed as 40 CFR 261. 7 1 addresses the issue Of residues of
hazar~ous wastes in containers. Any hazardous material remaining
in a container (any portable device in which a material is stored,
transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled) is not
subject to regulation as a hazardous waste if the container is
11empty11 • A container is empty when all material has been removed
by pouring, pumping, or aspirating. Additionally, no more than 2. 5
cm of residue shall remain on the bottom of the container or no
more than 3% by weight of the total capacity of the container shall
remain in a container which is less than or equal to 110 gallons
in size (no more than 0.3% by weight of the total capacity shall
remain in a container of capacity greater than 110 gallons). If
acutely hazardous material is held in the container, the container
must be triple rinsed (or an equivalent method) using a solvent
capable of removing the residue before the container is declared
empty.
No commercial chemicals are cleaned by CTI which appear on 40 CFR
261.33(e) (acutely hazardous materials). The commercial chemical
residue management is performed so that less than o.3% by weight
of the capacity of the tank ·truck (5000 to 5500 gallons) remains
as residue (heel) after bulk chemicals are pumped from the tank.
As such, the rinsate resulting from rinsing operations is not
regulated as a hazardous waste, and therefore, the sludge generated
by pre-treatment of the rinsate is not regulated as a hazardous
waste unless it "fails" a characteristic test, per 40 CFR 261. As
stated above, the sludge has already been tested for hazardous
waste characteristics and has been determined to be non-hazardous.
Finally, the rinse water is not regulated as a discarded commercial
chemical product as detailed in 40 CFR 261.33 since the chemical
residue remaining in the container is rinsed such that the
·,,ei container is "emptyn as defined in the empty container rule.
In summary, 1) The sludge does not exhibit the hazardous waste
characteristics, 2) No acutely hazardous materials are cleaned,
3) Only "empty" tankers are cleaned, and 4) The rinse water is
not a discarded commercial chemical product, we therefore conclude
that neither the rinse water nor pre-treatment sludge are regulated
as a hazardous Wal!!te.
As you know, in order to dispose of these sludges, we need a letter
indicating the state• s opinion on whether the sludges are non-
hazardous wastes. Please forward such a letter to my office by
April 15, 1989, so that we can proceed with sludge disposal. I
hope this letter has answered your questions; if you require
additional information, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
•
Very truly yours,
CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC.
6/e·n--,./-'"'/;<ft'~--·
Glen Simpson
Environmental Director
GS/PMS
co: Maro Fleisohaker, Esquire
George Rest
:'~ry Caton
i,-X&ok Henderson
•
•
Glen Simpson
January 5, 1989
Page 2 of 3
•
1. The wastewater shall contain no hazardous material
and will be similar in composition to the analyses
by General Engineering Laboratories (6-24-87),
Guilford Laboratories, Inc. (10-17-88) and
(8-2-88), and Black and Veatch, Inc., (2-3-88)
submitted with your November 8, 1988, proposal.
2. Central Transport, Inc., will provide a written or
typed certification to Cunningham Brick, Inc.,
signed by the Environmental Coordinator or
Corporate Officer with each load of wastewater
stating that no hazardous materials are present.
Records of the number of loads shipped shall be
maintained on file at the Uwharrie Road location.
3. Central Transport, Inc., is responsible for the
wastewater until it is placed in the storage tanks
at Cunningham Brick at which time Cunningham Brick
will assume responsibility for the wastewater.
4. All wastewater taken to Cunningham Brick must be
placed directly into the holding tank (currently
one) or tanks for use in the brick mixing
operations.
5. The wastewater must be transported by a Central
Transport tanker, and Central Transport must carry
insurance that covers environmental damaqe for any
commodity carried by motor vehicle, environmental
restoration, and is applicable to North Carolina.
6. Only wastewater generated at the Uwharrie Road
location from the internal rinsing and steaming of
Central Transport, Inc., tankers is to be utilized
in this disposal plan.
Per your comments, the major reason for seeking this
method of disposal for the tanker waste is the high cost of
going in the City sewer even though your Company had spent
over $100,000.00 on pretreatment equipment. A change in
pretreatment requirements during the installation stages now
calls for a much higher level of treatment and would require
major new expenditures.
•
Glen Simpson
January 5, 1989
Page 3 of 3
•
Should you have any questions regarding this letter,
please contact Sherri Knight, A.R. Hagstrom, or me at (919)
761-2351 at this office.
LDC/ARH/ahl
cc: Arthur Mouberry
Ed Lawrence ----
Judy Lund, DHS V
Myron Whitley
WSRO
Central Files
Sincerely,
~.l>. c,M-.
Larry D. Coble
Regional Office Supervisor