NMFRC
 

NCMSCompliance Assistance Centers

Funded by EPA
through a Cooperative Agreement

EPA

Disclaimer
The information contained in this site is provided for your review and convenience. It is not intended to provide legal advice with respect to any federal, state, or local regulation. You should consult with legal counsel and appropriate authorities before interpreting any regulations or undertaking any specific course of action.

9444.1985(17)

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

OCT 3 1985

Honorable Virginia Smith

House of Representatives

Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Ms. Smith:

I have reviewed EPAs classification of spent pickle liquor as a hazardous waste as you requested in your September 12, 1985, letter to the Administrator. However, the Agency has taken the position that spent pickle liquor from any source, including hot dip galvanizing, is a listed hazardous waste (it is listed in the regulations as K062). This interpretation is consistent with the letter from Jack McGraw (then Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response) to Mr. Satterfield on April 10, 1985. In that letter, Mr. McGraw stated that hot dip galvanizing is excluded from the electroplating category; however, no such statement was made with respect to the pickle liquor waste.

I should point out, however, that a number of companies, especially those in the porcelain enamel industry, have taken exception to this view. In fact, a law suit was filed by the Porcelain Enamel Institute (PEI) disputing the Agencys application of the K062 listing beyond the Iron and Steel Industry. As a result of this suit and a rulemaking petition filed by several members of PEI, the Agency recently requested comments on the Agencys application of the K062 listing. This request for comment appeared in the Federal Register on September 10, 1985. I have included a copy of this notice for your convenience.

In the notice, you will find a discussion of the issues and background information on the Agencys position. Since the comment period is now open, Mr. Soderquist may make any comments he believes appropriate about the K062 listing. I can assure you that all comments will be evaluated as part of the Agencys rulemaking procedure.

The delisting mechanism is also an alternative; it need not take three to four years. The time it takes for processing a delisting is directly dependent upon our receiving a complete delisting petition from the company filing the petition. We recently published a guidance document (EPA/530-SW-85-003) to help petitioners file complete petitions. This document is available from the National Technical Information Service. I realize that compliance with EPAs regulations may be costly, however, we believe that the costs are justified in order to protect our ground-water resources.

I thank you for your concern in this matter. If Mr. Soderquist or you would like any additional information, please contact Mr. James Poppiti at (202) 382-4788.

Sincerely yours,

Original Document signed

J. Winston Porter

Assistant Administrator

Enclosure

_



| Compliance Assistance | Regulations | Directories | Resources | Hot Topics | News | Ask the Experts | Library | Online Training | About NMFRC | Search | Home |

NMFRC