The lengthy discourses/interpretations re: the designation of the tanks seems irrelevant to the City at this point in time.

Transcription

1 Gage, Hannah From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Gilliam, Allen Tuesday, May 17, :04 PM 'Mike Spencer'; mena charles pitman Gage, Hannah; Leamons, Bryan; fayetteville denise georgiou AR _Crider Aircraft Painting May 2016 discharge to Mena_ Crider Aircraft - Reg Interpretation Report.pdf Mike, The lengthy discourses/interpretations re: the designation of the tanks seems irrelevant to the City at this point in time. We need to see Crider s treated w.w. analyticals to help you make an informed decision whether they need further treatment to remove or reduce toxics pollutants before discharging into your collection system. Also needed is their daily flow avg. and whether it will be batch discharged or continuous. If their analyticals look fairly benign, Mena has the legal authority to permit their discharge to the City s collection system; first going through the City s Pretreatment Ordinance s permit application requirements. Hopefully a priority pollutant scan (40 CFR 122, Appendix D, Tables II and bin/textidx?sid=3e670201b58cd c3e76ecf6198&mc=true&node=pt &rgn=div5#ap _164.d ) was conducted on their treated wastewater. It may be prudent to send them a permit application to begin the (potential) permitting process and gain this information at the same time. Crider is required to provide a comprehensive narrative process/manufacturing description and a comprehensive wastewater flow schematic (with flow directional arrows) from w.w. generating source(s) thru treatment to their potential final sampling point per 40 CFR (b). It s imperative they provide a list of all raw materials including the chemicals (not trade names) used in their processes. Allen Gilliam ADEQ State Pretreatment Coordinator ec: Denise Georgiou, CH2M Hill Engineering Consultant for the City of Mena Rodger Crider, Crider Aircraft Painting, Inc. E/NPDES/NPDES/Pretreatment/Reports From: Mike Spencer [mailto:menawwtp@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, :49 PM To: Gilliam, Allen Subject: FW: [Bulk] FW: Crider Aircraft - Regulatory Interpretation Report Your thoughts From: Charles Pitman [mailto:charles.menawater@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, :07 PM 1

2 To: 'Mena Wastewater' Subject: FW: [Bulk] FW: Crider Aircraft - Regulatory Interpretation Report From: r crider [mailto:criderair@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 17, :45 AM To: charles.menawater@sbcglobal.net Subject: [Bulk] FW: Crider Aircraft - Regulatory Interpretation Report Charles, Attached is the final interpretation. As you can see it states that I need a permit from the City to discharge. Again I dont plan on discharging into the system unless absolutely needed but need the permit to operate as is. I had sent water samples to Chem Lab for the test however they are slow to return. As of today they are saying Monday before I get results. To get the ball rolling I would like to treat a fresh batch water again and let Mike get the samples. I believe he has already ordered a kit. And as soon as possible if we could get something saying that permit is undergoing process or anything to show ADEQ we are working on it. Thanks Rodger Rodger Crider Crider Aircraft Painting, Inc. 104 Airport Lane Mena AR PH Fax From: BReynolds@thesoco.com To: crideraircraft@hotmail.com; criderair@hotmail.com Subject: Crider Aircraft - Regulatory Interpretation Report Date: Thu, 12 May :37: Ms. Crider, I have completed the Regulatory Interpretation Report for the Rinse Water Tank System at Crider Aircraft in Mena, Arkansas. I have attached the report to this , and the hardcopy and invoice will be mailed your way soon. As always, if you have any questions for me, please feel free to call or . Thank you for selecting the Southern Company NLR for this project, and I look forward to working with you on future projects. Thank you, Ben Reynolds, PE The Southern Company of NLR, Inc Cypress Street, North Little Rock, AR

3 Direct: Office: Fax:

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 (04) OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE APR Mr. Eric E. Boyd Sidley & Austin One First National Plaza Chicago, IL Dear Mr. Boyd: This is in response to your letter of March 13, 1989 in which you requested clarification of the regulations that apply to still bottoms generated and removed from a recycling unit. Specifically, you inquired as to when the waste accumulation time begins in an on-site solvent recycling operation. The accumulation time for still bottoms resulting from the recycling of spent solvent begins when the still bottoms are removed from the distillation unit. The recycling unit is exempt from regulation, therefore, the still bottoms are considered to be a newly generated waste eligible for accumulation under the provisions of 40 CFR Section They are also a "derived from" waste and carry the same EPA waste code as the spent solvent from which they were derived (40 CFR (c)(2)(i)). The spent solvent which is recycled by your client is a hazardous waste subject to regulation. The generator must determine his generator status, i.e. conditionally exempt generator (40 CFR Section 261.5), small quantity generator (40 CFR Section (d-f)), or large quantity generator (40 CFR Section (a-b)), based on the total amount of hazardous waste he generates in a calendar month, which includes the total amount of spent solvent before recycling. The accumulation time for the spent solvent under the provisions of 40 CFR Section is 90 days, or 180 days if your client is a small quantity generator of between 100 and 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste in a month. If we can be of any further assistance, please contact Emily Roth at (202) RO 11420

32 Sincerely, Original Document signed Sylvia K. Lowrance Director Office of Solid Waste RO 11420

33 (01) RECYCLING ACTIVITIES MAY Alan H. McLean Hughes Hubbard and Reed Madison Avenue New York, New York Dear Mr. McLean: This letter is in response to your letter dated March 2, 1989, requesting a written interpretation of aspects of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) implementing regulations applicable to recycling activities (40 CFR Parts 124, 264, 265, 266, 268 and 270). It is my understanding that Environmental Technology Group's (ETG's) operation involves a mobile recycling unit that visits hazardous waste generator sites. Used solvents are pumped into the mobile unit through hoses connected to the generators' storage tanks or containers and a horizontal thin film evaporator is applied to reclaim reusable solvents. The reusable solvents are then pumped back into the generator's product tanks or containers. All rinsings and non-recoverable residues exiting from the mobile unit are placed in waste containers and remain on-site as the property of the generator. In your letter, you reached several tentative conclusions regarding the applicability of certain RCRA regulations to your process. I have discussed those Federal regulations below to clarify how they would apply to your activities. However, it should be noted that in states that are authorized to implement the RCRA program, the state regulations, rather than Federal regulations, are applicable. The state program can be broader-in-scope or more stringent than the Federal counterpart, so ETG should check all applicable state standards before deploying its mobile recycling units. The first question raised is, who is considered the generator of the residue or still bottom resulting from the recycling of the spent solventby ETG's units. EPA considers the original generator of the spent solvents and ETG to be RO 13280

34 co-generators of these still bottoms, and the RCRA regulations regarding generators, found at 40 CFR Part 262, are applicable to both. However, this does not mean that both generators must satisfy each regulatory requirement individually. When two or more parties contribute to the generation of a hazardous waste, as is the case in the generation of the still bottoms, these requirements are satisfied if one of the parties assumes and performs the duties of the generator on behalf of both the parties (45 FR 72026, October 30, 1980). Therefore, by mutual agreement either party could perform the generator responsibilities of recordkeeping,reporting, and manifesting for the still bottom waste. Typically, these duties are assumed by the original generator who owns the site. Nevertheless, EPA reserves the right to enforce against any and all persons who fit the definition of "generator" in a particular case if the requirements of Part 262 are not adequately met. For more discussion on generator responsibilities, see the October 30, 1980 Federal Register notice referenced above. Regarding the notification process, generator notifications under section 3010 of RCRA are generally required only once, at the time that RCRA regulations initially become applicable to the generator. It is through the notification process that a generator obtains an EPA identification number. If the original generator has already submitted a notification and received an EPA identification number, and if this generator consents to performing the generator duties for the still bottoms as described above, then, additional notification is not required for the mobile unit to perform the recycling operation. This arrangement appears to fit the circumstances described in your letter. However, should the agreement between ETG and a particular client prescribe that ETG be generator of record for the still bottoms, including manifesting the residue, ETG would need to obtain an EPA identification number for that particular site by submitting a notification form (40 CFR (a)). You also inquire about the applicability of the permitting requirements to the generator or the mobile unit operator. Your letter correctly states that a hazardous waste recycling process is exempt from the RCRA permitting requirements (40 CFR 261.6(c)). Therefore, neither ETG nor the generator would be obligated to obtain a permit for the recycling RO 13280

35 operation. Further, generators are allowed to accumulate hazardous waste on-site in tanks or containers for up to 90 days without being required to obtain interim status or a permit (40 CFR ). It should be noted, however, that 90-day generators must comply with the technical standards of Part 265, Subpart J (for tanks), and Subpart I (for containers), as well as certain emergency response and personnel training provisions. If the accumulation period before the waste is introduced into the recycling unit exceeds 90 days, the generator will need to obtain interim status or a permit for such storage. Wastes or residues from recycling activities are considered to be newly generated wastes and therefore are also allowed a 90 day accumulation period without a permit. Note that these wastes are also "derived from" wastes and are assigned the same EPA waste codes as the spent solvent from which they are derived (40 CFR (c)(2)(i)). You also indicate in your letter that ETG will not be subject to the Part 268 land disposal restriction requirements since a permit is not required. However, you should note that the Part 268 standards apply independent of the permit program, and any such requirements that are applicable to a particular waste (e.g., the solvent still bottoms) must be compiled with regardless of the accumulation provision. I hope this information will be helpful to you. If you have further questions please feel free to call Frank McAlister at (202) Sincerely yours, Original Document signed Joseph S. Carra Director Permits and State Programs Division RO 13280

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63 Photo 1. View of the Rinse Water Treatment Tank. Photo 2. View of the Used Rinse Water Holding Tank.

64 Photo 3. View of the small Rinse Water Holding Tank. Photo 3. View of the three large Rinse Water Holding Tanks and suspended transfer lines.