"Challenges in Classifying Remediation Waste" appeared in the April 2007 edition of Commerce Magazine. The article, authored by Craig Gorczyca, Director of Operations and Waste Management Services for EWMA.

There are many challenges today concerning the cleanup of contaminated sites. Some of the more obvious ones include time constraints, staying within established budgets and communicating with regulatory agencies to complete the cleanup. One of the not so obvious challenges concerning cleanups relates to waste classification – the characterization of wastes generated during remedial action for purposes of determining the proper manner and cost of disposal.

With the implementation of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1976, the waste classification task should have become easier. It was initially promulgated, in part, to aid in the identification and classification of all waste material, including wastes generated during remediation. However, it sometimes appears the aforementioned regulations were written for generators with on-going waste streams, such as manufacturing facilities. These same regulations can sometimes be confusing when an environmental consultant is conducting a one-time cleanup of a property where the industrial operator (generator of the waste) has been gone for many years.

According to RCRA, there are two types of Hazardous Waste – Listed and Characteristic. Listed Wastes are just that. If the waste matches one of the written descriptions, it is a Listed Hazardous Waste, regardless of the contaminant levels. For consultants that are dealing with historical contamination, Listed Wastes can be more difficult to classify than Characteristic Wastes due to the lack of generator knowledge about the source of contamination. Another factor adding to this uncertainty is time. Certain processes that took place at a site may have been updated, changed or even discontinued. Additionally, specific employees that were involved in a certain process are let go, replaced or retired. Therefore, there can be little or no generator knowledge to be obtained to help classify a waste generated during a remediation project.

Characteristic Wastes, on the other hand, are easier to classify because these wastes are assigned codes simply based on physical characteristics or laboratory analytical results. There is a specific list of contaminants with EPA assigned numerical values. If a specific laboratory test result is above an established EPA threshold, the waste would be classified as hazardous for Characteristics. It does not matter how the contaminant was used or how it was discharged.

One of the more common environmental contaminants today that consultants face is a chlorinated solvent called tetrachloroethylene (a.k.a. perchloroethylene or PCE). PCE is and was a very common solvent with many uses. Two of the more common are in dry cleaning and degreasing of metal parts. Not only is PCE difficult to clean up in soil and water because of its chemical/physical properties (i.e., it is heavier than water), but it can also be difficult to classify a PCE waste generated during remediation.

The problem is that PCE can be classified as four (4) different types of RCRA Hazardous Waste. Three are “Listed Waste” and one is a “Characteristic Waste”. The three types of Listed Waste refer to the PCE if it was virgin, used or more specifically, used in degreasing. The one Characteristic option can be determined through a simple analytical test.

Determining whether PCE contaminated soil must be excavated is relatively simple, based on state established clean-up levels. But determining which of the four classifications for PCE remediation waste is chosen can sometimes prove difficult. The proper course would be to determine first if it is a Listed Waste. As stated earlier, this may be difficult due to lack of generator knowledge and the fact that information regarding the former use of the PCE may be unavailable.

Typically, numerical values (Soil Cleanup Criteria) drive the removal of soil contaminated with PCE. If the concentration is below specific criteria, it can remain in the ground. If the result exceeds the criteria, it must be removed, treated or left in place with a deed restriction. However, if it is decided that it is going to be removed, the waste then has to be classified so it can be disposed of properly. As discussed, the waste classification choices are fact sensitive and the determination drives whether the transportation and disposal costs are in the $60 to $90 range per ton for non-hazardous or in the $170 to $220 range per ton for hazardous.

Considering these options, the source of the discharge or how the PCE was used before it contaminated the soil becomes paramount in the waste classification and disposal process. Determining this may take an excessive amount of investigative time and still be unknown. Without the knowledge of the original party responsible for the contamination, the burden of waste classification then lies with the current property owner. Environmental consultants may be able to provide recommendations based on site conditions or work already completed but ultimately the decision is to be made by the party conducting the remediation (or Generator).

It is no secret that there are many challenges regarding the remediation of a site. However, waste classification, which is typically not one of the most obvious, may be very difficult and could turn out to be the most important. With regards to funding, the difference between disposal costs of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is significant and may make or break a project budget. The impact regarding this decision could affect the entire remediation process and the development of a particular site.

Craig Gorczyca, is a Director of Operations and Waste Management Services with Environmental Waste Management Associates, Parsippany, NJ. He is responsible for managing the transportation and disposal of all wastes generated during investigation and remediation activities as well as large-scale remediation projects. Mr. Gorczyca has extensive knowledge of NJDEP, RCRA, DOT and TSCA regulations. In addition, he maintains an AHERA Inspector and Management Planner certification in NJ and leads a team of asbestos professionals who hold certifications at both the federal and state levels.