April 19, 1995
RE: Envirobond 403
Lake Front Enterprises
Attn: Robert Bergquist,
Dear Mr. Bergquist:
The Department of Environmental Protection (the Department) has reviewed the information that you submitted to us regarding Envirobond 403. You have requested that the Department clarify the applicable regulatory classification and management requirements that would apply to this product when it is used to contain a release of oil as part of performing a response action in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (310 CMR 40.0000).
Used and unused waste oil in Massachusetts is classified as a state listed Hazardous Waste. However, pursuant to 310 CMR 30.0252(2), the management standards for used or unused waste oil that has been released to the environment, may be managed in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0000, rather than 310 CMR 30.000.
In general, inorganic or organic absorbents used as part of a 21E remedial response action to contain a release to the environment of used or unused waste oil must be managed in accordance with the management requirements contained in 310 CMR 40.0030.
Spent adsorbents which are not generated as a result of a 21E response action (ie. not for an environmental release), must be managed in accordance with 310 CMR 30.000. An example of M.G.L. chapter 21C regulated activities include using adsorbents to clean out UST sludges prior to tank decommissioning. Releases not entering the environment which are incidental to the operation or maintenance of mechanical equipment is another example of waste materials that must be managed in accordance with Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Regulations (310 CMR 30.000).
The key distinction in determining which set of regulatory requirements apply to used or unused waste oil contamination is to determine whether:
If these conditions have been met then the material may be managed in accordance with 310 CMR 40.0030. If not, then the contaminated material, including any adsorbents, must be managed under 310 CMR 30.000.
Based upon an initial review of the information provided by you, it appears that "raw" ENVIRO-BOND 403 material is not a listed hazardous waste, nor does it exhibit a characteristic of a Hazardous Waste (see MSDS sheets). It appears that the primary characteristic of this material. is its ability to absorb or contain petroleum distillates. No statement in the information provided to the Department indicates that a chemical reaction comparable to treatment occurs during the application of EB 403, which is further evidenced by the retained BTU content of the material being absorbed. No destruction of any oil appears to occur or is claimed to be taking place, rather simple absorption.
Spent absorbents generated as a result of performing a response action at a 21E release site, may be transported from the disposal site in accordance with the Bill of Lading provisions contained at 310 CMR 40.0035, to a facility properly permitted, licensed or approved to accept such materials. Obviously, absorbent materials in general are not physically suitable for recycling into asphalt, nor appropriate for use as daily cover at lined landf ills. Specifically, due to an absorbent's physical ability to retain the BTU content of oil, DEP Policy #WSC-94-400 (Interim Remediation Waste Management Policy for Petroleum Contaminated Soils) provides for taking absorbent materials to energy recovery facilities such as a municipal incinerator, or a trash to energy facility for destruction. As always, the generator, LSP, and facility must make sure that the acceptance of such materials is within the facility operating permit requirements and conditions.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me directly at the letterhead address or at (508) 792-7653 x 3847.
Nicholas J. Child
August 12, 1997
Re: Enviro-Bond Disposal
Dear Mr. Baribeault:
On behalf of the SEMASS Partnership, as it relates to the SEMASS Resource Recovery Facility ("Facility"), we have reviewed the material supplied by Lakefront Enterprises and have concluded that virgin petroleum absorbed in Enviro-Bond can be accepted for disposal at the Facility. Please note that this material can only be accepted on a case by case basis and in accordance with our authorization from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) granted in their letter of June 8, 1990. As the authorization from the DEP limits the quantity of material to be received per year, SEMASS reserves the right to refuse material if we believe that is could result in exceeding our annual limit.
Should you have any other questions or require further information, please contact me at 508-291-4400.
Received June 8, 1990
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
RE: ROCHESTER--Air Quality Control--310 CMR 7.02,
The Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality Control, has reviewed your application dated March 2, 1990 concerning the burning of virgin petroleum oils and combustible debris at the SEMASS Waste-to-Energy Facility, Cranberry Highway, Rochester, Massachusetts.
The application was submitted in accordance with Section 7.02, Plan Approval and Emission Limitations as contained in 310 CMR 7.00 Air Pollution Control Regulations Adopted by the Department pursuant to the authority granted by Massachusetts General Laws,. Chapter 111, Sections 142A-E and 142J, and Chapter 21C, Sections 4 and 6. The Department's review has been limited to air pollution control regulation compliance and does not relieve you of the. obligation to comply with all other permitting requirements.
The application was submitted over the seal and signature of Jehangir Zakaria, Massachusetts P.E. No. 31847.
A review of the application reveals that SEMASS Partnership requests an approval to burn combustible debris (absorbent pads, hay, vegetation, booms, etc.) contaminated with virgin petroleum oils in Boilers 1 and 2. The request is specific to the absorbent combustible material. generated by Clean Harbors of from the oil tanker "Caribou" at the ESCO Terminal on the Cape Cod Canal. The absorbents consist of 60% booms, 30% Pads and 10% a combination of sweeps, blankets and Pillows. All sorbents are bagged in 6 mil poly bags and consist of approximately 60-65 yards of material stockpiled.
In addition, the application requests approval to combust a maximum of 500 cubic yards per year of combustible debris contaminated with virgin petroleum oils.
The application was made pursuant to the Department of Environmental Protection Policy No. WSC-89-001 "Management Procedures for Excavated Soils Contaminated with Virgin Petroleum oils'' and was supported by the Town Of Rochester, Board of Health In a letter dated February 14, 1990. The Board of Health concluded that the combustion of virgin petroleum oil contaminated combustible material when conducted in' accordance with the aforementioned Policy, does not violate the Site Assignment (i.e. MGL C 111, S 150A).
The Department is of the opinion that the application is in conformance with current air pollution engineering practices and hereby approves of the application subject to the following provisos:
An Environmental Notification Form, for air quality control purposes, was not required for this action since it is categorically exempt pursuant to the Regulations Governing the Preparation of Environmental Impact Reports adopted by the secretary of Environmental Affairs. This action has been determined to cause no significant damage to the environment.
Very truly yours,
May 22, 1995
Wheelabrator Millbury Inc.
Mr. Bob Bergquist
Re: Disposal of Enviro-Bond 403
I have reviewed the Department of Environmental Protection letter from Mr. Nicholas Child regarding disposal of polymerized Enviro-Bond 403 and all relevant information provided on your behalf with the expectation of approval for disposal at Wheelabrator Millbury Inc. As you know the facility can process this material from a technological standpoint in a environmental safe manner. From a regulatory standpoint, in particular 310 CMR 30.000, we have to ensure that no hazardous wastes be accepted at the facility. I will gladly review any profiled wastestream source prior to rendering a decision based on the acceptability into the facility on a case by case scenario. Due to aspects of our business however, no 21E type waste will be allowed into the facility without prior DEP approval and the facility is in agreement as to the source of it's generation.
From a facility generator perspective, I would request that the following information be forwarded to my attention prior to acceptance for disposal:
Please note that the hauler or your company must sign a contract letter agreement should the material be acceptable. I realize that this may be burdensome in conducting business, but is the requirements in protecting the company of any environmental liabilities. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
September 20, 1994
EAC OPERATIONS/ PITTSFIELD, INC.
A Subsidiary of Energy Answers Corporation
Mr. Bob Bergquist, President
Dear Mr. Bergquist:
In response to your inquiry dated September 9, 1994, we have determined that virgin oil spills encapsulated with ENVIRO-BOND would be an acceptable product for disposal at our facility.
Whereas our permit under 3 10 CMR 7.02 (2)(a) of the "Regulations for Control of Air Pollution in Berkshire Air Pollution Control District", specifies that the material used as the absorbent must be organic, Larry Thompson, the developer of ENVIRO-BOND, has confirmed that the product is composed soley of organic materials. It appears from the features of ENVIRO-BOND that from an environmental standpoint this would be a superior product for handling oil spills.
It should be understood by those using this product that because it has a very high heating value both from the composition of the material itself and the fact that it encapsulates the organics, it commands a high disposal fee. Contrary to what one might perceive, this is a disadvantage from a cost standpoint calculated on a unit weight charge.
For example, if municipal solid waste (MSW) has a heating value of 4,500 BTU per pound and the furnaces are charged at 5 tons per hour, this translates to a heat rate of 45 million BTU/hour consequently, when charged with a material having a heating value of 18,000 BTU per pound or four times the heating value, the charge rate can be only one forth as much, or 1 1/4 tons per hour. In other words, the burning process is limited by heat rate (BTU/hr), not mass flow (tons/hr). In order to maintain the same rate of revenue, the disposal fee per ton of ENVIRO-BOND material must be four times the normal rate for disposal of MSW. For the balance of 1994, the disposal rates are $70 and $280 per ton for MSW and ENVIRO-BOND, respectively.
If you need Further information, please contact me.
Very truly yours
Llewellyn E. Clark
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
To: Lakefront Enterprises, Inc.
The following is a copy of the Memo I sent to the Plant manager of the Bellingham Facility.
Throughout the plant we tested the polymers on simulated spills, and had very good results. Approximately one fourth the volume of generated waste was accumulated as compared to our standard practiced procedure.
Joe Baribeault, from Lakefront Enterprises, Inc., has given onsite demonstrations of their products on Dec 18, 1997 and on Jan. 27, 1998. We simulated hazardous material spills and used their product to contain and clean up the spill. The Lakefront Enterprises products we used are Enviro-Bond 403 and Enviro-Bond 300 Aqueous Solution Polymers. We used two types of the Enviro-Bond 300 polymer, 300A and 300C. The 300A is used in an aqueous solution of a high pH and the 300C is used with an aqueous solution of a low pH. Enviro-Bond 403 can be used for any liquid organic hydro-carbon (nonsynthetic oils).
We tested the products on samples from our bulk storage tanks of Sulfuric Acid, Caustic Soda, Bleach, MEA Diesel and Ammonia.(Ammonia was a solution of approximately 1% Ammonia.)
We used approximately 25mL, of each sample, for our simulated spills. The polymer stabilized and encapsulated the spilled sample relatively quickly and easily in every test. In just minutes, of the encapsulation you could actually pick up the sample/polymer in your bare hands (it had the consistency of rubber). The encapsulation of the spill left very little hazardous waste to clean up. The volume of waste generated by the containment and the cleaning up the hazardous spill was approximately one fourth of the hazardous waste that would have been accumulated by our current procedure.
Joe, Thankyou for all your help with the testing the Enviro-Bond.
Mountain States Analytical, Inc.
Tuesday, October 05, 1999
Mr. Bob Bergquist
Dear Mr. Bergquist,
As an independent evaluator of hazardous waste treatment and solidification products, I have successfully used Enviro-bond brand polymer solidification products in several Mixed Waste treatability studies and scaled up field treatments.
To my best of my knowledge, the products work well, are easy to apply, and the final treated materials containing Enviro-bond are acceptable at Envirocare for disposal.
As always, please call me at 801-973-0050 (Ext. 3030) if there are any questions you may have concerning my application of Enviro-bond polymers.
Richard D. Brimley
LAKEFRONT ENTERPRISES, INC.
P.O. Box 573, North Hampton, NH 03862
Tel: (603) 964-2740 Fax: (603) 964-2739