800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 016 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113380
REGULATION
DATA ON THE APPLICABILITY OF MANY VARIANCES, AMONG OTHER THINGS, WILL
BE INCLUDED IN THE PART 264 PHASE II REFERENCE MANUALS (DISCUSSED LATER
IN THIS PREAMBLE) WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE TO PERMIT WRITERS AND THE
PUBLIC.
SEVERAL TYPES OF MATERIALS (PROCESS WASTES, RESIDUES, ETC.) WHICH MAY
BE CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE BEING USED TO MAKE COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS, E.T., FUEL OIL, BUILDING BLOCKS, AND SOIL CONDITIONERS. ASIDE
FROM A FEW RADIOACTIVE SPECIAL WASTES, NO HAZARDOUS WASTE STANDARDS WERE
PROPOSED TO COVER THESE PRODUCTS.
THE AGENCY, HOWEVER, ADDRESSED THE ISSUE OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS IN
THE PREAMBLE TO THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND EPA INDICATED THAT IT WAS
CONSIDERING DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR RECONSIDERING DEVELOPING STANDARDS
FOR REUSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. ONE SUGGESTED APPROACH WOULD REQUIRE A
PRODUCT MADE FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE NOT TO POSE A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH
OR THE ENVIRONMENT GREATER THAN THE THREAT POSED BY THE VIRGIN PRODUCT
IT REPLACES. THE AGENCY REQUESTED COMMENTERS TO INDICATE OTHER FEASIBLE
REGULATORY APPROACHES AND TO PROVIDE DATA WHICH COULD BE USED TO SUPPORT
COMMERCIAL PRODUCT STANDARDS.
COMMENT RESPONSE TO EPA REGULATION OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS WAS ALMOST
ENTIRE NEGATIVE. SEVERAL COMMENTERS QUESTIONED EPA'S AUTHORITY TO
PROMULGATE SUCH STANDARDS UNDER RCRA AND SUGGESTED THAT PRODUCT
REGULATION IS MORE PROPERLY THE PURVIEW OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION AND THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT. OTHERS POINTED OUT
THAT THE AGENCY SHOULD ENCOURAGE RECOVERY, RECYCLING, AND RE-USE BUT
THAT REGULATION DISCOURAGES SUCH ACTIVITIES.
EPA BELIEVES IT HAS THE AUTHORITY UNDER RCRA TO REGULATE THE
MANAGEMENT OF MATERIALS WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS HAZARDOUS WASTES EVEN
WHEN THAT MANAGEMENT INVOLVES THE REUSE OF THE WASTE AS A PRODUCT. (THE
READER IS REFERRED TO THE PREAMBLE ACCOMPANYING THE PROMULGATION OF THE
PART 261 REGULATIONS OF THIS CHAPTER FOR A DISCUSSION OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH RECYCLED MATERIALS MAY BE CLASSIFIED AS
HAZARDOUS WASTES.) ALSO, THE FOCUS OF THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY
COMMISSION IS NOT ON WASTES AND PRODUCTS MADE FROM THEM. EPA BELIEVES
THAT WASTE-RELATED MATTERS SHOULD, IN MOST CASES, BE DEALT WITH UNDER
RCRA, ALTHOUGH EPA ALSO MAY CHOOSE TO PROMULGATE SOME STANDARDS DEALING
WITH THE RE-USE OF WASTES UNDER THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, EPA SEES SEVERAL PROBLEMS WITH SETTING GENERIC
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROCESSING FOR REUSE, AND RE-USE OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES. FIRST, IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE GENERICALLY HOW HAZARDOUS
WASTES CAN BE APPROPRIATELY RE-USED OR PROCESSED FOR RE-USE. THE AGENCY
RECOGNIZES THAT THE APPROACH IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ALL PRODUCTS MADE FROM HAZARDOUS
WASTE TO BE AT LEAST AS SAFE AS VIRGIN PRODUCTS, IS FLAWED AND IS NOT
ADOPTING IT AT PRESENT.
THE AGENCY AGREES WITH THE SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF COMMENT WHICH URGED
THE AGENCY NOT TO PLACE THE HAZARDOUS WASTE STIGMA ON RECOVERED PRODUCTS
WITHOUT VERY GOOD CAUSE. RECOVERY OR RE-USE IS GENERALLY AMONG THE BEST
OF ALL POSSIBLE WAYS TO MINIMIZE THE HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEM -- IT
REMOVES THE NEED FOR DISPOSAL WHILE CONSERVING RESOURCES AND ENERGY AND
ELIMINATING THE WASTES ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING VIRGIN PRODUCTS.
REGULATING THE PROCESSING OR RE-USE OF HAZARDOUS WASTES INTO PRODUCTS
COULD DECREASE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE PRODUCTS IN THE MARKETPLACE.
THE AGENCY HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE BEST APPROACH IS CASE-BY-CASE
REGULATION OF SPECIFIC PROCESSING OR RE-USES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WHERE
THE POTENTIAL HAZARDS OF UNCONTROLLED PROCESSING AND RE-USE ARE CLEAR.
CERTAIN OF THESE REQUIREMENTS MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE PHASE II STANDARDS.
IN THE PHASE I REGULATIONS UNDER RCRA SECTION 3004, THE AGENCY HAS
DECIDED TO REGULATE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH IS LISTED IN
SUBPART D OF PART 261 PRIOR TO ITS USE, RE-USE, RECYCLING, RECLAMATION,
OR TREATMENT FOR THESE PURPOSES. SEVERAL DAMAGE CASES POINT TO THE NEED
FOR A STORAGE REGULATION FOR SUCH WASTES AT THIS TIME. THE AGENCY MAY
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE PHASE II OR PHASE III STANDARDS.
ON AND AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE PHASE I REGULATIONS, STORAGE OF
SUCH WASTES IN CONTAINERS, TANKS, PILES OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, UNTIL
IT IS USED, RE-USED, RECYCLED, RECLAIMED, OR TREATED FOR THESE PURPOSES
IS SUBJECT TO CONTROL UNDER THESE REGULATIONS. THESE REQUIREMENTS APPLY
BOTH TO ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE FACILITIES. FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS
WHO STORE SUCH WASTE PRIOR TO ITS USE, RE-USE, RECYCLING, RECLAMATION,
OR TREATMENT FOR THESE PURPOSES MUST COMPLY WITH THE RCRA SECTION 3010
NOTIFICATION AND SECTION 3005 PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (SEE 40
CFR PART 122) IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR INTERIM STATUS.
THE PROPOSED SECTION 250.44 STORAGE STANDARDS REQUIRED THAT STORAGE
BE CONDUCTED SO THAT NO DISCHARGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OCCURRED. BECAUSE
MOST WASTES HAVE SOME VAPOR PRESSURE, THE PROPOSED RULES SPECIFIED THAT
ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE STORED IN COVERED TANKS OR CONTAINERS. MANY
COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT THIS "NO DISCHARGE" PERFORMANCE STANDARD FOR ALL
STORAGE WAS TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE AND INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF
CONTROLLED AIR EMISSIONS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND CONTROLLED
DISCHARGES UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT. THEY ALSO FELT THAT THE
REQUIREMENT TO STORE WASTE ONLY IN TANKS AND CONTAINERS WAS UNDULY
BURDENSOME; THEY CLAIMED THAT (1) IT IS UNNECESSARY TO STORE
LOW-VOLATILITY WASTES IN COVERED STORAGE DEVICES, AND (2) IT IS
IMPRACTICAL TO STORE BULK-SOLID OR SEMI-SOLID MATERIALS IN ENCLOSED
TANKS OR CONTAINERS. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COMMENTERS RECOMMENDED THAT
STORAGE BE ALLOWED IN DEVICES OTHER THAN STORAGE TANKS AND CONTAINERS
E.G., BASINS, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, AND PILES.
EPA DEVELOPED THE PROPOSED "NO-DISCHARGE" STANDARD BASED ON ITS
INTERPRETATION OF THE RCRA DEFINITION OF "STORAGE" WHICH MEANS ". . .
CONTAINMENT . . . IN SUCH A MANNER AS NOT TO CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL . . ."
RCRA DEFINES "DISPOSAL" AS:
THE DISCHARGE, DEPOSIT, INJECTION, DUMPING, SPILLING, LEAKING, OR
PLACING OF ANY SOLID WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE INTO OR ON ANY LAND OR
WATER SO THAT SUCH SOLID WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE OR ANY CONSTITUENT
THEREOF MAY ENTER THE ENVIRONMENT OR BE EMITTED INTO THE AIR OR
DISCHARGED INTO ANY WATERS, INCLUDING GROUND WATERS.
EPA INTERPRETED THIS STATUTORY LANGUAGE AS REQUIRING "NO DISCHARGE"
(EMISSION) FROM ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE FACIITY.
ALTHOUGH SOME COMMENTERS CONSIDERED THIS A PROPER INTERPRETATION OF
THE ACT, OTHERS TOOK STRONG EXCEPTION TO IT AS NOTED ABOVE. COMMENTERS
ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE STANDARD WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE APPROACH OF
SECTION 3004 OF RCRA WHICH IN THEIR VIEW IS TO MINIMIZE ADVERSE EFFECTS.
THE STANDARDS FOR STORAGE, THEY ARGUED, SHOULD RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE
ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE WAYS OTHER THAN NO DISCHARGE TO STORE
HAZARDOUS WASTES, AND SHOULD APPROACH THE PROBLEM BY MINIMIZING THE
POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGES, OR REQUIRING ONLY THAT NO SIGNIFICANT
DISCHARGES OCCUR. ON A NARROWER LEVEL, COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT UNDER THE
DEFINITION OF DISPOSAL, AIR EMISSIONS FROM MATERIALS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN
DISCHARGED ONTO LAND OR WATER ARE NOT "DISPOSAL"; THUS, RCRA DOES NOT
MANDATE THE PROHIBITION OF AIR EMISSIONS FROM TANKS OR CONTAINERS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 017 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113381
REGULATION
THESE COMMENTS SUGGEST PERHAPS A MORE BASIC ISSUE CONCERNING STORAGE.
WHILE RCRA DEFINES STORAGE AS CONTAINMENT IN SUCH A MANNER AS NOT TO
CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL, IT DOES PERMIT DISPOSAL UNDER APPROPRIATE
CONDITIONS. THUS, IT SEEMS ANOMALOUS IN THE SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS TO
REQUIRE AN ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION OF EMISSIONS WHEN HANDLING OF WASTES IS
CALLED "STORAGE," WHILE PERMITTING SOME LEVEL OF EMISSIONS IN OTHER
FACILITIES PERFORMING "DISPOSAL." SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, INDEED, APPEAR
TO FALL SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF STORAGE, SUCH AS A SEALED
CONTAINER, AND A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF DISPOSAL, SUCH AS A LANDFILL. AN
UNLINED IMPOUNDMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, MAY BE USED TO ACCUMULATE HAZARDOUS
WASTES FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND OVER THAT TIME AT LEAST SOME OF THE
WASTE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY MIGRATE INTO THE SOIL UNDER THE IMPOUNDMENT.
YET, IF AT THE END OF ITS LIFE THE RESIDUE AND CONTAMINATED SOIL ARE
REMOVED, THE IMPOUNDMENT MIGHT BE RENDERED NON-HAZARDOUS, AND CERTAINLY
PRESENTS A DIFFERENT PICTURE FROM A LANDFILL. THIS SITUATION SUGGESTS
THAT THE PROPER FOCUS FOR REGULATION OF STORAGE FACILITIES IS ON WHETHER
THE WASTES WILL EVENTUALLY BE REMOVED FROM THE FACILITY. THIS APPROACH
TO STORAGE, UNDER INTERIM STATUS, IS REFLECTED PRIMARILY IN APPROPRIATE
STANDARDS FOR CLOSURE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY (I.E., THE COST
ESTIMATE FOR CLOSURE).
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT RCRA PERMITS THIS APPROACH. THE DEFINITION
OF STORAGE IN RCRA REFERS TO "CONTAINMENT . . . EITHER ON A TEMPORARY
BASIS OR FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS," WHICH IS A CENTRAL FACTOR IN THE
CURRENT REGULATORY DEFINITION. RCRA APPARENTLY WOULD PERMIT THE AGENCY
TO REGULATE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL WITHOUT ANYWHERE
PRESCRIBING DIFFERENT STANDARDS OR APPROACHES FOR FACILITIES FALLING
INTO DIFFERENT STATUTORY CATEGORIES; INDEED, THE STATUTE TYPICALLY, AS
IN SECTION 3004, MENTIONS "TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL" IN A SINGLE
PHRASE, INDICATING THAT THE SAME STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPLY TO ALL
THREE. THIS IS TO BE COMPARED WITH RCRA'S MUCH DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF
GENERATORS, AND OF TRANSPORTERS. THIS IS NOT TO SAY, OF COURSE THAT THE
AGENCY CANNOT OR SHOULD NOT PRESCRIBE QUITE DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR
FACILITIES THAT ARE STORAGE FACILITIES (UNDER SOME REGULATORY
DEFINITION) THAN FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES, BUT SIMPLY TO SAY THAT RCRA
PERMITS THE AGENCY TO USE THAT CONCEPT OF STORAGE WHICH SEEMS MOST
APPROPRIATE FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES.
WITH THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN MIND, AND RECOGNIZING THE IMPRACTICALITY
OF COMPLETELY ELIMINATING EMISSIONS FROM MOST TYPES OF FACILITIES, THE
AGENCY HAS REDEFINED "STORAGE" TO MEAN "THE HOLDING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD, AT THE END OF WHICH THE HAZARDOUS WASTE IS
TREATED, DISPOSED OF, OR STORED ELSEWHERE."
A FEW COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE AGENCY CONSIDER ADDING A STANDARD
WHICH WOULD LIMIT THE TIME OR QUANTITY (OR BOTH) OF WASTE THAT CAN BE
STORED AT A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY. ANY SUCH STANDARD WOULD BEST BE
BASED ON THE TYPE OF WASTE TO BE STORED, THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THE CONTAINMENT DEVICE USED TO STORE THE MATERIAL, AND THE CLIMATIC
CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE STORAGE IS TO TAKE PLACE. AT PRESENT, THE
AGENCY LACKS SUFFICIENT DATA TO DEVELOP SUCH STANDARDS, AND A DETAILED
CONSIDERATION OF SUCH INFORMATION CAN FOR NOW BEST BE MADE IN PERMITTING
PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO EXAMINE FURTHER APPROPRIATE
LIMITATIONS FOR STORAGE, AND MAY PROPOSE REGULATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
IN ADDITION, THE CLOSURE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
WILL SET LIMITS INDIRECTLY ON THE QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN
STORAGE. THE PHASE II FINANCIAL STANDARDS ARE EXPECTED TO REQUIRE THAT
ADEQUATE FUNDS BE PLACED IN THE CLOSURE TRUST (OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE
MECHANISM) TO CLOSE THE FACILITY AT ANY GIVEN TIME, CONSIDERING THE
AMOUNT OF WASTE ON HAND. THE AMOUNT OF THESE FUNDS WILL CREATE A
DEFINITE UPPER LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF WASTE IN STORAGE AT ANY TIME, AND
WILL CREATE FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS TO MINIMIZE
THIS AMOUNT.
IN A MAJORITY OF CASES, THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FACILITY ARE THE SAME PERSON OR
CORPORATION. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR AN OPERATOR TO LEASE THE
LAND AND PERHAPS STRUCTURES FROM A LANDOWNER. IN A FEW CASES, THE OWNER
OF THE LAND, THE OWNER OF THE STRUCTURES, AND THE OPERATOR MAY ALL THREE
BE DIFFERENT PERSONS OR COMPANIES.
IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, THE AGENCY USED THE TERM "OWNER/
OPERATOR" WHEN REFERRING TO ANY OR ALL OF THESE PARTIES, AND DEFINED THE
TERM TO MEAN "THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE LAND ON WHICH A FACILITY IS
LOCATED AND/OR THE PERSON WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OVERALL OPERATION
OF THE FACILITY." COMMENTERS COMPLAINED THAT THE DEFINITION WAS VAGUE
AND AMBIGUOUS AND THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR WHO (THE OWNER OR OPERATOR) WAS
RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR WHAT. A FEW COMMENTERS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT
FOR A FEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS, ONLY THE OWNER CAN LEGALLY COMPLY -- A
CASE IN POINT BEING THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD A NOTE ON THE DEED IN
PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-7(B).
THE AGENCY'S FIRST PRIORITY IS TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. THUS, WHERE THERE HAS BEEN A DEFAULT ON ANY OF THE
REGULATORY PROVISIONS, THE AGENCY WILL ATTEMPT TO GAIN COMPLIANCE AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. IN SO DOING, THE AGENCY MAY BRING ENFORCEMENT
ACTION AGAINST EITHER THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OR BOTH. EPA CONSIDERS THE
OWNER (OR OWNERS) AND OPERATOR OF A FACILITY JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY
RESPONSIBLE TO THE AGENCY FOR CARRYING OUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THESE
REGULATIONS.
ONE REASON FOR THIS JOINT RESPONSIBILITY IS THAT, AS THE COMMENTERS
POINTED OUT, THERE IS AT LEAST ONE PROVISION OF THE SECTION 3004
REGULATIONS THAT ONLY THE OWNER CAN COMPLY WITH -- THAT IS THE
REQUIREMENT TO RECORD A NOTATION ON THE DEED TO PROPERTY WHERE HAZARDOUS
WASTE REMAINS AFTER CLOSURE. SECOND, IF THE OWNER IS NOT BOUND BY THE
REGULATIONS, EPA COULD HAVE A VERY HARD TIME TRYING TO IMPLEMENT AND
ENFORCE THE CLOSURE AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS OF THE
REGULATIONS. THIRD, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OR RCRA INDICATES THAT
RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLYING WITH THE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES SHOULD REST EQUALLY WITH OWNERS AND OPERATORS
WHERE THE OWNER IS NOT THE OPERATOR (H.R. REP. NO. 94-1491, 94TH CONG.,
2D SESS. 28 (1976)).
WITH MOST OF THE REGULATIONS, THE AGENCY IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH
COMPLIANCE, AND IS SECONDARILY CONCERNED WITH WHO ENSURES COMPLIANCE.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT DECISIONS CONCERNING WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE
FOR ENSURING COMPLIANCE FOR WHICH REQUIREMENTS CAN PROPERLY AND
ADEQUATELY BE A MATTER BETWEEN THE OWNER AND OPERATOR. NONETHELESS,
BOTH THE OWNER AND OPERATOR ULTIMATELY REMAIN RESPONSIBLE, REGARDLESS OF
ANY ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THEM.
SOME FACILITY OWNERS HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN ABSENTEES, KNOWING AND
PERHAPS CARING LITTLE ABOUT THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY ON THEIR
PROPERTY. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT THIS SHOULD
CHANGE AND THAT THEY SHOULD KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE ASSUMING
JOINT RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS WHEN THEY
LEASE THEIR LAND TO A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY. THEREFORE, TO ENSURE
THEIR KNOWLEDGE, THE AGENCY WILL REQUIRE OWNERS TO CO-SIGN THE PERMIT
APPLICATION AND ANY FINAL PERMIT FOR THE FACILITY. PART 122 OF THE
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT REGULATIONS HAS BEEN CHANGED TO REFLECT THIS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 018 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113382
REGULATION
THE AGENCY AGREES WITH THOSE COMMENTERS WHO POINTED OUT THAT IN A FEW
CASES ONLY THE OWNER CAN LEGALLY COMPLY WITH A REQURIEMENT. WHERE THIS
IS SO, THE AGENCY HAS SPECIFIED THE "OWNER" IN THESE FINAL REGULATIONS.
EPA HAS ALSO CHANGED ITS USAGE OF THE TERM "OWNER/OPERATOR" TO "OWNER OR
OPERATOR" TO INDICATE WHEN EPA WILL BE SATISFIED BY COMPLIANCE BY EITHER
PARTY (BUT ALSO TO INDICATE THAT THE AGENCY MAY ENFORCE AGAINST EITHER
OR BOTH).
RCRA IS WRITTEN IN THE PRESENT TENSE AND ITS REGULATORY SCHEME IS
PROSPECTIVE. THEREFORE, THE AGENCY BELIEVES CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO BE
THAT THE HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATORY PROGRAM UNDER SUBTITLE C OF RCRA IS
TO CONTROL PRIMARILY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES WHICH TAKE
PLACE AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS. THUS, THE PROPOSED
SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS DID NOT BY THEIR TERMS APPLY TO INACTIVE (EITHER
CLOSED OR ABANDONED) DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SUBJECT POINTED OUT THE NEED TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC FROM INACTIVE AND ABANDONED DISPOSAL SITES, STRESSING THAT
BECAUSE THESE FACILITIES ARE NORMALLY VERY POORLY DESIGNED AND SITUATED,
THEY REPRESENT A MORE SEVERE HAZARD THAN NEW FACILITIES. LOVE CANAL AND
OTHER DISASTERS WERE CITED TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT INACTIVE AND ABANDONED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
(PARTICULARLY DUMPS, LANDFILLS, AND LAGOONS) MAY POSE SERIOUS HAZARDS TO
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. RCRA ALREADY PROVIDES ONE TOOL WHICH
CAN BE USED TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF INACTIVE AND ABANDONED SITES --
THE IMMINENT HAZARD PROVISION OF SECTION 7003. THIS PROVISION -- WHICH
IS APPLICABLE TO BOTH INACTIVE AND ACTIVE SITES -- CAN BE USED TO OBTAIN
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FROM ANY PARTY WHO CAN BE SHOWN TO BE CAUSING OR
CONTRIBUTING TO ". . . AN IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT TO
HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT . . ."
THE AGENCY IS ACTIVELY USING SECTION 7003 AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS
TO FORCE RESPONSIBLE PARTIES TO BEAR THE COSTS OF CLEANING UP SITES
POSING A HAZARD. THESE AUTHORITIES WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AND CONTINUE TO
BE ACTIVELY EMPLOYED EVEN AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SUBTITLE C
REGULATIONS.
TO PROVIDE SITE CLEANUP IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THE RESPONSIBLE
PARTIES ARE UNKNOWN OR LACK THE FUNDS TO DO THE JOB, THE ADMINISTRATION
HAS PROPOSED "SUPERFUND" LEGISLATION CURRENTLY PENDING IN CONGRESS.
WHILE RCRA'S REGULATORY SCHEME IS GENERALLY PROSPECTIVE, CERTAIN
INACTIVE FACILITIES, OR PORTIONS OF INACTIVE FACILITIES, BECAUSE OF
THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO FACILITIES WHICH CONTINUE TO OPERATE, MAY BE
SUBJECT TO SOME RCRA SUBTITLE C REGULATORY CONTROLS. SOME EXISTING
LANDFILLS OR OTHER FACILITIES ARE EXPECTED TO CLOSE IF THEY DO NOT OR
CANNOT MEET THE SUBTITLE C STANDARDS. THE OWNERS OR OPERATORS MAY THEN
DESIGN A FACILITY WHICH MEETS THE STANDARDS AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT TO
LOCATE IT ON LAND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE INACTIVE PORTION. THIS IS
NOT AN IMPROPER ACTION, BUT, IN SOME CASES, PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
INACTIVE SITE (LEACHATE, EMISSIONS, ETC) MAY INTERFERE WITH THE ABILITY
OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR THE "NEW" FACILITY. IN
THESE CASES, THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR MAY REQUIRE THAAT THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR OF THE NEW FACILITY ENSURE THAT CERTAIN ACTIONS ARE TAKEN ON
THE INACTIVE SITE, IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE OR ELIMINATE ANY INTERFERENCE
WITH MONITORING OR ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AT THE "NEW FACILITY.
IN SOME REGULATORY PROGRAMS REGULATED OPERATIONS ARE SUBJECT TO
DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, DEPENDING ON HOW OLD THE OPERATION IS WHEN THE
REGULATORY PROGRAM BEGINS. OFTEN, EXISTING OPERATIONS ARE EXEMPTED OR
ARE SUBJECT TO LESS STRINGENT REGULATIONS THAN NEW OPERATIONS.
THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF RCRA DID NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN NEW AND
EXISTING FACILITIES. CONSEQUENTLY, EPA MADE THE PROPOSED SECTION 3004
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO BOTH NEW AND EXISTING FACILITIES. THE AGENCY
RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT SOME EXISTING FACILITIES WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY
COMPLYING WITH SOME OF THE REGULATIONS. THE AGENCY ENVISIONED THAT THE
"NOTE" (VARIANCE) PROCEDURE, AS WELL AS THE USE OF COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
WOULD ACCOMODATE THE POSSIBLE DIFFICULTIES ASSOCIATED WITH RETROFITTING
EXISTING FACILITIES.
THE AGENCY RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMENTS ON THIS GENERAL ISSUE. THE
MOST FREQUENT COMMENT ON THE SUBJECT CONCERNED RCRA COVERAGE OF NPDES
PERMITTED WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENTS. NEARLY ALL COMMENTERS WERE
OPPOSED TO HAVING RCRA COVER THESE IMPOUNDMENTS, CITING THE
IMPRACTICALITY OF RETROFITTING EXISTING LAGOONS TO MEET THE PROPOSED
STANDARDS. SPECIFIC COMMENTS ADDRESSED:
(A) THE TREMENDOUS COST ASSOCIATED WITH LINING EXISTING IMPOUNDMENTS
OR BUILDING NEW ONES.
(B) THE COSTS OF TRANSPORTING WASTES TO OFF-SITE FACILITIES FROM
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS WHICH MAY BE LOCATED IN AREAS WHICH ARE
UNSATISFACTORY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT.
(C) THE LIKELIHOOD THAT MANY MANUFACTURING PLANTS WOULD HAVE TO CLOSE
WHILE THE IMPOUNDMENT WAS BEING RETROFITTED, AND
(D) THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME EXISTING FACILITIES MAY NOT BE
POLLUTING NOW AND MAY NEVER IN THE FUTURE POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT, EVEN
THOUGH THEY DO NOT MEET ALL OF THE PROPOSED RCRA SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
STANDARDS.
AFTER SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL STUDY, EPA HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE
PROPOSED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT REGULATIONS CAN BE CHANGED TO ANSWER MANY
OF THE COMMENTERS' CONCERNS ABOUT THEIR APPLICATION TO EXISTING
WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPOUNDMENTS. THE AGENCY, IN KEEPING WITH ITS
GENERAL GUIDELINE OF NOT IMPOSING MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES ON EXISTING
FACILITIES DURING INTERIM STATUS WILL NOT REQUIRE EXTENSIVE RETROFITTING
OF EXISTING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS.
FURTHERMORE, IT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE GENERAL REGULATIONS YET TO BE
PROMULGATED IN PHASES II AND III WILL ALSO NOT REQUIRE RETROFITTING OF
THESE FACILITIES, IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
IMPOUNDMENT IS NOT CONTRIBUTING STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT QUANTITIES OF
CONTAMINANTS TO GROUND WATER. THE PHASE I REGULATIONS REQUIRE A
GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN
IMPOUNDMENT IS POLLUTING. REGULATIONS YET TO BE ISSUED IN PHASES II AND
III OF THIS REGULATORY PROGRAM WILL SET FORTH ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR IMPOUNDMENTS. MOST OF THESE REQUIREMENTS PROBABLY WILL
NOT APPLY TO EXISTING IMPOUNDMENTS FOUND NOT TO BE AFFECTING GROUND
WATER.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THIS REGULATORY APPROACH WILL (1)
SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EXISTING NPDES FACILITIES WHICH MIGHT
OTHERWISE HAD TO HAVE BEEN RETROFITTED, CLOSED, OR REPLACED IN ORDER TO
COMPLY WITH THE PROPOSED SUBTITLE C RULES, AND (2) ENSURE THAT HUMAN
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS PROTECTED. FURTHER, THIS APPROACH IS
CONSISTENT WITH PENDING CONGRESSIONAL AMENDMENTS TO RCRA.
SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT ALL EXISTING FACILITIES, AND
PARTICULARLY EXISTING LANDFILLS, SHOULD BE REGULATED DIFFERENTLY THAN
NEW FACILITIES. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, THE AGENCY HAS CONCLUDED,
FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS, THAT LANDFILLS DO NOT POSE THE SPECIAL
PROBLEMS OR DESERVE THE SAME CONSIDERATION AS "EXISTING" FACILITIES THAT
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS DO:
(1) SECTIONS OF LANDFILLS ARE TYPICALLY FILLED IN SEQUENTIALLY;
I.E., ONE TRENCH OR PART (CELL) OF THE TOTAL LANDFILL AREA IS FILLED AND
THEN ANOTHER PART IS FILLED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 019 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113383
REGULATION
THIS ACTIVITY MAY OR MAY NOT BE DONE IN DISCRETE INCREMENTS, BUT IT
IS ALMOST ALWAYS DONE IN PROGRESSION MOVING AWAY FROM A STARTING POINT.
THUS, OWNERS OR OPERATORS CAN CLOSE EXISTING PORTIONS OF MOST LANDFILLS
AT VIRTUALLY ANY TIME WITHOUT RETROFITTING THE FACILITY AND CAN DESIGN
THE UNCLOSED PORTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RCRA STANDARDS. THIS OPTION
IS NOT AVAILABLE TO IMPOUNDMENT OWNERS OR OPERATORS BECAUSE THE ENTIRE
BASE OF THE IMPOUNDMENT IS NORMALLY COVERED WITH WASTES FROM THE
BEGINNING OF THE OPERATIONS.
(2) IMPOUNDMENTS ARE USUALLY TEMPORARY STRUCTURES; I.E., WASTED ARE
NORMALLY REMOVED FROM SUCH FACILITIES WHEN THEY ARE CLOSED. BY
CONTRAST, LANDFILLS NORMALLY CONSTITUTE PERMANENT DISPOSAL; I.E.,
WASTES REMAIN IN LANDFILLS ESSENTIALLY FOREVER.
(3) LANDFILLS ARE NOT NORMALLY INTEGRALLY CONNECTED TO MANUFACTURING
OPERATIONS. THEREFORE, ANY NECESSARY RETROFITTING WHICH REQUIRES
DIVERTING SOLID WASTE TO STORAGE OR OTHER FACILITIES WOULD NOT BE LIKELY
TO CAUSE THE MANUFACTURING OPERATION TO SHUT DOWN DURING THE RETROFIT
PERIOD. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, WHICH TYPICALLY
ARE INTEGRAL COMPONENTS OF MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS.
SIMILARLY, EXCEPT FOR SOME MINOR CHANGES, THE AGENCY COULD FIND NO
GOOD REASON FOR MAKING MAJOR DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN NEW AND EXISTING
INCINERATORS, STORAGE FACILITIES, AND OTHER KINDS OF FACILITIES IN THESE
PHASE I REGULATIONS.
COMMENTERS ALSO POINTED TO THE IMPRACTICALITY OF THE SITING
STANDARDS, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED CLOSURE OF ALL EXISTING FACILITIES
WHICH WERE NOT LOCATED IN AREAS WHICH MET THE PROPOSED SITING
REQUIREMENTS. NO LOCATION STANDARDS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PHASE I
REGULATIONS (SEE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION ON "INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS").
EPA IS CONSIDERING WHAT RELIEF CONSONANT WITH RCRA'S HUMAN HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANDATE MIGHT BE GRANTED TO EXISTING FACILITIES
UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE LOCATION STANDARDS. EPA EXPECTS TO ADDRESS
THESE CONSIDERATIONS IN THE PHASE II STANDARDS.
REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS
IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, MANY REFERENCES WERE MADE TO LEGISLATION
AND REGULATIONS OTHER THAN RCRA TO ALERT OWNERS AND OPERATORS THAT THESE
LAWS AND REGULATIONS MIGHT APPLY TO THEIR FACILITIES. THESE INCLUDED
REFERENCES TO PROPOSED AND FINAL FEDERAL REGULATIONS, STATE STANDARDS,
INDUSTRY STANDARDS, AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
MANY COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED CONCERNING THIS PRACTICE. THESE COMMENTS
CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY AND THE APPROPRIATENESS OF REFERENCING OR
INCORPORATING STANDARDS FROM OTHER REGULATIONS. SEVERAL COMMENTERS
STATED THAT, BY CITING REQUIREMENTS FROM OTHER LEGISLATION OR
REGULATIONS IN RCRA REGULATIONS, EPA WOULD BE INCLUDING PROVISIONS THAT
ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE BY THE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REFERENCED
REGULATION, WITHOUT REGARD FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION UNDER THE
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT (5 U.S.C. 533). OTHER COMMENTERS
DISCUSSED THE POTENTIAL FOR DUPLICATE CIVIL OR CRIMINAL PENALTIES WHICH
WOULD RESULT FROM EPA REFERENCES TO OTHER ACTS IN THE SECTION 3004
STANDARDS. COMMENTERS STATED THAT CONGRESSIONAL INTENT WAS NOT TO MAKE
A VIOLATION UNDER ONE SET OF REGULATIONS A VIOLATION UNDER ANOTHER. FOR
EXAMPLE, IN THE VIEW OF COMMENTERS, A NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NDES) PERMIT VIOLATION SHOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY BE A
RCRA PERMIT VIOLATION.
THE AGENCY AGREES WITH CERTAIN OF THESE ARGUMENTS AND HAS DELETED
REFERENCES TO OTHER ACTS, REGULATIONS OR LAWS WHICH WOULD CONSTITUTE AN
UNWARRANTED IMPOSITION OF DUPLICATE LIABILITY. HOWEVER, EPA ALWAYS MAY
ADOPT LANGUAGE IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TO THAT OF ANOTHER STATUTE,
REGULATION, OR CODE OF PRACTICE, IF, IN EPA'S JUDGMENT, THE STANDARD IS
PERTINENT AND INDEPENDENTLY SUPPORTABLE UNDER RCRA. FOR EXAMPLE, THE
REQUIREMENT FOR SETBACK DISTANCES FOR TANKS CONTAINING IGNITABLE WASTE
IS ADOPTED DIRECTLY FROM THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION (NFPA)
"FLAMMABLE COMBUSTIBLE CODE -- 1977" FOR STORAGE TANKS; IT IS
INDEPENDENTLY SUPPORTABLE FOR RCRA PURPOSES, AND IS NOW EFFECTIVE
REGARDLESS OF CHANGES MADE BY NFPA.
1. UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM. THE FINAL RCRA INTERIM
STATUS STANDARDS REGULATE THE UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
UNTIL THESE ACTIVITIES RECEIVE A PERMIT UNDER A STATE UIC PROGRAM
APPROVED OR PROMULGATED UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA).
THEREAFTER, THEY WILL RECEIVE A PERMIT BY RULE UNDER RCRA. HOWEVER,
UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITIES TYPICALLY HAVE ABOVE-GROUND TREATMENT
AND STORAGE OPERATIONS WHICH ARE AND WILL REMAIN SUBJECT TO RCRA
CONTROLS AS HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES. THUS, MOST OF THESE
FACILITIES WILL ULTIMATELY REQUIRE BOTH RCRA AND UIC PERMITS. TO
FACILITATE THE GRANTING OF THESE PERMITS, EPA HAS CONSOLIDATED THE
PERMIT AND STATE PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION PROCEDURES FOR THE TWO PROGRAMS.
THESE CONSOLIDATED PROCEDURES WILL ALLOW EPA, OR A STATE, IF IT HAS AN
APPROVED PROGRAM, TO PROCESS RCRA AND UIC PERMITS TOGETHER, THEREBY
AVOIDING OVERLAP AND INCONSISTENCIES. (SEE THE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION ON
SUBPART A AND ON SUBPART R -- UNDERGROUND INJECTION FOR MORE DETAILS ON
THE INTEGRATION OF RCRA AND SDWA.)
2. OCEAN DISPOSAL PROGRAM. THE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE
OCEAN IS REGULATED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE MARINE PROTECTION,
RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT. EPA HAS, THEREFORE, IN PART 122 OF THE
CONSOLIDATED PERMIT REGULATIONS, GRANTED THESE FACILITIES A PERMIT BY
RULE TO AVOID DUPLICATIVE REGULATION. HOWEVER, MOST OCEAN DISPOSAL
OPERATIONS INVOLVE ON-SHORE FACILITIES WHICH MAY STORE OR TREAT
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRIOR TO OCEAN DISPOSAL. THESE STORAGE AND TREATMENT
FACILITIES ARE SUBJECT TO THESE SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS AND WILL
REQUIRE A RCRA PERMIT. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO COORDINATE
THE TWO EPA REGULATORY PROGRAMS WHICH HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS AREA.
IN ADDITION, WHERE WASTES SUBJECT TO RCRA CONTROL ARE DELIVERED DIRECTLY
TO A BARGE OR OTHER VESSEL WHICH CONDUCTS OCEAN DISPOSAL OPERATIONS,
SUCH VESSELS WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF RCRA.
THIS IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE MANIFEST SY STEM. THUS, THE OWNERS OF
SUCH VESSELS MUST NOTIFY THE AGENCY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 3010 OF
RCRA AND COMPLY WITH THE MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS. THE PERMIT BY RULE
PROVISIONS OF PART 122 MAKE THESE OBLIGATIONS CLEAR.
3. NPDES PERMITTED FACILITIES. COMMENTERS RAISED THREE MAJOR ISSUES
WITH REGARD TO THE COVERAGE OF NPDES PERMITTED FACILITIES AND THEIR
WASTES UNDER RCRA. THESE ARE DISCUSSED IN TURN BELOW. ONE, COMMENTERS
QUESTIONED THE EXCLUSION OF POTW'S FROM REGULATION UNDER SECTION 3004.
PROPOSED SECTION 250.40(C)(3) REQUIRED THAT POTWS THAT RECEIVED
HAZARDOUS WASTE BY TRUCK OR RAIL COMPLY ONLY WITH THE MANIFEST SYSTEM;
OTHER POTWS WERE NOT SUBJECT TO SUBTITLE C AT ALL BECAUSE MIXED
INDUSTRIAL AND DOMESTIC SEWAGE WASTE STREAMS WERE CONSIDERED "DOMESTIC
SEWAGE," AND THUS NOT "SOLID WASTE." TWO, COMMENTERS QUESTIONED THE
INCLUSION, AS FACILITIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS, OF
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT TRAIN FACILITIES WITH DISCHARGES
PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 402 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT; AND THREE,
COMMENTERS QUESTIONED THE EXCLUSION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM REGULATION AS
A HAZARDOUS WASTE, AS PROPOSED IN SECTION 250.10(D)(2)(III). THE
SECTION 3001 PREAMBLE ANALYZES AND RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS IN SOME
DETAIL BECAUSE ALL THREE ISSUES DEPEND ON WHETHER CERTAIN MATERIALS ARE
"SOLID WASTE" AND THUS, IF HAZARDOUS, SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER
SUBTITLE C OF RCRA.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 020 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113384
REGULATION
A. REGULATION OF POTWS AS SECTION 3004 FACILITIES. TO SUMMARIZE,
DOMESTIC SEWAGE, WHICH IS EXCLUDED FROM THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF
SOLID WASTE IN SECTION 1004(27) OF RCRA, IS DEFINED IN SECTION 261.4 OF
THE SECTION 3001 REGULATIONS AS "UNTREATED SANITARY WASTES THAT PASS
THROUGH A SEWER SYSTEM." IN ADDITION, ANY MISTURE OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE AND
OTHER WASTES THAT PASS THROUGH A SEWER SYSTEM TO A POTW FOR TREATMENT
ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE REGULATORY DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE. THAT
REGULATORY EXCLUSION IS BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SOLID
WASTE DISPOSAL ACT. EPA BELIEVES THAT SUCH MIXED WASTE STREAMS PROPERLY
SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CONTROLS UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT'S CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM AND PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS. BECUASE THE TREATMENT OF
SEWAGE BY PRIVATLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS IS NOT SIMILARLY CONTROLLED BY
EPA, THERE IS NO EXCLUSION IN THE SECTION 3001 REGULATIONS FOR MIXED
WASTE STREAMS GOING TO SUCH FACILITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, PUBLICLY
OWNED OR PRIVATELY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS THAT RECEIVE
HAZARDOUS WASTE BY TRUCK, RAIL OR PIPE ARE TREATMENT OR STORAGE
FACILITIES SUBJECT TO SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS, ALTHOUGH AS THE PURPOSE,
SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY (SUBPART A) DISCUSSION IN THIS PREAMBLE POINTS
OUT, THE SAME EXPRESSIONS OF CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT LED EPA TO TREAT
MIXED WASTE STREAMS PASSING THROUGH SEWER SYSTEMS TO POTWS DIFFERENTLY
THAN THOSE FLOWING TO PRIVATE TREATMENT WORKS ALSO HAVE LED THE AGENCY
TO TREAT POTWS AND PRIVATE TREATMENT WORKS DIFFERENTLY UNDER SECTION
3004 AND 3005 REGULATIONS.
B. REGULATION OF NPDES TREATMENT TRAIN FACILITIES UNDER SECTION
3004. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY COMMENTERS WASTHAT THE EXCLUSION OF
"SOLID OR DISSOLVED MATERIALS IN . ' . INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES WHICH ARE
POINT SOURCES SUBJECT TO PERMITS UNDER SECTION 402 OF THE FEDERALWATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT" FOR THE DEFINITION OF "SOLID WASTE" IN SECTION
1004(27) OF RCRA, EXCLUDED FACILITIES THAT ARE PART OF TREATMENT TRAINS
LEADING TO SUCH DISCHARGES FROM SUBTITLE C COVERAGE. EPA DISAGREES AND
CONSTRUES THE EXCLUSION FOR POINT SOURCES TO APPLY ONLY TO ACTUAL
DISCHARGES INTO NAVIGABLE WATERS, NOT TO INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS UPSTREAM
FROM THE POINT OF DISCHARGE. THE RESULT OF EPA'S INTERPRETATION IS
THAT, AS PROPOSED, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, TANKS, LAGOONS, HOLDING PONDS
AND OTHER FACILITIES USED TO TREAT, STORE OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATERS MUST MEET APPLICABLE SECTION 3004 STANDARDS AND
MUST OBTAIN A SECTION 3005 PERMIT. THE STANDARDS TO WHICH EXISTING
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WILL BE SUBJECT ARE DISCUSSED IN THE SECTION OF
THIS PREAMBLE ENTITLED "NEW AND EXISTING FACILITIES" AND THE SECTION ON
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (SUBPART K).
C. REGULATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE UNDER SUBTITLE C. EPA AGREES WITH
THE COMMENTERS WHO ARGUED THAT SEWAGE SLUDGE FROM POTWS SHOULD NOT BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPTED FROM REGULATION AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. THOSE
SEWAGE SLUDGES WHICH ARE HAZARDOUS NOW FALL WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF
SUBTITLE C OF RCRA. THE SECTION 3001 PREAMBLE SUMMARIZES AND RESPONDS
TO THE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE AND ALSO DISCUSSES EPA'S EFFORTS TO
INTEGRATE AND COORDINATE ITS REGULATORY ACTIONS GOVERNING SEWAGE SLUDGE.
4. BAT TOXICS AND PRETREATMENT STANDARDS. MAYNY COMMENTERS STRONGLY
URGED AVOIDING CONFLICTS BETWEEN THESE RCRA REGULATIONS AND OTHER
REGULATORY PROGRAMS, INCLUDING THE BAT AND PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS.
THE CLEAN WATER ACT PROVIDES A COMPREHENSIVE SCHEME FOR THE
REGULATION OF DISCHARGES TO NAVIGABLE WATERS. THIS SCHEME INCLUDES A
ROLE FOR EPA IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES
THAT SET TECHNOLOGY BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR SPECIFIC POLLUTATNTS
IN THE EFFLUENTS OF CERTAIN CLASSES OF INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCES. THESE
STANDARDS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS SUCH AS STATE WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS, ARE USED BY EPA AND APPROVED STATES IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SPECIFIC PERMIT CONDITIONS UNDER THE NPDES PROGRAM.
THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES MAY BE WRITTEN FOR CONVENTIONAL
POLLUTANTS (E.G., SUSPENDED SOLIDS, FECAL COLIFORM, BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN
DEMAND) OR TOXIC POLLUTANTS (A LIST OF OVER 65 CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES AND
HEAVY METALS). FOR CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS, DISCHARGERS MUST ACHIEVE
EFFLUENT LIMITS ATTAINABLE BY THE "BEST CONVENTIONAL POLLUTANT CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY" (BCT) BY JULY 1, 1984. FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS, DISCHARGERS
MUST ACHIEVE EFFLUENT LIMITS ATTAINABLE BY THE "BEST AVAILABLE
TECHNOLOGY ECONOMICALLY ACHIEVABLE" (BAT) BY JULY 1, 1984.
IN ADDITION, THE CLEAN WATER ACT CREATED A PRETREATMENT PROGRAM,
WHICH PROVIDES THE BASIS FOR REGULATING DISCHARGES TO SEWERS SERVED BY
PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS. THIS PROGRAM IS DESIGNED TO INSURE THAT
USERS OF PUBLIC SEWER SYSTEMS DO NOT DISCHARGE POLLUTANTS INTO THE
SYSTEM THAT WOULD (1) INTERFERE WITH THE OPERATION OF THE TREATMENT
WORKS, (2) CAUSE THE POTW'S DISCHARGE TO NAVIGABLE WATERS TO EXCEED THE
REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE APPLICABLE TO THE USER'S DISCHARGE
IF HE HAD DISCHARGED DIRECTLY, OR (3) INTERFERE WITH THE POTWS ABILITY
TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF ITS SEWAGE SLUDGE. SOLID WASTE POLLUTION IS ONE OF
THE FACTORS EPA CONSIDERS WHEN ANALYZING WATER PROBLEMS AND DEVELOPING
BAT AND PRETREATMENT REGULATIONS. WHILE THESE RCRA REGULATIONS ARE
DESIGNED PRIMARILY TO ADDRESS GROUND-WATER POLLUTION FROM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT, THE AGENCY CLEARLY HAS AUTHORITY UNDER RCRA TO ADDRESS
SURFACE WATER AND AIR POLLUTION. THUS THERE IS OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION
BETWEEN THE CWA AND RCRA.
DUE TO THE SPECIFIC EXCLUSION OF DISCHARGES PERMITTED UNDER SECTION
402 IN SECTION 1004(27) FROM RCRA, AND THE COMPREHENSIVENESS OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT PROGRAMS, EPA HAS DECIDED TO RELY ON THOSE PROGRAMS TO
REGULATE THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS (WHICH MAY BE HAZARDOUS)
TO NAVIGABLE WATERS. IN ADDITION, THE AGENCY'S PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
WILL BE USED TO REGULATE SUCH DISCHARGES TO SEWER SYSTEMS SERVED BY
POTW'S.
IT MUST BE RECOGNIZED, HOWEVER, THAT THIS USE OF CLEAN WATER ACT
PROGRAMS TO REGULATE HAZARDOUS WASTES ONLY EXTENDS AS FAR AS THE
JURISDICTION AND GOALS OF THOSE PROGRAMS. MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AND
ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES WHICH ARE NOT
ADDRESSED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT, OR WHICH CAN BE ADDRESSED MORE
EFFICIENTLY UNDER RCRA, ARE AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE ADDRESSED UNDER RCRA
REGULATIONS. THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, PRETREATMENT UNIT OPERATIONS MAY
REQUIRE A RCRA PERMIT TO OPERATE IF THE FEED TO THE FACILITY IS
HAZARDOUS AND THE PROCESS IS NOT INTEGRALLY CONNECTED (VIA PIPE OR
CONVEYOR) TO A MANUFACTURING OPERATION. LIKEWISE ANY IMPOUNDMENT
CONTAINING A HAZARDOUS WASTE IS COVERED BY THESE REGULATIONS,
PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO THEIR EFFECT ON AIR AND GROUND WATER, UNTIL
THE HAZARDOUS WASTE IN THE IMPOUNDMENT COMES WITHIN CWA JURISDICTION.
5. CLEAN AIR ACT. OWNER AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES MUST COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS PROMULGATED UNDER
THE AUTHORITY OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. HOWEVER, AT THE MOMENT, VERY FEW
HAZARDOUS EMISSION POLLUTANT STANDARDS OR NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS UNDER THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT APPLY TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITIES.
RCRA, IN SECTION 1006(B) CALLS UPON THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INTEGRATE
THESE REGULATIONS WITH THE CLEAN AIR ACT, "TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE
DONE IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES EXPRESSED IN
THIS ACT" AND IN THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 021 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113385
REGULATION
SIGNIFICANTLY, SECTION 1006(A) DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CLEAN AIR ACT IN
THE LIST OF STATUTES WHOSE REGULATEES ARE EXCLUDED FROM RCRA REGULATION
TO THE EXTENT SUCH REGULATION IS "INCONSISTENT" WITH THE OTHER ACT.
THIS STATUTORY STRUCTURE GRANTS CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION TO THE
ADMINISTRATOR IN CHOOSING WHICH STATUTE TO RELY UPON FOR THE MOST
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AFFECTING THE AIR.
THE HAZARDOUS POLLUTANT PROVISIONS OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT REQURE THE
USE OF CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR EACH POLLUTANT REGULATED. BECAUSE WASTES
ARE USUALLY COMPLEX MIXTURES OF MANY MATERIALS, HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITIES ARE CAPABLE OF EMITTING THOUSANDS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTANCES TO
THE AIR, MANY OF WHICH ARE TOXIC. THE PROCEDURES OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT
WOULD BE A LESS EFFICIENT WAY TO CONTROL A LARGE NUMBER OF HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS THAN RCRA, UNDER WHICH DESIGN, OPERATION, OR PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA (SUCH AS INCINERATOR DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCIES) CAN BE SET MORE
EASILY FOR THE MANY POLLUTANTS EMITTED BY FACILITIES. THEREFORE, THE
AGENCY HAS CHOSEN RCRA AS THE PRIMARY VEHICLE FOR CONTROLLING AIR
EMISSIONS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES.
IN DEVELOPING REGULATIONS TO CONTROL AIR EMISSIONS FROM HAZARDOUS
WASTE FACILITIES, THE AGENCY'S GREATEST CHALLENGE HAS BEEN IN
CORRELATING WASTE VOLATILITY CHARACTERISTICS WITH POTENTIAL AIR EMISSION
HAZARDS. AS STATED EARLEIR IN THIS PREAMBLE, EPA HAS THUS FAR BEEN
UNABLE TO DEVELOP A PROTOCOL FOR PREDICTING HAZARD POTENTIAL BASED ON
THE VOLATILITY OF A WASTE, BUT IS CONTINUING ITS INVESTIGATIONS.
6. TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT, FINAL RULES REGARDING DISPOSAL AND
MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS (PCBS) WERE
PROMULGATED ON FEBRUARY 17, 1978, AND MAY 31, 1979, UNDER SECTION 6(E)
OF THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA). THOSE RULES ARE INTENDED TO
PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM FURTHER CONTAMINATION RESULTING FROM
IMPROPER HANDLING AND DISPOSAL OF PCBS.
BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL OVERLAP BETWEEN THE RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND THE TSCA PCB MARKING AND DISPOSAL REGULATIONS,
THE AGENCY SOLICITED COMMENTS IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE PROPOSED RCRA
REGULATIONS ON HOW IT SHOULD MANAGE THE TSCA PCB REGULATIONS (AND BY
INFERENCE, OTHER SPECIFIC TOXIC WASTES) VIS-A-VIS THE RCRA REGULATIONS.
MOST COMMENTERS WERE EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO POSITIONS:
(1) PUBLISH THE TSCA PCB AND RCRA REGULATIONS INDEPENDENTLY AND
EXEMPT PCBS FROM RCRA REQUIREMENTS, OR (2) MERGE THE PCB RULES WITH THE
RCRA STANDARDS AND CO-PROMULGATE THEM.
TO MINIMIZE CONFUSION AND THE BURDEN ON THE REGULATED COMMUNITY, THE
AGENCY HAS TENTATIVELY DETERMINED THAT WHEREVER POSSIBLE, HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTROL WILL BE COVERED UNDER RCRA. IT HAS NOT BEEN
POSSIBLE TO COMPLETE THIS TASK TO DATE, BUT THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO
INCORPORATE THE TSCA PCB DISPOSAL REGULATIONS INTO THE PHASE II RCRA
REGULATIONS.
SPECIAL DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC WASTES WILL, IN THE
FUTURE, NORMALLY BE PROPOSED AS AN AMENDMENT TO THESE RCRA REGULATIONS
BUT MAY BE CO-PROMULGATED UNDER TSCA AUTHORITY.
7. SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT. THE OFFICE OF
SURFACE MINING (OSM) OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ADMINISTERS THE
SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT (SMCRA). THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
OF SMCRA IS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE EFFECTS OF SURFACE
MINING OF COAL, ALTHOUGH SURFACE DISPOSAL OF UNDERGROUND COAL MINING
WASTE IS ALSO COVERED. THUS THERE IS OVERLAPPING AUTHORITY WITH RCRA.
THE AGENCY IS NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH OSM WHEREBY RCRA CONTROL OF
COAL MINING WASTES WOULD BE DEFERRED TO OSM. SUCH AN AGREEMENT WILL BE
BASED ON A DETERMINATION BY EPA THAT THE SMCRA REGULATIONS PROVIDE
CONTROL EQUIVALENT TO THAT WHICH RCRA WOULD IMPOSE. IN ANTICIPATION OF
SUCH AN AGREEMENT, THE AGENCY HAS DEFERRED REGULATION OF COAL MINE WASTE
UNDER RCRA.
8. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY ACT (NEPA) REQUIRES THE PREPARATION OF A STATEMENT WHICH
CONSIDERS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, ALTERNATIVES, AND RESOURCE COMMITMENTS
FOR ANY "MAJOR FEDERAL ACTION SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTING THE QUALITY OF THE
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT." AT LEAST TEN APPELLATE DECISIONS HAVE CONSIDERED THE
APPLICABILITY OF THAT REQUIREMENT TO EPA. ALLTEN HAVE CONCLUDED THAT
THE AGENCY IS EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEPA BECAUSE ITS OWN
PROCESSES PROVIDE FOR THE "FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT" OF THAT ACT. THESE
ANALYSES ARE CONCISELY SUMMARIZED IN STATE OF MARYLAND V. TRAIN, 415 F.
SUPP. 116, 122 (D. MD., 1976):
WHERE FEDERAL REGULATORY ACTION IS CIRCUMSCRIBED BY EXTENSIVE
PROCEDURES, INCLUDING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, FOR EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES AND IS TAKEN BY AN AGENCY WITH RECOGNIZED ENVIRONMENTAL
EXPERTISE, FORMAL ADHERENCE TO THE NEPA REQUIREMENTS IS NOT REQUIRED
UNLESS CONGRESS HAS SPECIFICALLY SO DIRECTED.
THESE SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY
THE STATUTORY MANDATE TO CONSIDER WHAT MIGHT "BE NECESSARY TO PROTECT
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT," AND BY THE AGENCY'S DEVELOPED
ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTISE AND CONCERN. THAT EVALUATION UNDERLIES THIS
PREAMBLE AND THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS PREPARED TO HELP DEVELOP SPECIFIC
SECTIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS. EXTENSIVE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT MANY
PUBLIC MEETINGS, FOLLOWING PRE-PROPOSAL CIRCULATED DRAFTS, AND IN
HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS, HELPED THE AGENCY IN EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUES RAISED BY THESE REGULATIONS. FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES
ALL PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS. CONGRESS, WELL AWARE OF THE
"FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCY" RULE, DID NOT ALTER THAT STATUS IN THE RCRA
STATUTE. THUS THE AGENCY IS NOT BOUND BY NEPA'S REQUIREMENTS. THE
AGENCY HAS, HOWEVER, VOLUNTARILY PREPARED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ANALYSIS WHICH WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN EPA HEADQUARTERS AND
REGIONAL LIBRARIES.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED A CLASS OF SOLID WASTES FOR
WHICH, IF HAZARDOUS, APPLICATION OF THE FULL SET OF SUBTITLE C STANDARDS
WAS DEFERRED. THESE SOLID WASTES, CALLED "SPECIAL WASTES" (ASHES AND
SLUDGES), PHOSPHATE ROCK MINING AND BENEFICIATION WASTES, URANIUM AND
OTHER MINING WASTES, AND GAS AND OIL DRILLING MUDS AND OIL PRODUCTION
BRINES. FOR HAZARDOUS PORTIONS OF THESE SOLID WASTES, A VERY LIMITED
SUBSET OF THE SUBTITLE C STANDARDS WAS TO BE APPLICABLE PENDING
COMPLETION OF STUDIES DEFINING THE MOST APPROPRIATE WASTE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES.
WHEN THE PROPOSED RULES WERE ISSUED, THE AGENCY HAD ONLY LIMITED
INFORMATION ON THESE WASTES. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION THE AGENCY DID
HAVE SUGGESTED THAT APPLICATION OF THE FULL SET OF PROPOSED WASTE
MANAGEMENT STANDARDS WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE.
THE ATTRIBUTES OF THESE WASTES WHICH CAUSED THE AGENCY TO REACH THIS
CONCLUSION WERE:
(1) THE TOTAL AMOUNT ANNUAL QUANTITY OF EACH OF THESE WASTES (BOTH
HAZARDOUS AND NON-HAZARDOUS PORTIONS) WAS VERY LARGE. AND INDIVIDUAL
DISPOSAL FACILITIES TENDED TO INVOLVE VERY LARGE PILES OR PONDS. SHOULD
LARGE COLUMES OF THE WASTES BE HAZARDOUS, THE SIZE OF THE FACILITIES
COULD HAVE MADE THE APPLICATION OF SOME OF THE REGULATIONS TECHNICALLY
INFEASIBLE OR UNPRACTICABLE.
(2) ANY PORTIONS OF THE WASTES WHICH DID FAIL THE PROPOSED HAZARDOUS
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS WERE THOUGHT TO BE ON THE MARGINS OF FAILURE.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 022 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113386
REGULATION
THUS THE HAZARDOUS PORTIONS OF THE WASTES APPEARED TO HAVE RELATIVELY
LOW INTRINSIC HAZARD RELATIVE TO OTHER WASTES. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY'S
DATA BASE WAS VERY LIMITED.
(3) THE AGENCY DID NOT BELIEVE THAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
PROPOSE SPECIFIC ALTERNATE WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS WITHOUT
ADDITIONAL STUDY.
THE AGENCY'S PROPOSED APPROACH TO SPECIAL WASTES GENERATED WIDESPREAD
AND DIVERGENT PROTEST FROMBTH THE REGULATED COMMUNITY AND THE PUBLIC.
COMMENTERS GENERALLY OBJECTED EITHER TO THE CONCEPT OF THE SPECIAL WASTE
CATEGORY OR TO THE NEED FOR, OR THE SUFFICIENCY OF, THE LIMITED
STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR THAT CATEGORY. MANY COMMENTERS IDENTIFIED OTHER
SOLID WASTES WHICH THEY URGED ALSO BE DEFINED AS SPECIAL WASTES. THE
MAJOR COMMENTS WERE:
(1) EPA SHOULD NOT REGULATE THESE WASTES AT ALL UNLESS IT CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT THE WASTES, AS PRESENTLY MANAGED, POSE A SIGNIFICANT
THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
(2) MANY OF THE LIMITED STANDARDS PROPOSED ARE NOT SUITABLE FOR THESE
WASTES BECAUSE OF THE LOW HAZARD AND LARGE VOLUME OF THE WASTES. THE
REQUIREMENT FOR FACILITY SECURITY WAS A PARTICULAR TARGET OF CRITICISM.
(3) THE STIGMA OF SINGLING OUT THESE WASTES AND REGULATING THE
HAZARDOUS PORTIONS UNDER SUBTITLE C WILL IMPACT NEGATIVELY ON THE
POTENTIAL FOR THEIR REUSE.
(4) THE SINGLING OUT OF ONLY THESE FEW HAZARDOUS WASTES FOR SPECIAL
FAVORED TREATMENT IS INEQUITABLE WHEN THERE ARE OTHER WASTES WITH
SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MUST BEAR THE FULL REGULATORY BURDEN.
COMMENTERS SUGGESTED ABOUT 50 ADDITIONAL WASTES TO BE ADDED TO THE
SPECIAL WASTE CATEGORY.
(5) IF THESE WASTES (OR PORTIONS THEREOF) FAIL THE 3001
CHARACTERISTICS, THEN THEY POSE SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND
THE ENVIRONMENT AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE REGULATED LIKE ANY OTHER
HAZARDOUS WASTE.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVES TO THE SPECIAL WASTE
CATEGORY:
(1) THE AGENCY SHOULD REPLACE THE SPECIAL WASTE CATEGORY WITH A
VARIANCE PROCEDURE INVOLVING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
(2) THE STANDARDS FOR A GIVEN WASTE SHOULD BE DETERMINED ON A
CASE-BY-CASE BASIS WITH REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE PERMITS FOR EACH
FACILITY AND LOCATION. THE THRUST OF MANY OF THE COMMENTS WAS UNIVERSAL
DISAPPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL WASTE CATEGORY AS PROPOSED.
IN THE COURSE OF ITS CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMENTS, INCLUDING
PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE SPECIAL WASTE CATEGORY, EPA MADE TWO
SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE BASIC STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE SUBTITLE C
REGULATIONS. THESE ARE (1) CHANGES IN THE TOXICITY AND CORROSIVITY
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS UNDER PART 261 WHICH NARROW THE CATEGORY
OF WASTE WHICH WILL BE BROUGHT INTO SUBTITLE C BY THESE CHARACTERISTICS,
AND (2) THE INCORPORATION OF SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FLEXIBILITY, THROUGH
PHARSING AND STANDARD-SETTING, IN THE PARTS 264 AND 265 REGULATIONS.
THE AGENCY NOW HAS CONCLUDED THAT THESE CHANGES ACCOMPLISH THE
OBJECTIVES OF, AND ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR, A SPECIAL SOLID WASTE
CATEGORY.
1. CHANGES IN THE SECTION 3001 CHARACTERISTICS. IN RESPONSE TO
COMMENTS, THE TOXICITY AND CORROSIVITY HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
HAVE BEEN MODIFIED AND NOW INCLUDE MORE DEMANDING CONDITIONS FOR
DEFINING A HAZARDOUS WASTE. IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, A WASTE WOULD
HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS UNDER THE TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC IF THE
EXTRACT FROM THAT WASTE (OBTAINED THROUGH THE DEFINED EXTRACTION
PROCEDURE) CONTAINED ANY HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN THE PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS (PDWS) AT A CONCENTRATION OF MORE THAN 10 TIMES THE PDWS
LIMITS. IN THE FINAL REGULATIONS, THE CHARACTERISTIC CONCENTRATION
BRINGING A HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDER REGULATION HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM 10
TO 100 TIMES THE PDWS. THUS, WASTE EXTRACTS MUST CONTAIN A TENFOLD
HIGHER CONCENTRATION OF ONE OF THE PDWS SUBSTANCES THAN ORIGINALLY
PROPOSED IN ORDER FOR THE WASTE NOW TO BE BROUGHT UNDER SUBTITLE C
CONTROL BY THAT CHARACTERISTIC. THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE IN THIS
CHARACTERISTIC ARE EXPLAINED IN THE TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT.
THE UPPER AND LOWER LIMITS OF PH WHICH DEFINE A HAZARDOUS WASTE ALSO
HAVE BEEN REVISED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SO THAT THE CORROSIVITY
CHARACTERISTIC NOW IS MORE DEMANDING IN SIGNALING A WASTE AS HAZARDOUS.
THE BASIS FOR THIS CHANGE IS EXPLAINED IN THE CORROSIVITY CHARACTERISTIC
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT.
THESE CHANGES HAVE HAD TWO IMPORTANT EFFECTS ON THE SPECIAL WASTE
CONCEPT. ONE IS THAT A MUCH SMALLER PORTION OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL
SOLID WASTES ARE EXPECTED TO FAIL THE CHARACTERISTICS AND BE SUBJECT TO
CONTROL AS HAZARDOUS WASTES. THE DATA AVAILABLE TO THE AGENCY INDICATE
THAT MOST OF THE SPECIAL WASTES THAT WOULD HAVE ENTERED THE CONTROL
SYSTEM WOULD HAVE DONE SO DUE TO TOXIC EXTRACTS BETWEEN 10 AND 100 TIMES
THE PDWS. THUS, THE PROBABILITY THAT LARGE VOLUMES OF THE PROPOSED
SPECIAL SOLID WASTES WILL BE HAZARDOUS NOW APPEARS REMOTE. SECOND,
THOSE PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED SPECIAL SOLID WASTES WHICH DO FAIL THE
CHARACTERISTICS CAN NO LONGER BE LABELED "LOW HAZARD" WASTES. THUS THE
CONCERN OVER THE INAPPLICABILITY OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS TO
HAZARDOUS SPECIAL WASTES DUE TO THE POTENTIALLY LARGE VOLUME AND LOW
LEVEL OF HAZARD OF THESE WASTES IS NOT A VALID CONCERN IN THE FINAL
REGULATIONS.
2. PHASING AND INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN PARTS 264 AND 265. TO THE
EXTENT THAT SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY OF THE HAZARDOUS PORTIONS OF
THESE WASTES MAY STILL BE NEEDED, THE SECOND MAJOR REGULATORY CHANGE,
I.E., THE INCORPORATION OF MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS THROUGH REGULATORY CHANGES AND PHASING OF
REQUIREMENTS, WILL ACCOMPLISH ESSENTIALLY THE SAME RESULT AS THE
PROPOSED SPECIAL SOLID WASTE CATEGORY. THIS IS TRUE FOR THE HAZARDOUS
PORTIONS OF THOSE WASTES PROPOSED AS SPECIAL SOLID WASTES AS WELL AS FOR
ALL OF THE WASTES THAT COMMENTERS SUGGESTED SHOULD BE SPECIAL SOLID
WASTES.
THE NEW THREE-STAGE REGULATORY PROCESS ITSELF PROVIDES THE SAME
OPPORTUNITY FOR PHASED REGULATION AS THE CREATION OF THE SPECIAL WASTE
CATEGORY. INITIAL REGULATIONS UNDER PHASE I STANDARDS INCLUDE
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LIMITED TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS WHICH PROVIDE A BASIC
LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SIMILAR TO THAT PROVIDED IN THE
LIMITED STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR THE HAZARDOUS PORTIONS OF SPECIAL WASTES.
THE PLANS FOR PHASE II OF THE REGULATIONS WILL ALLOW HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITIES TO BE PERMITTED LARGELY ON THE BASIS OF PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
COUPLED WITH THE "BEST ENGINEERING JUDGMENT" OF THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR. THIS FLEXIBILITY WILL ALLOW THE PERMIT WRITER TO
CONSIDER SITE- AND WASTE-SPECIFIC FACTORS IN DETERMINING SPECIFIC DESIGN
AND OPERATING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. THUS, UNNECESSARY OR OVERLY
STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS SHOULD NOT BE FORCED UPON ANY HAZARDOUS WASTES BY
THE REGULATIONS. TO THE EXTENT THE AGENCY BECOMES AWARE OF THE
INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON A SITE- OR WASTE-SPECIFIC
BASIS, IT IS COMMITTED TO MAKING NEEDED REGULATORY CHANGES AS QUICKLY AS
POSSIBLE. IN ADDITION, THE AGENCY PLANS TO GATHER FURTHER INFORMATION
BOTH ON THE PROPOSED SPECIAL SOLID WASTES AND ON AT LEAST SOME OF THE
WASTES SUGGESTED BY COMMENTERS AS SPECIAL SOLID WASTES, AND WHERE
NEEDED, DEVELOP TECHNICAL STANDARDS OR GUIDANCE SPECIFIC TO THESE WATERS
IN THE PHASE III REGULATIONS AND THEREAFTER. ADDITIONAL DATA AND
INFORMATION ON THESE, AS WELL AS THE OTHER SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTES
THE AGENCY IS STUDYING ALSO WILL BE USEFUL IN ISSUING BEST ENGINEERING
JUDGMENT PERMITS UNDER THE PHASE II SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 023 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113387
REGULATION
IN CONSIDERATION OF ALL OF THE ABOVE FACTORS, THE AGENCY HAS
CONCLUDED THAT THE SPECIAL SOLID WASTE CATEGORY IS NO LONGER NECESSARY.
IT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED IN THESE FINAL PHASE I REGULATIONS. THOSE
PORTIONS OF THE SIX PROPOSED SPECIAL WASTES WHICH ARE DETERMINED BY THE
CHARACTERISTICS TO BE HAZARDOUS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPLICABLE PART
264 AND 265 REGULATIONS.
THE AGENCY IS, HOWEVER, TEMPORARILY DELAYING IMPOSITION OF THE
REGULATIONS FOR TWO OF THE WASTES EPA ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AS SPECIAL
SOLID WASTES, I.E., OIL AND GAS DRILLING MUDS AND OIL PRODUCTION BRINES,
AND UTILITY WASTE. THIS TEMPORARY DEFERRAL IS IN RESPONSE TO ACTION BY
CONGRESS TO EXEMPT THESE WASTES FROM MOST SUBTITLE C REGULATION FOR A
LIMITED TIME PENDING COMPLETION OF CERTAIN EPA STUDIES. CONGRESS HAS
NOT YET COMPLETED ACTION ON THE AMENDMENTS WHICH WOULD MANDATE THIS
DEFERRAL. HOWEVER, BILLS HAVE BEEN PASSED BOTH IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE,
INDICATING STRONG CONGRESSIONAL INTENT TO MANDATE A DEFERRAL OF
REGULATIONS FOR THESE TWO PROPOSED SPECIAL SOLID WASTES.
IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGULATORY DEFERRAL BY EPA, THE HAZARDOUS
PORTIONS OF THESE WASTES WOUOD BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
REGULATION ON THEIR EFFECTIVE DATE. IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BY THE
EFFECTIVE DATE, THE FACILITIES HANDLING THESE WASTES WOULD NEED TO TAKE
CERTAIN ACTIONS SOON, INVOLVING POSSIBLY SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES, WHICH
COULD THEN BE HALTED IN MID-STREAM BY FINAL CONGRESSIONAL ACTION. IN
EPA'S VIEW, SUCH A SITUATION WOULD BE INEFFICIENT AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
THEREFORE, PART 261 DEFERS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS FOR
THE HAZARDOUS PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED OIL AND GAS AND UTILITY SPECIAL
WASTES. THE OTHER PROPOSED SPECIAL SOLID WASTES ARE THE SUBJECT OF
BILLS WHICH HAVE PASSED EITHER THE HOUSE OR THE SENATE, BUT ONLY THE OIL
AND GAS AND UTILITY WASTE DEFERRALS ARE CONTAINED IN BOTH THE HOUSE AND
SENATE BILLS. EPA IS NOT PRESUMING THE OUTCOME OF THE ADDITIONAL
PROPOSED DEFERRALS, BUT WILL, WHERE NECESSARY, AMEND PART 261
REGULATIONS AFTER THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO RCRA ARE FINALLY
ACTED ON BY CONGRESS.
SUBPARTS A OF PARTS 264 AND 265 CONTAIN REQUIREMENTS UNDER THREE
GENERAL HEADINGS. THE FIRST IS "PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY"
(SECTIONS 264.1 AND 265.1). THESE PROVISIONS EXPLAIN WHO IS SUBJECT TO
THE REGULATIONS IN THE PART, AND WHETHER THERE ARE ANY CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH A PERSON IS EXCLUDED FROM COVERAGE BY THE REGULATIONS OR
SUBJECT ONLY TO LIMITED REQUIREMENTS. THE SECOND SECTION IN PART 264
(SECTION 264.3) EXPLAINS THE RELATIONSHIP OF PART 264 REQUIREMENTS
(WHICH EPA HAS TERMED "GENERAL STANDARDS" OR "PERMITTING STANDARDS") TO
PART 265 REQUIREMENTS (THE "INTENTION STATUS STANDARDS"). SECTION
265.1(B) IS THE COUNTERPART OF SECTION 264.3. IT EXPLAINS THAT THE PART
265 REGULATIONS, RATHER THAN THE PART 264 REGULATIONS, ARE APPLICABLE TO
AN OWNER OR OPERATOR WHO HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
INTERIM STATUS UNDER SECTION 3005(E) OF RCRA, AND WHO HAS NOT HAD FINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN ON HIS PERMIT APPLICATION. SECTIONS 264.4
AND 265.4 NOTIFY PEOPLE WHO HANDLE HAZARDOUS WASTE THAT IMMINENT HAZARD
ACTIONS MAY BE BROUGHT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE
REGULATIONS. EACH OF THESE SECTIONS IS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL BELOW.
1. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY. THE CONTENT OF THIS SECTION
HAS CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE PROPOSAL. THIS PREAMBLE DISCUSSION
EXPLAINS THE FINAL REQUIREMENTS, AND, IN ADDITION, CONTAINS A TABLE
SHOWING THE CORRELATION OF EACH OF THE PARAGRAPHS IN PROPOSED SECTION
250.40 WITH THE FINAL REGULATIONS.
PARAGRAPHS (A) OF SECTIONS 264.1 AND 265.1 SET FORTH THE PURPOSE OF
THE SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS AND ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY.
PARAGRAPH (B) OF SECTIONS 264.1 AND 265.1 STATE THE GENERAL
APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULATINS, WHICH IS TO ALL OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
FACILITIES THAT TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE (TSDFS),
EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE IN THE PARTS 264, 265, OR 261
REGULATIONS.
PARAGRAPHS (C) THROUGH (G) OF SECTION 264.1 AND PARAGRAPH (C) IN
SECTION 265.1 DELIMIT THE GENERAL APPLICABILITY OF THE REGULATIONS. IN
ADDITION, EACH SUBPART IN PARTS 264 AND 265 CONTAINS AN APPLICABILITY
SECTION. SOME OF THESE SPECIAL APPLICABILITY SECTIONS NOW MERELY REFER
BACK TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN SECTIONS 264.1 AND 265.1, BUT SUBPARTS F
THROUGH R OF PART 265 CONTAIN APPLICABILITY SECTIONS WHICH LIMIT THE
APPLICABILITY OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THOSE SECTIONS TO CERTAIN KINDS OF
FACILITIES, THE REQUIREMENTS IN SUBPART N OF PART 265, FOR EXAMPLE,
APPLY ONLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FACILITIES WHICH DISPOSE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE IN LANDFILLS (WHICH INCLUDE WASTE PILES USED AS DISPOSAL
FACILITIES).
A. OCEAN DISPOSAL. PARAGRAPH (C) OF SECTION 264.1 STATES THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PART 264 APPLY TO A PERSON DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
BY MEANS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SUBJECT TO A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THE MARINE
PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT (MPRSA) ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THEY ARE INCLUDED IN A RCRA PERMIT BY RULE GRANTED TO SUCH A PERSON
UNDER PART 122 (I.E., THE RCRA SECTION 3005 REGULATIONS EXPLAINS THE
BASIS OF EPA'S DECISION TO ISSUE SUCH PERSONS RCRA PERMITS BY RULE.
BASICALLY, EPA HAS FOUND THAT COMPLIANCE WITH AN OCEAN DUMPING PERMIT
ISSUED UNDER 40 CFR PART 220 (OCEAN DUMPING UNDER MPRSA) PROVIDES THE
HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANDATED BY RCRA. PERSONS
CARRYING OUT SUCH DISPOSAL, HOWEVER, MUST COMPLY WITH CERTAIN
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR EPA TO
ENSURE THAT THE "CRADLE-TO-GRAVE" MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
ESTABLISHED IN RCRA TRACKS ALL MANIFESTED HAZARDOUS WASTE.
PARAGRAPH (C)(1) OF SECTION 265.1 EXCLUDES PERSONS DISPOSING OF WASTE
BY OCEAN DISPOSAL SUBJECT TO A MPRSA PERMIT FROM COVERAGE UNDER PART 265
(INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS). THE PART 265 REQUIREMENTS NEVER APPLY TO
SUCH PEOPLE BECAUSE ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF RCRA REGULATIONS PERSONS
DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MPRSA PERMITS
AUTOMATICALLY RECEIVE RCRA PERMITS BY RULE WHICH REQUIRE THEM TO COMPLY
WITH SELECTED PART 264 REQUIREMENTS.
TREATMENT OR STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BEFORE IT IS LOADED ONTO AN
OCEAN VESSEL FOR INCINERATION OR DISPOSAL AT SEA IS COVERED BY THE PARTS
264 AND 265 REGULATIONS BECAUSE MPRSA OFFERS NO REGULATORY SCHEME
COMPARABLE TO RCRA FOR SUCH FACILITIES.
B. UNDERGROUND INJECTION. COVERAGE UNDER RCRA OF PERSONS DISPOSING
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION IS COMPLICATED BECAUSE,
DEPENDING ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH PERSONS ARE SUBJECT TO REGULATION
(1) BY RCRA PART 265 STANDARDS, (2) BY RCRA PART 264 STANDARDS, (3) BY
STATE STANDARDS EFFECTIVE UNDER AN AUTHORIZED HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
(UNDER SECTION 3006 OF RCRA, 40 CFR PART 123, SUBPARTS A, B, AND F), (4)
BY STATE STANDARDS EFFECTIVE UNDER AN APPROVED UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL PROGRAM (UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA), 40 CFR PART
123, SUBPARTS A AND C), OR (5) BY FEDERAL STANDARDS IN A STATE WITH AN
EPA PROMULGATED UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM UNDER SDWA. THE
PREAMBLE TO THE PART 122, SUBPART C, REGULATIONS EXPLAINS THESE VARIOUS
REGULATORY SCHEMES AND THEIR STATUTORY UNDERPINNINGS. BECAUSE SECTION
3004 RCRA REQUIRES THAT ALL OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FACILITIES WHICH
TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST HAVE A RCRA PERMIT,
THESE SECTION 3004 (PARTS 264 AND 265) REGULATIONS AND THE SECTION 3005
(PARTS 122 AND 124) REGULATIONS SO PROVIDE.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 024 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113388
REGULATION
PART 265 STANDARDS (AS STATED IN SECTION 265.1(C)(2) DO NOT APPLY TO
PERSONS DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION
SUBJECT TO A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER AN UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL
PROGRAM APPROVED OR PROMULGATED UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT. THAT
MEANS THAT THE PART 265 INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS DO APPLY TO PERSONS
DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION WHO HAVE MET THE
SECTION 3005(E) REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIM STATUS AND WHO EITHER (1) DO
NOT HAVE SUCH A DSWA UIC PERMIT, OR (2) DO NOT HAVE A RCRA PERMIT AND
ARE INJECTING HAZARDOUS WASTE UNDERGROUND IN A STATE WITHOUT AN
AUTHORIZED RCRA PROGRAM THAT COVERS UNDERGROUND INJECTION.
PART 264 REQUIREMENTS (SEE SECTION 264.1(D) APPLY TO PEOPLE DISPOSIN
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WITH PERMITS ISSUED UNDER AN UIC PROGRAM APPROVED OR
PROMULGATED UNDER SDWA ONLY TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN
SECTION 122.45 (REQUIREMENTS FOR UIC PERMITS FOR WELLS INJECTING
HAZARDOUS WASTES). THE SAME REASONING THAT APPLIES TO HAZARDOUS WASTE
DISPOSAL UNDER AN MPRSA PERMIT APPLIES TO SDWA UIC PERMITS. ALTHOUGH
ALL OF THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE DISPOSAL BY MEANS OF
UNDERGROUND INJECTION HAVE NOT YET BEEN PROMULGATED UNDER THE SAFE
DRINKING WATER ACT, EPA IS INCLUDING THIS SECTION TO STATE ITS INTENTION
TO ISSUE A RCRA PERMIT BY RULE TO PERSONS WHO MEET SDWA REQUIREMENTS.
EPA WILL INSURE THAT THE COMBINATION OF UIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, AND
SECTION 122.45, WHICH INCORPORATE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FROM PART 264
FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, MEETS RCRA'S HUMAN HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MANDATE.
THE IMPLICATION OF SECTION 264.1(D) IS THAT UNTIL AN UNDERGROUND
INJECTION FACILITY RECEIVED A SDWA UIC PERMIT, IT IS SUBJECT TO RCRA
INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS (IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR HAS MET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 3005(E) OF RCRA) OR MUST HAVE A RCRA PERMIT.
EPA INTENDS, AS PART OF ITS PHASE II SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS TO
PROMULGATE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS THAT CAN BE USED TO ISSUE INTERIM (TWO
YEAR) PERMITS TO CLASS I (AND PERHAPS CLASS IV) UNDERGROUND INJECTION
WELLS. UNTIL THEN, OR UNTIL PERMITTED BY A SDWA UIC PROGRAM, ALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION IS GOVERNED BY THE
RCRA INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. SEE THE DISCUSSION OF THE SUBPART R
STANDARDS IN THIS PREAMBLE FOR AN EXPLANATION OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
EPA BELIEVES THAT THIS SYSTEM WILL ENSURE THAT UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE IS CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PURPOSE AND
REQUIREMENTS OF BOTH RCRA AND SDWA, WHILE AVOIDING UNNECESSARY DUAL
REGULATION. FOR A MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE, SEE THE
PREAMBLE TO PART 122, SUBPART C.
AS WITH ON-SHORE FACILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH OCEAN DISPOSAL,
ABOVE-GROUND TREATMENT OR STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ASSOCIATED WITH AN
UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITY IS COVERED BY PARTS 264 AND 265
REGULATIONS. THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT IS DESIGNED TO PROTECT
UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER AND DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY
COMPARABLE TO RCRA'S TO ENSURE HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FROM ALL ASPECTS OF POTENTIAL POLLUTION (AIR, LAND, SURFACE, AND GROUND
WATER) FROM ABOVE-GROUND FACILITIES THAT TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE.
C. POTWS. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE SECTION OF THIS PREAMBLE ON
"NPDES PERMITTED FACILITIES," THE REGULATORY DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE
EXCLUDES HAZARDOUS WASTE THAT IS MIXED WITH DOMESTIC SEWAGE AND PASSES
THROUGH A SEWER SYSTEM TO A PUBLICLY-OWNED TREATMENT WORKS. THAT
EXCLUSION IS BASED ON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF THE SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL ACT. AS DISCUSSED IN THE PART 122 PREAMBLE, EPA BELIEVES THAT
THE REASONING WHICH LED THE AGENCY TO EXEMPT SUCH HAZARDOUS WASTE MIXED
WITH DOMESTIC SEWAGE FROM THE DEFINITION OF SOLID WASTE, ALSO APPLIES TO
THE DECISION OF WHAT SORT OF RCRA REQUIREMENTS TO IMPOSE ON POTWS WHICH
RECEIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH HAS NOT LOST ITS CHARACTER AS SOLID WASTE
(I.E., HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH IS DISCHARGED TO THE POTW BY TRUCK OR RAIL,
OR THROUGH A PIPE WHICH CARRIES ONLY INDUSTRIAL WASTE).
EPA WILL ISSUE POTWS WHICH RECEIVE HAZARDOUS WASTE A PERMIT BY RULE.
THE AGENCY'S REASONING IS THAT THE WASTES WILL BE PLACED IN A FACILITY
SUBJECT TO AN EXTENSIVE SET OF FEDERAL REGULATORY AND SUBSIDY PROVISIONS
THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO DEAL WITH ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE PROBLEMS. IN
ADDITION, THIS EXEMPTION FOR POTWS FROM MOST OF THE SECTION 3004
REQUIREMENTS IS BASED ON CONGRESSIONAL INTENT THAT EPA AVOID DISRUPTION
OF THE EXISTING PATTERNS OF FUNDING AND OPERATION OF SUCH FACILITIES.
NOTE, HOWEVER, THAT IN ORDER FOR A POTW TO QUALIFY FOR THIS PERMIT BY
RULE, IT MUST HAVE AND BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH AN NPDES PERMIT, MUST
COMPLY WITH CERTAIN OF THE RCRA RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS, AND MUST MEET ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL
PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS (SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE TO TRUCK OR
RAIL SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE JUST AS IF THEY HAD COME THROUGH A
SEWER, PIPE, OR SIMILAR CONVEYANCE).
PARAGRAPH (C)(3) OF SECTION 265.1 EXCLUDES THE OWNER AND OPERATOR OF
A POTW THAT THREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM
COVERAGE BY PART 265. PARAGRAPH (E) OF SECTION 264.1 PROVIDES THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PART 264 APPLY TO SUCH OWNERS AND OPERATORS ONLY WHEN
INCLUDED IN A RCRA PERMIT BY RULE. THIS SCHEME IS THE SAME AS THAT
DESCRIBED ABOVE FOR OCEAN DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN MPRSA PERMIT.
THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS NEVER APPLY TO POTWS BECAUSE OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF POTWS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE PART 264 REQUIREMENTS
WHICH ARE INCLUDED IN THEIR PERMIT BY RULE.
D. AUTHORIZED STATE RCRA PROGRAMS. PARAGRAPH (C)(4) OF SECTION
265.1 PROVIDES THAT THE PART 265 REQUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO PERSONS
TREATING, STORING, OR DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN A STATE WITH A
RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED UNDER SUBPARTS A AND B (I.E.,
FULL AUTHORIZATION), OR SUBPART F (I.E., INTERIM AUTHORIZATION) OF 40
CFR PART 123. THIS EXCLUSION IS PROVIDED IN THE REGULATIONS BECAUSE
SECTION 3006 OF RCRA STATES THAT AUTHORIZED STATE PROGRAMS ARE TO
OPERATE IN LIEU OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAM. THUS FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, AS A
GENERAL RULE, DO NOT APPLY IN STATES WITH AUTHORIZED RCRA PROGRAMS. THE
EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE IS A STATE WITH PHASE I, BUT NOT PHASE II INTERIM
AUTHORIZATION AS DISCUSSED BELOW AND IN THE PREAMBLE TO PART 123,
SUBPART F, PURSUANT TO SECTION 3006 OF RCRA AND PART 123 REQUIREMENTS, A
STATE PROGRAM MUST BE "SUBSTANTIALLY EQUIVALENT" TO THE FEDERAL PROGRAM
TO RECEIVE INTERIM AUTHORIZATION; A STATE PROGRAM MUST BE "EQUIVALENT,
CONSISTENT, AND PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE ENFORCEMENT" TO RECEIVE FULL
AUTHORIZATION.
PARAGRAPH (F) OF SECTION 264.1 ESTABLISHES THE SAME SORT OF GENERAL
INAPPLICABILITY OF PART 264 REQUIREMENTS AS IS ESTABLISHED FOR PART 265
REQUIREMENTS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION. THE ONE EXCEPTION IS THAT PART 264
REQUIREMENTS DO APPLY IN STATES WHICH HAVE ONLY PHASE I INTERIM
AUTHORIZATION. IN SUCH STATES, EPA RETAINS THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITS BECAUSE THE STATE PROGRAM DOES NOT YET HAVE THAT
AUTHORITY. SUCH A LACK OF STATE PERMITTING AUTHORITY COULD LAST IN A
STATE FOR A MAXIMUM OF ABOUT NINE MONTHS. AS NOTED IN THE PART 123
PREAMBLE DISCUSSION OF THIS ISSUE, EPA WOULD REARELY EXERCISE THIS
AUTHORITY, BUT IF THE AGENCY FAILED TO RETAIN SUCH AUTHORITY, EPA WOULD
BE IN EFFECT PROHIBITING THE PERMITTING OF ANY FACILITIES IN SUCH A
STATE DURING THAT PERIOD. BECAUSE OF SECTION 3005 OF RCRA, NO NEW
FACILITIES COULD BEGIN OPERATIONS. BECUASE NEWER FACILITIES, SUBJECT TO
FULL FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, GENERALLY WILL BE THE BETTER FACILITIES, SUCH
A RESULT CERTAINLY SEEMS ANAMALOUS, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE CURRENT
SHORTFALL OF ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 025 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113389
REGULATION
THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL ASPECT TO THE APPLICABILITY OF PARTS 264 AND
265 IN STATES WIHT AUTHORIZED RCRA PROGRAMS. THAT IS THE REGULATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION IN SUCH STATES. AS
MENTIONED BRIEFLY ABOVE, AND AS DISCUSSED IN THE PART 123 PREAMBLE,
STATES SEEKING AUGHORIZATION TO OPERATED RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
IN LIEU OF THE FEDERAL PROGRAM WILL HAVE AN OPTION TO INCLUDE COVERAGE
OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITIES. IF A STATE WHICH RECEIVES INTERIM
OR FULL AUTHORIZATION CHOOSES NOT TO REGULATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION
UNDER ITS RCRA PROGRAM (PRIOR TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE APPROVAL FOR
A STATE UIC PROGRAM UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT), THE PARTS 264
AND 265 REQUIREMENTS WILL REMAIN EFFECTIVE FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTION
FACILITIES IN THAT STATE. EPA REALIZES SUCH A RESULT WILL SUBJECT
UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITY OWNERS AND OPERATORS TO REGULATION BY
BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES. BUT SEES NO REAL ALTERNATIVE. EPA
DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD MANDATE THAT STATE RCRA PROGRAMS INCLUDE
COVERAGE OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITIES. NO SUCH REQUIREMENT WAS
PROPOSED WITH THE STATE AUTHORIZATION REQUIREMENTS, AND SUCH A DECISION
COULD DISRUPT THE PROGRESS MANY STATES HAVE BEEN MAKING TOWARDS
DEVELOPING ALL OF THE LEGILATIVE AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY NECESSARY TO
RECEIVE INTERIM OR FULL AUTHORIZATION UNDER RCRA. ON THE OTHER HAND, IT
SEEMS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO GIVE STATES THE CHANCE TO INCLUDE SUCH
FACILITIES IN THEIR PROGRAMS BECAUSE IF A STATE HAS SUFFICIENT
AUTHORITY, A FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR THEN NEED DEAL ONLY WITH THE
STATE.
E. PART 261 EXCLUSIONS, INCLUDING SMALL QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE, AND RECYCLED OR RE-USED HAZARDOUS WASTE. SECTIONS 264.1 AND
265.1 BOTH PROVIDE THAT PARTS 264 AND 265 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IF
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE IN 40 CFR PART 261. PART 261 COVERS THE
IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF THOSE SOLID WASTES WHICH MUST BE HANDLED
AS HAZARDOUS WASTE ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY EPA UNDER
SECTIONS 3002 THROUGH 3005.
AMONG OTHER THINGS, PART 261 CONTAINS REGULATORY DEFINITIONS OF SOLID
WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE, A LIST OF MATERIALS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED FROM
ALL OR A PORTION OF CERTAIN SUBTITLE C REQUIREMENTS, AND ESTABLISHES
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATORS OF SMALL QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE. THUS EPA BELIEVES IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE PARTS 264 AND 265
REQUIREMENTS TO REFER PEOPLE TO THE PART 261 REGULATIONS WHICH DESIGNATE
WHICH WASTES ARE WITHIN SUBTITLE C CONTROL, WHEN THOSE WASTES MUST BEGIN
TO BE MANAGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 262 THROUGH 265 STANDARDS, AND
WHEN A HAZARDOUS WASTE CEASES TO BE A HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE EXCLUSIONS
IN SECTION 261.4 (I.E., THE STATEMENTS OF WHICH MATERIALS ARE NOT SOLID
WASTES AND WHICH SOLID WASTES ARE NOT HAZARDOUS WASTES) ARE NOT INCLUDED
IN THE PARTS 264 AND 265 REGULATIONS. OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES SHOULD READ THE PART 261
REGULATIONS TO DETERMINE TO WHAT EXTENT THE WASTES THEY HANDLE ARE
SUBJECT TO THE PARTS 264 AND 264 REGULATIONS.
EPA HAS, IN SECTIONS 264.1(G)(1) AND 261.1(C)(5), EXCLUDED FROM
REGULATION UNDER PARTS 264 AND 265 FACILITIES PERMITTED, LICENSED, OR
REGISTERED BY A STATE TO MANAGE MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE, IF
THE ONLY HAZARDOUS WASTE THE FACILITY HANDLES IS EXCLUDED FROM
REGULATION UNDER THE SMALL QUANTITY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 261.5 SECTION
261.5, AMONG OTHER THINGS, EXCLUDES CERTAIN SMALL QUANTITIES OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM REGULATION UNDER PARTS 262 THROUGH 265, IF THE
GENERATOR OF THOSE SMALL QUANTITIES ENSURES DELIVERY OF THEM TO A
FACILITY WHICH HAS (1)INTERIM STATUS, (2) A RCRA PERMIT, OR (3) IS
PERMITTED, LICENSED, OR REGISTERED BY A STATE TO MANAGE MUNICIPAL OR
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE. TO AVOID THE CONFUSION THAT COULD RESULT IF
THIS THIRD CATEGORY OF FACILITY WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM
REGULATION IN PARTS 264 AND 265, EPA HAS PROVIDED AN EXCLUSION. THE
SPECIAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE PRODUCED BY SMALL
QUANTITY GENERATORS ARE DISCUSSED IN THE PREAMBLE TO PART 261 AND AN
ACCOMPANYING BACKGROUND DOCUMENT.
EPA ALSO HAS REFERENCED IN PARTS 264 AND 265 (SEE SECTIONS 264.1
(G)(2) AND 265.1(C)(6) THE EXCLUSION FROM MOST SUBTITLE C REQUIREMENTS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 261.6 FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE THAT IS USED, RE-USED,
RECYCLED, OR RECLAIMED. SUCH WASTE IS SUBJECT TO TRANSPORTATION AND
STORAGE REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO ITS RE-USE AND RECLAMATION AND THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 261.6 WHICH SO PROVIDE ARE REFERENCED IN PARTS 264
AND 265. REGULATION OF RE-USED AND RECYCLED WASTE IS DISCUSSED IN THE
PREAMBLE TO PART 261.
F. GENERATORS WHO ACCUMULATE ON-SITE, FARMERS, AND TOTALLY ENCLOSED
TREATMENT FACILITIES. THE LAST THREE EXCLUSIONS FROM PART 264 AND 265
REQUIREMENTS ARE TWO ACTIVITIES CARRIED ON BY CERTAIN GENERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND ONE TYPE OF FACILITY WHICH EPA BELIEVES NEED NOT BE
SUBJECT TO ANY RCRA SECTION 3004 REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO ENSURE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
40 CFR 262.34 EXEMPTS GENERATORS WHO ACCUMULATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
ON-SITE FOR 90 DAYS OR LESS (FOR SUBSEQUENT SHIPMENT OFF-SITE) FROM THE
REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A PERMIT, PROVIDED THEY COMPLY WITH CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS THAT EPA DEEMS SUFFICIENT TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT DURINC THAT PERIOD. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE SPECIFIED IN
SECTION 262.34. IF A FARMER DISPOSES OF WASTE PESTICIDES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 262.51, THOSE WASTES ARE EXEMPT FROM ALL SECTION 3004
REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ANOTHER EXEMPTION MADE IN THE PART 262
REGULATIONS WHICH EPA IS CODIFYING IN THE PART 264 AND 265 REGULATIONS
TO AVOID CONFUSION. BOTH OF THESE EXEMPTIONS ARE DISCUSSED IN THE
PREAMBLE TO THE PART 262 REGULATIONS (45 FR 12724-12732, FEBRUARY, 26,
1980) AND THE SUPPORTING MATERIAL FOR THOSE REGULATIONS.
THE THIRD EXEMPTION IS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF "TOTALLY ENCLOSED
TREATMENT FACILITIES," AS DEFINED IN 40 CFR 260.10. COMMENTERS POINTED
OUT THAT IN SOME PRODUCTION PROCESSES, WASTES (PARTICULARLY ACID AND
ALKALINE SOLUTIONS) ARE TREATED IN PIPES AND OTHER TYPES OF TOTALLY
ENCLOSED ON-SITE FACILITIES, OFTEN RESULTING IN A NON-HAZARDOUS
DISCHARGE.
EPA AGREES THAT TO CLASSIFY ON-SITE "TOTALLY ENCLOSED SYSTEMS," SUCH
AS PIPES, AS HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES AND TO REQUIRE THEM TO
MEET SECTION 3004 STANDARS AND OBTAIN A PERMIT WOULD NOT MAKE A GREAT
DEAL OF SENSE. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED BELOW UNDER
SUBPART Q - CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES,"EPA
HAS EXEMPTED THESE FACILITIES FROM REGULATION UNDER PARTS 264 AND 265
AND FROM THE REQUIREMENT TO OBTAIN A PERMIT IN PART 122. PERSONS WHO
HANDLE HAZARDOUS WASTE IN WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE A "TOTALLY ENCLOSED
TREATMENT FACILITY" SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE DEFINITION OF THAT TERM IN
SECTION 260.10.
2. RELATIONSHIP TO INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. SECTION 264.3 PUTS
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF TSDFS ON NOTICE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY
WITH PART 265 REQUIREMENTS, RATHER THAN PART 264 REQUIREMENTS, IF THEY
HAVE QUALIFIED FOR INTERIM STATUS UNDER SECTION 3005(E) OF RCRA AND
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION OF THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION HAS NOT
BEEN MADE. SECTION 365.1(B) IS A PARRELEL REQUIREMENT.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 026 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113390
REGULATION
3. IMMINENT HAZARD ACTION, SECTIONS 264.4 AND 265.4 PUT OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF TSDFS ON NOTICE THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OF THE OHER
PROVISIONS OF THOSE PARTS, IMMINENT HAZARD ACTIONS MAY ALWAYS BE BROUGHT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 7003 OF RCRA WHEN THE STATUTORY ELEMENTS OF SUCH AS
ANCTION ARE ESTABLISHED.
CORRELATION OF PROPESED AND FINAL RULES FOR PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND
APPLICABILITY
TABLE OMITTED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 027 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113391
REGULATION
SUBPART B OF BOTH PARTS 264 AND 265 CONTAINS A NUMBER OF DISCRETE
SETS OF STANDARDS, EACH OF WHICH APPLIES TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES. THE SUBPART INCLUDES REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE
ANALYSIS, SECURITY, INSEPCTIONS, AND TRAINING -- ALL OF WHICH WERE
CONTAINED IN SECTION 250.43 OF THE PROPOSED RULES.
1. IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. SECTIONS 264.11 AND 265.11 OF SUBPART B
CONTAIN A STANDARD WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR APPLY TO
EPA FOR AN IDENTIFICATION CODE. THIS REQUIREMENT WAS IN THE PURPOSE,
SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY SECTION OF THE PROPOSED RULES. HOWEVER,
BECAUSE THE STANDARD IS APPLICABLE TO ALL FACILITIES, THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THAT IT IS MORE LOGICAL TO INCLUDE THE STANDARD IN THE GENERAL
FACILITY SECTION OF THE FINAL RULES.
2. REQUIRED NOTICES. SECTIONS 264.12 AND 265.12 REQUIRE THAT THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY NOTIFY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR AT
LEAST FOUR WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE OF ANY SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE FROM FOREIGN SOURCES. THIS REQUIREMENT IS A COROLLARY TO THE
PROPOSED SECTION 250.20(C)(3) STANDARD, WHICH REQUIRED GENERATORS WHO
SHIP THEIR WASTE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE
FACILITY TO WHICH THE WASTE IS TO BE SENT. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT
THIS REQUIREMENT IS NECESSARY IN ORDER FOR EPA TO EFFECTIVELY OVERSEE
THE TRANSPORTATION AND MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPORTED TO THE
UNITED STATES.
SECTIONS 264.12 AND 265.12 ALSO REQUIRE THAT, BEFORE TRANSFERRING
OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION OF A FACILITY DURING ITS OPERATING LIFE, OR OF A
DISPOSAL FACILITY DURING THE POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD, THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR MUST NOTIFY THE NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE RCRA SECTION 3004
AND SECTION 3005 REQUIREMENTS. THE AGENCY HAS ADDED THIS REQUIREMENT TO
THE FINAL RULES IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE THE POSSIBLITY THAT AN UNSUSPECTING
BUYER MAY PURCHASE A FACILITY, NOT KNOWING THAT THIS PURCHASE ENTAILS
HIS HAVING TO COMPLY WITH THESE SUBTITLE C REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, IT
SHOULD BE NOTED THAT IF THE "OLD" OWNER OR OPERATOR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH
THIS STANDARD, THE "NEW" OWNER OR OPERATOR IS STILL REQUIRED TO COMPLY
WITH ALL APPLICABLE RCRA REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE IN PART 122
ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITS.
SECTION 264.12 ALSO REQUIRES THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN OFF-SITE
FACILITY TO INFORM THE GENERATOR IN WRITING THAT THE FACILITY HAS THE
APPROPRIATE PERMIT(S) FOR, AND WILL ACCEPT, THE GENERATOR'S WASTE. THE
AGENCY BELIEVES THIS PROVISION, WHICH WAS SUGGESTED IN THE COMMENTS, IS
NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE MANIFEST SYSTEM, BECAUSE
PART 262 REQUIRES THAT GENERATORS SEND THEIR HAZARDOUS WASTE ONLY TO A
FACILITY WITH APPROPRIATE PERMITS FOR THE WASTE (OR TO FACILITIES WHOSE
OWNER OR OPERATOR HAS INTERIM STATUS). A WRITTEN CERTIFICATION BY THE
FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR THUS ASSURES THE WASTE GENERATOR THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PART 262 ARE SATISFIED. IT ALSO AVOIDS THE POTENTIAL
PROBLEM OF A GENERATOR DESIGNATING A FACILITY ON THE MANIFEST WHICH HAS
THE APPROPRIATE PERMITS FOR HIS WASTE, BUT WHICH HAS NOT AGREED TO
ACCEPT THE WASTE.
THE REST OF THIS SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE DISCUSSES THE COMMENTS
RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED SECTION 250.43 STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THIS
SUBPART.
3. GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED WASTE
ANALYSIS STANDARDS WAS TO ENSURE THAT OWNERS OR OPERATORS POSSESSED
SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON THE PROPERTIES OF THE WASTES WHICH THEY
MANAGED, TO BE ABLE TO TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF THEIR WASTE IN A
MANNER WHICH WOULD NOT POSE A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE PROPOSED STANDARDS INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS WHICH SPECIFIED THE LEVEL
OF ANALYSIS TO BE PERFORMED ON WASTES MANAGED AT FACILITIES, THE MINIMUM
FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THESE ANALYSES WERE TO BE REPEATED, AND THE
PROPERTIES OF THE WASTE WHICH WERE TO BE DETERMINED TO VERIFY THE
IDENTITY OF EACH TRUCKLOAD, SHIPMENT, OR BATCH OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGED AT FACILITIES.
THE AGENCY RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS WHICH STATED THAT THE GENERATOR
SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WITH THE INFORMATION
NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE SECTION 3004 WASTE ANALYSIS STANDARDS, BECAUSE
THE GENERATOR IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTIES OF THE WASTE THAN IS
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, AND IT WOULD THUS BE LESS EXPENSIVE FOR THE
GENERATOR TO CONDUCT THE REQUIRED ANALYSIS. THE AGENCY BELIEVES,
HOWEVER, THAT ALTHOUGH MANY GENERATORS MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE
PROPERTIES OF THE WASTE WHICH THEY GENERATE, THERE ARE MANY COMPANIES
WHICH GENERATE WASTE ABOUT WHOSE PROPERTIES THE GENERATORS KNOW VERY
LITTLE. IN THE LATTER CASE, FOR THOSE COMPANIES LACKING ANALYTICAL
EQUIPMENT, THE COST OF SENDING THEIR WASTE TO COMMERCIAL LABORATORIES
FOR ANALYSIS IS COMPARABLE TO THE COST OF ANALYSIS AT FACILITIES WITH
ON-SITE LABS, OR FACILITIES WHICH SUB-CONTRACT THEIR ANALYTICAL WORK.
IN ADDITION, MANY GENERATORS WILL NOT HAVE THE "HANDS ON" KNOWLEDGE OF
THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF THE WASTE AT ANY
PARTICULAR TYPE OF FACILITY. OWNERS OR OPERATORS WILL NECESSARILY BE IN
A BETTER POSITION TO USE THAT KNOWLEDGE. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE
APPROACH TAKEN IN THE PROPOSED RULES (WHEREBY OWNERS OR OPERATORS CAN
EITHER CONDUCT THE ANALYSIS THEMSELVES OR ACQUIRE THE ANALYSIS FROM THE
GENERATOR) PROVIDES AS FLEXIBLE AND COST EFFECTIVE A MEANS AS THAT
SUGGESTED BY THE COMMENTERS, TO ENSURE THAT OWNERS OR OPERATORS OBTAIN
THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO MANAGE HAZARDOUS WASTE.
A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD SPECIFY
THAT THE WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIRED UNDER THE SECTION 3001 REGULATIONS
SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION
3004. THE AGENCY DOES NOT AGREE WITH THESE COMMENTERS BECAUSE THE
INFORMATION NEEDED TO CHARACTERIZE A WASTE (AS REQUIRED IN PROPOSED
SECTION 250.13) MAY OVERLAP WITH, BUT IS NOT IDENTICAL TO, THE
INFORMATION NEEDED TO MANAGE A WASTE (AS REQUIRED IN PROPOSED SECTION
250.43). FOR EXAMPLE, TO TREAT A WASTE, ONE NEEDS TO KNOW NOT ONLY THE
CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE, BUT ALSO THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE
WASTE WITH THE TECHNIQUES AND CHEMICAL REAGENTS USED AT THE FACILITY TO
TREAT THE WASTE. THE WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 3001 MAY NOT
PROVIDE THE LATTER TYPE OF INFORMATION, AND THUS, DOES NOT FULLY SATISFY
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 3004.
HOWEVER, THE STANDARD HAS BEEN REVISED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT DATA
DEVELOPED PURSUANT TO SECTION 3001 MAY BE INCLUDED IN THE DATA BASE THAT
THE OWNER OR THE OPERATOR COMPILES TO COMPLY WITH THE SECTION 3004 WASTE
ANALYSIS STANDARDS.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE NATURE AND THE SCOPE OF THE REQUIRED
ANALYSIS SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFIC. THE AGENCY PURPOSELY WROTE
OBJECTIVE-ORIENTED WASTE ANALYSIS STANDARDS IN PROPOSED SECTION 250.43
BECAUSE THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF WASTE
DIFFERS DEPENDING ON THE METHODS USED TO MANAGE WASTE (E.G., THE
INFORMATION NEEDED TO INCINERATE WASTE DIFFERS FROM THAT NEEDED TO
NEUTRALIZE WASTE). HOWEVER, THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE REGULATIONS CAN
BE SOMEWHAT MORE DETAILED REGARDING THE STANDARDS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 028 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113392
REGULATION
FOR THIS REASON, IN ADDITION TO THE GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS STANDARDS
WHICH APPLY TO ALL FACILITIES, THE FINAL RULES ALSO INCLUDE, IN MOST
TECHNICAL SECTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS, WASTE ANALYSIS STANDARDS SPECIFIC
TO THE MANAGEMENT METHODS REGULATED IN THAT PARTICULAR SECTION. FOR
EXAMPLE, THE SECTION 265.345 STANDARDS FOR INCINERATION CONTAIN SPECIFIC
PARAMETERS (E.G., HALOGEN AND SULFUR CONTENT AND HEATING VALUE) FOR
WHICH WASTE MUST BE ANALYZED BEFORE IT IS INCINERATED. BY INCLUDING THE
MORE DETAILED INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE TECHNICAL SECTIONS OF
THE REGULATIONS, WHILE LEAVING THE MORE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE
GENERAL FACILITY SECTION OF THE REGULATIONS, THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT
THE REGULATIONS ARE SEPCIFIC ENOUGH SO THAT OWNERS OR OPERATORS WILL
KNOW WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM, AND YET ARE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH SO THAT AN
OWNER OR OPERATOR WILL ONLY BE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT ANALYSES WHICH ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR THE MANAGEMENT METHODS USED AT HIS FACILITY.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS OBJECTED TO THE MINIMUM ANNUAL RETESTING
REQUIREMENT, STATING THAT IT WAS UNNECESSARY TO REANALYZE WASTE WHEN THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR IS CONFIDENT THAT THE PROPERTIES OF THE WASTES ARE
UNCHANGED.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE PROPERTIES OF MOST WASTE STREAMS VARY
WITHIN THE COURSE OF A YEAR, AND THEREFORE MOST OWNERS OR OPERATORS
SHOULD RE-ANALYZE WASTE, AT LEAST ANNUALLY, TO DETERMINE IF SUCH
VARIATIONS WILL INFLUENCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE METHOD USED AT THE
FACILITY TO MANAGE WASTE. HOWEVER, IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CORRECTLY
BELIEVES THAT THE PROPERTIES OF THE WASTE WHICH HE MANAGES WILL NOT
CHANGE, THEN TO RE-ANALYZE THE WASTE WOULD BE AN UNNECESSARY EXPENSE.
THEREFORE, THE MINIMUM ANNUAL RETESTING REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN DELETED
FROM THE REVISED RULES. HOWEVER, THE REGULATIONS DO REQUIRE THAT, AT A
MINIMUM, WASTE MUST BE RE-ANALYZED (1) WHEN THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS
NOTIFIED, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE, THAT THE PROCESS OR OPERATION
GENERATING THE WASTE HAS CHANGED IN A WAY THAT WOULD LEAD HIM TO BELIEVE
THAT THE HAZARDOUS PROPERTY OR CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WASTE WOULD
CHANGE, AND (2) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, WHEN THE RESULTS OF THE
VERIFICATION ANALYSIS REQUIRED IN SECTIONS 264.13 AND 265.13 INDICATE
THAT THE COMPOSITION OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WASTE DO NOT MATCH THE
IDENTITY OF THE WASTE DESIGNATED ON THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST.
OBJECTIONS WERE ALSO RAISED REGARDING THE REQUIREMENT TO ANALYZE
WASTE FOR THE FOUR PROPERTIES SPECIFIED IN PROPOSED SECTION 250.43(H)
(I.E. PHYSICAL APPEARANCE, SPECIFIC GRAVITY, PH, AND VAPOR PRESSURE),
BECAUSE ANALYSIS FOR THESE PROPERTIES IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL
CATEGORIES OF WASTE. MANY COMMENTERS ALSO FELT THAT TO REQUIRE OWNERS
OR OPERATORS TO SAMPLE EACH TRUCKLOAD OF WASTE FOR THESE FOUR PROPERTIES
WAS UNREASONABLE FOR MULTIPLE TRUCKLOADS OF WASTE WHICH HAVE UNIFORM
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT MEASURING FOR THE FOUR PROPERTIES SPECIFIED IN
PROPOSED SECTION 250.43(H) MAY BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES
OF WASTE AND MAY BE UNNECESSARY FOR MULTIPLE TRUCKLOADS OF UNIFORM
WASTE. THEREFORE, THE FOUR PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE WASTE
ANALYSIS STANDARDS. INSTEAD, THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE THAT OWNERS OR
OPERATORS DEVELOP AND FOLLOW A WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN WHICH SPECIFIES THE
TESTS TO BE USED, AND THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THESE TESTS WILL BE
CONDUCTED, TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF INCOMING WASTE MANAGED AT THE
FACILITY. THE PLAN MUST BE PREPARED AND FOLLOWED DURING INTERIM STATUS.
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR MAY REQUEST THE PLAN AT ANY TIME AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS. THE AGENCY ALSO WILL REIVEW THE
CONTENT OF THE PLAN WHEN IT EVALUATES THE FACILITY'S PERMIT APPLICATION.
WHERE THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR BELIEVES THAT THE FACILITY'S WASTE
ANALYSIS PLAN IS INADEQUATE, HE WILL REQUIRE THAT THE PLAN BE MODIFIED
TO INCLUDE PROCEDURES WHICH HE BELIEVES ARE APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE THE
IDENTITY OF INCOMING WASTE TO THE FACILITY.
IN ADDITION TO THE PROCEDURES USED TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF
INCOMING WASTE, THE FINAL RULES ALSO REQUIRE THAT THE FACILITY'S WASTE
ANALYSIS PLAN DESCRIBE:
(1) THE PARAMETERS FOR WHICH EACH WASTE WILL BE ANALYZED IN THE
DETAILED CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ANALYSIS REQUIRED FOR EACH WASTE MANAGED
AT THE FACILITY;
(2) THE TEST METHODS TO BE USED TO TEST FOR THESE PARAMETERS; AND
(3) THE SAMPLING METHODOLOGY WHICH WILL BE USED TO OBTAIN
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES OF THE WASTE TO BE ANALYZED.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR DEVLOPING AND
MAINTAINING A WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN WILL NOT ONLY ALLOW OWNERS OR
OPERATORS TO TAILOR THEIR WASTE ANALYSIS PROCEDURES TO THE TYPE OF
WASTES AND TECHNIQUES WHICH THE FACILITY USES TO MANAGE THESE WASTES,
BUT WILL ALSO PROVIDE THE AGENCY WITH A REVIEW MECHANISM WHICH WILL
ENCOURAGE OWNERS OR OPERATORS TO CONDUCT THOROUGH ANALYSES OF THE WASTES
WHICH THEY MANAGE. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SELF-DEVELOPED WASTE ANALYSIS
PLAN, AS WITH THE OTHER PLANS REQUIRED IN THESE REGULATIONS, IS A
SEPARATE, ENFORCEABLE, REGULATORY REQUIREMENT.
EPA IS PROMULGATING WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS IN PART 265, BUT WILL
ACCEPT COMMENTS ON THEIR APPROPRIATENESS AS INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY PROPOSED AS INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS.
SECURITY. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED SECURITY STANDARDS WAS TO
PREVENT THE UNKNOWING OR UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OF PEOPLE OR LIVESTOCK UNTO
THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF FACILITIES. TO ACCOMPLISH THIS OBJECTIVE, THE
PROPOSED RULES INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS WHICH SPECIFIED THE HEIGHT OF THE
FENCE, THE MEANS TO CONTROL ENTRY AT THE GATE, AND THE HEIGHT OF THE
LETTERS ON THE WARNING SIGN WHICH WAS TO BE POSED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE
ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED RULES CONTAINED
RATHER FLEXIBLE VARIANCES FROM THE SEPCIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND
SIGNS.
MOST OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE SECURITY STANDARDS ADDRESSED THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A SIX-FOOT FENCE. THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTERS FELT
THAT THE STANDARD SHOULD ALLOW MEANS OTHER THAN A SIX FOOT FENCE (OR THE
ALTERNATIVES SPECIFIED IN THE "NOTE" TO THE STANDARD) TO PREVENT ENTRY
ONTO A FACILITY. SEVERAL COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE STANDARD BE
WRITTEN IN TERMS OF A PERFORMANCE STANDARD, AND A FEW COMMENTERS NOTED
THAT THE IMPLICIT PERFORMANCE STANDARD IN THE PROPOSED RULES, WHICH
REQUIRED THE PREVENTION OF UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY ONTO A FACILITY, SHOULD BE
CHANGED TO REQUIRE THE DETERRENCE OF UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY ONTO A FACILITY,
BECAUSE IT IS IMPRACTICAL TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CLIMBABLE FENCE. IN
ADDITION, A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT FACILITIES SHOULD NOT
HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE SECURITY REQUIREMENTS IF THE WASTES ARE
SUFFICIENTLY BENIGN SO THAT PEOPLE NEED NOT BE KEPT AWAY FROM THE SITE.
FURTHERMORE, A FEW COMMENTERS POINTED OUT THAT THE ACTIVE PORTION OF A
FACILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE SURROUNDED BY A FENCE IF THE ACTIVE
PORTION IS LOCATED WITHIN A FACILITY OR PLANT THAT MEETS THE SECURITY
REQUIREMENTS.
IN RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS, THE SECURITY STANDARDS HAVE BEEN
REWRITTEN TO INCLUDE THE GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD THAT A FACILITY'S
SECURITY SYSTEM MUST PREVENT THE UNKNOWING ENTRY OF PEOPLE, AND MINIMIZE
THE POTENTIAL FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OF PEOPLE OR LIVESTOCK ONTO THE
ACTIVE PORTIONS OF FACILITIES. THE FINAL RULES CONTAIN TWO CONDITIONS
FOR AN EXEMPTION FROM THE PERFORMANCE STANDARD: (1) IF UNAUTHORIZED OR
UNKNOWING ENTRY WILL NOT RESULT IN INJURY TO PEOPLE OR LIVESTOCK WHO
MIGHT ENTER THE FACILITY, AND (2) IF SUCH ENTRY WILL NOT RESULT IN
INJURY TO THE ENVIRONMENT (E.G., AS A RESULT OF DISTURBING THE WASTE OR
THE EQUIPMENT WITHIN THE ACTIVE PORTION).
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 029 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113393
REGULATION
BECAUSE THESE TWO CONDITIONS ARE RARELY CONCURRENTLY SATISFIED, THE
AGENCY DOES NOT EXPECT THAT MANY SITES WILL BE EXEMPT FROM THE SECURITY
REQUIREMENTS.
TO INDICATE HOW TO COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL PERFORMANCE STANDARD, A
REVISION OF THE PROPOSED FENCING REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE
FINAL RULES. THE HEIGHT OF A FENCE, IF USED, IS NOT SPECIFIED, AND
ALTERNATIVES TO FENCES ARE ALLOWED. IN ADDITION, THE STANDARD HAS BEEN
MADE MORE FLEXIBLE BY ALLOWING THE USE OF AN AROUND-THE-CLOCK
SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, INSTEAD OF THE PHYSICAL BARRIER (I.E., A FENCE)
SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSED RULES, TO CONTROL ENTRY ONTO A FACILITY. THE
AGENCY BELIEVES THAT A CONTINUOUS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM CAN BE AS
EFFECTIVE AS A PHYSICAL BARRIER TO CONTROL ACCESS TO THE ACTIVE PORTION
BECAUSE, WHEN AN UNAUTHORIZED PERSON APPROACHES THIS AREA, FACILITY
GUARDS OR FACILITY PERSONNEL CAN ENSURE THAT THE PERSON DOES NOT ENTER
THE ACTIVE PORTION.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT WHEN ACCESS TO THE FACILITY IS ALREADY
CONTROLLED BY AN ADEQUATE SECURITY SYSTEM, TO ERECT A FENCE OR OTHER
BARRIER AROUND THE ACTIVE PORTION WOULD NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
PROTECTION TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. ACCORDINGLY, EPA HAS
CLARIFIED THE REGULATIONS SO THAT AN OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE
THAT THE ACTIVE PORTION OF HIS FACILITY COMPLIES WITH THE SECURITY
REGULATIONS, BASED UPON THE SECURITY SYSTEM OF THE FACILITY (OR THE
MANUFACTURING OPERATION) WITHIN WHICH THE ACTIVE PORTION IS LOCATED.
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPOSED
STANDARD, WHICH ONLY REQUIRED SIGNS TO BE POSTED AT THE GATES TO THE
ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY, COULD RESULT IN INADEQUATE WARNING TO
UNKNOWING PERSONS APPROACHING FACILITIES WHERE FENCES ARE NOT USED TO
CONTROL ACCESS TO THE FACILITY. FOR THIS REASON, SEVERAL COMMENTERS
SUGGESTED THAT THE STANDARD SHOULD REQUIRE THAT SIGNS BE POSED IN
SUFFICIENT NUMBERS TO BE SEEN FROM ANY APPROACH TO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF
THE FACILITY.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT BECAUSE THE SECURITY SYSTEMS (INCLUDING
FENCES) USED TO CONTROL ACCESS TO FACILITIES WILL NOT BE IMPENETRABLE,
SIGNS SHOULD BE POSTED ALONG THE PERIPHERY OF THE ACTIVE PORTION TO WARN
UNKNOWING PEOPLE THAT ENTERING ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION IS POTENTIALLY
HAZARDOUS. THEREFORE, EPA HAS TAKEN THE COMMENTERS' SUGGESTION AND HAS
REVISED THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE WARNING SIGNS.
ALTHOUGH THE AGENCY RECEIVED NO CRITICISM OF THE FOUR-INCH
LETTERING REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNS, THE UNDERLYING THEME OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS WAS THAT THE PROPOSED SECURITY
STANDARDS WERE TOO SPECIFIC. BECAUSE THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT
THE FOUR-INCH LETTERING REQUIREMENT MAY HAVE BEEN TOO INFLEXIBLE,
A MORE PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED PROVISION, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE
WARNING ON THE SIGN BE LEGIBLE FROM AT LEAST 7 1/2 METERS (25
FEET), HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED FOR IT IN THE FINAL RULES. THIS
NEW APPROACH WILL PROVIDE MORE FLEXIBILITY.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT BECAUSE THE "NOTE" TO THE PROPOSED STANDARD
PROVIDED A VARIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE STATEMENT: "WARING --
UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT" ON THE SIGN, NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
ON THIS ASPECT OF THE STANDARD. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT A VARIANCE TO
THE WORDING REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE FINAL RULES FOR
EXISTING SIGNS, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARILY EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE
SIGNS AT FACILITIES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN THE EXACT WORDING SPECIFIED IN
THE FINAL STANDARD, BUT WHICH NONETHELESS GIVE ADEQUATE WARNING TO
UNKNOWING PEOPLE TO STAY AWAY. HOWEVER, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEW SIGNS
POSTED AT HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES ARE UNIFORM, THE AGENCY BELIEVES
THAT THEY SHOULD CONTAIN THE WORDING SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD.
THEREFORE, IN THE FINAL RULES, THE VARIANCE TO THE MESSAGE ON THE SIGN
ONLY APPLIES TO EXISTING SIGNS.
IN ADDITION, THE AGENCY HAS SUBSTITUTED THE WORD "DANGER" FOR
"WARNING" IN THE FINAL RULES. THE REASON FOR THIS CHANGE IS THE WORD
"DANGER", MORE THAN "WARNING", INDICATES THE POTENTIAL FOR HARM.
5. GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 250.43-6 OF THE
PROPOSED REGULATION SPECIFIED SEVEN PARTS OR ASPECTS OF A FACILITY WHICH
OWNERS OR OPERATORS WERE REQUIRED TO INSPECT DAILY FOR SPECIFIC SIGNS OF
DETERIORATION OR MALFUNCTION. OWNERS OR OPERATORS WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO
RECORD OBSERVATIONS NOTED DURING THE INSPECTION IN THE FACILITY'S
OPERATING LOG.
THE AGENCY RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS CONCERNING THE SPECIFIC LISTING OF
REQUIRED INSPECTION ITEMS (I.E., DIKES, FENCES, ETC.) AND THE ABSOLUTE
REQUIREMENT FOR DAILY INSPECTIONS. SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTERS NOTED THAT
FOR SOME OF THE LISTED ITEMS (FOR EXAMPLE, FUGITIVE EMISSIONS), THE
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS WERE EITHER NOT APPLICABLE TO ALL FACILITY TYPES,
OR WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL TO IMPLEMENT. OTHERS NOTED THAT SUCH A LIST
COULD NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE POSSIBLE ITEMS WHICH SHOULD BE INSPECTED.
AS FOR INSPECTION FREQUENCY, MANY OF THE COMMENTS ARGUED THAT DAILY
INSPECTIONS ARE SIMPLY UNNECESSARY. THEY POINTED OUT THAT, IN MANY
CASES, THE RATE OF DETERIORATION IS SO SLOW (IN THE CORROSION OF TANKS,
AND THE EROSION OF DIKES, FOR EXAMPLE) THAT OCCASIONAL INSPECTIONS ARE
SUFFICIENT TO REVEAL ANY PROBLEMS LONG BEFORE FAILURE OCCURS.
THE THRUST OF THESE COMMENTS WAS THAT THE SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE
INSPECTED AND THE FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THE AGENCY AGREES, AND HAS
REVISED THE REGULATIONS TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATORS TO DEVELOP AND
FOLLOW HIS OWN WRITTEN INSPECTION SCHEDULE. THIS WILL BE BASED ON THE
FACILITY'S CRITICAL PROCESSES, EQUIPMENT, AND STRUCTURES, AND ON THE
POTENTIAL FOR FAILURE AND THE RATE OF ANY DETERIORATION PROCESSES
(CORROSION, EROSION, ETC) WHICH MAY LEAD TO FAILURE. COMPLIANCE WITH
THE PLAN IS A SEPARATE, ENFORCEABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENT.
DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS, THE AGENCY WILL REVIEW THE INSPECTION
SCHEDULE FOR ITS ADEQUACY IN PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT, FOR COMPREHENSIVENESS, AND FOR CONSISTENCY WITH INSPECTION
SCHEDULES FOR SIMILAR FACILITIES. THE AGENCY WILL ALSO ASSIST THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR IN OPTIMIZING THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
SCHEDULE BASED ON ITS EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR FACILITIES. DURING
INTERIM STATUS, CONSULTATION AND REVIEW WITH THE AGENCY WILL NOT
NORMALLY BE REQUIRED.
THE AGENCY REALIZES THAT NOT ALL OWNERS OR OPERATORS ARE EQUALLY
KNOWLEDGEABLE. THEREFORE, EPA HAS RETAINED MINIMUM SPECIFIC INSPECTION
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE SOME OBVIOUS INSPECTION POINTS, AND SOME
MINIMUM FREQUENCIES FOR INSPECTING THEM. THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED INTO THE REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC FACILITY TYPES (TANKS,
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, ETC.) TO CLARIFY HOW THEY ARE TO BE APPLIED TO
THESE FACILITIES.
THE FINAL RULES ALSO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO MAKE A RECORD
OF ALL INSPECTIONS, AND TO KEEP IT ON FILE FOR THREE YEARS. IN ADDITION
TO INFORMATION ON THE OBSERVATION, THIS RECORD MUST SPECIFY WHEN THE
INSPECTION WAS MADE, WHO MADE IT, AND WHEN ANY REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE
RECORD CAN TAKE THE FORM OF AN INSPECTION CHECKLIST; THIS WOULD COMBINE
THE RECORDKEEPING WITH A USEFUL INSPECTION PROCEDURE. IN ANY CASE, THE
RECORD WILL HELP ASSURE THE AGENCY THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS IN FACT
CONDUCTING INSPECTIONS, AND IS MAKING ANY NEEDED REPAIRS. ADDITIONALLY,
SHOULD AN ENVIRONMENTAL OR HUMAN HEALTH INCIDENT ACTUALLY OCCUR, THESE
RECORDS WILL HELP TO RECONSTRUCT THE EVENTS THAT LED TO IT, AND MAY ALSO
PROVIDE A VALUABLE RESOURCE FOR ANY EMERGENCY DECISIONS. AS ONE
INCIDENTAL BENEFIT, THE RECORD WILL HELP MANAGEMENT AUDIT THE
RELIABILITY OF EQUIPMENT, THE EFFICIENCY OF MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, AND
THE EFFECTIVENSS OF THE INSPECTION SCHEDULE.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 030 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113394
REGULATION
6. PERSONNEL TRAINING. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS WAS TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR MISTAKES WHICH MIGHT
THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT BY ENSURING THAT FACILITY
PERSONNEL ACQUIRE EXPERTISE IN THE AREAS TO WHICH THEY ARE ASSIGNED.
THE PROPOSED STANDARDS INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS WHICH SPECIFIED THE TIME BY
WHICH FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST OBTAIN THE TRAINING NECESSARY TO DO THEIR
JOBS, THE RECORDS TO BE MAINTAINED AT THE FACILITY OF THE TRAINING
RECEIVED BY ITS EMPLOYEES, AND THE MINIMUM FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE
INITIAL TRAINING RECEIVED BY THE EMPLOYEES MUST BE REVIEWED. IN
ADDITION, THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED FACILITY PERSONNEL TO BE FAMILIAR
WITH THE FACILITY'S CONTINGENCY PLAN.
MANY OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED RULES ADDRESSED THE
FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE REQUIRED TRAINING PROGRAMS. SOME COMMENTERS
SUGGESTED THAT THE STANDARDS ALLOW IN-HOUSE TRAINING PROGRAMS AND
ON-THE-JOB TRAINING IN PLACE OF THE FORMAL CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION IN
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUIRED IN THE PROPOSED RULES. SEVERAL
OTHER COMMENTERS REQUESTED THAT THE REGULATIONS SPECIFY THE TYPE,
LENGTH, AND INTENSITY OF THE COURSES OF INSTRUCTION TO BE ADMINISTERED
TO FACILITY PERSONNEL.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT FORMAL CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION MAY NOT ALWAYS BE
THE BEST APPROACH TO TRAINING, AND THE SUPERVISED ON-THE-JOB TRAINING IS
A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR, OR SUPPLEMENT TO, FORMAL INSTRUCTION.
ACCORDINGLY, THE FINAL TRAINING STANDARDS REFLECT THE AGENCY'S
ACCEPTANCE OF IN-HOUSE TRAINING PROGRAMS AND ON-THE-JOB TRAINING AS A
MEANS OF COMPLYING WITH THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, THE
CONTENT, SCHEDULE, AND TECHNIQUES TO BE USED IN THE ON-THE-JOB TRAINING
PROGRAM MUST BE DESCRIBED IN THE TRAINING RECORDS MAINTAINED AT THE
FACILITY AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROGRAM DESCRIBED IN THE TRAINING RECORDS IS A
SEPARATE, ENFORCEABLE REGULATORY REQUIREMENT.
GIVEN THE VARIABILITY IN WASTE TYPES, MANAGEMENT PROCESSES, AND
EMPLOYEE FUNCTIONS AT HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, THE AGENCY BELIEVES
THAT IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR DESIRABLE TO RIGIDLY SPECIFY TRAINING
COURSES IN REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY IS PREPARING A TRAINING
MANUAL WHICH WILL PROVIDE ADVICE ON DESIRABLE TYPES OF INSTRUCTION FOR
THE VARIOUS JOBS CARRIED OUT AT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS WERE CONCERNED THAT THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD FOR
COMPLYING WITH THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS MAY BE TOO SHORT, BECAUSE THERE
MAY BE A SHORTAGE OF FORMAL TRAINING PROGRAMS IN HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT ITS ACCEPTANCE OF SUPERVISED ON-THE-JOB
TRAINING TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS WILL HELP
TO OFFSET THE PROBLEMS CAUSED BY A POSSIBLE SHORTAGE OF FORMAL TRAINING
PROGRAMS. WHERE FORMAL PROGRAMS ARE UNAVAILABLE, A FACILITY CAN USE
IN-HOUSE TRAINING PROGRAMS AND SUPERVISED ON-THE-JOB TRAINING TO PROVIDE
THE REQUIRED TRAINING. BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE PHASE I STANDARDS
ARE NON-TECHNICAL (E.G., THE MANIFEST AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS),
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT MOST TRAINING CAN BE CONDUCTED IN-HOUSE. WHEN
THE PHASE II STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED, FACILITY PERSONNEL WILL HAVE
ANOTHER SIX MONTHS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PHASE II STANDARDS TO
ACQUIRE THE EXPERTISE NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.
THUS, THE SHORTAGE IN FORMAL COURSES IN HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SHOULD NOT CAUSE FACILITY PERSONNEL TO MISS THE DEADLINE BY WHICH
COMPLIANCE WITH THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS MUST BE ACHIEVED.
COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE SIX-MONT "GRACE PERIOD" FOR UNTRAINED
EMPLOYEES SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED TO EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS. WORK AND TRAINING SCHEDULES MAY MAKE THAT AN
IMPRACTICAL REQUIREMENT, BUT THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED, FOR SAFETY REASONS,
TO REQUIRE THAT UNTRAINED EMPLOYEES WORK ONLY IN SUPERVISED POSITIONS.
A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS WERE ALSO CONCERNED THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
DETAILED WRITTEN JOB DESCRIPTION MIGHT LEAD TO UNION GRIEVANCES AND
ARBITRATION. FOR THIS REASON, THE COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE
STANDARD BE REVISED TO ALLOW THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS TO BE WRITTEN IN A
MANNER SIMILAR TO DESCRIPTIONS FOR OTHER SIMILAR POSITIONS IN THE SAME
COMPANY LOCATION OR BARGAINING UNIT.
IT WAS NOT THE AGENCY'S INTENT TO INTERFERE IN LABOR-MANAGEMENT
ISSUES. EPA'S ONLY INTEREST IN THE JOB DESCRIPTIONS OF FACILITY
PERSONNEL IS TO ENABLE THE AGENCY TO DETERMINE IF EACH PERSON IS
RECEIVING A LEVEL TRAINING THAT IS COMMENSURATE WITH THE PERSON'S DUTIES
AND RESPONSIBILITIES. SINCE THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE SUGGESTED
REVISION OF THE RECORDKEEPING REQUIRMENTS WILL NOT DIMINISH THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR'S ABILITY TO MAKE THIS DETERMINATION, THE STANDARDS HAVE
BEEN REVISED ACCORDING TO THE COMMENTERS' SUGGESTION.
TWO OTHER STANDARDS HAVE NOW BEEN PLACED WITT THE TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST OF THESE STANDARDS SPECIFIES THE LENGTH OF TIME
THE FACILITY MUST KEEP TRAINING RECORDS. THIS REQUIREMENT WAS PROPOSED
IN THE SECTION OF THE REGULATIONS DEALING WITH MANIFEST, RECORDKEEPING,
AND REPORTING (SECTION 250.43-5). HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE NEED
TO CROSS REFERENCE WITHIN THE REGULATIONS, THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED TO
PLACE ALL OF THE RECORDKEEPING STANDARDS WHICH DEAL WITH TRAINING INTO
THE SECTION OF THE REGULATIONS ON TRAINING. SIMILARLY, THE ELEMENTS OF
THE FACILITY'S EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES WITH WHICH FACILITY
PERSONNEL MUST BECOME FAMILIAR HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS.
7. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE AGENCY HAS ADDED GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR HANDLING IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN SECTION
265.17 OF THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. IN THE PHASE II REGULATIONS,
THE AGENCY PLANS TO AMEND PART 264 BY MOVING SECTION 264.36 TO A NEW
SECTION 264.17 (A), AND BY ADOPTING SECTION 265.17(B) AS A NEW SECTION
264.17(B). THEREFORE, THE AGENCY WILL USE ANY COMMENTS ON SECTION
265.17 FOR THAT PURPOSE ALSO.
AS THE PRESENT DEFINITION OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES REVEALS, THE
PROBLEMS POSED BY INCOMPATIBLE WASTES FALL INTO TWO GENERAL AREAS. THE
FIRST COVERS WASTES WHICH ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MATERIALS CONTAINING
THEM BECAUSE THEY WOULD CORRODE OR OTHERWISE CAUSE THE DECAY OF THOSE
MATERIALS. THE STANDARDS IN THE SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS WERE DRAWN FROM
THE PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR STORAGE GENERALLY, TANKS, CONTAINERS,
TREATMENT GENERALLY, BASINS, AND CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT FACILITIES, AND NOW ARE APPLIED TO WASTE PILES AS WELL,
BECAUSE THEY POSE SIMILAR PROBLEMS. THE AGENCY HAS CHOSEN SLIGHTLY
DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS TO THESE PROBLEMS FOR CONTAINERS, TANKS AND
TREATMENT FACILITIES, AND WASTE PILES. THESE SOLUTIONS ARE DISCUSSED IN
THE SEPARATE SECTIONS FOR THESE TYPES OF EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES.
THE SECOND AND BROADEST GROUP OF PROBLEMS IS THE POTENTIAL FOR THE
CREATION OF HARMFUL REACTIONS OR SUBSTANCES DURING THE MIXING OF
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES AND THE TREATMENT OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES.
THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES, APPENDIX I TO SUBPART D
OF PROPOSED PART 250, AND THE NOTE TO PROPOSED SECTION 250.45(C)
INDICATED THAT A VARIETY OF SUBSTANCES AND REACTIONS WERE OF CONCERN.
THE PRESENT DEFINITION AND SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN DRAWN FROM
THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WITH SOME MODIFICATIONS.
THE REGULATIONS AND APPENDIX V HAVE BEEN COORDINATED, AS SUGGESTED IN
PART BY ONE COMMENTER. SEVERAL STANDARDS HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE PART
OF THE PROPOSED DEFINITION CONCERNING THE VOLATILIZATION OF IGNITABLE
AND TOXIC CHEMICALS HAS BEEN PARTLY SUBSUMED INTO THE PARTS COVERING
PRODUCTION OF FLAMMABLE OR TOXIC FUMES AND GASES.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 031 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113395
REGULATION
AS EXPLAINED ELSEWHERE, FURTHER REGULATION OF VOLATILE WASTE IS BEING
POSTPONED. THE PART OF THE PROPOSED DEFINITION COVERING
SHOCK-SENSITIVE, FRICTION-SENSITIVE, AND SIMILARLY UNSTABLE SUBSTANCES
HAS BEEN DELETED BECAUSE REACTIVE SUBSTANCES ARE ADEQUATELY COVERED IN
THE SECTIONS DEALING DIRECTLY WITH THEM, AND THERE ARE FEW OR NO DAMAGE
INCIDENTS RESULTING FROM THE PRODUCTION OF SUCH SUBSTANCES FROM
NON-REACTIVE WASTES. THE DETAILED AIR EMISSION FORMULAS IN THE NOTE TO
PROPOSED SECTION 250.45(C) HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
THAT THE OSHA STANDARDS EMPLOYED THERE WERE NOT GENERALLY APPROPRIATE
FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES.
FINALLY, APPENDIX I TO SUBPART D OF PROPOSED PART 250 INDICATED IN
GROUPS 2-A AND 2-B THAT TOXIC WASTES WERE INCOMPATIBLE WITH FLAMMABLE OR
EXPLOSIVE WASTES BECAUSE MIXTURES OF THEM WOULD RELEASE TOXIC SUBSTANCES
IN FIRES OR EXPLOSIONS. NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THIS STANDARD, BUT
THE AGENCY IS STILL CONSIDERING WHETHER AND HOW TOXIC AND IGNITABLE,
FLAMMABLE, OR REACTIVE WASTES OR MATERIALS SHOULD BE SEGREGATED DURING
TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL IN ORDER TO AVOID THE RELEASE OF TOXIC
SUBSTANCES IN CASE OF FIRE OR EXPLOSION. THE PROBLEM IS COMPOUNDED BY
THE FACT THAT SOME TOXIC SUBSTANCES ARE THEMSELVES IGNITABLE, FLAMMABLE,
OR REACTIVE. THIS PORTION OF THE APPENDIX (NOW APPENDIX V TO PART 265)
HAS BEEN DELETED FOR THE TIME BEING, AND THE AGENCY SOLICITS COMMENTS ON
THIS PROBLEM.
MANY COMMENTERS POINTED OUT THAT INCOMPATIBLE WASTES SUCH AS
ACIDS AND BASES ARE FREQUENTLY MIXED SO THAT THEY WILL NEUTRALIZE
EACH OTHER, AND THAT THIS MAY BE DONE SAFELY SO THAT VIOLENT
REACTIONS ARE AVOIDED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN
MODIFIED TO ALLOW MIXING INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IF THE GENERAL
STANDARDS DESCRIBED BELOW ARE COMPLIED WITH. IN ADDITION,
CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF ONE COMMENTER, MATERIALS OTHER
THAN WASTES, SUCH AS TREATMENT REAGENTS OR NON-HAZARDOUS
WASTES, MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HAZARDOUS WASTES AND ARE
THEREFORE INCLUDED IN THE INCOMPATIBLE WASTE REGULATIONS. THESE
REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN EXTENDED TO STORAGE FACILITIES AS WELL
AS TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES, BECAUSE THEY CAN EXPERIENCE
SIMILAR PROBLEMS WHEN INCOMPATIBLE WASTES ARE MIXED. IF FACILITY
OPERATORS MIX INCOMPATIBLE WASTES, THEY MUST ANTICIPATE THE
REACTIONS WHICH MAY OCCUR AND THE SUBSTANCES WHICH MAY BE FORMED,
AND CONTROL THE MIXING SO AS TO AVOID OR CONTROL THE REACTIONS
AND SUBSTANCES PRODUCED.
THE GENERAL STANDARDS IN SECTION 265.17(B) ARE INTENDED TO INSURE
THAT SEVERAL UNDESIRABLE RESULTS ARE AVOIDED WHEN IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE
WASTES ARE HANDLED OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES ARE MIXED. EXTREME HEAT OR
PRESSURE, FIRES OR EXPLOSIONS, VIOLENT REACTIONS, AND DAMAGE TO THE
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE DEVICE OR FACILITY CONTAINING THE WASTE ARE
CLEARLY UNDESIRABLE BECAUSE OF THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY WILL CAUSE OR
LEAD TO INJURY OR DEATH OF FACILITY PERSONNEL, AND THE SPREAD OF TOXIC
WASTES INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. THESE STANDARDS WERE UNCONTROVERSIAL. THE
PRODUCTION OF UNCONTROLLED FLAMMABLE FUMES OR GASES IN SUFFICIENT
QUANTITIES TO POSE THE RISK OF FIRE OR EXPLOSION IS UNDESIRABLE FOR
SIMILAR REASONS. THE CREATION OF UNCONTROLLED TOXIC DUSTS, MISTS,
FUMES, AND GASES IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH IS
ALSO PROHIBITED, IN ORDER TO PROTECT BOTH FACILITY PERSONNEL AND PEOPLE
OFF-SITE. THE AGENCY IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED HERE WITH GASES SUCH AS
CHLORINE, HYDROGEN SULFIDE, AND HYDROGEN CYANIDE, WHICH SOME MIXTURES OF
WASTES OR WASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES MAY PRODUCE. AS EXPLAINED ELSEWHERE
THE AGENCY NEED NOT RELY ON THE CLEAN AIR ACT TO REGULATE AIRBORNE
EMISSIONS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES.
FINALLY, BECAUSE THE POSSIBLE UNDESIRABLE RESULTS FROM THE MIXING OR
HANDLING OF WASTES MAY BE ENORMOUSLY VARIED, THE GENERAL REGULATIONS
PROHIBIT THE CREATION OF CONDITIONS LIKE THE ONES MENTIONED ABOVE WHICH
THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS STANDARD REQUIRES OWNERS
AND OPERATORS OF FACILITIES TO BE AWARE OF THE POSSIBLE RESULTS OF
TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES, AND THE
COMMINGLING OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES, TO AVOID CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD POSE
THREATS TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT SIMILAR TO THE ONES
SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE REGULATION.
THE REGULATIONS ON IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES ARE TYPICALLY MORE
RESTRICTIVE THAN THOSE ON INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. WHILE INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES REQUIRE ATTENTION PRIMARILY AT THE TIME THEY ARE INTRODUCED INTO
A FACILITY OR TREATMENT PROCESS, IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES POSE A
CONTINUING DANGER OF IGNITION OR REACTION, AND REQUIRE CONTINUING
PROTECTION FROM CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD CAUSE THEM TO IGNITE OR REACT.
THIS IS SOMETIMES PRACTICAL IN CONTAINERS, TANKS, AND WASTE PILES.
HOWEVER, SINCE LANDFILLS, SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, AND LAND TREATMENT
FACILITIES GENERALLY CANNOT BE MANAGED SO THAT THIS PROTECTION IS
PROVIDED, IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES MAY BE PLACED IN SUCH FACILITIES
ONLY IF THEY ARE TREATED BEFORE OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLACEMENT IN THE
FACILITY SO THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE. THIS
RELAXATION OF THE COMPLETE BAR IN THE PROPOSED RULE RESPONDS TO COMMENTS
INDICATING THAT SUCH TREATMENT IS NOT UNCOMMON AND SHOULD NOT BE
PROHIBITED. THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THIS TREATMENT MEET THE SAME
STANDARDS APPLIED TO THE MIXING OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
THE AGENCY IS CURRENTLY CONSIDERING ADDING ANOTHER CLASS OF
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES TO THESE REGULATIONS. IT WOULD DECLARE INCOMPATIBLE
THOSE WASTES WHICH WOULD SOLUBILIZE OR OTHERWISE MOBILIZE ANOTHER
HAZARDOUS WASTE OR CONSTITUENT IN A LANDFILL, LAND TREATMENT FACILITY,
OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT, AND THUS INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THE
MOBILIZED WASTE OR CONSTITUENT WOULD BE LEACHED INTO GROUND WATER.
BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL SCOPE OF THIS CONCEPT IS SO BROAD -- EVEN WATER
COULD BE CONSIDERED INCOMPATIBLE WITH MANY WASTES -- THE AGENCY
CURRENTLY BELIEVES THAT IT WOULD BE MOST PRACTICAL TO IMPLEMENT SUCH A
REGULATION BY LISTING ONLY SPECIFIED PAIRS OF WASTES AS BEING
INCOMPATIBLE. THOSE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE:
(1) PCBS AND ORGANIC SOLVENTS,
(2) ORGANIC PESTICIDES AND ORGANIC SOLVENTS, AND
(3) METAL-CONTAINING WASTES AND ACIDS. THE FIST MATERIAL IN EACH OF
THESE PAIRS CAN BE SUBSTANTIALLY MOBILIZED BY THE SECOND, BUT MAY BE
RELATIVELY IMMOBILE IN ITS ABSENCE. IT THEREFORE SEEMS PRUDENT TO
DISPOSE OF SUCH PAIRS IN SEPARATE LANDFILL CELLS, LAND TREATMENT AREAS,
OR IMPOUNDMENTS. THE AGENCY REQUESTS COMMENT ON THIS CONCEPT OF
INCOMPATIBILITY, ON THESE AND OTHER POSSIBLE PAIRS OF WASTES WHICH MIGHT
BE LISTED AS INCOMPATIBLE UNDER THIS STANDARD, AND ON CIRCUMSTANCES
UNDER WHICH THESE WASTES CAN SAFELY BE COMMINGLED IN LAND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES.
C. SUBPART C -- PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION AND SUBPART D
CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY PROCEDURES
SECTION 250.43-3 OF THE PROPOSED RULES CONTAINED THREE GENERAL TYPES
OF PROVISIONS: (1) REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPING CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR
EFFECTIVE ACTION TO MINIMIZE UNANTICIPATED DAMAGE FROM THE TREATMENT
STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE; (2) REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR EVER USING
CONTINGENCY PLANS, AND (3) REQUIREMENTS FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEASURES
TO BE TAKEN DURING AND AFTER SITUATIONS IN WHICH A CONTINGENCY PLAN IS
IMPLEMENTED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 032 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113396
REGULATION
IN THE FINAL RULES, STANDARDS FOR PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION HAVE BEEN
MADE A SEPARATE SUBPART BECAUSE: (1) THEY CONTAIN EXPLICIT FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS (E.G., FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT, AND AISLE SPACE) WHICH
ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN;
(2) IT IS MORE LOGICAL TO DISCUSS PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION ASPECTS OF
FACILITY OPERATIONS BEFORE DISCUSSING PLANNING FOR AND RESPONSE TO
EMERGENCIES WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR; AND (3) PLACEMENT OF THE THREE
TYPES OF STANDARDS IN THE SAME SECTION IN THE PROPOSED RULES TENDED TO
BE CONFUSING BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING
THE CONTINGENCY PLAN WERE INTERSPERSED WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR
PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION. HOWEVER, PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION,
CONTINGENCY PLANS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ARE ALL DISCUSSED IN THIS
SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE BECAUSE THEY ARE CLOSELY RELATED, AND MANY OF
THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THESE REQUIREMENTS ADDRESSED ALL OF THEM
SIMULTANEOUSLY.
THE FINAL PART 264 AND 265 SUBPART C PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
RULES ARE INTENDED TO MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF AND EFFECT OF A
RELEASE, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION WHICH COULD THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR THE
ENVIRONMENT. THEY REQUIRE THAT FACILITIES HAVE, WHERE NECESSARY,
INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEMS, EQUIPMENT CAPABLE OF SUMMONING
EXTERNAL EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FROM LOCAL AGENCIES, FIRE CONTROL
EQUIPMENT, SPILL CONTROL EQUIPMENT, AND DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT. THIS
EQUIPMENT, WHERE REQUIRED, MUST BE ROUTINELY TESTED, AND MAINTAINED IN
PROPER OPERATING CONDITION.
SUBPART C ALSO REQUIRES THAT EMPLOYEES OPERATING THE FACILITY HAVE
IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS,
WHERE THESE ARE REQUIRED. IN ADDITION, WHERE NEEDED, AISLE SPACE MUST
BE MAINTAINED TO ALLOW THE UNOBSTRUCTED MOVEMENT OF EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
TO ANY AREA OF FACILITY OPERATION. PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL
IGNITION OR REACTION OF WASTE ARE SPECIFIED. AND LASTLY, FACILITY
OWNERS OR OPERATORS MUST ATTEMPT TO MAKE ARRANGEMENT FOR LOCAL AUTHORITY
TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY SUPPORT, WHERE THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
THE FINAL PART 264 AND 265 SUBPART D CONTINGENCY PLAN RULES ARE
INTENDED TO MINIMIZE HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT IN THE
EVENT OF FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, OR ANY UNPLANNED SUDDEN OR NON-SUDDEN
RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TO AIR, SOIL, OR SURFACE WATER. THE
CONTINGENCY PLAN MUST INCLUDE:
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PLANNED RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES AT THE FACILITY,
ANY ARRANGEMENTS WITH LOCAL AND STATE AGENCIES TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY
RESPONSE SUPPORT, WHERE NEEDED,
A LIST OF THE FACILITY'S EMERGENCY COORDINATORS,
A LIST OF THE FACILITY'S EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT, AND
AN EVACUATION PLAN, WHERE NECESSARY.
RULES FOR DISTRIBUTING AND AMENDING THE PLAN ARE SPECIFIED, AS IS THE
REQUIREMENT THAT A FACILITY EMERGENCY COORDINATOR BE EITHER PRESENT, OR
ON CALL, WHENEVER THE FACILITY IS IN OPERATION.
PROVISIONS FOR EMERGENCY PROCEDURES SPECIFIED IN SUBPART D OF THE
FINAL RULES INCLUDE:
IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF EMPLOYEES, AND LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL
AUTHORITIES OF ANY IMMINENT OR ACTUAL EMERGENCIES,
IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF POSSIBLE HAZARDS TO THE ENVIRONMENT
AND HUMAN HEALTH OUTSIDE THE FACILITY,
MEASURES TO PRECLUDE THE SPREAD OF FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS TO OTHER
WASTE,
PROPER MANAGEMENT OF RESIDUES,
REHABILITATION OF EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND NOTIFICATION OF AUTHORITIES
BEFORE OPERATIONS ARE RESUMED, AND
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING TO EPA ON THE NATURE AND CONSEQUENCES OF
ANY INCIDENT THAT REQUIRES IMPLEMENTING THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.
COMMENTERS FROM MANY ORGANIZATIONS SUBMITTED NUMEROUS COMMENTS ON THE
PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTINGENCY PLANS, PREPAREDNESS, AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE. HIGHLIGHTS OF THESE ISSUES ARE DISCUSSED BELOW:
1. DEFER REGULATIONS UNTIL PERMIT ISSUED. SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED
THAT THE CONTINGENCY PLAN, PREPAREDNESS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE NEGOTIATED WHEN A PERMIT IS ISSUED, AND THUS
SHOULD NOT APPLY TO FACILITIES DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD.
THE AGENCY SEES NO REASON TO DELAY IMPLEMENTING THESE REQUIREMENTS
UNTIL A PERMIT IS ISSUED. MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE EXPLICIT AND
STRAIGHTFORWARD, AND THEREFORE, DO NOT REQUIRE NEGOTIATION WITH OR
INTERPRETATION BY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR BEFORE THEY CAN BE
IMPLEMENTED. THOSE PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN
INTERPRETED AS REQUIRING NEGOTIATION WITH EPA, HAVE BEEN REWRITTEN TO
ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR INTERACTION WITH THE AGENCY DURING THE INTERIM
STATUS PERIOD. FOR THIS REASON, SOME OF THE FINAL PART 265 RULES
APPLICABLE DURING INTERIM STATUS ARE WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
CORRESPONDING PART 264 RULES.
2. TAILOR RULES TO CIRCUMSTANCES. MANY COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE
PROPOSED CONTINGENCY PLAN, PREPAREDNESS, AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PROVISIONS SHOULD BE RESTRUCTURED TO ALLOW REQUIREMENTS TO BE TAILORED
TO PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THE SAME VEIN, OTHER COMMENTERS
COMPLAINED THAT THE PROPOSED PROVISIONS WERE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE FOR SOME
TYPES OF FACILITIES (E.G., FACILITIES WHICH HANDLED ONLY "LOW" HAZARD
WASTE, SUCH AS UTILITY BOILER FLY ASH OR WASTE OIL).
THE AGENCY RECOGNIZES THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF FACILITIES
HANDLING MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF WASTES IN WIDELY DIFFERING
CIRCUMSTANCES WITH RESPECT TO CLIMATE, PROXIMITY TO PEOPLE, ETC. IN THE
PROPOSED RULES, THE "NOTES" FOLLOWING CERTAIN PROVISIONS PROVIDED SOME
FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOUNT FOR THESE DIFFERENCES. IN THE FINAL RULES, THESE
"NOTES" HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE REGULATIONS. FURTHER, THE
AGENCY HAS EXPANDED THE CONCEPT OF CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATION OF
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS WITH MANY REVISIONS THROUGHOUT THE FINAL RULES
TO PROVIDE GREATER FLEXIBILITY. IN ADDITION, REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES (E.G., IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTE) HAVE BEEN
CLEARLY IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL RULES.
3. PROTECTION INSIDE VERSUS OUTSIDE FACILITIES. SEVERAL COMMENTERS
QUESTIONED WHETHER THE PROPOSED CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
PROVISIONS WERE DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGE TO HUMAN
HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE HAZARDOUS WASTE
FACILITIES.
RCRA'S MANDATE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS NOT
LIMITED TO DANGERS OCCURRING OUTSIDE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES. IN FACT, MANY OF THE DAMAGE CASES CITED IN THE BACKGROUND
DOCUMENTS INVOLVE DEATH OR INJURY TO FACILITY PERSONNEL, AS WELL AS
THREATS TO PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE FACILITY.
THE AGENCY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF FACILITY
PERSONNEL. THE RCRA SECTION 3002 REGULATIONS FOR WASTE MANIFESTS AND
WASTE SHIPPING CONTAINER LABELING AND MARKING, AND THE SECTION 3004
WASTE ANALYSIS, TRAINING, INSPECTION, AND FACILITY DESIGN AND OPERATION
REGULATIONS , ARE DESIGNED, AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO REDUCE HAZARDS TO
FACILITY PERSONNEL.
IN ADDITION, THE RCRA CONTINGENCY AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS SHOULD
INCLUDE STEPS TO RESPOND TO BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL THREATS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 033 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113397
REGULATION
IN DESIGNING INTERNAL PLANS TO RESPOND TO EMPLOYEE HEALTH THREATS,
HOWEVER, RESPONDENTS MUST RECOGNIZE THAT PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
REGULATING WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY RESTS WITH THE OCCUPATIONAL
SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.
4. DELETE CONTINGENCY PLAN. SOME COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE PROVISION
REGARDING THE PROPOSED CONTINGENCY PLAN PROVISION WAS UNNECESSARY AND
SHOULD BE DELETED, BECAUSE THE SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND
COUNTERMEASURES (SPCC) PLAN REQUIRED BY THE CLEAN WATER ACT WOULD BE
SUFFICIENT TO FULFILL CONTINGENCY PLANNING REQUIREMENTS FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES.
THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH THIS COMMENT. THE UNIVERSE OF FACILITIES
WHICH ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO HAVE AN SPCC PLAN IS NOT IDENTICAL TO
THE UNIVERSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES CONTROLLED UNDER RCRA.
FURTHER, THE PROPOSED RULES FOR RCRA CONTINGENCY PLANS ARE NOT IDENTICAL
TO THE SPCC PLAN REQUIREMENTS, AND THE SPCC PLAN IS NOT AN ADEQUATE
SUBSTITUTE FOR RCRA CONTINGENCY PLAN REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, THE TWO
PLANS CAN BE COMPLEMENTARY. (SEE LATER DISCUSSION.)
5. GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION. COMMENTERS WERE CONCERNED THAT THE
PROPOSED RULES SEEMED TO ADDRESS ONLY ACUTE EMERGENCIES, AND ARGUED THAT
THE CONTINGENCY PLAN SHOULD INCLUDE THE RESPONES TO BE TAKEN IF
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION WERE DETECTED.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE DISCHARGE OF ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHETHER
SUDDEN OR NON-SUDDEN, IS A POTENTIAL THREAT TO PEOPLE OR THE
ENVIRONMENT, AND THEREFORE, IS OF CONCERN TO THE AGENCY. HOWEVER, THE
AGENCY HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE GROUND-WATER MONITORING REGULATIONS,
RATHER THAN THE CONTINGENCY PLAN REGULATIONS, ARE THE APPROPRIATE PLACE
TO DEAL WITH CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND RESPONSE TO GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS. THE FINAL GROUND-WATER MONITORING RULES
INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS FOR EVALUATING GROUND-WATER ANALYSES, AND
REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANNING AND DESCRIBING THE RESPONSE REQUIRED WHERE A
POTENTIAL GROUND-WATER PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED.
6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN. SEVERAL COMMENTERS
SUGGESTED THAT THE FINAL RULES SHOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE PROVISIONS
OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN NEED ONLY BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE EVENT OF A
DISCHARGE OR RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM THE FACILITY WHICH HAS THE
POTENTIAL FOR DAMAGING HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT WAS NOT THE AGENCY'S INTENTION TO REQUIRE FACILITY OWNERS OR
OPERATORS TO INVOKE THEIR CONTINGENCY PLAN WHEN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE ARE RELEASED (E.G., VERY SMALL SPILLS OR A LEAKING
VALVE). THE FINAL RULES HAVE BEEN REWORDED TO BETTER REFLECT THE
AGENCY'S ORIGINAL INTENT.
7. SUBMISSION OF CONTINGENCY PLANS. THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED
THAT COPIES OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN AND ANY AMENDMENTS BE FILED, AS SOON
AS THEY WERE PREPARED, WITH THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, AND LOCAL
AGENCIES THAT MIGHT BE CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES. ALSO,
THE CONTINGENCY PLAN WAS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
AS PART OF THE FACILITY PERMIT APPLICATION. MANY COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT
FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONTINGENCY
PLANS ON FILE, BUT NOT BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT PLANS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR OR TO LOCAL EMERGENCY OR HEALTH AGENCIES. THE
COMMENTERS OFFERED THE FOLLOWING REASONS TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITION:
SPCC PLANS ARE REQUIRED TO BE AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION, BUT ARE NOT
REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED; RCRA PLAN REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE CONSISTENT
WITH THIS.
CONTINGENCY PLANS ARE AMENDED FREQUENTLY; IT IS BURDENSOME TO
EVERYONE TO FILE AMENDED PLANS.
LOCAL AUTHORITIES MAY REFUSE TO ACCEPT PLANS; THEREFORE, THE RULE IS
UNENFORCEABLE.
PLANS SUBMITTED TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES ARE RELEGATED TO OBSCURE FILES;
THEREFORE, THE RULE IS USELESS.
SIMILARLY, SOME COMMENTERS FELT THAT CONTINGENCY PLANS SHOULD BE
FILED WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES ONLY WHEN A RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
WOULD REQUIRE THEIR RESPONSE OR ENDANGER THOSE UNDER THEIR PROTECTION,
OR WHEN A FACILITY HANDLES "EXTREMELY" HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE CONTINGENCY PLAN REQUIREMENT IS AN
IMPORTANT PART OF THE OVERALL RCRA SECTION 3004 STANDARDS, AND THAT EPA
SHOULD ENSURE THAT EACH FACILITY HAS AN ACCEPTABLE PLAN. BECAUSE THE
AGENCY ACCOMPLISHES THIS BY REQUIRING THAT A CONTINGENCY PLAN BE:
PREPARED BY EACH FACILITY,
AMENDED AS NECESSARY,
MADE AVAILABLE TO EPA INSPECTORS DURING ON-SITE REVIEWS, OR TO THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WHEN REQUESTED, AND
SUBMITTED TO EPA AS PART OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION, THE AGENCY AGREES
THAT CONTINGENCY PLANS AND REVISIONS NEED NOT BE SUBMITTED ROUTINELY TO
EPA. THIS APPROACH IS CONSISTENT WITH SPCC PLAN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE
BEING REVISED TO REQUIRE THAT PLANS BE SUBMITTED TO EPA ONLY UPON
REQUEST OF THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR.
HOWEVER, THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH THE COMMENTER'S ARGUMENTS
REGARDING THE NEED FOR LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO HAVE AN UP-TO-DATE
FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN. THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE THAT THE
CONTINGENCY PLAN MUST BE AMENDED IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:
IF THERE ARE REVISIONS TO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS (INTERIM STATUS);
IF THERE ARE REVISIONS TO THE FACILITY PERMIT (PERMITTED STATUS);
IF THE PLAN FAILS IN AN EMERGENCY;
IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE FACILITY DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MATERIALLY INCREASE THE
POTENTIAL FOR FIRES, EXPLOSSIONS, OR RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR
CHANGE THE RESPONSE NECESSARY IN AN EMERGENCY;
IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE PERSON(S) QUALIFIED TO ACT AS FACILITY
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR;
IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN THE EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AT THE FACILITY.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT ALL THESE REASONS FOR AMENDING THE PLAN ARE
IMPORTANT, AND THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES, WHERE APPROPRIATE, HAVE A NEED TO
KNOW ABOUT THESE CHANGES. THE FIRST FOUR CASES COULD INVOLVE
SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS TO A FACILITY'S CONTINGENCY PLAN, BUT SUCH
AMENDMENTS SHOULD OCCUR INFREQUENTLY. THE LAST TWO CASES MAY OCCUR MORE
OFTEN, BUT THE CHANGE AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT BURDENSOME.
THE PROPOSED RULE REQUIRED FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS TO FILE
CONTINGENCY PLANS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES. IT DID NOT REQUIRE THESE
AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT THEM. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT MOST LOCAL
AUTHORITIES ARE RESPONSIBLE AND COMPETENT, AND THAT THEY RARELY WILL
REJECT FACILITY PLANS OR RELEGATE THEM TO OBSCURE FILES. NEVERTHELESS,
IF THEY DO REFUSE TO ACCEPT A FACILITY'S PLAN, THE FACILITY OWNER OR
OPERATOR WILL HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE RULE IF HE CAN DOCUMENT IN THE
OPERATING RECORD THAT HE SUBMITTED A CONTINGENCY PLAN TO LOCAL
AUTHORITIES.
THE PROPOSED RULES USED THE PHRASE ". . . WHO MAY BE CALLED UPON TO
PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES." THIS PHRASE MEANS THAT A CONTINGENCY PLAN
NEED NOT BE FILED WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES IF THE NATURE OF THE WASTE
HANDLED AT A FACILITY, OR IF THE INTERNAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE
CAPABILITIES AT THE FACILITY, ARE SUCH THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES WILL NOT
BE CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE SERVICES EITHER TO THE FACILITY OR TO PEOPLE
OUTSIDE THE FACILITY. THIS PROVISION HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE FINAL
RULES.
8. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. SEVERAL COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT
FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLANS FREQUENTLY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
WHICH COMPANIES WOULD INSIST NOT BE MAINTAINED IN PUBLIC FILES.
THEREFORE, THE COMMENTERS FELT CONTINGENCY PLANS SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED
TO EPA (OR BY EXTENSION, TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BUT RATHER MAINTAINED ON
THE FACILITY PREMISES OPEN TO EPA INSPECTION.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 034 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113398
REGULATION
THE CONTINGENCY PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO EPA WITH PART B OF THE
PERMIT APPLICATION UNDER 40 CFR PART 122, AND WILL BECOME A CONDITION OF
ANY PERMIT ISSUED. THE PERMIT REGULATIONS STATE THAT PERMIT-RELATED
INFORMATION, ASSERTED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL AT THE TIME IT IS SUBMITTED,
WILL BE DISCLOSED BY EPA ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES IN 40
CFR PART 2. BECAUSE THE CONTINGENCY PLAN WILL BE PART OF THE PERMIT,
PORTIONS OF CONTINGENCY PLANS ASSERTED TO BE CONFIDENTIAL WILL BE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ONLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH 40 CFR PART 2.
AS STATED EARLIER, THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT WHERE APPROPRIATE TO
PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN EMERGENCIES, IT IS VITAL
THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES HAVE UP-TO-DATE FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLANS IN
THEIR POSSESSION. A FACILITY'S CONTINGENCY PLAN NEED NOT CONTAIN
DETAILS OF PROPRIETARY PROCESSES OR OPERATIONS. FOR THIS REASON, THE
AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT CONTINGENCY PLANS OFTEN, IF EVER, NEED TO
BE CONFIDENTIAL.
9. INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR PLAN SUBMISSION. A FEW COMMENTERS STATED
THAT: "REQUIRING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN SPCC PLAN AS PART OF A (RCRA)
PERMIT APPLICATION IS UNREASONABLE SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADEQUATE
AND EFFECTIVE SPCC PLAN MAY REQUIRE A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER PERIOD OF
TIME THAN AVAILABLE BETWEEN PROMULGATION OF THE (RCRA) REGULATIONS AND
SUBMISSIONS OF A (RCRA) PERMIT APPLICATION."
AS DESCRIBED IN THE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION ENTITLED "INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS", TO QUALIFY FOR INTERIM STATUS, FACILITIES MUST SUBMIT THE
PART A PERMIT APPLICATION TO EPA WITH SIX MONTHS AFTER PROMULGATION OF
THE RCRA SECTION 3001 REGULATIONS. THEY MUST SUBMIT PART B OF THE
PERMIT APPLICATION UPON REQUEST AT A LATER DATE.
THE FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH PART B, BUT IS
NOT REQUIRED FOR PART A. FURTHER, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE RCRA CONTINGENCY
PLAN MAY BE MERGED WITH AN EXISTING SPCC PLAN, BUT THE FINAL RULE DOES
NOT REQUIRE THAT AN SPCC PLAN BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE RCRA PERMIT
APPLICATION. MOREOVER, THE AGENCY BELEIVES THAT AN ACCEPTABLE RCRA
FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN CAN BE PREPARED WITHIN THE SIX-MONTH PERIOD
BETWEEN PROMULGATION OF THE RCRA SECTION 3001 REGULATIONS AND THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS. CONSEQUENTLY, EACH FACILITY OWNER
OR OPERATOR IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLAN ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THESE REGULATIONS, AND TO SUBMIT IT TO APPROPRIATE LOCAL AUTHORITIES,
EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED TO EPA UNTIL A LATER
DATE, WITH PART B OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.
10. EMERGENCY COORDINATOR. MANY COMMENTERS FELT IT WAS UNNECESSARY
AND BURDENSOME FOR AN EMERGENCY COORDINATOR TO BE PRESENT AT ALL TIMES
WHEN A FACILITY IS IN OPERATION, AS THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED. SOME
COMMENTERS POINTED OUT THAT "IN OPERATION" CAN BE INTERPRETED TO INCLUDE
PASSIVE OR AUTOMATED SITUATIONS, SUCH AS STORAGE IN TANKS OR SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS, BUT THAT, THE POSSIBILITY THAT AN EMERGENCY WILL OCCUR
DURING THESE SITUATIONS IS SMALL. THESE COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE
PROPOSED RULE SHOULD INCLUDE A VARIANCE WHERE EMERGENCY SITUATIONS ARE
UNLIKELY TO DEVELOP, OR THAT THE RULE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW AN EMERGENCY
COORDINATOR TO BE ON CALL, RATHER THAN PRESENT ON-SITE.
EPA AGREES THAT THERE ARE MANY SITUATIONS WHERE THE FACILITY
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR'S PRESENCE ON-SITE IS NOT ESSENTIAL. HOWEVER, THE
AGENCY BELIEVES AN EMERGENCY COORDINATOR SHOULD AT LEAST BE AVAILABLE
(ON CALL) TO RESPOND IMMEDIATELY TO EMERGENCIES AT THE FACILITY,
INITIALLY BY GIVING PHONE INSTRUCTIONS TO LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND FACILITY
PERSONNEL, BUT ALSO BY BEING ABLE TO BE ON-THE-SCENE WITHIN A SHORT
TIME. THIS ARRANGEMENT SHOULD IMPOSE NO UNDUE BURDEN.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS FELT THAT NO ONE PERSON COULD BE COGNIZANT OF, AND
RESPONSIBLE FOR, ALL THE DUTIES OF THE EMERGENCY COORDINATRO SPECIFIED
IN THE PROPOSED RULE. THEY SUGGESTED THE RULE BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW AN
"EMERGENCY COORDINATION TEAM" UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE FACILITY'S
MANAGEMENT.
THE AGENCY RECOGNIZES THAT THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR'S DUTIES ARE
MANY AND VARIED, AND FULLY EXPECTS THAT MANY PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT
DISCIPLINES WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSIST THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR IN
FULFILLING THESE DUTIES. HOWEVER, BASED ON ANALYSIS OF PAST
EMERGENCIES, THE AGENCY FEELS STRONGLY THAT THERE MUST BE A SINGLE
PERSON IN CHARGE DURING AN EMERGENCY WITH THE RESPONSIBLITY AND
NECESSARY AUTHORITY TO DIRECT RESPONSE MEASURES. A "TEAM" APPROACH
DILUTES RESPONSIBILITY AND AUTHORITY, AND CAN LEAD TO DIVISIVENESS OR
CONFUSION UNDER STRESS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH THESE
LAST COMMENTS AND HAS RETAINED THE PROPOSED APPROACH IN THE FINAL RULE.
HOWEVER, THE FINAL RULE DOES NOT PRECLUDE THE USE OF A RESPONSE TEAM, AS
LONG AS ONE PERSON HAS CENTRAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER IT.
11. RESUMING OPERATIONS AFTER AN EMERGENCY. THE PROPOSED RULES
REQUIRED THE FACILITY'S EMERGENCY COORDINATOR TO PROHIBIT THE FACILITY
FROM ACCEPTING ANY WASTE WHICH WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH MATERIAL RELEASED
DURING AN EMERGENCY UNTIL CLEAN-UP PROCEDURES WERE COMPLETED, EMERGENCY
EQUIPMENT WAS RESTORED TO PRE-ACCIDENT CONDITION, AND THE AFFECTED AREA
WAS DECLARED SAFE BY EPA, STATE, OR LOCAL OFFICIALS. ONE COMMENTER FELT
THAT THE DECISION THAT THE FACILITY COULD SAFELY RESUME OPERATIONS
SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FACILITY EMERGENCY COORDINATOR,
RATHER THAN EPA OR OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT IT WOULD BE UNREASONABLE TO REQUIRE A FORMAL
DECLARATION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS THAT A FACILITY IS SAFE TO OPERATE
BEFORE ALLOWING THE FACILITY TO ACCEPT POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT A RELEASE, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION COULD OCCUR IN
ONE PART OF A FACILITY WITHOUT AFFECTING THE SAFETY OF OPERATIONS IN
OTHER PARTS OF THE FACILITY. THUS, IT WOULD BE UNNECESSARY TO KEEP THE
WHOLE FACILITY FROM ACCEPTING A WASTE JUST BECAUSE THE WASTE MAY BE
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE MATERIAL RELEASED DURING AN EMERGENCY IN ONE
LIMITED PART OF THE FACILITY.
HOWEVER, EPA, STATE AND LOCAL OFFICIALS HAVE A RESPONSIBLITY TO
ENSURE THAT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT ARE PROTECTED. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY TRUE WHERE A FACILITY HAS HAD A RELEASE, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION
OF SUFFICIENT MAGNITUDE TO INVOKE THE FACILITY'S CONTINGENCY PLAN. THE
AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO NOTIFY
EPA AND APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES THAT CLEANUP PROCEDURES
FOLLOWING AN EMERGENCY HAVE BEEN COMPLETED, BEFORE THE PART(S) OF THE
FACILITY AFFECTED BY THE EMERGENCY BEGIN TO ACCEPT POTENTIALLY
INCOMPATIBLE WASTE. THIS NOTIFICATION WILL ALLOW EPA, STATE, AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES TO BE INFORMED ABOUT THE CURRENT STATUS OF FACILITY
OPERATIONS.
RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
THE PRINCIPAL PURPOSE OF THE MANIFEST SYSTEM, ESTABLISHED IN THE PART
262 REGULATIONS, IS TO TRACK HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM ITS ORIGIN WITH THE
GENERATOR, THROUGH ITS TRIP WITH THE TRAMSPORTER, TO ITS DISPOSITION AT
A TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FACILITY. THE REGULATIONS IN SUBPART
E OF PARTS 264 AND 265 SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING THE RETURN OF THE
MANIFEST FROM THE FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR TO THE GENERATOR. THESE
REQUIREMENTS FORM THE LAST STEP IN THE INFORMATION LOOP INTIATED IN THE
PART 262 MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS FOR GENERATORS.
SUBPART E OF PART 264 AND 265 ALSO INCLUDES REQUIREMENTS FOR
RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING. ONE PURPOSE OF THESE REQUIREMENTS IS TO
ENSURE THAT THE REGULATED COMMUNITY COMPLIES WITH THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
REGULATIONS, BY PROVIDING THE ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WITH SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO MONITOR FACILITY OPERATIONS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 035 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113399
REGULATION
A SECOND PURPOSE OF THE RECORDS REQUIRED IN SUBPART E IS TO ENSURE
PROMPT, PROPER, AND EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO EMERGENCIES, BY PROVIDING
FACILITY OWNERS AND OPERATORS, AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES, WITH INFORMATION
WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO ACCURATELY ASSESS ANY HAZARD POSED TO HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO RESPOND ACCORDINGLY.
THE AGENCY RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMENTS FROM MANY SOURCES ON THE
PROPOSED RULES FOR MANIFESTS, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING. SOME
COMMENTS RAISED GENERAL ISSUES APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE SUBPART; OTHERS
WERE SPECIFIC TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EITHER MANIFEST, RECORDKEEPING, OR
REPORTING. THIS PREAMBLE DISCUSSES THE GENERAL ISSUES FIRST, FOLLOWED
BY A SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS OF THE COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE THREE
TYPES (I.E., MANIFEST, RECORDKEEPING, OR REPORTING) OF SUBPART E
STANDARDS.
1. GENERAL ISSUES. A. BURDEN. MANY COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE
PROPOSED MANIFEST, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS WERE
EXCESSIVE, PARTICULARLY FOR SMALL FIRMS. THEY STATED THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS WERE UNNECESSARY AND IMPRACTICAL - PARTICULARLY IN
REQUIRING THE VARIOUS REPORTS AND SIGNATURES OF TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL OPERATORS - AND DID NOT CONTRIBUTE SUBSTANTIALLY TO HUMAN
HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. OTHER COMMENTERS WERE CONCERNED
THAT THE PAPERWORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE
DUPLICATIVE, AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL IN GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY
TO PROCESS.
THE AGENCY DOES NOT AGREE THAT THE PROPOSED MANIFEST, RECORDKEEPING,
AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN ON THE WASTE
MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY. NUMEROUS PAST DOCUMENTED DAMAGE CASES HAVE
RESULTED FROM IMPROPER WASTE DISPOSAL IN PART BECAUSE WASTES WERE NOT
TRACKED, AND LITTLE LIABILITY OR RESPONSIBLITY WAS ASSIGNED OR ACCEPTED
BY THE WASTE GENERATORS, TRANSPORTERS, OR DISPOSERS. THESE REQUIREMENTS
ARE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE THE LIKLIHOOD OF INCIDENTS LIKE THESE OCCURRING
AGAIN. TO THIS END, THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE VARIOUS RECORDS,
REPORTS, AND SIGNATURES OF TREATERS, STORERS, AND DISPOSERS ARE
NECESSARY TO ALLOW EPA ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO ASSIGN RESPONSIBILITY,
AND ULTIMATELY LIABILITY, IN CASES WHERE PROBLEMS ARISE.
THE AGENCY DOES NOT AGREE THAT THE RESULTING PAPERWORK WILL BE
DUPLICATIVE. THE AGENCY HAS MADE EVERY EFFORT TO ELIMINATE ANY
DUPLICATION, AND HAS DOCUMENTED THESE ATTEMPTS IN THE REPORTS IMPACT
ANALYSIS, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT'S CAMPAIGN TO
REDUCE PAPERWORK. THE TOTAL RCRA INTERIM STATUS ADMINISTRATIVE COST,
INCLUDING THE COST OF COMPLYING WITH NOTIFICATION MANIFEST,
RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS OTHER REQUIREMENTS
SUCH AS INSPECTIONS AND PREPARING CLOSURE PLANS, IS ESTIMATED AT ABOUT
36 MILLION DOLLARS INITIALLY AND 40 MILLION DOLLARS ANNUALLY THEREAFTER.
CONSIDERING THAT AN ESTIMATED 72,000 INSTALLATIONS WILL BE REGULATED
UNDER THIS PROGRAM, THE AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT, FOR THE WASTE
MANAGEMENT COMMUNITY IN GENERAL, THE COST OF THIS ASPECT OF THE PROGRAM
WILL BE EXCESSIVE.
B. CLASS OF HAZARD. A FEW COMMENTERS SUPPORTED THE REPORTING OF
DETAILED INFORMATION ON "TRULY" HAZARDOUS WASTES, BUT ADDED THAT, FOR
OTHER WASTES, THIS INFORMATION IS NOT NEEDED AND WOULD NOT BE OF VALUE.
THE AGENCY AGREES WITH THE CONCEPT THAT INFORMATION NEEDS COULD VARY
WITH THE CLASS OR DEGREE OF HAZARD OF A WASTE. AS NOTED EARLIER IN THIS
PREAMBLE, EPA IS DEVELOPING A CLASS OF HAZARD SYSTEM FOR THE TECHNICAL
WASTE MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE SECTION 3004 REGULATIONS. THE
AGENCY BELIEVES, HOWEVER, THE FINAL MANIFEST, RECORDKEEPING, AND
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ARE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY FOR ANY HAZARDOUS
WASTE, REGARDLESS OF CLASS OF HAZARD. THE AGENCY ANTICIPATES THE
POSSIBILITY OF ADDING DIFFERENT RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
IN THE FUTURE FOR THE CLASSES OF HIGHEST HAZARD IDENTIFIED IN THE NEW
SYSTEM.
2. MANIFEST SYSTEM. THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF
FACILITIES WHICH RECEIVE WASTE FROM OFF-SITE TO SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN A
COPY OF THE MANIFEST TO THE TRANSPORTER IMMEDIATELY, AND TO THE
GENERATOR WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE WASTE. OWNERS OR OPERATORS
MUST ALSO NOTE SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN THE TYPE OR QUANTITY OF
WASTE RECEIVED, AND NOTIFY EPA IF DISCREPANCIES CANNOT BE RESOLVED.
THIS SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE DISCUSSES THE MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
THE PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-5(A) MANIFEST REQUIREMENTS.
A. MANIFEST COPIES. THE AGENCY PROPOSED A 30-DAY PERIOD FOR THA
FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR TO RETURN THE MANIFEST TO THE GENERATOR IN
ORDER TO ALLOW THE FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR TO RETURN THE MANIFESTS AT
THE SAME TIME AS HE SENDS MONTHLY BILLS TO GENERATORS, THUS REDUCING
PAPERWORK AND POSTAGE COSTS. A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS SUPPORTED THE
PROPOSED 30-DAY TIME PERIOD ALLOWED FOR TRANSMITTING THE MANIFEST AS
REASONABLE, AND ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD BE RETAINED TO (1) ALLOW AN
ORDERLY RETURN OF MANIFESTS, (2) GREATLY REDUCE PAPERWORK AND THE
CHANCES OF LOSING ONE OF THE MANIFESTS, AND (3) ALLOW THE GENERATOR TO
PREPARE HIS REPORTS BASED ON RECEIPT OF SUBMITTALS AT EXPECTED TIMES
RATHER THAN ON A CONTINUOUS STREAM OF MANIFESTS RECEIVED AT VARYING
INTERVALS.
A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMENTERS REQUESTED THAT THE TIME PERIOD BE
SHORTENED TO ONE DAY, OR ONE OR TWO WEEKS, TO (1) ALLOW MORE EFFECTIVE
AND TIMELY FOLLOW-UP ON WASTE SHIPMENTS, (2) GIVE GENERATORS MORE TIME
TO COMPLETE EXCEPTION REPORTS, AND (3) AVOID LOSING DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER,
SOME COMMENTERS ARGUED AGAINST REQUIRING OWNERS OR OPERATORS TO
IMMEDIATELY RETURN MANIFESTS, CLAIMING THAT THIS WAS UNREASONABLE
BECAUSE TIME WOULD BE NEEDED TO CHECK OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES, AND RECORD
DATA FROM THE MANIFEST. THESE COMMENTERS FELT A SHORTER RETURN PERIOD
WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY ENFORCEMENT BENEFIT, NOR PREVENT ILLEGAL DUMPING.
STILL OTHER COMMENTERS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PERIOD BE EXTENDED TO
ALLOW MORE TIME FOR RECORDING DATA FROM EACH MANIFEST FOR REPORTING.
AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW OF THESE COMMENTS, THEAENCY HAS DECIDED TO
RETAIN THE PROPOSED 30-DAY TIME PERIOD ALLOWED FOR RETURNING MANIFESTS
TO THE GENERATOR. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT A 30-DAY TIME PERIOD IS
REASONABLE, AND DOES NOT PRECLUDE RETURNING MANIFESTS WITHIN A SHORTER
TIME PERIOD SHOULD A GENERATOR INSIST UPON IT.
THE FINAL PART 262 RULES REQUIRE THAT, IF THE GENERATOR DOES NOT
RECEIVE A PROPERLY SIGNED MANIFEST WITHIN 45 DAYS OF THE WASTE'S
SHIPMENT TO A HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY, HE MUST MAKE AN EXCEPTION REPORT
TO EPA. ONE COMMENTER SUGGESTED THAT OWNERS OR OPERATORS SHOULD RETURN
MANIFESTS TO THE PERMITTING AGENCY, RATHER THAN TO THE GENERATOR, TO
ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE GENERATOR TO MAKE EXCEPTION REPORTS. ANOTHER
COMMENTER ARGUED THAT THE REGULATION SHOULD BE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW
MANIFESTS TO BE RETURNED TO EITHER AN AUTHORIZED STATE AGENCY OR THE
GENERATOR, IN ORDER TO ALLOW STATES TO BECOME AWARE OF EXCEPTIONS
EARLIER. A RELATED COMMENT ARGUED THAT STATES WITH PROGRAMS THAT ARE
ADEQUATE TO IDENTIFY MISSING SHIPMENTS SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY NOT TO
REQUIRE THE MANIFEST BE RETURNED TO THE GENERATOR. ANOTHER COMMENTER
RECOMMENDED THAT EFFORTS BE MADE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES OF
MANIFESTS THAT MUST BE DISTRIBUTED AND RETAINED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE
COSTS AND SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 036 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113400
REGULATION
THE AGENCY STRONGLY BELIEVES THAT THE WASTE GENERATOR, RATHER THAN
EPA, SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THAT HIS HAZARDOUS WASTE
ACTUALLY ARRIVES AT THE INTENDED FACILITY. THE MANIFEST ROUTING SYSTEM
IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE THE GENERATOR WITH THE FEEDBACK INFORMATION
NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. WHILE THIS SYSTEM MAY REQUIRE
MORE COPIES OF MANIFESTS TO BE DISTRUBTED AND MAINTAINED THAN WOULD BE
THE CASE IN OTHER SYSTEMS, IT WILL RESULT IN MORE TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE
DISCOVERY OF ERRANT SHIPMENTS AND ALLOW PROMPT ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. THE
RATIONALE FOR THE EPA MANIFEST SYSTEM IS DISCUSSED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE
SECTION 3002 BACKGROUND DOCUMENT.
B. MANIFEST DISCREPANCIES. PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-5(A)(4) REQUIRED
THAT OWNERS OR OPERATORS NOTIFY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR IMMEDIATELY
WHEN THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TYPE OR QUANTITY OF WASTE
DESIGNATED ON THE MANIFEST, AND THE TYPE OR QUANTITY OF WASTE ACTUALLY
RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY. SEVERAL COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE PROPOSED
RULE WOULD RESULT IN THE AGENCY GEING INUNDATED WITH UNNECESSARY
PAPERWORK, RESULTING FROM FACILITIES REPORTING INADVERTENT OR
UNIMPORTANT ERRORS. THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE AGENCY SPECIFY ALLOWABLE
DEVIATIONS WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE SUBMITTING A DISCREPANCY REPORT TO
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO SET LIMITS WHICH WOULD NOT
ROUTINELY TRIGGER DISCREPANCY FINDINGS, BUT WHICH ALSO DO NOT ALLOW
EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TO BE UNACCOUNTED FOR.
MANY FACTORS ENTERED INTO THE DECISION REGARDING THE LIMITS TO SET ON
THE VARIATION IN AMOUNTS OF WASTE WHICH WOULD TRIGGER A DISCREPANCY
NOTATION AND REPORT. BECAUSE OF THE LIMITS ON THE SENSITIVITY AND
CALIBRATION OF WEIGHING SCALES, AS WELL AS POSSIBLE VARIATIONS IN VOLUME
AND DENSITY MEASUREMENTS, IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE TO ALLOW RELATIVELY
LARGE ERRORS FOR BULK SHIPMENTS, SUCH AS 5 TO 10 PERCENT. FURTHER, THE
AGENCY DOES NOT WISH TO BE SWAMPED WITH DISCREPANCY REPORTS AS A
CONSEQUENCE OF SETTING THE DISCREPANCY LIMITS TOO TIGHTLY.
CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THE FINAL RULE, THE AGENCY HAS SELECTED AN
ALLOWABLE DISCREPANCY LIMIT OF 10 PERCENT IN WEIGHT OF THE MANIFESTED
WASTE AMOUNT FOR BULK SHIPMENTS. THIS LIMIT, HOWEVER, DOES NOT APPLY TO
BATCH SHIPMENTS. A DISCREPANCY OF ONE DRUM IN A SHIPMENT IS SUFFICIENT
CAUSE FOR THE FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR TO START FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES
IN THE FINAL RULES. THE AGENCY DECIDED TO APPLY A DIFFERENT LIMIT TO
BATCH SHIPMENTS - EVEN THOUGH THE AGENCY RECOGNIZES THAT THE AMOUNTS OF
WASTE INVOLVED CAN VARY CONSIDERABLY - BECAUSE SUCH DISCREPANCIES CAN BE
DETECTED BY A SIMPLE COUNT.
ANOTHER KIND OF POSSIBLE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE WASTE MANIFEST AND
THE ACTUAL SHIPMENT IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE CHEMICAL OR PHYSICAL NATURE
OF THE WASTE. THE AGENCY'S INTENTION IN THIS RESPECT IS TO HAVE
FACILITIES FLAG OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES IN WASTE TYPE (SUCH AS WASTE
SOLVENTS RECEIVED INSTEAD OF THE WASTE ACIDS LISTED ON THE MANIFEST), AS
OPPOSED TO MORE SUBTLE CHANGES, SUCH AS PART-PER-MILLION VARIATIONS IN
THE CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS WITHIN A SLUDGE. THE AGENCY WISHES
TO ENSURE THAT A FACILITY IS PROPERLY EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THE WASTES IT
RECEIVES, AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO SURPRISES IN WASTE TYPE INTRODUCED BY
MISTAKE OR ON PURPOSE BY WASTE GENERATORS OR TRANSPORTERS. THE SUBPART
B REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS SHOULD, IN MOST CASES,
ENSURE THAT FACILITIES DISCOVER OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES IN WASTE TYPE.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT A DISTINCTION SHOULD BE MADE BETWEEN
DISCOVERING A DISCREPANCY AND REPROTING THE DISCREPANCY. THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THAT THE FACILITY OWNER'S OR OPERATOR'S LOGICAL AND REASONABLE
RESPONSE, UPON DISCOVERING A DISCREPANCY IN WASTE AMOUNT OR TYPE IF FOR
HIM TO CONTACT THE WASTE GENERATOR, AND THE TRANSPORTER IF NECESSARY,
AND TRY TO RESOLVE THE DISCREPANCY. THEREFORE, THE FINAL RULES NOW
SPECIFY THAT DISCREPANCIES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO EPA ONLY IF THEY CANNOT
BE RESOLVED SATISFACTORILY. BY SO DOING, THE NUMBER OF DISCREPANCY
REPORTS CAN BE REDUCED, AND THE REPORTS SUBMITTED TO THE AGENCY WILL
FOCUS ON TRULY SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT FOR IMMEDIATE
DISCREPANCY REPORTING WAS TOO STRINGENT. THEY ASKED THAT A TIME LIMIT
BE SET TO REPORT DISCREPANCIES, BECAUSE MORE TIME MIGHT BE NEEDED TO
DETERMINE THAT A DISCREPANCY IN FACT EXISTS. SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED
THAT A TIME LIMIT OF 10 WORKING DAYS WOULD MAKE THE SYSTEM MORE
EFFICIENT. OTHER COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT A MORE PRACTICAL REQUIREMENT
WOULD BE 30 DAYS FROM RECEIPT OF THE SHIPMENT.
THE AGENCY AGREES WITH THE COMMENTERS THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD
SPECIFY A TIME FRAME FOR REPORTING DISCREPANCIES TO THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR. ALL DISCREPANCIES SHOULD BE DISCOVERED SOON AFTER THE
WASTE ARRIVES AT THE DISPOSAL FACILITY. DISCREPANCIES IN AMOUNT SHOULD
BE FOUND AT THE WEIGHING STATION OR WASTE RECEIVING AREA BEFORE THE
FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR SIGNS THE INCOMING MANIFEST. DISCREPANCIES
IN TYPE CAN BE DISCOVERED BY INSTPECTING THE WASTE, IN SOME CASES, OR BY
SAMPLING AND ANALYZING THE WASTE, WHICH USUALLY TAKES A FEW HOURS.
THE AGENCY EXPECTS THAT THE FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR WILL ATTEMPT
TO RECONCILE MOST POTENTIALLY REPORTABLE DISCREPANCIES THROUGH TELEPHONE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WASTE GENERATOR OR TRANSPORTER. IT SHOULD BE
POSSIBLE TO CHECK RECORDS, ETC., AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK IN A MATTER OF
DAYS, EVEN INCLUDING MAILING TIME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AGENCY BELIEVES
THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO DISCOVER AND RECONCILE DISCREPANCIES WITHIN 15
DAYS OF RECEIVING THE WASTE AT THE DISPOSAL FACILITY. THE FINAL RULES,
THEREFORE, SPEICIFY THAT WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE WASTE,
UNRESOLVED SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES AND ATTEMPTS TO RECONCILE THEM MUST
BE REPORTED IN A LETTER TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, WITH A COPY OF
THE MANIFEST AT ISSUE.
A COMMENTER SUGGESTED THAT IF THERE ARE DISCREPANCIES IN THE
MANIFEST, THE HAZARDOUS WASTE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL THE GENERATOR
OR TRANSPORTER RECONCILES THE DISCREPANCIES.
THE AGENCY AGREES IN PRINCIPLE THAT SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN THE
MANIFEST SHOULD BE RECONCILED BETWEEN THE GENERATOR OR TRANSPORTER AND
THE DISPOSER. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH THE SUGGESTION THAT
THE AGENCY REQUIRE THAT THE WASTE NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE DISPOSER. IN
THE AGENCY'S VIEW, IT IS MORE PROTECTIVE OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT FOR WASTES TO BE ACCEPTED BY A RESPONSIBLE DISPOSER, AND
PROPERLY MANAGED, WHILE RECONCILLIATION IS ATTEMPTED, RATHER THAN FOR
THE WASTE TO BE REJECTED WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT MAY THEN BE
IMPROPERLY DISPOSED ELSEWHERE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUGGESTION HAS NOT
BEEN ADOPTED IN THE FINAL RULE. HOWEVER, THE DISPOSER IS NOT OBLIGATED
BY THESE REGULATIONS TO ACCEPT THE SHIPMENT IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT
DISCREPANCY IN QUANTITY OR TYPE.
C. MANIFEST RETENTION. PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-5(B)(6) REQUIRED THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY ACCEPTING DELIVERIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
FROM OFF-SITE SOURCES FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL, TO RETAIN FOR
THREE YEARS A COPY OF EACH MANIFEST OR DELIVERY DOCUMENT, AS CERTIFIED
BY THE GENERATOR, TRANSPORTER, AND OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY.
THIS RULE HAS BEEN MOVED FROM THE RECORDKEEPING SECTION TO THE MANIFEST
SECTION OF THE FINAL RULES IN ORDER TO CONSOLIDATE ALL MANIFEST-RELATED
REQUIREMENTS IN ONE LOCATION WITHIN THE RULES.
ONE COMMENTER STATED THAT ALL FACILITIES ACCEPTING WASTE SHOULD
RETAIN ALL MANIFESTS FOR THE DURATION OF THE FACILITY'S OPERATION,
RATHER THAN FOR ONLY THREE YEARS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 037 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113401
REGULATION
THE COMMENTER ARGUED THAT PROBLEMS AT LOVE CANAL SURFACED 25 YEARS
AFTER THE LAST RECORDED USE OF THE DUMP, AND THAT THREE YEARS IS TOO
SHORT A PERIOD FOR RECORDKEEPING, CONSIDERING THE LONGEVITY OF MANY
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND THEIR POTENTIAL THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT RECORDS OF ALL HAZARDOUS WASTES HANDLED AT A
FACILITY SHOULD BE KEPT UNTIL FACILITY CLOSURE. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY
DOES NOT AGREE THAT ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFESTS NEED BE KEPT ON FILE
FOR THAT LONG A PERIOD.
THE AGENCY ANTICIPATES BOTH SHORT-RANGE AND LONG-RANGE USES FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECORES. RETAINING MANIFESTS FOR A THREE-YEAR PERIOD IS
SUFFICIENT FOR THE MAJORITY OF ENFORCEMENT CASES INVOLVING GENERATION
AND TRANSPORTATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHICH WILL LIKELY BE DISCOVERED
AND ACTED UPON WITHIN THAT PERIOD. THUS, THE AGENCY HAS SPECIFIED A
THREE-YEAR RETENTION PERIOD FOR MANIFESTS IN THE RULES FOR GENERATORS
(SECTION 3002) AND TRANSPORTERS (SECTION 3003), AS WELL AS IN THESE
RULES FOR FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS. FOR LONGER-RANGE USES, SUCH AS
RESPONDING TO LOVE CANAL-TYPE SITUATIONS, THE FACILITY RECORDKEEPING
RULES REQUIRE OWNER OR OPERATORS TO RETAIN RECORDS (BUT NOT NECESSARILY
MANIFESTS) OF ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLED AT THE FACILITY UNTIL FACILITY
CLOSURE. HOWEVER, THAT REQUIREMENT ALLOWS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THE
FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN A RECORDKEEPING SYSTEM SUITABLE TO THE SPECIFIC
NEEDS OF HIS OPERATION. LARGER FACILITIES MAY USE AUTOMATIC DATA
PROCESSING SYSTEMS. SMALLER FACILITIES MAY CHOOSE TO RETAIN MANIFESTS
AS THE BASIS FOR RECORDKEEPING.
IN ADDITION, THE AGENCY WILL RECEIVE AND RETAIN REPORTS WHICH
SUMMARIZE THE WASTE TRANSPORTED TO EACH FACILITY. THESE REPORTS WILL
CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE WASTE, THE QUANTITY OF THE WASTE, AND THE
NUMERICAL IDENTIFIER OF THE GENERATOR OR TRANSPORTER. IN THIS WAY, THE
AGENCY WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW AND SUMMARIZE THE DATA ON THE ANNUAL
REPORTS FOR A PARTICULAR FACILITY, SHOULD ANY EMERGENCY OR SLOW RELEASE
PROBLEM ARISE AT THE FACILITY AFTER THE MANIFESTS HAVE BEEN DESTROYED.
3. RECORDKEEPING. THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE FACILITY OWNERS OR
OPERATORS TO KEEP RECORDS OF THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF EACH HAZARDOUS
WASTE RECEIVED AND HOW THIS WASTE IS TREATED, STORED, OR DISPOSED.
ALSO, RECORDS ARE TO BE KEPT ON THE LOCATION OF WASTE, WASTE ANALYSES,
INSPECTIONS, PERSONNEL TRAINING, MONITORING RESULTS, INCIDENTS THAT
REQUIRE IMPLEMENTING THE FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN, AND COST ESTIMATES
FOR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE. THIS SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE
DISCUSSES THE MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PROPOSED SECTION
250.43-5(B) RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.
A. CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. A COMMENTER CLAIMED THAT THE PROPOSED
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS WERE CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT BECAUSE
MANIFESTS ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR ON-SITE DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, YET
THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE KEPT BY THE PROPOSED REGULATION WAS
SUBSTANTAILLY IDENTICAL TO THE INFORMATION ON A MANIFEST.
THE AGENCY DISAGREES THAT RECORDKEEPING AT ON-SITE FACILITIES IS
CONTRARY TO CONGRESSIONAL INTENT. SECTION 3004(1) OF RCRA WHICH
MANDAGES RECORDKEEPING AT HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, MAKES NO
DISTINCTION BETWEEN ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE FACILITIES. THE MANIFEST IS
PRIMARILY A WASTE TRANSPORT TRACKING AND CONTROL DOCUMENT.
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITIES ARE INDEPENDENT OF THE
MANIFEST AND SERVE DIFFERENT PURPOSES. THE CORE INFORMATION WHICH
APPEARS ON THE MANIFEST, E.G., ORIGIN, QUANTITY AND TYPE OF WASTE, IS
ALSO NECESSARY FOR RECORDKEEPING PURPOSES.
B. OPERATING RECORD. A COMMENTER SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPOSED TERM
"OPERATING LOG" BE CHANGED TO THE TERM "OPERATING RECORD" TO ALLOW THE
USE OF AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE USE OF AN ADP SYSTEM IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE RECORDKEEPING SYSTEM FLEXIBILITY INTENDED BY THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS. FURTHER, THE LARGE AREA OF SOME FACILITIES, AND THE
VARIETY OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED AT SOME FACILITIES, MAKE IT VERY UNLIKELY
THAT ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION WOULD BE RECORDED IN ONE OPERATING LOG AT
ONLY ONE LOCATION. IN WRITING THE PROPOSED RULES THE AGENCY ASSUMED A
NUMBER OF LOGS, OR RECORDS, WOULD BE MAINTAINED AT A SITE. ALL SUCH
RECORDS AT A FACILITY TAKEN TOGETHER WOULD THEN CONSTITUTE THE
FACILITY'S OPERATING LOG.
THE TERM "OPERATING RECORD" MORE ACCURATELY REFLECTS THE
AGENCY'S INTENTIONS AND EXPECTED COMMERCIAL PRACTICE, THAN DOES
THE TERM "OPERATING LOG." THE AGENCY HAS THEREFORE CHANGED ALL
REFERENCES IN THE FINAL REGULATIONS FROM "LOG" TO "RECORD."
C. WARRANTLESS INSPECTIONS. A COMMENTER, RELYING ON MARSHALL V.
BARLOW'S, INC., 413 U.S. 266 (1978), SUGGESTED THAT THE PROPOSED
REQUIREMENT THAT THE OPERATING RECORD BE OPEN TO ANY DULY DESIGNATED
EMPLOYEE OR AGENT OF THE AGENCY AUTHORIZED WARRANTLESS ADMINISTRATIVE
INSPECTIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF FACILITY'S OWNER OR OPERATOR.
EPA'S INFORMATION-GATHERING ACTIVITIES UNDER RCRA SECTION 3007 ARE
SUBJECT TO THE FOURTH AMENDMENTS PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AS ENUNICIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN MARSHALL V. BARLOW'S,
INC., SUPRA. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN BARLOW'S
QUOTING ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ V. UNITED STATES (413 U.S. 266, 271), EMPHASIZED
THAT:
A CENTRAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE CASES (INVOLVING WARRANTLESS
SEARCHES OF PERVASIVELY REGULATED INDUSTRIES) AND THIS ONE IS THAT
BUSINESSMEN ENGAGED IN SUCH FEDERALLY LICENSED AND REGULATED ENTERPRISES
ACCEPT THE BURDENS AS WELL AS THE BENEFITS OF THEIR TRADE WHEREAS THE
PETITIONER HERE WAS NOT ENGAGED IN ANY REGULATED OR LICENSED BUSINESS.
THE BUSINESSMEN IN A REGULATED INDUSTRY IN EFFECT CONSENTS TO THE
RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON HIM.
EPA'S EXERCISE OF ITS SECTION 3007 AUTHORITY WILL BE CONDUCTED IN A
MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE DECISION.
D. NOMENCLATURE FOR WASTE INFORMATION. ONE COMMENTER COMPLAINED
THAT PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-5(B)(2)(I)(A), WHICH REQUIRED USING DOT OR
EPA WASTE DESCRIPTIONS IN THE OPERATING RECORD, WAS CONFUSING.
THE AGENCY ALLOWED THE USE OF DOT, AS WELL AS EPA NOMENCLATURE,
TO DESCRIBE WASTE ON THE PROPOSED OPERATING RECORD, BECAUSE THE
MANIFEST, WHICH CONTAINS MUCH OF THE INFORMATION NEEDED TO FILL
IN THE RECORD, DESCRIBES WASTE USING DOT NOMENCLATURE. THE AGENCY
THOUGHT THAT PROVIDING THE FLEXIBILITY OF USING EITHER THE AGENCY'S
OR DOT'S TERMINOLOGY IN THE OPERATING RECORD, WOULD BE THE MOST
COST-EFFECTIVE AND LEAST BURDENSOME METHOD FOR RECORDING WASTE
MANAGEMENT INFORMATION.
IN RETROSPECT, THE AGENCY NOW BELIEVES THIS WAS NOT THE BEST
APPROACH. THE PROPOSED SECTION 3004 RULES FOR RECORDKEEPING APPLIED TO
BOTH ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE FACILITIES, ALTHOUGH SEPARATE RULES FOR
ON-SITE FACILITY REPORTING WERE CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED SECTION 3002
RULES. ON-SITE FACILITIES DO NOT USE MANIFESTS, AND THUS RECORDKEEPING
BASED ON DOT NOMENCLATURE IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THESE FACILITIES.
THEREFORE, TO SIMPLIFY THE RULES, AND TO AVOID CONFUSION BETWEEN ON-SITE
AND OFF-SITE FACILITY RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS, THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED
TO USE EPA NOMENCLATURE FOR ALL FACILITY RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING.
4. REPORTING. THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS
TO FILE AN ANNUAL REPORT SUMMARIZING THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF EACH
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED, AND HOW THIS WASTE IS TREATED, STORED, OR
DISPOSED OF AT THE FACILITY. IN ADDITION, OWNERS OR OPERATORS ARE
REQUIRED TO MAKE REPORTS TO THE EPA REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WITHIN 15
DAYS AFTER WASTES ARE RECEIVED WITHOUT A MANIFEST; INCIDENTS SUCH AS
FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, AND RELEASES; AND PROBLEMS DETECTED VIA GROUND-WATER
MONITORING.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 038 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113402
REGULATION
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS THAT GENERATE
AND DISPOSE OF THEIR WASTE AT THE SAME LOCATION (I.E., ON-SITE
DISPOSERS) WERE SPECIFIED IN THE PORPOSED SECTION 3002 RULES. BECAUSE
THESE RULES WERE NEARLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSED
SECTION 3004 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, THE AGENCY HAS CONSOLIDATED THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE FACILITIES IN THESE
FINAL SECTION 3004 RULES.
THIS SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE DISCUSSES THE MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
THE PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-5(C) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
A. JOINT FILING REPORTS. COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT FIRMS WITH MORE
THAN ONE SITE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT REPORTS FOR ALL SITES.
ANOTHER COMMENTER FELT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD ALLOW FOR AN ASSUMPTION OF
DUTIES CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GENERATOR AND THE FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR
WHEREBY LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLYING WITH THE GENERATOR REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS CAN BE ALLOCATED TO THE OWNER OR OPERATOR.
IF A CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS MAINTAINS THE RECORDS FOR THE VARIOUS
FACILITIES IT CONTROLS, BOTH THE PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES ALLOW THE
FIRM'S HEADQUARTERS TO SUBMIT REPORTS FOR EACH OF ITS FACILITIES.
THE AGENCY CANNOT PROHIBIT OWNERS OR OPERATORS FROM ASSUMING
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GENERATOR'S REPORTING IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO SO.
CONTRACT LAW PROVIDES THE MECHANISM FOR OWNERS OR OPERATORS TO ASSUME
THESE RESPONSIBILITIES. IF, HOWEVER, THE GENERATOR'S CONTRACTED DUTIES
ARE NOT PERFORMED, THE GENERATOR WILL BE HELD RSPONSIBLE FOR NOT
COMPLYING WITH THE RCRA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
B. SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT. THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED
THAT THE FACILITY'S ANNUAL REPORT BE SENT TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
WITHIN FOUR WEEKS AFTER THE CLOSING DATE OF THE REPORTING YEAR. SOME
COMMENTERS FELT THAT THIS TURNAROUND TIME WAS TOO SHORT BECAUSE:
(A) MOST LARGE FIRMS WILL REQUIRE MORE THAN FOUR WEEKS TO PREPARE THE
ANNUAL REPORT;
(B) THE PAPERWORK BURDEN OF THE REPORT IS SO GREAT THAT THE FACILITY
WILL HAVE TO STOP OPERATIONS IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE REPORT IF THE
REQUIRED TURNAROUND TIME IS ONLY 30 DAYS; AND
(C) FOUR WEEKS DOES NOT ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR RECENT MANIFESTS TO
BE RETURNED.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT IT MAY TAKE MORE THAN 30 DAYS TO COMPILE THE
INFORMATION NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE FACILITY ANNUAL REPORT. THE OWNERS
OR OPERATORS OF BOTH ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE FACILITIES MAY BE GENERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE SENT ELSEWHERE, AS WELL AS DISPOSERS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE. TO ALLOW WASTE GENERATORS SUFFICIENT TIME TO COLLECT ALL
MANIFESTS IN ORDER TO FILE THEIR ANNUAL REPORT, THE FINAL SECTION 3002
RULES ALLOW 60 DAYS, RATHER THAN 30 DAYS, FROM THE END OF THE CALENDAR
YEAR TO FILE THE ANNUAL REPORT. IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE GENERATORS, AND TO AVOID UNNECESSARY
CONFUSION BY SPECIFYING SEPARATE DEADLINES FOR GENERATORS AND
FACILITIES, THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING THE ANNUAL REPORT FOR ALL WASTE
MANAGEMENT FACILITIES HAS ALSO BEEN EXTENDED TO 60 DAYS.
C. CERTIFICATION STATEMENT. THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED THAT
FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS SIGN ON THE ANNUAL REPORT FORM A STATEMENT
WHICH CERTIFIED THAT THE INFORMATION ON THE FORM WAS TRUE, ACCURATE, AND
COMPLETE. SEVERAL COMMENTERS OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED WORDING OF THE
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT ON THE REPORT FORM. THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE
PHRASE "TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE" BE INSERTED, AND THE WORD
"PERSONAL" BE DELETED FROM THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT BECAUSE:
(A) THE PERSON SIGNING THE CERTIFICATION MAY NOT HAVE COMPILED THE
ACTUAL INFORMATION REPORTED, AND THUS, WILL NOT HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
OF EACH OF THE MANY PIECES OF INFORMATION REPORTED, AND
(B) THE PROPOSED WORDING OF THE STATEMENT PLACES THE INDIVIDUAL WHO
SIGNS THE REPORT IN THE POSITION OF BEING CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR ERRORS
BEYOND HIS CONTROL. IN MANY INSTANCES, AN ERROR COULD BE MADE EVEN
THOUGH THERE WAS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO SUBMIT ACCURATE INFORMATION.
THESE COMMENTERS ALSO FELT THAT THE SENTENCE "I AM AWARE THAT THERE
ARE SIGNIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATION, INCLUDING
THE POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT." SHOULD BE DELETED FROM THE
STATEMENT. THEY CLAIMED THAT THE SENTENCE WAS UNNECESSARY, BECAUSE IT
IS EVIDENT THAT ANYONE WHO KNOWINGLY SUBMITS A FALSE REPORT TO THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SUBJECT TO SIGNIFICANT PENALTIES.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT SHOULD REFLECT, TO
THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, THE SIGNER'S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH,
ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS OF THE SUBMISSION. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OR
HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY NOT HAVE FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE
TRUTH, ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS OF THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED.
ACCORDINGLY, THE AGENCY HAS CHANGED THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT ON THE
ANNUAL REPORT TO REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE TO STATE THAT "BASED ON MY INQUIRY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS
IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE INFORMATION, I BELIEVE THAT
THE INFORMATION IS TRUE, ACCURATE, AND COMPLETE." THIS FORMULATION,
ADOPTED FROM EPA'S NPDES REGULATIONS, RECOGNIZES BOTH THE LIMITS OF THE
SIGNER'S PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE AGENCY'S NEED FOR ACCURATE AND
COMPLETE INFORMATION. IT ALLOWS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO RESPOND ON THE
BASIS OF HIS BELIEF, BUT SETS FROTH PRECISELY WHAT THE BASIS OF THAT
BELIEF MUST BE.
THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH A COMMENTER'S SUGGESTION THAT EPA DELETE
FROM THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT: "I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT PENALTIES FOR SUBMITTING FALSE INFORMATION, INCLUDING THE
POSSIBILITY OF FINE AND IMPRISONMENT." THE AGENCY INCLUDED THIS SENTENCE
IN THE STATEMENT TO IMPRESS UPON THE SIGNER THE NECESSITY FOR SUBMITTING
COMPLETE AND ACCUARTE INFORMATION. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT SOME OWNERS
OR OPERATORS MAY NOT REALIZE THAT THE KNOWING SUBMISSION OF FALSE
INFORMATION TO EPA MAY SUBJECT THE SIGNER TO SIGNIFICANT PENALTIES.
THEREFORE, THE SENTENCE HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
IN THE FINAL RULES.
D. UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT. THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED OWNERS OR
OPERATORS TO FILE A QUARTERLY REPORT TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
DESCRIBING HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A
MANIFEST, UNLESS THE WASTE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
MANIFEST BECAUSE OF THE EXCLUSIONS PROVIDED IN THE SECTION 3002 RULES.
SOME COMMENTERS FELT THE UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORTING REQUIREMENT
SHOULD BE DELETED BECAUSE IT WAS BURDENSOME, UNNECESSARY, AND SUBMITTED
SO INFREQUENTLY AS TO MAKE THE INFORMATION OF LITTLE OR NO VALUE TO THE
AGENCY.
THE AGENCY DISAGREES THAT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE REPORT IS
USELESS. BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH UNMANIFESTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE AGENCY WANTS TO KNOW AS MUCH AS IT CAN ABOUT THE
WASTE, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. PROMPT SUBMISSION OF THE DETAILS REGARDING
UNMANIFESTED WASTE WILL ENABLE THE AGENCY TO ENSURE THAT THE FACILITY IS
MANAGING THE WASTE (WITH WHICH THE FACILITY MAY HAVE LIMITED MANAGEMENT
EXPERIENCE) IN AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW THE AGENCY TO
DETECT ANY SUSPICIOUS PATTERNS OF UNUSUALLY HIGH INCIDENCES OF
UNMANIFESTED WASTE IN PARTICULAR AREAS.
HOWEVER, THE AGENCY DOES AGREE THAT THE REPORTS WILL BE MORE USEFUL
FOR ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES IF THEY ARE SUBMITTED SOON AFTER THE
UNMANIFESTED WASTE IS RECEIVED. THEREFORE, IN THE FINAL RULES, THE
REPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE RETURNED TO THE AGENCY WITHIN 15 DAYS OF THE
DATE THE WASTE IS RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 039 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113403
REGULATION
THE AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT REQUIRING A 15-DAY TURN AROUND TIME
FOR THESE REPORTS WILL BE BURDENSOME. THIS IS BECUASE IT IS ILLEGAL TO
TRANSPORT HAZARDOUS WASTE WITHOUT A MANIFEST, AND THUS, THE INCIDENCE OF
UNMANIFESTED WASTE ARRIVING AT A FACILITY -- AND THE ATTENDANT NEED TO
FILL OUT A REPORT FOR THESE WASTES -- SHOULD BE INFREQUENT.
SMALL QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ARE EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION
UNDER THIS PART AND DO NOT REQUIRE A MANIFEST WHERE A FACILITY RECEIVES
UNMANIFESTED HAZARDOUS WASTES, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR THE FACILITY
OWNER OR OPERATOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT
SHOULD BE FILED. IN SUCH CASES, THE AGENCY SUGGESTS THAT THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR OBTAIN FROM EACH GENERATOR A CERTIFICATION THAT THE WASTE
QUALIFIES FOR EXCLUSION. OTHERWISE, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR SHOULD FILE
AN UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT FOR THE HAZARDOUS WASTE MOVEMENT.
MONITORING
THE AGENCY RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS ON THE GROUND-WATER AND LEACHATE
MONITORING PORTIONS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION. BASED ON THESE COMMENTS
THE AGENCY HAS MADE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN THESE INTERIM STATUS
REGULATIONS. IN PARTICULAR THE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO REQUIRE
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, LANDFILLS, AND LAND
TREATMENT FACILITIES. THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS REGULATION REQUIRED
GROUND-WATER MONITORING ONLY AT THOSE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS AND LANDFILLS
WHERE A GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM WAS ALREADY IN PLACE. EPA HAS
DECIDED, THEREFORE, TO ISSUE THIS SUBPART AS "INTERIM FINAL" TO PROVIDE
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PORTION OF THE
REGULATION.
THE PROPOSED REGULATION REQUIRED LEACHATE MONITORING IN ADDITION TO
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. SUCH A
SYSTEM WAS TO COLLECT LEACHATE SAMPLES IN THE ZONE OF AERATION BETWEEN
THE WATER TABLE AND THE PRIMARY LINER OR NATURAL SOIL BARRIER OF THE
DISPOSAL FACILITY. VARIANCES WERE ALLOWED FOR OWNERS OR OPERATORS WHO
COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT AN ALTERNATIVE LEACHATE MONITORING TECHNIQUE
WOULD DETECT LEAKS AS EFFECTIVELY AS THE PRESCRIBED SYSTEM.
MANY COMMENTERS RAISED OBJECTIONS TO THE LEACHATE MONITORING
REQUIREMENT, ARGUING THAT IT WAS EXPENSIVE, REDUNDANT AND TECHNICALLY
INFEASIBLE. SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT LEACHATE MONITORING BE USED
IN LIEU OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING OR THAT THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
HAVE THE OPTION TO WAIVE LEACHATE MONITORING FOR SPECIFIC FACILITY
LOCATIONS OR DESIGNS. THE MOST FREQUENTLY MENTIONED COMMENT WAS THAT IT
WAS VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO INSTALL LEACHATE MONITORING SYSTEMS AT
EXISTING LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.
WHILE EPA STILL BELIEVES THAT LEACHATE MONITORING CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE
AND USEFUL DETECTION DEVICE IN ADDITION TO GROUND-WATER MONITORING, THE
AGENCY HAS DECIDED NOT TO REQUIRE LEACHATE MONITORING DURING THE INTERIM
STATUS PERIOD. THIS DECISION IS BASED ON THE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WIT H SUCH A SYSTEM AT LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.
MONITORING OF LEACHATE IN THE AERATION ZONE HAS NOT BEEN WIDELY USED TO
DATE. EPA IS AWARE OF RESERACH INVESTIGATIONS OF THE USE OF LYSIMETERS
AND OTHER TECHNIQUES TO MONITOR LEACHATE, BUT IS NOT AWARE OF ANY
APPLICATIONS OF AERATION ZONE MONITORING BENEATH A FULL-SIZED DISPOSAL
FACILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE FACILITY IS LEAKING.
AVAILALBE LEACHATE MONIROTING TECHNOLOGY GENERALLY INVOLVES THE
PLACEMENT OF PROBES (LYSIMETERS) BENEATH THE DISPOSAL FACILITY. SINCE
EACH PROBE IS NOT GENERALLY CAPABLE OF MONITORING A LARGE AREA, MANY OF
THEM WOULD HAVE TO BE PLACED UNDER A FACILITY IN ORDER TO DETECT A
LOCALIZED FLAW IN THE LANDFILL DESIGN. IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE TO PLACE
SUCH DEVICES BELOW AN EXISTING LANDFILL OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT WITHOUT
COMPLETELY REMOVING THE WASTE AND REDESIGNING THE FACILITY. MOREOVER,
ONCE SUCH A SYSTEM IS IN PLACE, THE PROBES TEND TO FAIL OVER TIME DUE TO
DETERIORAT ION OR PLUGGING. IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHEN SUCH A
FAILURE OCCURES AND, IF DISCOVERED, THE DAMAGE IS GENERALY IRREPARABLE.
UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES EPA DOES NOT BLIEVE THAT LEACHATE MONITORING
SHOULD BE A GENERAL REQUIREMENT FOR LANDFILL AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
DURING INTERIM STATUS. THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO EXAMINE THE
APPROPRIATENESS OF LEACHATE MONITORING AT AT NEW LANDFILLS AND SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS. DEPENDING UPON THE RESULTS OF THESE STUDIES, THE AGENCY
MAY INCLUDE LEACHATE MONITORING REQUIREMENTS IN THE PHASE II OR PHASE
III REGULATIONS.
AT LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES, HOWEVER, SOIL PORE WATER MONITORING
(THE EQUIVALENT OF LEACHATE MONITORING) IS FEASIBLE, EVEN AT EXISTING
FACILITIES. SUCH A SYSTEM CAN PROVIDE VALUABLE INFORMATION ON THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LAND TREATMENT PROCESSES OCCURRING IN THE SOIL.
HOWEVER, IT IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR GROUND-WATER MONITORING FOR DETERMINING
ACTUAL CONTAMINATION OF GROUND WATER. THIS REQUIREMENT IS DISCUSSED IN
MORE DETAIL IN THE "LAND TREATMENT" PORTION OF THIS PREAMBLE.
EPA BELIEVES THAT A RELIANCE ON GROUND-WATER MONITORING, INSTEAD OF
LEACHATE MONITORING AT LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WILL
ADEQUATELY PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT AS WILL BE DESCRIBED
LATER, THE MONITORING SYTEM REQUIRED FOR ALL SUCH FACILITIES RELIES ON
TESTING FOR INDICATOR PARAMETERS AT THE EDGE OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT
AREA. SUCH A SCHEME SHOULD GIVE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, AS WELL AS EPA,
A RELATIVELY PROMPT INDICATION OF ANY LEAKAGE FROM THE FACILITY INTO
GROUND WATER.
THE FOLLOWING IS A DISCUSSION OF THE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE INTERIM
STATUS GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENT:
1. APPLICABILITY. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS SPECIFIED A MINIMUM
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM, CAPABLE OF DETECTING AND IDENTIFYING
HAZARDOUS WASTE OF ITS CONSTITUENTS IF THEY ENTERED AN UNDERLYING
ACQUIFER IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO CAUSE A "SIGNIFICANT" CHANGE IN
GROUND-WATER QULITY.
THE PROPOSED REGULATION CONTAINED A VARIANCE TO THE EFFECT THAT A
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED, OR A LESSER DEGREE
OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING COULD BE USED, IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR COULD
DEMONSTRATE, AT THE TIME A PERMIT WAS ISSUED, THAT GEOLOGIC AND
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS UNDERLYING THE FACILIT- INDICATED NO POTENTIAL FOR
DISCHARGE TO GROUND WATER. SOME COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT THE CURRENT
STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT MONITORING SYSTEM OTHER THAN THE INDICATOR
PARAMETER MONITORING SYSTEM DISCUSSED BELOW. IN THIS CASE HE MUST
IMPLEMENT THE GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DISCUSSED IN
DETAIL LATER.
IN THESE FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS, THE AGENCY HAS AGAIN
INCORPORATED A VARIANCE WITHIN THE GROUND-WATER MONITORING REQUIREMENT.
AS THE COMMENTERS SUGGESTED, A LESSER DEGREE OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING
WILL BE ALLOWED IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE AN OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN
DEMONSTRATE TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR THAT THERE IS A LOW POTENTIAL
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO MIGRATE TO WATER SUPPLY WELLS OR TO
SURFACE WATER VIA THE UPPERMOST AQUIFER. (MIGRATION VIA THE UPPERMOST
AQUIFER INCLUDES MIGRATION THROUGH SUCH AN AQUIFER TO A DEEPER AQUIFER
HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED TO WATER SUPPLY WELLS OR SURFACE WATERS.) A
COMPLETE WAIVER OF MONITORING IS ONLY AVAILALBE WHEN THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WILL BE NO POTENTIAL FOR MIGRATION
TO WATER SUPPLY WELLS OR SURFACE WATER.
AN OWNER OR OPERATOR WHO WISHES TO INSTALL A LESSER DEGREE OF
MONITORING MUST DOCUMENT THE JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH AN APPROACH.
THAT WRITTEN DEMONSTRATION MUST BE CERTIFIED BY A QUALIFIED
GEOLOGIST OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, KEPTON THE FACILITY PREMISES,
AND, DURING INTERIM STATUS, PROVIDED TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
UPON HIS REQUEST. SUCH A DEMONSTRATION TO SUPPORT A LESSER DEGREE O
MONITORING MUST INCLUDE AN EVALUATION OF (1) A WATER BALANCE OF
PRECIPITATION, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, RUNOFF AND INFILTRATION; (2)
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SATURATED AND UNSATURATED ZONES; AND (3)
THE PROXIMITY OF THE FACILITY TO WATER SUPPLIES OR SURFACE WATERS.
THE AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT AQUIFERS UNDERLYING THE FACILITY
THAT DO NOT QUALIFY AS UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER SHOULD
BE EXEMPTED FROM CONSIDERATION. SUCH AQUFIERS MAY HAVE OTHER USES
WORTHY OF PROTECTION, OR MAY BE HYDRAULICALLY CONNECTED TO OTHER WAT
SUPPLY WELLS OR SURFACE WATERS NEEDING PROTECTION.
RCRA'S GOAL OF PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT DOES NOT
ALLOW THE AGENCY TO REDUCE THE BASIC MONITROING REQUIREMENTS SIMPLY
BECUASE OF THE COST. EPA HAS ALSO REJECTED A CONSIDERATION OF THE
NATURE OF THE WASTE AND THE FACILITY DESIGN AS GROUND-WATER MONITORING
IS TOO LIMITED TO SERVE AS A BASIS FOR REGULATION. THE MAJORITY OF
COMMENTERS DISCUSSING THIS SECTION, HOWEVER, FOCUSED ON THE VARIANCE
PROVISION, SUGGESTING THAT IT ALLOW CONSIDERATION OF A VARIETY OF
FACTORS. THESE INCLUDED THE EXISTING SUITABILITY OF THE ACQUIFER AS AN
UNDERGROUND SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER, WASTE CHARACTERISTICS, EXPENSE OF
MONITORING AND FACILITY DESIGN.
SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED RELAXING THE VARIANCE BY CHANGIING "NO
POTENTIAL" TO "LOW POTENTIAL", SOME THOUGHT MONITORING SHOULD BE
REQUIRED ONLY OVER AN UNDERGROUND SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER. OTHER
COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT FOR DEEP WATER TABLES, AS IN THE WEST, A
TECHNIQUE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
THESE FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS REQUIRE OWNERS AND OPERATORS
TO IMPLEMENT A GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM, INCLUDING THE
INSTALLATION, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A MONITORING SYSTEM
SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATIONS. THE PROGRAM MUST BE CAPABLE OF
DETERMINING THE FACILITY'S IMPACT ON GROUND-WATER QUALITY IN
THEUPPERMOST ACQUIFER UNDERLYING THE FACILITY. WHILE EPA ACKNOWLEDGES
THAT GROUND-WATER MONITORING IS COMPLICATED AND THAT THE CURRENT STATE
OF KNOWLEDGE WILL CONTINUE TO BE IMPROVED, ADEQUATE MONITORING METHODS
FOR DETECTING CONTAMINANT MIGRATION ARE AVAILABLE. IN LIGHT OF THE
CRUCIAL ROLE WHICH SUCH MONITORING PLAYS IN THE ASSESSMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, A GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM MUST BE A BASIC
ELEMENT OF ANY DISPOSAL ACTIVITY. THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO REFINE
THESE REGULATIONS AS THE STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVES.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 040 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113404
REGULATION
IN FOCUSING ON THE UPPERMOST AQUIFER, EPA DOES NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST
THAT IT IS UNCONCERNED ABOUT CONTAMINATION OF DEEPER AQUIFERS. THE
MONITORING PROGRAM SEEKS TO DETECT CONTAMINATION OF THE UPPERMOST
AQUIFER BECAUSE THAT WILL BE THE FIRST GROUND WATER TO BE AFFECTED BY A
LEAKING DISPOSAL FACILITY. IF AN OWNER OR OPERATOR KNOWNS, OR WISHES TO
ASSUME, THAT HIS FACILITY IS CONTRIBUTING HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUTENTS
TO THE GROUND WATER, THE REGULATIONS ALLOW HIM TO INSTALL AND OPERATE A
GROUND-WATER A BASIS FOR REDUCED MONITORING REQUIREMENTS. EPA DOES NOT
BELIEVE THAT THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT HAZARDOUS WASTES AND FACILITY
DESIGNS IS SUFFICIENTLY CERTAIN TO JUSTIFY REDUCTIONS IN THE BASIC
MONITORING SYSTEM DURING INTERIM STATUS.
2. GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM. THE PROPOSED REGULATION REQUIRED
THE INSTALLATION OF AT LEAST FOUR WELLS. AT LEAST ONE WELL WAS TO BE
LOCATED HYDRAULICALLY UPGRADIENT TO YIELD SAMPLES OF BACKGROUND
GROUND-WATER QUALITY. AT LEAST THREE WERE TO BE LOCATED HYDRAULICALLY
DOWNGRADIENT IN ORDER TO DETECT MIGRATION FROM THE FACILITY. ONE OF THE
THREE WELLS HAD TO BE LOCATED AT THE SOLID WASTE BOUNDARY. THE
DOWNGRADIENT WELLS WERE TO BE PLACED AT DIFFERENT DEPTHS IN ORDER TO
DETECT POTENTIAL MIGRATION. OWNERS AND OPERATORS WERE RQUIRED TO CASE
THEIR WELLS AND BACKFILL THE ANNULAR SPACE IN ORDER TO PREVENT MIGRATION
OF WATER DOWN THE WELL BORE. THE MOST FREQUENT COMMENT RECEIVED ON
THESE ERQUIREMENTS REQUESTED A MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACH TO GROUND-WATER
MONITORING. COMMENTERS WERE CONCERNED THAT THE AGENCY WAS PROPOSING
RIGID REQUIREMENTS WHICH WOULD BE TOO DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT,
CONSIDERING THE HIGHLY VARIABLE NATURE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS. THEY
EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE RQUIRED NUMBER, PALCEMENT, AND DEPTH OF WELLS
AND SUGGESTED VARIOUS OPTIONS.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS DISCUSSED THE REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM NUMBER OF
WELLS ARGUING THAT THE NUMBER OF WELLS NEEDED WILL VARY WITH CONDITIONS
SUCH AS THE HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE AREA, THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY, AND THE
CONFIGURATION OF THE WASTE MANGEMENT AREA. SOME COMMENTERS BELIEVED
THAT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM NUMBER OF WELLS WAS ADEQUATE WHILE OTHER
SUGGESTED ONE, TWO OR MORE THAN THREE WELLS.
THESE FINAL REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR DRILL A
SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF WELLS TO CHARACTERIZE THE POTENTIAL CONTAMINATION
OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY CAUSED BY THIS HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY. ON THE
UPGRADIENT SIDE OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA THIS MANS THAT THERE MUST
BE ENOUGH WELLS (AT LEAST ONE) TO CHARACTERIZE BACKGROUND GROUND-WATER
QUALITY IN THE UPPERMOST AQUIFER. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST ASSURE
THAT THE UPGRADIENT SAMPLES REPRESENT TRUE BACKGROUND CONDITIONS AND ARE
NOT CONTAMINATED BY THE FACILITY.
THERE MUST ALSO BE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF DOWNGRADIENT WELLS TO
PROVIDE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES CAPABLE OF DETECTING MIGRATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS FROM THE FACILITY. EPA HAS RETAINED ITS
REQUIREMENT THAT A MINIMUM OF THREE WELLS SHOULD BE DRILLED AT THE
DOWNGRADIENT SIDE OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA. THIS NUMBER WAS
RECOMMENDED TO THE AGENCY BY SEVERAL RESPECTED GROUPS FAMILIAR WITH
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT DISPOSAL FACILITIES. THE PUBLIC COMMENTS DID
NOT PRESENT A SPECIFIC RATIONALE FOR ANY OTHER MINIMUM NUMBER OF WELLS.
WHILE THE AGENCY HAS MAINTAINED IN THE REGULATIONS THE
REQUIREMENT FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE WELLS, IT EXPECTS THAT
MANY FACILITIES WILL HAVE TO DRILL MORE THAN THREE WELLS BECAUSE
OF THE SIZE OF THE FACILITY OR BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE
FACILITY OR BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEX HYDROGEOLOGY BELOW THE FACILITY.
ULTIMATELY THE BURDEN IS ON THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO DEVELOP THE
MONITORING SYSTEM NECESSARY TO ACCURATELY CHARACTERIZE THE AQUIFER
AND DETECT MIGRATION. IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT AN OWNER OR
OPERATOR THAT CAN PRESENT A CONVINCING CASE FOR A LOWER NUMBER OS
WELLS HAS THE OPTION OF JUSTIFYING AND INSTALLING SUCH LESSER
MONITORING UNDER THE TERMS OF SECTION 265.90(C) OF THIS REGULATION.
SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT EPA SPECIFY A SPACING INTERVAL AND
MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM DEPTHS FOR MONITORING WELLS. OTHER COMMENTERS SOUGHT
MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE STANDARDS, PARTICULARLY IN DEFINING WELL DEPTH,
TO ALLOW FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS. EPA BELIEVES THAT
THE SPACING AND DEPTH OF WELLS SHOULD DEPEND ON THE PARTICULAR PATTERN
OF GROUND-WATER FLOW BELOW A FACILITY , MAKING IT EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO
SPECIFY NATIONAL MINIMUMS OR MAXIMUMS IN THIS AREA. THUS THE AGENCY HAS
DECIDED TO ELAVE THE SPACING AND DEPTH OF WELLS UP TO THE OWNERS AND
OPEATORS. THEY WILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR SLEECTION OF
MONITORING SYSTEM IN LIGHT OF THE PARTICULAR HYDROGEOLOGY BELOW THEIR
FACILITIES.
COMMENTERS ALSO SUGGESTED THAT THE PLACEMENT OF MONITORING
WELLS BETWEEN THE WASTE BOUNDARY AND THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BE
A MATTER FOR OWNER OR OPERATOR DISCRETION. TWO OBJECTIONS WERE
RAISED TO PLACEMENT OF WELLS AT THE SOLID WASTE BOUNDARY. FIRST,
COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT SUCH PLACEMENT WAS REDUNDANT IN LIGHT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR LEACHATE MONITORING. SECOND, COMMENTERS UUGGESTED
THAT IF WELLS WERE PLACED CLOSED TO ACHIEVE PORTION OF THE
FACILITY, LEACHATE THAT MOVED LATERALLY IN THE SOIK BELOW THE FACILI
WOULD ENTER THE ANNULAR SPACE AROUND THE MONITORING WELL AND
QUICKLY PASS INTO THE GROUNDWATER.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 041 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113405
REGULATION
EPA BELIEVES THAT THE MONITORING WELLS SHOULD BE PLACED AS CLOSE TO
THE WASTE BOUNDARY AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO GIVE PROMPT INDICATION OF THE
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION. THIS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT SINCE LEACHATE
MONITORING HAS BBEN DELETED. IF SIGNIFICANT GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
OCCURS BEFORE DETECTION, THE DIFFICULTIES OF CORRECTIVE ACTION ARE MADE
ALL THE MORE SEVERS. THEREFORE IT IS APPROPRIATE TO PLACE MONITORING
WELLS AT THE EDGE OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA TO PROVIDE EARLY
DETECTION.
EPA DOES NOTBELIEVE THAT THE PLACEMENT OF WELLS REQUIRED IN THIS
REGULATION PRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT RISK THAT MONITORING WELLS WILL BECOME
CONDUITS FOR LEACHATE PASSING TO GROUND WATER. EPA EXPECTS THAT MOST OF
THE LEACHATE FLOW WILL BE VERTICAL RATHER THAN HORIZONTAL. IN ADDITION,
THE REGULATION CALLS FOR MONITORING AT THE EDGE OF THE WASTEMANAGEMENT
AREA RATHER THAN THE SOLID WASTE ITSELF. THIS IS TO ELIMINATE ANY
SUGGESTION THAT THE WELLSSHOULD BE DRILLED THROUGH ANY NATURAL OR
ARTIFICAL BARRIER THAT MAY CONTAIN THE WASTE. THE THE PROBLEM OF
MIRGRATION OF LEACHATE WILL BE REDUCED BY PLACE MONITORING WELLS OUTSIDE
OF ANY SUCH CONTAINMENT BARRIER. LASTLY, THE REGULATIONS CALL FOR
BACKFILLING OF THEANNULAR SPACE AROUND THE MONITORING WELL CASING, WHICH
SHOULD REDUCE THE RISK OF THE "CONDUIT" PROBLEM.
THE FEW COMMENTS THAT ADDRESSED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CASING WELLS AND
BACKFILLING THE ANNULAR SPACE GENERALLY SOUGHT FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF
THE AGENCY'S INTENT FOR THE REQUIREMENT. ONE COMMENTER SUGGESTED THAT
THE TERM "CASING" BE CLARIFIED. OTHER COMMENTERS SUGGESTED DESIGN
MEASURES, SUCH AS GRAVEL OR SAND PACKING, THAT WOULD IMPROVE THE WELL'S
CAPACITY TO PROVIDE REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLES. ANOTHER COMMENTER SUGGESTED
THAT EPA DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT BACKFILL BE "IMPERMEABLE" BECUASE
NO BACKFILL MATERIAL IS TRULY IMPERMEABLE.
GENERALLY EPA BELIEVES THAT THIS PROVISIONSOULD BE MORE
PERFORMANCE-ORIENTED. THUS THE FINAL PART 265 REGULATION SPECIFIES THAT
THE CASING CONSTRUCTION AND ANY NECESSARY GRAVEL OR SAND PACKING SHOULD
BE DIRECTED TOWARD THE OBJECTIVE OF COLLECTING SAMPLES AT THE
APPROPRIATE AQUIFER FLOW ZONE AND OF PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF THE
BORE HOLE. AN OPEN HOLD WOULD NOT PROVIDE SUCH ASSURANCES AND THUS IT
IS CLEAR THAT SOME WELL PIPE STRUCTURE CAPABLE OF DRAWING SAMPLES AT
SELECTED DEPTHS IS REQUIRED. LIKEWISE BACKFILLING SHOULD BE DIRECTED AT
ASSURING THE SAMPLES AND THE GROUND WATER ITSELF ARE NOT CONTAIMINATED,
RATHER THAN THE QUESTION OF WHETHER PARTICULAR MATERIALS ARE TRULY
IMPERMEABLE. THE REGULATION, THEREFORE HAS BEEN CHANGED TOMAKE CLEAR
THAT THOSE ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE WELL DESIGN PROVISION. FINALLY,
THESE REGULATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR EACH
COMPONENT OF A FACILITY THAT CONSISTS OF MORE THAN ONE LANDFILL,
IMPOUNDMENT OR LAND TREATEMENT AREA. THE AGENCY'S PAST AND PRESENT
INTENT WAS AND IS THAT THE GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM WOULD BE
INSTALLED A T THE PERIMETER OF THE WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA. THATINTENT IS
SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THESE REGULATIONS.
3. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS REQUIRED THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR TO ESTABLISH THE BACKGROUND GROUND-WATER QUALITY OF
THEUNDERLYING AQUIFER FOR A "COMPREHENSIVE" SET OF OVER 40 CONTAMINANTS.
THE DETERMINATION OF THIS BACKGROUND QUALITY WAS TO BE BASED ON MONTHLY
SAMPLING FOR ONE YEAR. THEREAFTER, THE FACILITY WAS TO SAMPLE ANNUALLY
FOR THE "COMPREHENSIVE" LIST. IN ADDITION THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WAS TO
SAMPLE AT SHORTER INTERVALS (THAT DEPENDED ON GROUND-WATER FLOW RATE)
FOR A "ROUTEIN" SET OF CONTAMINANTS. THE "ROUTINE" SET OF CONTAMINANTS.
THE "ROUTINE" LIST OF PARAMATERS INCLUDED SPECIFIC CONDUCTIVITY, PH,
CHLORIDE, TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS, DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBO AND THE
PRINCIPAL HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN THE WASTE. A "NOTE" ALLOWED A
REDUCTION IN THE "COMPREHENSIVE" LIST OF CONTAMINANTS FOR THOSE
SUBSTANCES THAT WOULD NOT RESULT FROM THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR
DISPOSAL OF A PARTICULAR WASTE.
COMMENTERS QUESTIONED THE NEED FOR MONTHLY SAMPLING TO DETERMINE
BACKGROUND WATER QUALITY, ARGUING FOR A MORE FLEXIBLE APPROACH.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT OBTAINING REPRESENTATIVE BACKGROUND
DATA AT A REASONABLY FREQUENT INTERVAL IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE
IN ESTABLISHING AN ACCURATE GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM. AS
AN INITIAL STEP, ANNUAL MONITORING IS UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT
CANNOT REFLECT SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS. THE AGENCY HAS, THEREFORE
DECIDED TO REQUIRE QUARTERLY BACKGROUND MONITORING WHICH SHOULD BE
MORE SENSITIVE TO SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS. OWNERS AND OPERATORS
ARE CERTAINLY FREE TO MONITOR AT GREATER FREQUENCIES TO PROVIDE A
MORE THOROUGH CHARACTERIZATION OF THE AQUIFER.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE AGENCY SPECIFY PARTICULAR
PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING, SAMPLE PRESERVATION,AD METHODS OF ANALYSIS.
THE AGENCY IS NOT AT THIS TIME SPECIFYING SUCH PROCEDURES IN THE
REGULATIONS; THERE MAY BE SEVERAL ACCEPTABLE APPROACHES. THUS THE
REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO DEVELOP AND FOLLOW A
GROUND-WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN. THE TERMS OF THE PLAN WILL BE
ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE OWNER OR OPERATOR. THE PLAN MUST SPECIFY
PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLE COLLECTION, SAMPLE PRESERVATION AND SHIPMENT,
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES, AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY CONTROL. SIMPLY TO PROVIDE
GUIDANCE IN THIS AREA, A COMMENT IN THE REGULATION SUGGESTS THAT OWNERS
AND OPERATORS CONSIDER USING METHODS CONTAINED IN TWO EPA PUBLICATION:
"PROCEDURES MANUAL FRO GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
FACILITIES" (AUGUST 1977) AND "METHODS FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER
AND WASTES" (MARCH 1979).
EPA RECEIVED MANY COMMENTS ON THE LIST OF PARAMETERS TO BE USED IN
THE SAMPLING PROGRAM. THOSE WHO ARGUED THAT THE LIST WAS TOO EXTENSIVE
SAID THAT SOME PARAMETERS WERE REDUNDANT AND THAT VARIANCES SHOULD BE
ALLOWED FOR CONTAMINANTS NOT EXPECTED TO BE IN THE WASTE. THEY ALSO
SUGGESTED THAT THE "ROUTINE" SET OF CONTAMNANTS SHOULD BE SHORT AND BE
USED TO TRIGGER THE NEED FOR MORE EXTENSIVE MONITORING. THOSE WHO
BELIEVED THAT THE LIST WAS NOT EXTENSIVE ENOUGH ARGUED THAT BRAOD
PARQMETERS SUCH AS DISSOLVED ORGANIC CARBON, BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND,
AND CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND WERE INSUFFICENTLY SENSITIVE TO DETECT SOME
HIGHLY TOXIC ORGANICS WHICH ARE DANGEROUS AT LOW LEVELS. IN ADDITION,
THEY SUGGESTED THAT THE GROUND-WATER LEVEL BE RECORDDED BECAUSE SUCH
FLUCTUATIONS MAY REQUIRE MODIFICATION OF THE SAMPLING PROGRAM TO MAKE IT
EFFECTIVE.
THE FINAL REGULATIONS DROP THE REFERENCE TO "COMPREHENSIVE" AND
"ROUTEIN" PARAMETERS. THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE MONITORING FOR THREE SETS
OF PARAMATERS THAT EACH SERVE A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.
THE FIRST SET REFLECT THE AQUIFER'S SUITABILITY AS DRINKING WATER
SUPPLY. THESE PARAMTERS PARAMETERS, CONTAINED IN APPENDIX III, ARE
THOS- SPECIFIED IN THE INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
ESTABLISHED UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT. OWNERS AND OPERATORS
ARE TO TEST FOR THESE PARAMETERS QUARTERLY DURING THE FIRST YEAR
ONLY AND REPORT THIS INFORMATION TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR.
WHILE THE AGENCY IS CONCERNED ABOUT GROUND-WATER PROTECTION FOR A
VARIETY OF PURPOSES USE OF GROUND WATER AS A DRINKING WATER SOURCE IS OF
PARTICULAR CONCERN.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 042 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113406
REGULATION
THESE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS DO NOT ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STANDARD, BUT THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED THAT THE
PHASE II REGULATIOS WILL, AT A MINIMUM, BE DESIGNED TO PROTECT DRINKING
WATER SUPPLIES. THE PURPOSE OF THE INTIAL SAMPLING FOR DRINKING WATER
PARAMETERS IS TO IDENTIFY FACILITIES THAT MAY BE SEVERELY DEGRADING
PRESNT AND FUTURE DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES, THE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR
AQUIFER IS BECOMING UNSUITABLE AS A DRINKING WATER SOURCE WILL BE USEFUL
TO THE AGENCY IN ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR PERMITS. THE AGECNY WILL
FOCUS ITS INITIAL ATTENTION ON FACILITIES WHICH APPERA TO BE HAVING THE
GREATEST EFFECT ON AN AQUIFER'S SUITABILITY AS A DRINKING WATER SUPPLY.
BUT USING CONTAMINANTS FROM THE INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER
REGULATIONS THE AGENCY DOES NOT MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT THIS SPECIFIES A
COMPLETE LIST OF THE PARAMETERS THAT DEFINE AN AQUIFER'S POTENTIAL AS AN
ACCEPTABLE DRINKING WATER SUPPLY, BUT THESE CONTAMINANTS WILL BE USEFUL
TO THE AGENCY IN ESTABLISHING ITS PRIORITIES.
THE SECOND SET OF PARAMETERS INCLUDES CHLORIDE, IRON, MANGANESE,
PHENOLS, SODIUM, AND SULFATE. THESE PARAMETERS ARE GENERALLY RECOGNIZED
AS USEFUL FOR CHARACTERIZING GROUND-WATER QUALITY THESE CONTAMINANTS ARE
UBIQUITOUS IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND ARE OFTEN USED TO CHARACTERIZE A
GROUND-WATER SUPPLY'S SUITABILITY FOR A VARIETY OF USES. THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR IS TO DRAW QUARTERLY SAMPLES FOR THESE PARAMETERS DURING THE
FIRST YEAR AND ANNUALLY THEREAFTER, INFORMATION ON THESE PARAMETERS WILL
BE USEFUL IN ANY ASESSMANT OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION THAT FOLLOWS
THE DETERMINATION THAT A FACILITY IS LEAKING. SUCH INFORMATION WILL,
FOR EXAMPLE, ASSIST THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH
CONTAINATION OF THE AQUIFER MAY BE COMING FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE
DISPOSAL FACILITY.
THE THIRD SET OF PARAMETERS CONSISTS OF FOUR INDICATORS THAT WILL BE
USED TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FACILITY IS LEAKING. AS INDICAT-D EARLIER
THE AGENCY WILL BE DEVELOPING ITS GROUND-WATER PROTECTION STRATEGY AS
PART OF THE PHASE II REGULATIONS. FOR ANY SUCH STANDARD IT WILL BE
IMPORTANT FOR A FACILITY TO ANSWER THE THRESHOLD QUSTION OF WHETHER
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS ARE ENTERING THE AQUIFER UNDERLYING THE
FACILITY. THEFOUR INDICATORS SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE, PH, TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON, AND TOTAL ORGANIC HALOGEN -- REFLECT CHANGES IN THE ORGANICS AN
INORGANIC MAKEUP OF THE GROUN-WATER. A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE
(INCREASE OR DECREASE FOR PH, INCREASE ONLY FOR THE OTHERS) IN THESE
INDICATORS BETWEEN THE ITIAL BACKGROUND CONCENTRATION OR VALUE AND THOSE
FROM DOWNGRADIENT WELLS SUGGESTS THAT ORGANIC OR INORGANIC SUBSTANCES
ARE BEING INTRODUCED INTO THE AQUIFER BY THE FACILITY.
INCREASES IN SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF INORGANIC
SUBSTANCES IN THEGROUND WATER. LIKEWISE INCREASES OR DECREASES IN
PH SUGGEST THE PRESENCE OF INORGANIC CONTMINATION. TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON (TOC) AND TOTAL ORGANIC HALOGEN (TOX) CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUN
WATER TENT TO INCREASE AS A RESULT OF ORGANIC CONTRIBUTIONS FORM
A HZARDOUS WASTEFACILITY. THE METHODOLOGY TO SAMPLE AND
ANALYZE FOR THESE INDICATORS IS PRESENTLY AVAILABLE. EPA BELIEVES
THAT MONITORING THESE INDICATORS WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO MAKE THE
THRESHOLD ASSESSMENT OF WHETHER A FACILITY IS LEAKING. CERTAIONLY
OWNERS AND OPERATORS ARE FREE TO PERFORM MORE EXTENSIVE MONITORING.
SINCE GROUND WATER MONITORING DATA FOR THE INDICATOR PARAMATERS IS
TO BE EVALUATED STATISTICALLY, THE AGENCY HAS SPECIFIED THAT EACH
DETERMINATION OF THE CONCENTRATION OF VALUE OF AN INDICATOR
PARAMETER IN A GROUND WATER SAMPLE BE BASED UPON A MINIMUM OF FOUR
REPLICATE MEASUREMENT. THIS NUMBER OF REPLICATES, USING
GENERALLY ACCEPTED TECHNIQUES, WILL ASSURE A REASONABLE DEGREE OF
ACCURACY, NEEDED FOR THE SPECIFIED STATISTICAL TESTING, WHICH IS
EXPLAINED IN THE NEXT SECTION.
EPA AGREESWITH THE COMMENTER WHO SUGGESTED THAT A DETERMINATION OF
THE GROUND-WATER ELEVATIN SHOULD BE MADE EACH TIME A SAMPLE IS TAKEN.
SUCH INFORMATION W ILL ASSIST THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IN DETERMINING
WHETHER THE MONITORING SYSTEM IS DRAWING SAMPLES FROM APPROPRIATELY
LOCATED WELLS. THE REGULATION, THEREFORE, INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT THAT
GROUND-WATER ELEVATION BE DETERMINED EACH TIME A SAMPLE IS OBTAINED.
IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTERS EPA HAS SPECIFIED A TWO-STAGE MONITORING
SYSTEM; BROAD INDICATORS ARE USED INTIALLY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A
FACILITY IS LEAKING. IF SUCH LEAKING IS DETECTED A MORE SPECIFIC
GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, DESCRIBED LATER IN THIS
PREAMLBE, IS INITIATED, EPA BELIEVES THAT THE USE OF BROAD PARAMETERS AS
INDICATORS IS AN APPROPRIATE STRATEGY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A FACILITY IS
LEAKING. IN RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL CONCERN EXPRESSED BY COMMENTERS ON
THE NUMBER OF PARAMETERS TO BE MONITORED, EPA HAS LIMITED ITS
REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATOR MONITORING TO FOUR PARAMETERS WHICH ARE
NECESSARY, AT A MINIMUM, TO DETECT LEAKS. IT IS UNLIKELY THAT A
FACILITY WOUDL SELECTIVELY EMIT LOW LEVELS OF HIGHLY TOXIC ORGANICS THAT
WOULD THEREBY MISS DETECTION.
4. PREPARATION, EVALUATION, AND RESPONSE. ACCORDING TO THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS, DETECTION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN GROUND-WATER QUALITY
REQUIRED THE OPERATOR TO NOTIFY THE AGENCY, TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE AND
THE EXTENT OF CONTAMINATION, AND TO DISCONTINUE THE FACILIT'S OPERATION.
COMMENTS RECEIVED SHOWED THAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE DID NOT CLEARLY
INDICATE WHETHER THESE ACTIONS SHOULD BE TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY OR
SEQUENTIALLY. COMMENTERS STATED TAHT DISCONTINUING OPERATIONS, BASED
SOLELY UPON A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT MONITORING RESULT, WAS
UNJUSTIFIED.
THE FINAL REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO REMOVE AMBIGUITIES.
ALSO, RATHER THAN REQUIRING THAT FACILITY OPERATIONS CEASE, THE
FINAL REGULATIONS SPECIFY A SEQUENTIAL APPROACH. UPON DETECTING ANY
SUSPECTED DISCHARGE FROM THE FACILITY BY STATISTICAL EVALUATION OF
THE GROND-WATER MONITORING DATA, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS REQUIRED T
NOTIFY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, WITHIN ONE WEEK OF ANY SUCH
DETECTION, THAT HIS FACILITY MAY BE CONTAMINATING THE GROUND WATER.
HE MUST ALSO, WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THIS NOTIFICATION, DEVELOP AND
SUBMIT TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR A PLAN, CERTIFIED BY A
QUALIFIED GEOLOGIST OR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER, FOR ASSESSING THE
QUALITY OF THE GROUND WATER. THEREGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT
AN OUTLINE OF SUCH A GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
BE DEVELOPED AND KEPT ON-HAND AT THE FACILITY BY THE TIME
MONITORING IS INITIATED. THE PLAN MUST SPECIFY; THENUMBER,
LOCATION, AND DEPTHS OF MONITORING WELLS TO BE USED FOR THE ASSESSME
THE SAMPLING, ANALYSIS, AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED; AN
A SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION. THEOWNER OR OPERATOR MUST THEN
IMPLEMENT THIS PLAN AND DETERMINE AS QUICKLY AS TECHNICALLY
FEASIBLE THE RATE AND EXTENT OF MIGRATION AND CONCENTRATION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUTENTS FROM
THEFACILITY IN THEGROUND WATER. WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER COMPLETION
OF THE FIRST REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR A REPORT CONTAINING THE RESULTS
OF THE GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT. IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
CAN DEMONSTRATE, USING NEWLY ACQUIRED AND PREVIOUSLY GATHERED
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DATA (INCLUDING DEVELOPED TO SATISFY
SECTION 265.92(B)(2)), THAT HIS FACILITY IS NOT CONTRIBUTING
HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO THE
GROUND WATER, HE MUST SO STATE IN THE REPORT AND MAY REINSTATE HIS
ORIGINAL GROUND-WATER MONITORING PROGRAM.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 043 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113407
REGULATION
HOWEVER, IF HIS ASSESSMENTSHOWS THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS
FROM HIS FACILITY ARE ENTERING THE GROUND WATER, HE MUST REPEAT THE
GROUNDWATER ASSESSMENT AT LEAST QUARTERLY THEREAFTER, UNTIL FINAL
CLOSURE OF THE FACILITY.
DETECTION OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE INDICATOR
PARAMETERS IN THE UPGRADIENT WELLS DOES NOT REQUIRE IMPLEMENTATION OF
GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM. THIS INFORMATION MAY BE USEFUL
AT A LATER TIME, THOUGH, IN DEMONSTRATING THAT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN
DOWNGRADIENT WATER QUALITY RESULTED FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITY.
AS INDICATED EARLIER, AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY INSTALL AN ALTERNATE
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM IF HE FEELS THAT MONITORING FOR INDICATOR
PARAMETERS WOULD SHOW THAT HIS FACILITY WAS AFFECTING THE GROUND WATER.
ANY SUCH ALTERNATE MONITORING PROGRAM MUST BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE ABOVE
DESCRIBED GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.
THE FINAL RULE SPECIFIES DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DUREATION OF
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DEPENDING UPON THE OPERATING STATUS OF THE
FACILITY AND THE MONITORING PROGRAM UTILIZED.
MONITORING OF INDICATOR PARAMETERS IS INTENDED TO DETECT FACILITY
LEAKAGE INTO THE GROUND WATER. IF SUCH LEAKAGE IS DETECTED THE
GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO
ESTABLISH THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM. IF THE ASSESSMENTDEMONSTRATES
THE ABSENCE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS IN THE GROUND WATER, THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR MAY REINSTATE INDICATOR PARAMETER MONITORING UNITL
SUSPECTED LEAKAGE INTO THE GROUND WATER IS AGAIN DETECTED. THIS
DETECTION COULD, OF COURSE, TRIGGER THE NEED FOR ANOTHER GROUND-WATER
QUALITY ASSESSMENT, AND SO ON, THROUGHOUT THE POSTCLOSURE CARE PERIOD AS
WELL. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE FIRST DETERMINATION UNDER THE GROUND
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DEMONSTRATES THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS HAVE INDEED ENTERED GROUND WATER, THE ASSESSMENTS MUST BE
REPEATED QUARTERLY, UNTIL FINAL CLOSURE OF THE FACILITY. SINCE
ADDITIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTES WILL BE RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY THORUGHOUT
THIS TIME, ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO DETERMINE ANY FURTHER
IMPACT FROM THESE WASTES ON THE GROUND-WATER QUALITY.
IF THE FIRST DETERMINATION OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION,
BY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PLAN,
OCCURS DURING THE POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD, HOWEVER, THE SOURCES
OF CONTAMINATION ARE EXPECTED TO BE RELATIVELY STABLE SUCH THAT
REPEATED ASSESMENTS WOULD ONLY CONFIRM THE INITIAL DETERMINATION
OF CONTAMINATION. FOR THIS REASON OLY ONE GROUND-WATER QUALITY
ASSESSMENTWHICH DEMONSTRATES CONTAMINATION IS REQUIRED DURING THE
POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD. BY A SIMILAR LINE OF REASONING, THOSE
FACILITIES WHICH FROM THEBEGINNING UTILIZE AN ALTERNATE
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM EQUIVALENT TO A GROUNDWATER
QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE REPEATED
ASSESSMENTS AFTER FINAL CLOSURE OF THE FACILITY.
THE MORE FREQUENT MONITORING (I.E., QUARTERLY) UNDER THE ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM IS REQUIRED TO ENABLE THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR AND THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR TO BE FULLY AWARE OF THE EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION. SUCH INFORMATION WILL BE USEFUL, FOR EXAMPLE, IN
PROVIDING WARNING TO DOWNGRADIENT GROUND-WATER USERS OF ANY POTENTIAL
DANGER, IF NECESSARY.
THE FINAL RULE ALSO DIFFERS FROM THE PROPOSED VERSION IN THE TEST FOR
STATISTICAL SIGNFICANCE. AS PROPOSED, ANALYSES OF GROUND-WATER QUALITY
WERE TO BE COMPARED TO THE BACKGROUND QUALITY ESTABLISHED FOR EACH
FACILITY, USING THE SINGLE-TAILED STUDENT'S T-TEST AT THE 95 PERCENT
CONFIDNCE LEVEL. COMMNTERS CLAIMD THAT THE STUDNET'S T-TEST AT THE 95
PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL WAS TOO RESTRICTIVE. COMMNTERS STATED THAT THE
STUDENT'S T-STATISTIC IS INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT IS DEPENDENT UPON A
NORMAL DISTRIBUTION, WHICH CANNOT BE ASSUMED FOR GROUND-WATER DATA
BECAUSE OF SEASONAL FLUCTUATIONS. ONE COMMENTER SUGGESTED ESTABLISHING
TOLERANCE LIMITS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO SPECIFYING A STATISTICAL TEST OF
SIGNFICANCE.
AFTER CONSIDERING THESE COMMENTS, THE AGENCY REPROPOSED THE
STATISTICAL TEST ON SEPTEMBER 19, 1979 (44 FR 54323-54324) AND SPECIFIED
THE USE OF THE MANN-WHITNEY U-TEST AT THE 95 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL.
IN SPECIFYING THE MANN-WHITNEY U-TEST, WHICH IS A NON-PARAMETRIC TEST,
THE AGENCY SOUGHT TO OVERCOME THE MAJOR WEAKNESS OF THE STUDENT'S
T-TEST, NAMELY, ITS UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF "NORMALITY." COMMENTERS ON
THE REPROPOSAL GENERALLY PREFERRED THE STUDENT'S T-TEST OVER THE
MANN-WHITNEY U-TEST, FOR TWO REASONS. FIRST, THEY WERE MORE FAMILIAR
WITH THE STUDENT'S T-TEST. SECOND, SEVERAL COMMENTERS EXPLAINED
THATWHILE THERE IS AN UNDERLYING ASSUMPTION OF NORMALITY FOR THE
STUDENT'S T-TEST, IT IS TOLERANT OF CONSIDERABLE DEPARTURES FROM THAT
ASSUMPTION. THE AGENCY HAS THEREFORE AGAIN SPECIFIED THE STUDENT'S
T-TEST IN THESE FINAL REGULATIONS.
THE REQUIRED STATISTICAL COMPARISON IN THESE REGULATIONS, HOWVER,
DIFFERS FROM THAT PROPOSED IN SEVERAL WAYS AS A RESULT OF CONCERNS WHICH
COMMENTERS RAISED ON THE BRAODER TOPIC OF STATISTICALLY DIFFERING
GROUND-WATER QUALITY. COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS A HIGH
PROBABILITY OF STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASES RESULTING FROM
ANTICIPATED NATURAL FLUCTUATIONS IN GROUND-WATER QUALITY AND
FROMANALYTICAL ERROR (I.E., FALSE SIGNFICANT). THE AGENCY HAS
INCORPORATED SEVERAL CHANGES WHICH , WHEN COMBINED, SHOULD GREATLY
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF "FALSE" SIGNIFICANCE. THESE INCLUDE
LIMITING TO FOUR THE NUMBER OF INDICATOR PARAMETERS TO BE COMPARD;
PERFORMING THE T-TEST AT THE 99 PERCENT LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE INSTEAD OF
THE PROPOSED 95 PERCENT LEVEL; AND INITIALLY RESPONDING TO DETECTED
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BY TAKING ADDITIONAL GROUND-WATER
CHECK SAMPLES TO CONFIRM THE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.
IN ADDITION, TO ASSURE THAT ACCURATE DATA IS USED BY THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR IN THE STATISTICAL COMPARISONS, THE AGENCY REQUIRES THAT
FOUR REPLICATE MEASUREMENTS BE MADE ON EACH OBTAINED GROUND-WATER
SAMPLE FOR EACH INDICATOR PARAMATER. FOUR REPLICATES PROVIDE 95
PERCENT CONFIDENCE THAT THE AVERAGE OF THE MEASURED VALUES
WILL BE WITHIN FIVE PRECENT OF THE ACTUAL VALUE IF GENERALLY
ACCEPTED ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED.
IN ITS INVESTIGATIONS OF STATISTICAL TEST PROCEDURES WHICH COULD BE
USEFUL IN INTERPRETING GROUND-WATER MONITORING DATE, THE AGENCY GAVE
CONSIDERATION TO STNDARD INDUSTRIAL QUALITY CONTROL CONCEPTS AND
PROCEDURES FOR DATA EVALUATION. THE AGENCY IS AWARE THAT THESE
PROCEDURES WERE DEVELOPED FOR RELATIVELY WELL CONTROLLED AND OPERATED
INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES. HOWEVER, THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF MONITORING
GROUND-WATER QUALITY INDICATORS IS SIMILAR IN THE SENSE THAT THE
VARIATION OF THE INDICATOR MEASUREMENTS UNDER TYPICAL CIRCUMSTANCES
SHOULD BE PREDICTABLE WITHIN LIMITS. IF NO LEAKAGE FROM A HAZARDOUS
WASTE FACILITY OR OTHER HYDROLOGIC CHANGE HAS OCCURED, THE GROUND-WATER
QUALITY INDICATOR LEVELS SHOULD REMAIN WITHIN SUCH LIMITS. EXCURSIONS
OUTSIDE THE LIMITS. EXCURSIONS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS WOULD INDICATE
THATCHANGES MAY HAVE OCCURRED THAT REQUIRE FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
QUALITY CONTROL METHODS MAY BE ADAPTABLE TO SUCH A SITUATION.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 044 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113408
REGULATION
QUALITY CONTROL MEHODS ALSO HAVE BEEN THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING
GENERALLY ACCEPTED AND UNDERSTOOD. THE BASIC APPRAOCH IN A GROUND-WATER
MONITORING PROGRAM WOULD BE TO USE DATA GATHERED DURING A BASELINE
PERIOD TO ESTABLISH LIMITS THAT WOULD ENCOMPASS A RANGE OF TYPICAL
VARIATION IN GROUND-WATER QUALITY INDICATOR PARAMETERS. EXCURSIONS
OUTSIDE THESE LIMITS IN SUBSEQUENT MONITORING SAMPLES WOULD INDICATE THE
NEED FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION. WHILE THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE USE
IN THESE REGULATIONS OF THE STUDENT'S T-TEST IS APPROPRIATE, COMMENT IS
REQUESTED ON THE USE OF A QUALITY CONTROL APPROACH IN INTERPRETING
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DATA. SUCH COMMENTS SHOULD IDENTIFY SPECIFIC
PROCEDURES AND CONCEPTS WHICH APPEAR AMENABLE TO THIS PURPOSE.
5. RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS REQUIRED
MAKING QUARTERLY REPORTS OF GROUND-WATER MONITORING INFORMATION AND
KEEPING GROUND-WATER QUALITY DATA AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE RECORDS FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. THE FEW COMMENTERS THAT ADDRESSEED THIS
PROVISION MADE TWO POINTS. FIRST , THEY SUGGESTED THAT QUARTERLY
REPORTING WAS UNNECESSARY. SECOND, ONE COMMENTER SUGGESTED THAT THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR SEND COPIES OF ANY REPORTS TO STATE AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES.
THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED THAT ANNUAL REPORTING OF THE DATE ON THE
INDICATOR PARAMETERS SHOULD PROVIDE SUFFICIENT NOTICE ON GENERAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THEREGULATIONS. THE AGENCY CAN, OF COURSE, EXAMINE THE
DATA HELD BY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS AT
ANY TIME. IN THEFIRST YEAR OF MONITORING HOWEVER, IT IS NECESSARY TO
HAVE MORE FREQUENT MONITORING AND REPORTING TO IDENTIFY THOSE AQUIFERS
THAT ARE IN GREATEST JEOPARDY. SUCH INFORMATION WILL BE USED TO SET
PRIORITIES FOR CONSIDERATION OF PERMITS. IN KEEPING WITH THAT GOAL, THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST INDICATE IN HIS QUARTERLY REPORT DURING THE FIRST
YEAR OF MONITORING WHICH PARAMATERS EXCEED THE CONTAMINANT LIMITS
SPECIFIED IN APPENDIX III.
THESE REGULATIONS REQUIRE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO RETAIN HIS
GORUND-WATER DATA FOR THE ACTIVE LIFE OF THE SITE, AND FOR THE DURATION
OF THE POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES, INSTEAD OF THE
THREE-YEAR PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THATTHE ACTUAL MONITORING DATA (I.E., ALL REPLICATE
MEASUREMENTS O- ALL SAMPLES) MAY PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION IN
DETERMINING THE TYPA DNE EXTENT OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION. SINCE
GROUND-WATER CHANGES MAY OCCUR SLOWLY, IT WILL BE USEFUL TO HAVE A
HISTORY OF THE FACILITY THATIS LONGER THAN THREE YEARS. BOTH THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR AND THE PERMITTING AUTHORITY SHOULD HAVEACCESS TO SUCH
INFORMATION WHEN NEEDED.
THE REGULATIONS DO NOT REQUIRE THE OWNER OPERATOR TO SEND THE
GROUND-WATER REPORT TO STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES. THIS STEP IS
UNNECESSARY. THOS WTATES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES THAT ARE INTERESTED IN
EXAMINING THE REPOTS MAY OBTAIN COPIES FROM EPA OR THE AUTHORIZED STATE
AGENCIES RESONSIBLE FOR RECEIVING SUCH INFORMATION.
SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS APPLY DEPENDING ON WHETHER
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS FOLLOWING THE INDICATOR PROGRAM OR THE
GROUND-WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM AT THE FACILITY.
THE PURPOSE OF THEFINAL PART 265 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE
STANDARDS IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
FACILITIES ARE CLOSED IN A MANNER THAT (1) MINIMIZES THE NEED FOR
POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE, AND (2) CONTROLS, MINIMIZES, OR
ELIMINATES, TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND
THE ENVIRONMENT, POST-CLOSURE ESCAPE OF WASTE, LEACHATE, CONTAMINATE
RAINFALL, OR WASTE DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS TO GROUND OR SURFACE
WATERS, AND THE ATMOSPHERE. THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF CLOSURE
AND POST-CLSOURE REQUIREMENTS IN THISE FINAL RULES: (1) GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE CONTAINED IN SUBPART G; AND (2) SPECIFIC
TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS, WHICH AREINCLUDED IN THE FACILITY-SPECIFIC
REGULATIONS, FOR LANDFILLS; LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES, SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS; INCINERATORS, TANKS; AND THERMAL, PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL,
AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT F-CILITIES.
THIS SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE FOCUSES ON THE SUBPART G GENERAL
CLOSUREAND POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS ESTABLISH
IN MORE DETAIL SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND ADDITIONAL OBJECTIVES. THEY
AREINTENDED TO GIVE FLEXIBILITY TO FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS, AND TO
REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY FOR OVER RESPONSE TO THESE REQUIREMENTS. THE
TECHNICAL STANDARDS AREDESCRIBED IN LATER SECTIONS OF THIS PREAMBLE.
THE FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS SPECIFY WHAT FACILITY OWNERS OR
OPERATORS MUST DO AFTER WASTES ARE NO LONGER RECEIVED FOR TREATMENT,
STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL. (THIS WAS CALLED "CLOSEOUT" IN THEPROPOSED
REGULATION BUT THE TERM HAS BEEN DROPPED BECAUSE IT WAS FREQUENTLY
CONFUSED WITH "CLOSURE".)
CLOSURE IS THE PERIOD AFTER WASTES ARE NO LONGER ACCEPTED, DURING
WHICH THE OWNERS OR OPERATORS COMPLETE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
OPERATIONS, APPLY FINAL COVER TO OR CAP LANDFILLS AND DISPOSE OF OR
DECONTAMINATE EQUIPMENT. POST-CLOSURE IS THE PERIOD AFTER CLOSURE
DURING WHICH OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF DISPOSAL FACILITIES MUST CONDUCT
CERTAIN MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. EPA BELIEVES THAT IF THE
DISPOSAL FACILITY HAS BEEN PROPERLY LOCATED, DESIGNED, OPERATED, AND
CLOSED, AND NO CONTAMINANT LEAKAGE PROBLEMS HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE
OPERATING LIFE OF THE FACILITY OR DURING THE POST-CLOSURE CARE AND
MAINTENANCE PERIOD, THEN THE PROBABILITY OF SIGNIFICANT GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION IS VERY SMALL.
1. PERIOD OF POST-CLOSURE CARE. THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED THAT
POST-CLOSURE CARE BE CONDUCTED FOR 20 YEARS AT DISPOSAL FACILITIES.
THEAGENCY RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMENTS ON THIS REQUIREMENT. ABOUT HALF OF
THESE COMENTS FAVORED A PERIOD LESS THAN THE 20 YEARS PROPOSED BUT THE
OTHER HALF FAVORED A LONGER PERIOD. THOSE SUPPORTING A LONGER PERIOD
ARGUED THAT THE HAZARD POSED BY MANY WASTES EXISTS FOR AN EXTREMELY LONG
TIME, AND THAT MONITORING SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT PERPETUALLY, OR FOR AS
LONG AS THE WASTES ARE HAZARDOUS. THOSE FAVORING A SHORTER TIME ARGUED
THAT ONLY A FEW WASTES REMAIN HAZARDOUS FOR MORE THAN A FEW YEARS.
THESE COMMENTERS FELT THAT THERE WAS TOO MUCH UNCERTAINTY AND POTENTIAL
ECONOMIC BURDEN WITH THE PROPOSED STANDARD, BECAUSE IT CARRIED A
POTENTIAL FOR UNNECESSARY MONITORING.
AS A RESULT OF THE EXTENSIVE COMMENT, THE AGENCY HAS
CONSIDERED THE POST-CLOSURE CARE ISSUE, AND HAS DECIDED TO
EXTEND THE POST-CLOSURE PERIOD FROM 20 TO 30 YEARS. EPA BELIVES
THAT ELIMINATING LEACHATE MONIROTING REQUIREMENTS MAKE IT
NECESSARY TO MONITOR GROUND WATER FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME,
AND THAT FURTHER ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS, AS WELL AS
CHANGES IN THESE REGULATIONS,MAKE IT PRACTICAL TO DO SO.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERSUADED EPA (SEE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT ON
GROUND-WATER MONITORING) THAT EXISTING LEACHATE MONITORING
TECHNIQUES ARE IMPRACTICAL, EXCEPT AT LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES.
THUS, EPA HAS DELETED THE LEACHATE MONIROTING REQUIREMENTS FOR
LANDFILLS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. EPA HAD BELIEVED THAT
LEACHATE MONITORING SYSTEMS WOULD ACT AS EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS.
SINCE IT WILL TAKE LONGER FOR CONTAMINATION MIGRATION TO REACH
GROUND-WATER MONITORING POINTS THAN IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN TO REACH
LEACHATE DETECTION MONITORING POINTS, IT IS NECESSARY TO MONITOR
FOR A LONGER PERIOD.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 045 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113409
REGULATION
EPA IS NOW CONVINCED THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO MONITOR AND
MAINTAIN CLOSED DISPOSAL FACILITIES FOR 30 YEARS. BECAUSE
EPA NO LONGER RQUIRES LEACHATE AND AIR MONITORING, OWNERS
OR OPERATORS NEED NOT PROVIDE THE MONEY FOR THESE ACTIVITIES.
FURTHERMORE, PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL REGULATIOSN WILL
MAKE ALL FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS LESS COSTLY. OWNERS OR OPERATORS
WILL BE ABLE TO SATISFY CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE RESPONSIBILITIES
THROUGH A NUMBER OF FINANCIAL MECHANISMS, MANY OF WHICH ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS EXPENSIVE THAN TRUST FUNDS. (FOR A COMPLETE
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED FINANCIAL MECHANISMS, SEE THE
PROPOSAL SECTION OF THIS FEDERAL REGISTER AND THE BACKGROUND
DOCUMENT ON FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY.) ALSO, IN THESE PROPOSED
FINANCIAL REGULATIONS FOR INTERIM STATUS, OWNERS OR OPERATORS
MAY BUILD CLOSURE TRUST FUNDS DURING THE EXPECTED SITE LIFE,
RATHER THAN BY ADVANCING ALL THE MONEY INITIALLY. THIS ALTERNATIVE
WILL MAKE TRUST FUNDS LESS EXPENSIVE. AS A RESULT, EPA IS
CONVINCED THAT OWNERS OR OPERATORS CAN NOW MAINTAIN AND MONITOR
DISPOSAL SITES FOR 30 YEARS AFTER CLOSURE.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE UNCERTAINTY CAUSED BY THE LACK OF EXTENSIVE
EXPERIENCE WITH PROPERLY DESIGNED DISPOSAL OPERATIONS, THE AGENCY DOES
NOT BELIEVE THAT AN UNALTERABLE NATIONAL RULE IS NECESSARILY THE BEST
WAY TO ENSURE HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. THE PERMITTING
PROCESS WILL PROVIDE FOR CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW OF THE PERIOD FOR
POST-CLOSURE CARE AND THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS PERMIT EPA TO SHORTEN
OR LENGTHEN THE 30-YEAR POST-CLOSURE PERIOD AS APPROPRIATE ON A
CASE-BY-CASE REVIEWOF THE PERIOD FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE AND THE INTERIM
STATUS STANDARDS PERMIT EPA TO SHORTEN OR LENGTHEN TO 30-YEAR
POST-CLOSURE PERIOD AS APPROPRIATE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THUS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IF AN OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE TO REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO MONITOR AND MAINTAIN HIS CLOSED
DISPOSAL FACILITY FOR THE ENTIRE 30-YEAR PERIOD, THE PERIOD COULD BE
SHORTENED, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PUBLIC, ON THE OTHER HAND, COULD ALSO
PETITION TO HAVE THE MONITORING PERIOD EXTENDED FOR CAUSE.
EPA AGREES WITH THOSE COMMENTERS WHO POINTED OUT THAT RISKS FROM SOME
WASTES PERSIST FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME. FOR ORGANIC WASTES DISPOSED OF
IN AN ANAEROBIC ENVIRONMENT, THE DECOMPOSITION TO NON-TOXIC PRODUCTS IS
VERY SLOW. SIMILARLY, HEAVY METALS REMAIN TOXIC FOREVER, AND MAY BE
MOBILIZED UNLESS CAREFULLY MANAGED. THIS MAY ARGUE FOR PERPETUAL
MONITORING OF LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY HAS FOUND
THAT TI WOULD BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR SMALL SINGLE FACILITIES TO
FINANCE SUCH ACTIVITIES IN PERPETUITY, AFTER REVENUES CEASE. THUS, SOME
FORM OF NATIONAL INSURANCE IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE PERPETUAL MONITORING
OF THESE FACILITIES, BECUASE MANY OF THEM WOULD SURELY DEFAULT IF
REQUIRD TO CONDUCT PERPETUAL MONITORING, EPA IS CONSIDERING ASKING
CONGRESS TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO DEVELOP SUCH A ANATIONAL INSURANCE
PROGRAM. IN THEINTERIMK THE AGENCY HAS REVISED, THESE INTERIM STATUS
REGULATIONS TO ALLOW THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR TO EXTEND SOME OR ALL OF
THE POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS FOR CAUSE, E.G., BECUASE
CONTAMINATION ID DETECTED OR FEARED IMMINENT.
2. NOTICE IN DEED TO PROPERTY. A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS QUESTIONED
THE LEGALITY OF THE PROPOSED STANDARD WHICH REQUIRD THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR TO RECORD, IN THE DEED OF THE PROPERTY, A STIPULATION
RESTRICTING FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY. IN RESPONSE TO THESE COMMENTS,
THE AGENCY HAS REWORDED THE REQUIREMENT, SO THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
OF A FACILITY IN WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL REMAIN AFTER CLOSURE MUST
SUBMIT EVIDENCE THAT A NOTATION HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE DEED TO THE
PROPERTY, OR ON AN APPROPRIATE ALTERNATE DOCUMENT. THE NOTATION MUST
WARN THAT FEDERAL LAW LIMITS POST-CLOSURE USE OF THE PROPERTY BY ANYONE
IN A MANNER THAT WOULD DISTRUB THE INTEGRITY OF THE FINAL COVER, THE
LINER(S) OR THE MONITORING SYSTEMS OF THE FACILITY. DURING INTERIM
STATUS, THE OWNER MUST PLACE THE NOTATION ON THE DEED OR ALTERNATIVE
DOCUMENT, BUT NEED NOT SUBMIT EVIDENCE TO EPA OF HAVING DONE SO UNLESS
SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED BY THE AGENCY.
3. AMENDMENT AND SUBMISSION OF PLANS. SEVERAL COMMENTERS SUGGESTED
THAT, DURING THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY BEFORE CLOSURE, OWNERS OR
OPERATORS SHOULD BE ABLE TO AMEND THE CLOSURE PLAN AND THE CLOSURE COST
ESTIMATES THAT THEY SUBMITTED AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE FACILITY PERMIT.
THEY CLAIMED THAT THIS WOULD HELP ENSURE THATTHE PLAN IS CURRENT AND
THAT THE CLOSURE FUNDS ARE SUFFICIENT, AND IT WOULD ALLOW FOR OPERATING
CHANGES WHICH MIGHT AFFECT CLOSURE. THE AGENCY AGREES,AND HAS MODIFIED
THE REGULATIONS ACCORDINGLY. DURING INTERIM STATUS, MODIFICATIONS TO
THE CLOSURE PLAN MUST BE MADE WHERE APPROPRIATE, BUT NEED NOT BE
APPROVED BY EPA SINCE CLOSURE PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO EPA ONLY IN THE
EVENT THAT THE SITE CLOSES. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST SUBMIT HIS
CLOSURE PLAN TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR AT LEAST 180 DAYS BEFORE THE
DATE HE EXPECTS TO BEGIN CLOSURE. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONSIDERATIONS APPLY
TO POST-CLOSURE PLANS FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES AS WELL. BOTH CLOSURE AND
POST-CLOSURE PLANS ARE DEEMED REQUIREMENTS OF SUBTITLE C, AND THE PLANS
THEMSELVES ARE ENFORCEABLE BY EPA.
4. TIME ALLOWED FOR CLOSURE. SEVERAL COMMENTERS THOUGHT THE
PROPOSED 90-DAY LIMIT FOR COMPLETING DISPOSAL OR FOR REMOVING WASTE FROM
FACILITIES AFTER WASTES ARE NOT LONGER RECEIVED, WAS TOO STRINGENT AND
INFLEXIBLE. THE COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT, AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE YEAR,
WEATHER WOULD PREVENT COMPLETING WASTE DISPOSAL OR REMOVAL AT A
FACILITY, AND THAT 90 DAYS IS NOT ENOUGHT TIME TO COMPLETE THESE
ACTIVITIES AT MOST FACILITIES. EPA DISAGREES. CLOSURE PLANS, WHICH ARE
DEVELOPED FAR IN ADVANCE OF ACTUAL CLOSURE, CAN CERTAINLY BE DEVELOPED
TO ENSURE THAT WASTES ARE DISPOSED OR OF REMOVED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF
COMMENCING CLOSURE. THIS SHOULD BE THE FIRST ACTIVITY CONDUCTED WHEN A
FACILITY COMMENCES CLOSURE, AND OWNERS OR OPERATORS SHOULD ENSURE THAT
WASTE INVENTORIES ARE REDUCED TOMANAGEABLE LEVELS BEFORE COMMENCING
CLOSURE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE 90-DAY DEADLINE.
THEPROPOSED REGULATIONS REQUIRED THAT CLOSURE BE COMPELTED WITHIN
THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACILITY STOPPED ACCEPTING WASTES. A NUMBER OF
COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE TIME LIMIT FOR CLOSURE ACTIVITIES WAS TOO
LONG IN MOST CASES, AND SHOULD BE MADE MORE FLEXIBLE. THE AGENCY
AGREES, AND HAS REWORDED THE REQUIREMENT TO INDICATE THAT CLOSURE MUST
BE COMPLETEDWTH SIX MONTHS. A VARIANCE PROCEDURE WILL ALLOW A LONGER
PERIOD, WHERE IT CAN BE JUSTIFIED, ALTHOUGH IN NO CASE MAY CLOSURE TAKE
MORE THAN THREE YEARS.
5. POST-CLOSURE PERMITS. EPA IS CONSIDERING A PROCEDURAL MECHANISM
SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THOSE CONTAINED IN PRIOR PROPOSALS FRO DEALING
WITH THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED IN MONITORING FACILITIES AFTER CLOSURE AND
TAKING CORRECTIVE ACTION WHERE NECESSARY. AS STATED EARLIER IN THIS
PREAMBLE. EPA DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT SUBTITLE C OR RCRA WAS INTENDED TO
COVER DISPOSAL SITES FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH WERE CLOSED BEFORE THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS. HOWEVER, A DIFFERENT SITUATION IS
PRESENTED FOR THE POST-CLOSURE CARE OF FACILITES WHICH AT ONE TIME HAD
RECEIVED A RCRA PERMIT OR INTERIM STATUS AND OPERATED UNDERIT. THERE
CAN BE LITTLE QUESTION THAT THE STATUTE INTENDED EPA TO REQUIRE MEASURES
TO BE TAKEN , FOR AS LONG AS NECESSARY, TO ENSURE THAT THESE FACILITIES
AND THE WASTE LOCTED THERE DO NOT POSE A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE
ENVIRONMENT. ONE OF THE MAJOR PURPOSES OF THE CLOSURE AND FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS OF THE PART 264 AND PART 265 REGULATIONS IS TO
ENSURE THAT SITES REMAIN SAFE EVEN AFTER THEY CEASE ACTIVE OPERATION.
UNDER THE STRUCTURE OF SUBTITLE C, THE ONLY CONSISTENT WAY TO MAKE
SURE THAT HTE NECESSARY CORRECTIVE MEASURES CAN BE TAKEN AT CLOSED SITES
IS TO MAKE THOSE SITES SUBJECT TO REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 3004. THAT
IS THE ONLY SECTION OF SUBTITLE C THAT AUTHORIZES SUBSTANTIVE REGULATORY
STANDARDS OF THE TYPE IN QUESTION.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 046 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113410
REGULATION
HOWEVER, SECTION 3004 APPLIES ONLY TO "OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
FACILITIES FOR THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE,
"AND CAN THEREFORE BE APPLIED TO CLOSED SITES ONLY IF THE OWNERS OR
OPERATORS OF THOSE SITES ARE SAID TO COME WITHIN THAT DEFINITION. AS
NOTED ABOVE, POLICY CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT READING THE STATUTE IN THIS
MANNER. IN ADDITION, THE SAME CONCLUSION IS HARD TO AVOID SIMPLY AS A
MATTER OF TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION, SINCE LAND IN WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTES
BURIED IS CERTAINLY EITHER "STORING" OR "DISPOSING" OF THOSE WASTES
WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS OF THOSE TERMS GIVEN IN
RCRA SECTION 1004.
OF OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF INACTIVE SITES WHICH ONCE WERE COVERED BY
RCRA PERMIT ARE STILL "STORING" OR "DISPOSING" OF THOSE WASTES, IT
FOLLOWS THAT THEY MUST GET A PERMIT UNDER SECTION3005. ONCE AGAIN, THAT
CONCLUSION MAKES SENSE AS A MATTER OF POLICY AS WELL AS A STRICT MATTER
OF TEXTUAL INTERPRETATION.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTE FOR EPA INSPECTION AND
MONITORING ARE BEST ENFORCED AS PART OF A PERMIT. THOUGH EPA BELIEV
THAT THE TERMS OF ANY POST-CLOSURE RCRA PERMIT SHOUDL BE STRICTLY
LIMITED AND REQUIRE AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM OR PAPERWORK, THERE ARE
STRONG POLICY REASONS, AS WELL AS LEGAL REASONS, WHY A PERMIT OF
THIS TYPE MIGHT BE ESSENTIAL TO THE OVERALL OPERATION OF THE
PROGRAM. FOR EXAMPLE, IT MIGHT BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR EPA TO GAIN
ACCESS TO LAND TO CLEAN UP A LEAKING SITE WITHOUT THE AID OF PERMIT
TERMS AUTHORIZING THAT ACCESS.
ACCORDINGLY, IN THE NEAR FUTURE EPA PLANS TO DEVELOP PROPOSED
REGULATIONS CALLING FOR THE OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF CLOSED SITES THAT
ONCE WERE PERMITTED OR OPERATED UNDER INTERIM STATUS TO APPLY FOR AND
RECEIVE A POST-CLOSURE PERMIT FROM EPA. EPA ANTICIPATES THAT THE
CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT WILL RELATE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY TO GENERAL
PROCEDURES CONCERNING ACCESS, MONITORING, AND FINANCIAL RESONSIBILITY,
AND THAT CUMBERSOME PERMIT PROCEDURES WILL NOT BE NECESSARY. EPA
ANTICIPATES THAT THESE WILL BE LIFETIME PERMITS.
IT MAY BE THAT THIS APPROACH MAY REDUCE PAPERWORK IN THE END, FOR
EXAMPLE, BY MAKING POSSIBLE THE MODIFICATION OR ELIMINATION OF THE
PRESENT REQUIREMENT TO RECORD CONDITIONS ON THE FACILITY TITLE IN STATE
OR LOCAL DEED RECORDING SYSTEMS. EPA WILL BE EXAMINING THESE QUESTIONS
FURTHER IN THE COURSE OF DEVELOPING ITS PROPOSAL.
G. SUPBART H -- FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
THE PROPOSED SECTION 250.43-9 FINANCIAL STANDARDS CONTAINED THREE
TYPES OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS (1) THOSE ASSURING FUNDS TO
CONDUCT CLOSURE ACTIVITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CLOSURE ACTIVITIES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CLOSURE PLAN, (2) THOS ASSURING FUNDS TO CONDUCT
POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES AT DISPOSAL FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THEPOST-CLOSURE PLAN AND (3) THOSE ASSURING FUNDS TO COVER THIRD PARTY
DAMAGE CASES.
1. LIABLITY. THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILTY REQUIREMENTS COVERING
THIRD PARTY DAMAGES DURING THEPOST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD ARENOT COVERED IN
THE PART 265 INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. AT STATED IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE
PROPOSED REGULATION, THE AGENCY HAS BEEN UNABLE TO IDENTIFY A VIABLE
MECHANISM TO PROVIDE FOR LIABILITY COVERAGE DURING THE POST-CLOSURE CARE
PERIOD, AND IS SUPPORTING AN INITIATIVE IN CONGRESS WHICH WOULD SET UP A
NATIONAL FUND TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH COVERAGE.
DURING THELIFE OF THE SITE, MOST COMPANIES ARE LIKELY TO SEEK PRIVATE
INSURANCE TO COVER LIABILITY CLAIMS. THORUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY, THE AGENCY HAS DETERMINED THAT NON-SUDDEN POLLUTION
COVERAGE OFTEN WOULD BE MADE EFFECTIVE ONLY WHEN A FACILITY RECEIVED A
PERMIT. BECAUSE FACILITIES DO NOT HAVE PERMITS DURING THE INTERIM
STATUS PERIOD, THEY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO GET INSURANCE FOR NON-SUDDEN
OCCURENCES. THUS, SITE-LIFE LIABILITY FOR NON-SUDDEN OCCURRENCES IS
NOTREQUIREED DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY IS
PROPOSING A RULE REQUIRING SITE-LIFE LIABLITY FOR SUDDEN AND ACCIDNETAL
OCCURANCES DURING THEINTERIM STATUS PERIOD. THE AGENCY INTENDS TO ADD
THIS RULE TO THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS, AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT, LATER
THIS YEAR.
2. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE. THE PROPOSED FINANCIAL STANDARDS ASSURING
FUNDS FOR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIRED THATOWNERS OR OPERATORS
FIRST ESTIMATE THE COST OF CLOSURE, AND POST-CLOSURE CARE WHERE
APPLICABLE, BASED ON THECLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE PLANS. THEN A
TRUST FUND WAS TO ESTABLISHED TO ASSURE THAT THE NECESSARY FUNDS WOLD BE
AVAILABLE. EPA RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMENTS ASKING THAT THE TRUST FUND
REQUIREMENT BE RESTRUCTURED AND THATFINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN A
TRUST FUND BE ALLOWED. AFTER CONSIDERATION RE-ANALYSIS, THE AGENY IS
CONVINCED THATOTHER FINANCIAL MECHANISMS CAN PROVIDE FINANCIAL
INSTRUMENTS OTHER THAN A TRUST FUND BE ALLOWED. AFTER CONSIDERABLE
RE-ANALYSIS, THE AGENCY IS CONVINCED THATOTHER FINANCIAL MECHANISMS CAN
PROVIDE PROTECTION EQUIVALENT TO TRUSTS, AND THAT THE TRUST MECHANISM
REQUIREMENT COULD BENEFIT FROM MAJOR RESTRUCTURING. BECAUSE OF THE
COMPLEXITY OF THE SUJBECT MATTER AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE CHANGES, THE
AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE REGULATED COMMUNITY AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC
SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE REVISED REGULATIONS BEFORE
THEY ARE PRUMULGATED. AS A RESULT, THE AGENCY IS REPROPOSING THE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OFR THE VARIOUS FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS IT INTENDS
TO ALLOW.
3. COST ESTIMATES. THE AGENCY IS PROMULGATING IN PHASW THE
REQUIREMENT THATOWNERS OR OPERATORS DEVELOP COST ESTIMATES FOR CLOSURE,
AND POST-CLOSURE ACTIVITIES WHERE APPLICABLE. SEVERAL COMMENTERS
SUGGESTED THAT THE AGENCY ALLOW FOR PARTIAL CLOSURE IN THE COST ESTIMATE
REQUIREMENTS. THIS HAD ALWAYS BEEN THE AGENCY'S INTENT. THE REPROPOSED
RULES BETTER REFLECT THIS INTENT BY REQUIRING THAT FUNDS BE SET ASIDE
EQUAL TO THE HIGHEST COST OF CLOSING THE FACILITY, EITHER AT ANY GIVEN
POINT LEADING UP TO CLOSURE, OR AT THE POINT OF FINAL CLOSURE. THUS,
FACILITIES WHICH CLOSE AS THEY GO (PARTIALLY CLOSE) NEED OBTAIN ONLY A
FRACTION OF THE FINANCIAL ASSURANCE THATWILL BE REQUIRED BY THOSE
CLOSING AT THE END OF SITE OPEARATIONS.
A FEW COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE COST
ESTIMATES BE REVIEWED PERIODICALLY TO ENSURE CONTINUED ACCURACY. EPA
AGREES THAT CHANGESIN FACILITY DESIGN AND OPERATION, AND THE
UNCERTAINTIES INHERENT IN INFLATION AND INTEREST RATES, MAKE SUCH A
REVIEW HIGHLY DESIRABLE. THUS, THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE THAT THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR PREPARE A NEW CLOSURE COST ESTIMATE WHENEVER THE CLOSURE
PLAN IS MODIFIED, AND, FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES, A NEW POST-CLOSURECOST
ESTIMATE WHENEVER THE POST-CLOSURE PLAN IS MODIFIED, IN ADDITION, THE
FINAL RULES REQUIE THAT THESE ESTIMATES BE INDEXED TO INFLATION ON AN
ANNUAL BASIS USING THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE GROSS NATIONAL
PRODUCT IMPLICIT PRICE DEFLATOR.
4. PUBLICLY OWNED FACILITIES. A FEW COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT
PUBLICLY-OWNED FACILITIES SHOULD BE EXAMPLED FROM THE FINANCIAL
REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE GOVENMENT INSTITUTIONS ARE PERMANENT AND STABLE,
AND HAVE AS THEIR REASON FOR BEING THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF THEIR
PEOPLE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE COMMENTERS, PUBLICLY-OWNED
FACILITIES WOULD BE MORE LIKELY AND MORE ABLE FINANCIALLY TO CARRY OUT
THEIR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOUSRE REPONSIBILITIES.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT STATE AND FEDERALLY-OWNED FACILITIES WILL
ALWAYS HAVE ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO CONDUCT CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
ACTIVITIES PROPERLY. THEREFORE, AN EXEMPTION FOR THESE FACILITIES HAS
BEEN INCORPORATE IN A NEW "APPLICABILITY" SECTION. (THE OTHER
PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
APPLY TO ALL OTHER FACILITIES, AND THAT THE POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
APPLY ONLY TO DISPOSAL FACILITIES.)
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 047 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113411
REGULATION
THE FINANCIAL STRENGTH OF LOCAL ENTITIES (CITIES AND COUNTIES), ON
THE OTHER HAND, IS NOT AS CERTAIN. SOME LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DO BECOME
INSOLVENT, AND IF SMALL ENOUGH, MIGHT NOT BE IN A FINANCIAL POSITION TO
FULFILL THEIR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE RESPONSIBILITIES. FURTHER, SOME
PUBLICLY-OWNED FACILITIES ARE ESTABLISHED AS AUTHORITIES, AND ARE
SUPPORTED FINANCIALLY VERY MUCH LIKE CORPORATIONS, I.E., THEY ARE NOT
BACKED BY THE TAXING AUTHORITY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. BECAUSE OF
THESE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS, THE AGENCY HAS DEVELOPED A REVENUE TEST WHICH,
IF MET, WOULD QUALIFY FACILITIES OWNED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FOR AN
EXEMPTION. BECAUSE THIS TEST IS NEW, THE AGENCY IS PROPOSING THIS
PROVISION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
DRUM AND OTHER CONTAINERS PROVIDE AN INEXPENSIVE MEANS FOR GENERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TO ACCUMULATE AND STORE THE WASTES, IN A FORM WHICH
WILL BE EASY AND RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE TO CARRY AWAY. ALL TOO
FREQUENTLY, GENERATORS AND OTHERS STORING HAZARDOUS WASTE DRUMS HAVE
SIMPLY PUT THEM SOMEWHERE OUT OF SIGHT, WITHOUT ANY FURTHER CONCERN
ABOUT WHAT WOULD EVENTUALLY HAPPEN TO THE WASTES. THE MANY DAMAGE
INCIDENTS DESCRIBED IN THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT ON CONTAINERS DETAIL THE
AWFUL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS PRACTICE. THE DRUMS EVENTUALLY WEATHER AND
CORRODE, RELEASING THEIR CONTENTS. DUMPS OF DECAYING DRUMS HAVE
SERIOUSLY CONTAMINATED SURFACE WATER AND GROUND WATER HAVE EMITTED FUMES
WHICH HAVE KILLED VEGETATION AND NAUSEATED AND SICKENED NEARBY
RESIDENTS, FACILITY OPERATORS, AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS; AND HAVE
BURNED OR EXPLODED, INJURING AND KILLING FACILITY PERSONNEL AND SENDING
CLOUDS OF TOXIC SMOKE AND FUMES OVER ADJACENT HEAVILY POPULATED AREAS,
DISRUPTING THE ACTIVITIES AND THREATENING THE HEALTH OF THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE.
THE MOST ELEMENTARY AND STRAIGHTFORWARD PRECUATIONS WILL FREQUENTLY
ELIMINATE THESE PROBLEMS. THESE REGULATIONS GENERALLY REQUIRE NOTHING
MORE THAN SIMPLE GOOD PRACTICES IN THE MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES -- A LEVEL OF CARE COMMENSURATE WITH THE HAZARDOUS
NATURE OF THE WASTES STORED. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THESE REGULATIONS
SHOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT TO IMPLEMENT, AND THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE A GREAT
IMPROVEMENT IN THE PROBLEMS POSED BY CURRENT BAD PRACTICES.
THE FINAL REGULATIONS FOR CONTAINERS ARE LARGELY TAKEN FROM THE
STANDARDS PROPOSED FOR INTERIM STATUS FOR CONTAINERS, FOR STORAGE
GENERALLY, AND FOR A FEW OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT PERTAIN TO CONTAINERS.
AS DISCUSSED BELOW, REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES HAVE BEEN ADDED, AND THE PROVISIONS CONCERNING EMPTY
CONTAINERS HAVE BEEN RMOVED OR ABSORBED IN PART 261 -- IDENTIFICATION
AND LISTING OF HAZARD WASTE.
1. CONDITION OF CONTAINERS. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS (SECTION
250.44-2(A)) REQUIRED THAT WASTES IN LEAKING OR DAMAGED CONTAINERS FOR
RECONTAINERIZED IN CONTAINERS IN GOOD CONDITION. EPA RECEIVED NO
COMMENTS ON THIS REQUIREMENT, AND IT HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE FINAL
REGULATIONS. A PROVISION HAS BEEN ADDED ALLOWING WASTES TO BE MANAGED
IN OTHER WAYS THAN RECONTAINERIZATION, SO LONG AS THEY MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PART 265.
2. COMPATABILITY OF WASTE WITH CONTAINER. THE FINAL REGULATION,
REQUIRING THAT CONTAINERS OR THEIR LINERS BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE WASTES
STORED IN THEM, IS ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE PROPOSED REGULATION
(SECTION 250.44(H)) FOR STORAGE GENERALLY. IN CONTRAST TO THE
REGULATION FOR TANKS, THIS REGULATION RETAINS THE STANDARD THAT "THE
ABILITY OF THE CONTAINER TO CONTAIN THE WASTE (SHOULD NOT BE) IMPAIRED"
BY THE WASTE. WHILE SOME CORROSION BY WASTES MAY BE PERMISSIBLE FOR
TANKS, THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT WASTE SHOULD NOT BE STORED IN A
CONTAINER IN WHICH IT MAY CAUSE ANY SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CORROSION.
FIRST, THE CONCEPT OF "USEFUL LIFE" DOES NOT WORK WELL WITH CONTAINERS.
MOST TANKS WILL REMAIN UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF A SINGLE OWNER OR
OPERATOR FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. HOWEVER, A GENERATOR PLACING WASTE
IN A CONTAINER WILL PROBABLY NOT KNOW HOW LONG IT WILL BE STORED, AND
THE OPERATOR OF A STORAGE FACILITY WILL PROBABLY NOT KNOW JUST HOW LONG
HE CAN EXPECT A CONTAINER TO LAST. SECONDLY, CONTAINERS ARE GENERALLY
CONSTRUCTED OF LIGHTER MATERIALS THAN TANKS, AND HAVE SEMAS WHICH ARE
MORE VULNERABLE TO CORROSION. LEAKAGE DUE TO CORROSION IS THEREFORE
MORE LIKELY AND LESS PREDICTABLE FOR CONTAINERS THAN FOR TANKS.
3. MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS. THE PROPOSED DEFINITION FOR CONTAINERS
IMPLIED THAT THEY WERE CLOSABLE. THE FINAL DEFINITION IS BROADER,
INDICATING THAT ANY PORTABLE DEVICE CONTAINING HAZARDOUS WASTE COMES
UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF THIS PART. THE REQUIREMENT THAT CONTAINERS BE
KEPT CLOSED NOW APPEARS IN THE SUBSTANTIVE REGULATIONS. ITS PURPOSE IS,
AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY, TO MINIMIZE EMISSIONS OF VOLATILE WASTES, TO HELP
PROTECT IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES FROM SOURCES OF IGNITION OR
REACTION, TO HELP PREVENT SPILLS, AND TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR MIXING
OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES AND DIRECT CONTACT OF FACILITY PERSONNEL WITH
WASTE. WHILE MANY COMMENTERS ARGUED AND THE AGENCY AGREES THAT STORAGE
MAY PROPERLY BE CONDUCTED IN OPEN TANKS AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS,
REQUIRING CONTAINERS TO BE KEPT CLOSED DOES NOT UNNECESSARILY RESTRICT
STORAGE OPTIONS. ALL CONTAINERS HAVE LIDS OR SOME OTHER CLOSURE DEVICE,
AND KEEPING CONTAINERS CLOSED WHENEVER POSSIBLE IS SIMPLY A MATTER OF
GOOD OPERATING PRACTICE. IT IS NOT EXPECTED THAT CONTAINERS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE NEED BE OPENED ROUTINELY TO INSPECT THE WASTE OR THE
CONTAINER OR THE REASONS OTHER THAN TO ADD OR REMOVE WASTE.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ALSO REQUIRED (IN SECTION 250.44-2(B)) THAT
CONTAINERS BE MANAGED SO THAT THEY DO NOT RUPTURE OR LEAK. EPA RECEIVED
NO COMMENT ON THIS PROVISION AND IT HAS BEEN RETAINED AS PROPOSED. ITS
PURPOSE IS TO ASSURE THAT, IN ADDITION TO REMOVING WASTE FROM CONTAINERS
IN BAD CONDITION, OWNERS AND OPERATORS MANAGE CONTAINERS SO THAT THEY
STAY IN GOOD CONDITION, AND HANDLE THEM SO THAT THEY DO NOT RUPTURE.
4. INSPECTIONS. AS AN ADJUNCT TO THE GENERAL INSPECTION
REQUIREMENTS, THE REGULATIONS FOR VARIOUS TYPES OF FACILITIES AND
EQUIPMENT INCLUDE SPECIFIC INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. THE REGULATIONS FOR
CONTAINERS CALL FOR WEEKLY INSPECTION OF CONTAINER STORAGE AREAS FOR
LEAKS AND DETERIORATION OF THE CONTAINERS. LEAKS AND CONTAINER
DETERIORATION ARE THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF DAMAGE FROM CONTAINER STORAGE
WHICH CAN BE MINIMIZED THROUGH INSPECTION. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
(SECTIONS 250.43-6 (A) AND 250.44(C)) CALLED FOR DAILY INSPECTIONS.
COMMENTERS BELIEVED THAT DAILY INSPECTIONS WERE UNNECESSARY, AND THAT
LESS FREQUENT INSPECTIONS WOULD BE ADEQUATE. THE AGENCY AGREES THAT
CORROSION OF CONTAINERS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEAKS IS USUALLY A SLOW
PROCESS, AND THAT DAILY INSPECTIONS ARE TYPICALLY MORE FREQUENT THAN IS
NECESSARY; WEEKLY INSPECTIONS SHOULD GENERALLY BE ADEQUATE.
5. CLOSURE. BECAUSE THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE STORAGE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES, THE DEFINITION OF STORAGE REQUIRES THAT ALL HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND HAZARDOUS WASTE RESIDUES MUST BE REMOVED AT CLOSURE FROM A
CONTAINER STORAGE FACILITY OR FROM THAT PART OF THE FACILITY BEING
CLOSED. THE CLOSURE PLAN REQUIRED BY SUBPART G MUST ADDRESS THIS
REQUIREMENT. IN REMOVING HAZARDOUS WASTES OR RESIDUES, THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR BECOMES A GENERATOR OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MUST MANAGE THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS 262, 263, AND 265
OF THESE REGULATIONS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 048 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113412
REGULATION
/1/ THE AGENCY ALSO MISTAKENLY PROPOSED TWO DEFINITIONS FOR STORAGE
TANKS, IN SECTIONS 250.21 AND 250.41. THEY WERE THE SAME EXCEPT THAT
THE LATTER PROVIDED THAT WASTE IN STORAGE TANKS MUST BE PUMPABLE; THIS
REQUIREMENT WAS NOT INTENDED AND HAS BEEN REMOVED. IN ADDITION, BASINS
WERE DEFINED TO BE LESS THAN 100,000 GALLONS IN CAPACITY. THIS WAS
INCLUDED ONLY TO HELP DISTINGUISH BASINS FROM SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS,
WHICH MAY BE LARGER THAN 100,000 GALLONS. BECAUSE THE 100,000 GALLON
LIMIT PROVED CONFUSING AND BECAUSE BASISN (NOW TANKS) AND SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS ARE ADEQUATELY DISTINGUISHED BY THEIR CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS, THE 100,000 GALLON LIMIT HAS BEEN DELETED.
6. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE. THE
PROPOSED RULES DID NOT CONTAIN ANY SPECIAL STANDARDS FOR IGNITABLE OR
REACTIVE WASTES. SIMPLY AS A MATTER OF GOOD PRACTICE, IGNITABLE OR
REACTIVE WASTES SHOULD, OF COURSE, BE PROTECTED FROM ANY CONDITIONS OR
MATERIALS THAT COULD CAUSE THEM TO IGNITE OR REACT, IN ORDER TO GUARD
AGAINST FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, OR VIOLENT REACTIONS.
THE REQUIREMENT IN THESE REGULATIONS THAT CONTIANERS OF IGNITABLE OR
REACTIVE WASTE BE 15 METERS (50 FEET) FROM THE FACILITY'S PROPERTY LINE
IS TAKEN FROM THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION'S (NFPA)
FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE CODE OF 1977. THE PURPOSE OF THE SETBACK
REQUIRED IN THE CODE IS TO PROTECT ADJACENT RESIDENCES, BUSINESSES, AND
OTHER PUBLIC PLACES FROM THE ACUTE EFFECTS OF EXPLOSIONS AND FIRES THAT
MAY BE CAUSED IN FACILITIES THAT STORE FLAMMABLE MATERIALS. WHILE THE
AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE CODE PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE BASIS FOR REQUIRING A
MINIMUM SETBACK OF 50 FEET, THE AGENCY DOES NOT YET HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO
DETERMINE WHETHER AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK SHOULD BE REQUIRED WHERE HIGHLY
EXPLOSIVE OR TOXIC WASTES ARE STORED. THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO MONITOR THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF THIS REGULATION AND REVISE IT IF NECESSARY. SINCE THE
NFPA REQUIREMENTS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND ALREADY APPLIES UNDER OSHA
REGULATIONS OF FACILITIES, IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE
INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. SINCE THIS REGULATION WAS NOT PROPOSED, IT IS
BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL.
7. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES ARE DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE PREAMBLE
SECTION ENTITLED "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES."
THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS CONTAINED A PROVISION
(SECTION 250.44(I)) PROHIBITING THE PLACEMENT OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE IN AN
UNWASHED CONTAINER WHICH HAD PREVIOUSLY HELD AN INCOMPATIBE WASTE. THE
FINAL REGULATIONS RETAIN THIS PROVISION, WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT
PLACEMENT OF A WASTE IN SUCH AN UNWASHED CONTAINER IS ALLOWED IF IT WILL
NOT VIOLATE THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR THE HANDLING OF INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES. THIS REGULATION IS REQUIRED BECAUSE EVEN "EMPTY" CONTAINERS
TYPICALLY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WASTE REMAINING ON THE BOTTOM OR THE
SIDES. THE FACT THAT THE CONTAINER ITSELF MAY BE COMPATIBLE WITH BOTH
WASTES WILL NOT PREVENT THEM FROM REACTING WITH EACH OTHER IF THEY ARE
INCOMPATIBLE. COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REGULATION WILL PROBABLY REQUIRE
OWNERS OR OPERATORS TO WASH EMPTY CONTAINERS OR TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE
THE PROPERTIES OF THE MATERIALS THEY LAST CONTAINED THROUGH RECORDS,
SEGREGATED STORAGE OF EMPTY CONTAINERS, TESTS, OR SOME OTHER MEANS.
THE FINAL REGULATIONS ALSO PROVIDE THAT INCOMPATIBLE WASTES OR
MATERIALS MUST NOT BE PLACED IN THE SAME CONTAINER UNLESS THE GENERAL
STANDARDS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES WILL BE COMPLIED WITH. THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS DID NOT CONTAIN SUCH A PROVISION BECAUSE IT WAS THOUGHT THAT
PLACEMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTE IN CONTAINERS WAS NOT TYPICAL. WHILE
SUCH MIXING MAY NOT BE COMMON, THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED AS A MATTER OF
COMPLETENESS THAT IT SHOULD BE COVERED BY THE INCOMPATIBLE WASTE
REGULATIONS. THE NEED FOR COMPLYING WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IS AS CLEAR HERE AS IT IS IN OTHER CASES WHERE
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES ARE MIXED. THE REQUIREMENT IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND
APPROPRIATE FOR INTERIM STATUS.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ALSO CONTAINED A PROVISION (SECTION
250.44-2(D)) THAT CONTAINERS HOLDING INCOMPATIBLE WASTES SHOULD BE
SEPARATED OR PROTECTED FROM EACH OTHER TO PREVENT MIXING OF INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES IF CONTAINERS SHOULD LEAK OR BREAK. THE FINAL REGULATION
CLARIFIES THE PROPOSED REGULATION. IT EXTENDS IT TO CONTAINERS STORED
NEAR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN OTHER CONTAINERS OR IN PILES, OPEN TANKS, OR
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WHERE THE INCOMPATIBLE WASTES ARE EXPOSED ON THE
SURFACE. IT ALSO INDICATES THAT PROTECTION WILL TYPICALLY BE IN THE
FORM OF A DIKE, BERM, OR WALL. "NEARBY" SHOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN
CLOSE ENOUGH SO THAT WASTES FROM BROKEN OR LEAKING CONTAINERS MIGHT
COMMINGLE WITH INCOMPATIBLE WASTES BEFORE THE SITUATION WOULD BE
DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF OPERATIONS.
8. EMPTY NON-COMBUSTIBLE STORAGE CONTAINERS. THE PROPOSED INTERIM
STATUS REGULATIONS CONTAINED A SECTION (SECTION 250.44-2(F)) REQUIRING
EMPTY NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONTAINERS TO BE RECYCLED IN SOME FASHION. THIS
SECTION WAS INTENDED PARTLY TO ASSURE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE RESIDUES REMAINING IN THE EMPTY CONTAINERS, AND PARTLY TO
IMPLMENET ONE OF THE OBJECTIVES OF SECTION 1003 OF RCRA -- TO PROMOTE
THE RECYCLING AND RECOVERY OF MATERIAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES. THE AGENCY
HAS RECONSIDERED ITS POSITION, IN LIGHT OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THIS
SECTION, AND HAS CHANGED THE FOCUS OF THESE REGULATIONS TO THE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH THE APPROPRIATE
MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. SOME CONTAMINATED CONTAINERS ARE LISTED
AS HAZARDOUS WASTES UNDER PART 261 OF THESE REGULATIONS, AND MUST BE
MANAGED AS SUCH OR RE-USED. AS A RESULT, THE REGULATIONS ON EMPTY
NON-COMBUSTIBLE CONTAINERS HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THIS SECTION.
9. PROPER BAGS. ANOTHER SECTION OF THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS
REGULATIONS (SECTION 250.44-2(G)) REQUIRED THAT CONTAMINATED PAPER BAGS
BE MANAGED IN CLOSED SECONDARY CONTAINERS. EPA RECEIVED A NUMBER OF
COMMENTS ON THIS REQUIREMENT ARGUING THAT THE STANDARD WAS UNNECESSARY
BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF WASTE WHICH ADHERES TO SUCH BAGS IS SMALL, AND
THAT THE BAGS CAN BE PROPERLY MANAGED BY OTHER MEANS. IN LIGHT OF THE
COMMENTS, THE AGENCY HAS REORGANIZED THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. SOME
BAGS AND LINERS CONTAMINATED WITH CERTAIN TOXIC MATERIALS ARE NOW LISTED
AS HAZARDOUS WASTES IN PART 261 AND MUST BE MANAGED LIKE OTHER HAZARDOUS
WASTES. OTHER CONTAMINATED BAGS ARE NOT DECLARED HAZARDOUS AND ARE NO
LONGER REGULATED UNDER THIS PART. IN EITHER CASE, THE PROPOSED
REGULATION IS UNNECESSARY AND HAS BEEN DELETED.
1. DEFINITIONS. IN THE PROPOSED RULES, THE STANDARDS FOR TANKS WERE
MARKEDLY DIFFERENT FROM THOSE FOR BASINS. TANKS WERE REGULATED AS
COVERED CONTAINMENT DEVICES USED FOR STORING HAZARDOUS WASTE. BY
CONTRAST, BASINS WERE REGULATED AS UNCOVERED CONTAINMENT DEVICES USED
FOR TREATING HAZARDOUS WASTE. (THE PROPOSED RULES DID NOT ADDRESS THE
USE OF TANKS FOR TREATING HAZARDOUS WASTE.) BOTH TANKS AND BASINS WERE
ASSUMED TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIMARILY OF ARTIFICAL MATERIALS OR WOOD,
RATHER THAN EARTHEN MATERIALS.
THE AGENCY'S RE-EVALAUTION OF ITS CONCEPTION OF STORAGE NOW PERMITS
STORAGE TO BE CONDUCTED IN UNCOVERED AS WELL AS COVERED DEVICES, SUCH AS
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. THUS BASINS, AS THEY WERE DEFINED IN THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS, ARE NOW RECOGNIZED AS APPROPRIATE STORAGE DEVICES, AND THE
AGENCY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT TREATMENT AS WELL AS STORAGE TANKS
ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL. AS A RESULT, THE AGENCY HAS COMBINED THE TWO
CONCEPTS INTO ONE; TANKS ARE NOW DEFINED TO BE "STATIONARY DEVICE(S)
DESIGNED TO CONTAIN AN ACCUMULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND CONSTRUCTED
PRIMARILY OF NON-EARTHEN MATERIALS . . . WHICH PROVIDE STRUCTURAL
SUPPORT." TANKS ARE REFERRED TO AS COVERED OR UNCOVERED WHEN
APPROPRIATE. THE TERM "BASIN" HAS BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE REGULATIONS.
/1/
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 049 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113413
REGULATION
THE AGENCY HAS REORGANIZED THE REGULATIONS TO GATHER THE PROPOSED
STANDARDS FOR TANKS INTO ONE SUBPART (SUBPART J). THIS SUBPART INCLUDES
STANDARDS FROM THOSE THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR STORAGE TANKS (SECTIONS
250.44-1) AND BASINS (SECTION 250.45-4), FOR STORAGE GENERALLY (250.44),
FOR TREATMENT GENERALLY (SECTION 250.45), AND FOR CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL,
AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES (SECTION 250.45-6). A NUMBER OF
OTHER STANDARDS FROM THE PROPOSED SECTION 3004 STANDARDS HAVE BEEN
INCORPORATED INTO THE PRESENT SET OF INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR TANKS.
THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION IS ORGANIZED ALONG THE LINES OF THE PRESENT
SUBPART J.
IN ADDITION, AS EXPLAINED UNDER SUBPART Q, THE REGULATIONS FOR
CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES (SUBPART Q) ARE
ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THE REGULATIONS FOR TANKS. THE FOLLOWING
DISCUSSION THEREFORE ALSO SERVES TO PRESENT THE FOUNDATION FOR THE
SUBPART Q REGULATIONS. REFERENCES TO TANKS IN THE FOLLOWING DISCUSSION
ARE ALSO MEANT TO INCLUDE THE WASTE CONTAINMENT COMPONENTS OF CHEMICAL,
PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT EQUIPMENT.
THE GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS AND THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE
ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS WERE PROPOSED PRIMARILY FOR INCLUSION IN THE
GENERAL STANDARDS AND PARTLY FOR INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS. THEY ARE THEREFORE BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL ONLY TO
THE EXTENT THAT THE AGENCY WILL CONSIDER COMMENTS ON WHETHER THEY ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUDION IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS.
2. GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR STORAGE (SECTION 250.44(H)) AND THE PROPOSED GENERAL
STANDARDS FOR BASINS (SECTION 250.45-4(B)(1), (D), AND (E)) AND
CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES (SECTION
250.45-6(A) AND (B)(2)) INCLUDED REQUIREMENTS WHICH PLACED RESTRICTIONS
ON THE TYPE OF MATERIALS USED TO BUILD TANKS AND THE TYPE OF WASTE
PALCED IN THEM, TO ENSURE THAT THE WASTE WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OF THE TANK.
FEW COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED ON THESE PROPOSED STANDARDS. SOME
COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE MODIFIED TO REFLECT
THE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF MOST TANKS WILL INEVITABLY
BE SOMEWHAT IMPAIRED BY THE CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE WASTES THEY
CONTAIN. THE AGENCY AGREES THAT TANKS NEED NOT BE DESIGNED TO LAST
FOREVER. THEREFORE, THE FINAL RULES HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO REQUIRE THAT
THE ABILITY OF TANKS TO CONTAIN WASTE DURING THEIR INTENDED LIFE IS NOT
IMPAIRED.
PORPOSED SECTION 250.45-6(E) PROVIDED FOR A 2-FOOT FREEBOARD FOR
UNCOVERED REACTION VESSELS. SOME COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE 2-FOOT
FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE MADE MORE FLEXIBLE BY ALLOWING OWNERS OR
OPERATORS TO USE OTHER METHODS TO PREVENT HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM SPLASHING
OVER THE RIM OF AN UNCOVERED TANK. THE AGENCY AGREES THAT METHODS SUCH
AS DIKES, TRENCHES, OR DIVERSION TO STAND-BY TANKS MAY PROVIDE A DEGREE
OF PROTECTION EQUAL TO THAT AFFORTED BY 2 FEET OF FREEBOARD. THEREFORE,
THE STANDARD HAS BEEN MODIFIED TO REQUIRE UNCOVERED TANKS TO EITHER HAVE
(1) 2 FEET OF FREEBOARD OR (2) A CONTAINMENT, DRAINAGE CONTROL, OR
DIVERSION STRUCTURE WHICH HAS A CAPACITY THAT EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE
VOLUME OF THE TOP 2 FEET OF THE TANK.
IN A SIMILAR VEIN, SOME COMMENTERS FELT THAT THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT
FOR AN AUTOMATIC WASTE FEED CUT-OFF OR BY-PASS SYSTEM (SECTION
250.45-6(G)) SHOULD BE MADE MORE FLEXIBLE BY ALLOWING OWNERS OR
OPERATORS TO USE OTHER TYPES OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEMS IN THE EVENT
THAT THEIR TREATMENT PROCESS BREAK DOWN. THE AGENCY AGREES AND HAS
REWRITTEN THE STANDARD IN TERMS OF A PERFORMANCE STANDARD. THE FINAL
STANDARD REQUIRES THAT FACILITIES AT WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE IS
CONTINUOUSLY FED INTO TANK BE EQUIPPED WITH A MEANS TO PREVENT THE
INFLOW OF WASTE TO THE TANK, BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ANY PARTICULAR
METHOD(S) BE USED TO ACCOMPLISH THIS OBJECTIVE. WITH THE DELETION OF
THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CUT-OFF BE AUTOMATIC, THE REQUIREMENT IS
CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
BECAUSE IT SHOULD NOT REQUIRE MAJOR EQUIPMENT MODIFICATION.
3. WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS. AS AN ADJUNCT TO THE INCLUSION
OF GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS IN THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS, THE AGENCY IS INCLUDING SPECIFIC WASTE ANALYSIS STANDARDS FOR
SPECIFIC TYPES OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. THOSE FOR TANKS; CHEMICAL,
PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES; AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
ARE DRAWN FROM PROPOSED SECTION 250.45-6(B) AND (C), AND COMBINED INTO A
SINGLE REQUIREMENT FOR EACH TYPE OF FACILITY. THE PURPOSE OF THESE
REQUIREMENTS IS TO PREVENT ACCIDENTS AND HAPHAZARD EXPERIMENTATION WITH
NEW WASTES OR NEW TREATMENT TECHNIQUES WHEN CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF LARGE
BATCHES OF WASTE IS INVOLVED. PUT ANOTHER WAY, THESE REQUIREMENTS
ENSURE THAT THE OPERATOR KNOWS NOT ONLY THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE WASTE
INVOLVED, BUT HOW THAT WASTE WILL BEHAVE IN A TREATMENT PROCESS, OR HOW
A NEW TREATMENT PROCESS WILL AFFECT THE WASTES AND THE FACILITY.
HAPHAZARD EXPERIMENTATION OR TREATMENT OF WASTE WITHOUT TRIAL TESTS MAY
CAUSE CORROSION OF CONTAINMENT DEVICES, FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, AND OTHER
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
TRIAL TESTS, OR DOCUMENTED INFORMATION OR SIMILAR WASTES UNDER SIMILAR
TREATMENT PROCESSES AND SIMILAR OPERATING CONDITIONS, SHOULD BRING TO
LIGHT UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS BEFORE LARGE BATCHES OF WASTE ARE TREATED.
THE COMMENTS HAVE PROMPTED SEVERAL CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED SECTIONS.
THE REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO MAKE CLEAR THE AGENCY'S ORIGINAL
INTENT THAT WASTE CONTINUOUSLY FLOWING INTO A TREATMENT PROCESS NEED NOT
BE CONTINUOUSLY TESTED; TESTS OR INFORMATION ARE REQUIRED ONLY BEFORE
THE PROCESS IS BEGUN, OR WHEN THE WASTE OR TREATMENT PROCESS CHANGES
SIGNIFICANTLY. DOCUMENTED INFORMATION MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TESTS
WHEN THE INFORMATION COVERS WASTES, PROCESSES, AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
SIMILAR TO THE ONES TO BE UNDERTAKEN. HOWEVER, RELIANCE ON DOCUMENTED
INFORMATION DOES NOT RELIEVE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF PRIMARY
RESPONSIBILITY FOR ASSURING THAT HE COMPLIES WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE
REGULATIONS.
4. INSPECTIONS. CITING THE RELATIVE STRUCTURAL STABILITY OF TANKS
(AND THE DIKES SURROUNDING THEM), SEVERAL COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE
PROPOSED DAILY INSPECTION SCHEDULE (SECTION 250.43-6 AND SECTION
250.44(C)) WAS UNNECESSARY FOR TANKS. EPA AGREES THAT TANKS AND DIKES
NEED NOT BE INSPECTED DAILY, AND HAS THEREFORE CHANGED THE FREQUENCY FOR
INSPECTION OF THESE ASPECTS OF FACILITIES FROM DAILY TO WEEKLY. HOWEVER,
THE DAILY INSPECTION REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN RETAINED FOR EMERGENCY
RESPONSE SYSTEMS (E.G., WASTE FEED CUT-OFF OR BY-PASS SYSTEMS), THE DATA
GATHERED FROM MONITORING EQUIPMENT (E.G., PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE
GAUGES) AND WASTE LEVEL INDICATORS AT TANKS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 050 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113414
REGULATION
5. IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. REQUIREMENTS FOR
IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES WERE PROPOSED FOR INTERIM
STATUS IN STANDARDS FOR STORAGE (SECTION 250.44(I)) AND IN STANDARDS FOR
TREATMENT (SECTION 250.45(C) AND NOTE), AND FOR THE GENERAL STANDARDS
UNDER BASINS (SECTION 250.45-4(B) AND (C)). MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN
THE PRESENT REGULATION ARE DISCUSSED ABOVE IN THE GENERAL SECTION ON
IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
THE AGENCY HAS ADDED A STANDARD TO THE REGULATIONS WHICH REQUIRES
FACILITIES STORING OR TREATING IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE IN TANKS TO
COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION'S (NFPA'S) BUFFER
ZONE REQUIREMENTS FOR TANKS, CONTAINED IN TABLES 2-1 THROUGH 2-6 OF THE
"FLAMMABLE AND COMBUSTIBLE CODE - 1977". THE PURPOSE OF THIS STANDARD
IS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR INJURY TO THE FACILITY, FACILITY
PERSONNEL, AND THE NEIGHBORING PUBLIC FROM FLYING DEBRIS AND TOXIC AIR
EMISSIONS WHICH COULD RESULT FROM EXPLOSIONS OR FIRES INVOLVING
HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE STANDARD APPLIES ONLY TO IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE
WASTE BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL FOR FIRES AND EXPLOSIONS IS LARGELY CONFINED
TO SUCH WASTES. THE NFPA STANDARDS ALREADY APPLY TO MANY TANKS
CONTAINING IGNITABLE MATERIALS UNDER OSHA REGULATIONS. SINCE THIS
REQUIREMENT WAS NOT PROPOSED, IT IS BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL, AND
THE AGENCY WILL CONSIDER COMMENTS ON IT.
6. CLOSURE. THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR BASINS
(SECTION 250.45-4(H)) AND THE PROPOSED GENERAL STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL,
PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES (SECTION 250.45-6(H))
REQUIRED THAT ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE RESIDUES BE
REMOVED WHEN THE FACILITY CLOSED, AND BE DISPOSED OF AS HAZARDOUS WASTE.
A FEW COMMENTERS CONTENDED THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL RESIDUES
RESULTING FROM TREATMENT PROCESSES WOULD HAVE TO BE MANAGED AS HAZARDOUS
WASTE WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENT IN THE PREAMBLE TO THE
PROPOSED SECTION 3001 RULES, WHICH REQUIRED THAT WASTE BE ANALYZED ONLY
WHEN THE GENERATOR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HIS WASTE IS HAZARDOUS.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT TREATMENT RESIDUES WILL NORMALLY BE HAZARDOUS.
TO CLARIFY ITS POSITION, THE AGENCY HAS REVISED THE PART 261 RULES SO
THAT THEY NOW SPECIFY THAT RESIDUES FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT
PROCESSES ARE A HAZARDOUS WASTE UNLESS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN
DEMONSTRATE OTHERWISE (SEE THE PART 261 PREAMBLE FOR THE RATIONALE FOR
THIS CHANGE). THE PRESENT REGULATIONS RECITE THIS IN A COMMENT.
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, ALSO KNOWN AS PITS, PONDS, OR LAGOONS, ARE
OFTEN USED TO TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE. A SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT IS DEFINED AS A PART OF A FACILITY WHICH IS A NATURAL
TOPOGRAPHIC DEPRESSION, MAN-MADE EXCAVATION, OR DIKED AREA FORMED
PRIMARILY OF EARTHEN MATERIALS, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE LINED WITH MAN-MADE
MATERIALS. IMPOUNDMENTS ARE DESIGNED TO HOLD AN ACCUMULATION OF LIQUID
WASTES AND WASTES CONTAINING FREE LIQUIDS. SOME ARE LINED WITH CLAY OR
SYNTHETIC MATERIALS TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER.
LEAKAGE TO GROUND WATER POSES THE MOST SERIOUS THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT FROM IMPOUNDMENTS, BUT AIR EMISSIONS FROM VOLATILE
WASTES AND OVERTOPPING OF THE IMPOUNDMENT AS A RESULT OF OVERFILLING.
PRECIPATION, OR WIND CAN ALSO BE SERIOUS PROBLEMS. DISCHARGES TO
SURFACE WATER, WHICH MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH IMPOUNDMENTS ARE
SUBJECT TO CONTROL UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT (NPDES PROGRAM).
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MINIMUM FREEBOARD, PROTECTIVE COVER ON DIKES
("CONTAINMENT SYSTEM"), WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS, SPECIAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTES, AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES WERE ALL PROPOSED FOR INCLUDION IN THE GENERAL
STANDARDS IN A FORM NOT RADICALLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT PROPOSED HERE.
SINCE THEY WERE NOT PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS, THEY ARE BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL ONLY TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE AGENCY SOLICITS COMMENTS ON WHETHER THEY ARE SUITABLE FOR
INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS.
FINAL RCRA INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
INVOLVE THE FOLLOWING ISSUES.
1. EXISTING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. MANY COMMENTERS STATED THAT THE
PROPOSED GENERAL REGULATIONS WERE INFEASIBLE FOR EXISTING SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS. THEY ARGUED THAT RETROFITTING THOUSANDS OF EXISTING
IMPOUNDMENTS WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL, AND SUGGESTED LESS STRINGENT
REGULATIONS FOR EXISTING IMPOUNDMENTS, UNLESS THEY WERE FOUND TO BE
CAUSING AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM. THE AGENCY AGREES THAT IF AN OWNER OR
OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT AN EXISTING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT IS NOT
CONTRIBUTING MEASURABEL QUANTITIES OF CONTAMINANTS TO GROUND WATER,
RETROFITTING SHOULD NOT BE REQUIRED IN THE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS.
(TO THE EXTENT THE COMMENTS ADDRESSED ISSUES RELEVANT ONLY TO THE
GENERAL REGULATIONS, THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE ADDRESSED WHEN THE FINAL
GENERAL REGULATIONS ARE ISSUED.) THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH IN
THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF EXISTING FACILITIES.
THESE REGULATIONS MAY REQUIRE RETROFITTING OF SOME EXISTING SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS FOR MAINTAINING FREEBOARD AND PROVIDING PROTECTIVE COVER
FOR EARTHERN DIKES. HOWEVER, THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE STANDARD FEATURES
OF PORPERLY ENGINEERED SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, AND SHOULD NOT POSE A
SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN TO OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF MOST IMPOUNDMENTS.
2. MINIMUM FREEBOARD. THE PROPOSED GENERAL STANDARDS PROVIDED A
MINIMUM FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT SUCH A
FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS.
IT IS ACCEPTED ENGINEERING PRACTICE TO DESIGN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS WITH
SUFFICIENT FREEBOARD TO PROTECT AGAINST OVERTOPPING BY WAVES OR
PRECIPITATION, AND MOST SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ALREADY HAVE 2 FEET OF
FREEBOARD. AT LEAST SIX STATES ALREADY REQUIRE THE 2-FOOT FREEBOARD
REQUIRED IN THESE REGUALATIONS. AS A RESULT, AN INTERIM STATUS
FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT WILL NOT TYPICALLY REQUIRE LARGE CAPITAL
EXPENDITURES BY OWNERS OR OPERATORS, NOR WILL IT REQUIRE INTERACTION
WITH THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR. FOR THOSE FACILITIES WHICH DO NOT MEET
THE MINIMUM FREEBOARD REQUIREMENTS, THE MINIMUM FREEBOARD CAN BE
ESTABLISHED IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME BY SUCH MEANS AS REDUCING THE
QUANTITY OF WASTE OR ADDING ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO THE DIKES.
THE PROPOSED REGULATION REQUIRED THAT THE FREEBOARD IN A SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT BE CAPABLE OF CONTAINING RAINFALL FROM A 24-HOUR, 25-YEAR
STORM, BUT NOT BE LESS THAN 2 FEET. THE OBJECTIVE WAS TO PREVENT
SPILLOVER OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM WAVES OR RAINFALL, AND TO REDUCE THE
RISK OF OVERFILLING. COMMENTS VARIED FROM SUGGESTIONS THAT THERE BE NO
REQUIREMENTS FOR FREEBOARD TO SUGGESTIONS FOR MORE STRINGENT
REQUIREMENTS.
THE AGENCY HAS RE-EVALUATED THE EFFECT OF A 24-HOUR, 25-YEAR STORM,
AND HAS FOUND THAT IT WOULD NECESSITATE A SMALLER FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT
THAN THE SPECIFIED MINIMUM OF 2 FEET. IT IS THUS UNNECESSARY. THE SAME
IS TRUE OF ALL OTHER SUGGESTED STORM STANDARDS, INCLUDING THE 24-HOUR,
100-YEAR STORM.
NO COMMENTS FOCUSES ON THE SPECIFIC MEASURE OF 2 FEET FOR MINIMUM
FREEBOARD. ENGINEERING HANDBOOKS, TEXTBOOKS, DESING MANUALS, AND STATE
REGULATIONS SPECIFY THE NEED FOR A MINIMUM 2-FOOT FREEBOARD TO PREVENT
OVERTOPPING BY WAVES OR RAINFALL. THEREFORE, THE AGENCY IS RETAINING A
2-FOOT MINIMUM FREEBOARD REQUIREMENT.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 051 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113415
REGULATION
SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT LEVEL CONTROLS (COUPLES WITH NDES
DISCHARGE PERMITS) SHOULD BE ALLOWED INSTEAD OF A MINIMUM FREEBOARD.
THE AGENCY DISAGREES. ANY LEVEL CONTROLS MUST STILL PROVIDE FOR A
MINIMUM FREEBOARD TO PROTECT AGAINST OVERFLOWS RESULTING FROM BREAKDOWNS
IN LEVEL CONTROL EQUIPMENT, OPERATOR ERRORS, WAVES, AND SIGNIFICANT
RAINFALL. IN ADDITION, SINCE THE AGENCY HAS DELETED THE PHRASE "AVERAGE
MAXIMUM" FROM THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF FREEBOARD, THE REGULATION NOW
REQUIRES 2 FEET OF FREEBOARD AT ALL TIMES DURING NORMAL OPERATION.
3. CONTAINMENT SYSTEM. THE PROPOSED GENERAL REGULATIONS REQUIRED
ALL EARTHEN DIKES TO HAVE AN OUTSIDE PROTECTIVE COVER TO MINIMIZE WIND
AND WATER EROSION. THIS REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INTERIM
STATUS STANDARDS. PROTECTIVE COVER FOR EARTHEN DIKES IS CONSIDERED TO
BE STANDARD ENGINEERING PRACTICE, AND MANY IMPOUNDMENTS ALREADY HAVE
SUCH A COVER. THEREFORE, THE AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT A SUBSTANTIAL
CAPITAL COST, OR ANY INTERACTION WITH THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, WILL
BE NECESSITATED BY THIS REQUIREMENT. THE SOLE COMMENT ON THIS SECTION
STATED THAT THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTIVE COVER, THE PRESERVATION OF THE
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE IMPOUNDMENT, SHOULD BE NOTED IN THE
REGULATION, EPA AGREES AND HAS DONE SO.
4. WASTE ANALYSIS AND RECORDKEEPING. WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS BUT WERE
PROPOSED AS REQUIREMENTS IN THE GENERAL STANDARDS WHICH APPLIED TO ALL
FACILITIES. HOWEVER, THE FINAL INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS CONTAIN GENERAL
WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS IN SUBPART B, AND IN ADDITION, INCLUDE
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS IN THE STANDARDS FOR SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS. SINCE THESE STANDARDS ARE ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THOSE
FOR TANKS AND CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES,
THEY ARE DISCUSSED IN THE SECTION ON TANKS (SUBPART J).
THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS REQUIRED THAT THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR KEEP RECORDS OF THE CONTENTS AND LOCATION OF EACH SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT. THIS INFORMATION WILL REDUCE THE PROBABILITY OF ACCIDENTAL
MIXING OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES, AID IN RESOLVING DAMAGE INCIDENTS, AND
ASSIST IN DETERMINING PROPER CLOSURE PROCEDURES. BECAUSE ALL HAZARDOUS
WASTE FACILITIES MUST KEEP RECORDS ON THE TYPES AND PLACEMENT OF WASTES,
THE RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ARE INCLUDED IN
THE GENERAL RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL FACILITIES UNDER SUBPART
E.
5. INSPECTIONS. THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS REQUIRED THAT
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT DIKES BE INSPECTED DAILY IN ORDER TO DETECT AND
CORRECT ANY DETERIORATION OF THE DIKES. THIS RULE WAS INTENDED TO
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF DIKE FAILURE.
COMMENTS SUPPORTED THE NEED FOR INSPECTIONS, BUT RECOMMENDED THAT
THEY BE CONDUCTED LESS FREQUENTLY.
COMMENTERS ARGUES THAT DIKE FAILURE IS A LONG-TERM EVENT THAT CAN BE
DETECTED WITH LESS FREQUENT INSPECTIONS, AND THAT DAILY INSPECTIONS
WOULD MOST LIKELY BE PERFORMED IN A CURSORY MANNER. MOST OF THE
COMMENTERS RECOMMENDED WEEKLY, BI-WEEKLY, OR MONTHLY INSPECTIONS.
THE AGENCY AGREES THAT INSPECTIONS ON A WEEKLY BASIS ARE GENERALLY
SUFFICIENT TO DETECT CRACKS, EROSION, AND OTHER DETERIORATION IN A DIKE
WELL IN ADVANCE OF DIKE FAILURE. THEY SHOULD ALSO NOT IMPOSE A LARGE
BURDEN ON THE OWNER OR OPERATOR. ADDITIONAL INSPECTION MAY BE PRUDENT
DURING OR AFTER AN UNUSUAL RAINFALL, AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR IN THE INSPECTION SCHEDULE REQUIRED BY SECTION 265.15.
ON A ROUTINE BASIS, HOWEVER, WEEKLY INSPECTIONS OF THE SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR CRACKS OR LEAKS IN DIKES, REPRESENTS THE
BEST BALANCE BETWEEN NEED AND PRACTICALITY.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ALSO REQUIRED A DAILY INSPECTION OF ANY
EXISTING SYSTEM USED FOR DETECTING THE FAILURE OF A LINER SYSTEM OR
NATURAL SOIL BARRIER. THIS WOULD ENSURE THE TIMELY DETECTION OF A
FAILURE OF A LINER SYSTEM OR NATURAL SOIL BARRIER. THIS WOULD ENSURE
THE TIMELY DETECTION OF A FAILURE OF THE IMPOUNDMENT LINER SYSTEM. THIS
REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN SUBSUMED IN THE GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS IN
SECTION 265.15(B); THE REQUIREMENT FOR DAILY INSPECTION HAS BEEN
REPLACED BY A REQUIREMENT THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR DEVELOP HIS OWN
SCHEDULE.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT WHEN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS ARE IN OPERATION,
THERE MAY BE SIGNIFICANT DAILY FLUCTUATIONS IN THE LEVEL OF THE WASTES.
THIS POTENTIAL DAILY FLUCTUATION COULD SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT
OF APPROPRIATE FREEBOARD NEEDED TO PREVENT OVERTOPPING, AND
LESS-THAN-DAILY INSPECTION WOULD NOT BE SAFE IN SOME INSTANCES.
MOREOVER, THIS INSPECTION IS USUALLY QUITE SIMPLE. CONSEQUENTLY, DAILY
INSPECTION OF FREEBOARD IS REQUIRED.
6. CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE. THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS
REGULATIONS REQUIRED THAT UPON CLOSURE, ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND RESIDUES
WERE TO BE REMOVED FROM A SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT AND DISPOSED OF AS A
HAZARDOUS WASTE, UNLESS THE IMPOUNDMENT MET THE PROPOSED SECTION
250.45-2 REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDFILLS AND CLOSED ACCORDING TO THE LANDFILL
CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSED REGULATION WAS READ BY MANY
COMMENTERS TO ALLOW EXISTING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS TO CLOSE AS LANDFILLS
UNDER INTERIM STATUS ONLY IF THEY MET THE PROPOSED GENERAL STANDARDS FOR
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF LANDFILLS AS WELL AS THE STANDARDS FOR
CLOSURE. UNDERSTANDABLY, THIS DREW STRONG OBJECTIONS. SUCH A
REQUIREMENT WAS NOT APPLIED TO LANDFILLS CLOSING UNDER INTERIM STATUS,
AND IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO BE EXTENDED TO SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.
ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT WELL REFLECTED IN THE TEXT OF THE PROPOSED
REGULATION, THE AGENCY'S INTENT WAS TO REQUIRE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
CLOSING UNDER INTERIM STATUS AS LANDFILLS TO MEET ONLY THE INTERIM
STATUS REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSURE OF LANDFILLS, THAT IS, THE CLOSURE AND
POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDFILLS. THE PRESENT REGULATIONS
HAVE BEEN RESTRUCTURED ALONG THESE LINES.
IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, THE PRESENT REGULATIONS ALSO ALLOW MORE
FLEXIBILITY THAN THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. IF THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR ELECTS TO AVOID CLOSING AS A LANDFILL, ALL HAZARDOUS WASTES AND
HAZARDOUS RESIDUES MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT,
INCLUDING (UNLESS HE CAN SHOW THAT THEY ARE NON-HAZARDOUS) THE
IMPOUNDMENT LINER (IF ANY) AND UNDERLYING AND SURROUNDING CONTAMINATED
SOIL. THE CHOICE WHETHER TO REMOVE THESE MATERIALS OR TO CLOSE AS A
LANDFILL IS UP TO THE OWNER OR OPERATOR (SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SUBPART G). IN ADDITION, THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR MAY CHOOSE TO REMOVE ONLY PART OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND
THEN CLOSE AS A LANDFILL. AS A COMMENT TO THE REGULATION POINTS OUT,
THE DETAILED REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDFILL CLOSURE MAY THEN BE SUBSTANTIALLY
REDUCED, BECAUSE THEY DEPEND ON THE AMOUNT AND NATURE OF THE HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS REMAINING, ALONG WITH SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS. THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR MAY ALSO ADJUST THE POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS AS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PARTICULAR FACILITY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPROACH
IS TO PROVIDE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WITH A WIDE CHOICE OF ALTERNATIVES,
WHILE STILL ASSURING ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT FROM ANY HAZARDOUS WASTES REMAINING IN THE IMPOUNDMENT AFTER
CLOSURE.
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR'S CHOICE OF CLOSURE PLANS MAY DEPEND, IN
SUBSTANTIAL PART, ON JUST HOW MUCH MATERIAL WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED FROM
THE IMPOUNDMENT. THE DETERMINATION OF THE AMOUNT OF MATERIAL TO BE
REMOVED WILL BE A FUNCTION OF THE AMOUNT AND MOBILITY OF THE REMAINING
HAZARDOUS WASTES, JUDGMENTS AS TO THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE COVER
NEEDED, AND THE POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIRED. THE DETERMINATIONS FOR
CLOSURE ARE ULTIMATELY SUGJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 052 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113416
REGULATION
IN MAKING THIS JUDGMENT, THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR MAY REQUIRE TESTS
OF RESIDUES OR CONTAMINATED SOIL TO BE MADE BY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR.
FOR THESE REASONS, IT MAY BENEFIT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT TO SUBMIT A CLOSURE PLAN TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN 180 DAYS BEFORE THE TARGET DATE FOR THE
INITIATION OF CLOSURE ACTIVITIES. IN ADDITION, OWNERS AND OPERATORS ARE
DISCOURAGED FROM PENETRATING SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT LINERS IN ORDER TO
SAMPLE AND ANALYZE UNDERLYING SOIL FOR CONTAMINATION, UNLESS PRIOR
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR CONFIRM THE DESIRABILITY OF
THIS STEP. LINER PENETRATION COULD GREATLY INCREASE LEAKAGE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL.
A MAJOR REQUIREMENT FOR AN IMPOUNDMENT TO BE CLOSED AS A LANDFILL IS
THAT THE WASTE WHICH REMAINS IN THE IMPOUNDMENT MUST BE CAPABLE OF
SUPPORTING THE FINAL COVER. THIS MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A COMBINATION
OF REMOVING WASTES (E.G., THE LIQUID PORTION) AND TREATING THE RESIDUES
(E.G., FURTHER DEWATERING, EVAOPRATION, OR CHEMICALLY STABLIZING OR
SOLIDIFYING THE RESIDUES).
EPA BELIEVES THAT THESE REGULATIONS SATISFY MANY OF THE CONCERNS
RAISED IN THE COMMENTS TO THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. THOSE
COMMENTS STATED THAT THE SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS WERE
IMPROPERLY RESTRICTIVE, THAT IT MIGHT IN SOME INSTANCES BE PREFERABLE TO
LEAVE THE WASTE IN PLACE THAN TO MOVE IT, AND THAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR
INERT FILL WAS UNNECESSARY THESE REGULATIONS PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY FOR
CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOW THE WASTES TO BE LEFT IN PLACE. THE
REQUIREMENT SPECIFYING THE USE OF INERT MATERIAL FOR FILL HAS BEEN
DELETED. COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL STANDARDS WILL BE DEALT WITH WHEN
THOSE STANDARDS ARE PROMULGATED.
BECAUSE THE LANDFILL CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, ON WHICH THE SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ARE BASED, HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY
MODIFIED AND BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION SURROUNDING THE SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENT CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR INTERIM STATUS, THIS
REGULATION IS BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL, AND THE AGENCY IS
SOLICITING COMMENTS ON IT. THE AGENCY IS ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN
RECEIVING COMMENTS ON (1) WHETHER THE PRESENT LANDFILL CLOSURE AND
POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS NEED TO BE MODIFIED AS THEY APPLY TO
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, AND (2) THE NUMBER, SIZE, AND OTHER
CHARACTERISTICS OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS FROM WHICH OPERATORS MIGHT OPT
TO REMOVAL SOME OR ALL OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTES, RESIDUES AND OTHER
CONTAMINATED MATERIALS DURING CLOSURE.
7. IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. THIS TOPIC WAS
PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN THE GENERAL SECTION OF THE SAME TITLE WHICH
SUPPLIES THE RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION OF THESE WASTES IN SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS.
THE ISSUE OF VOLATILITY HAS BEEN DEFERRED UNTIL MORE DATA IS GATHERED
(SEE DISCUSSION OF "VOLATILITY"), IN THE MEANTIME, IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED
THAT EPA DOES NOT CONDONE THE ADDITION OF VOLATILE HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS TO SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS REQUESTED THAT DURING EMERGENCIES THEY BE
PERMITTED TO PLACE IGNITABLE WASTES, SUCH AS PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, IN
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS USED SOLELY FOR EMERGENCIES. THE REGULATION NOW
PERMITS THIS, AND A SIMILAR PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE TANK
REGULATIONS. FURTHERMORE, THE SECTION ON IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
IS NOT INTENDED TO COVER STORMWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT PONDS SUCH
AS THOSE AT PETROLEUM REFINERIES, WHEN THEY RECEIVE INCIDENTAL AMOUNTS
OF OILY MATERIAL IN OTHERWISE NON-CONTAMINATED RUN-OFF.
THERE WERE NO REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
IN PILES IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS BECAUSE THE PROPOSED RULES REQUIRED
THAT WASTES BE STORED IN COVERED CONTAINERS OR TANKS. THE WASTE PILES
THE AGENCY WAS AWARE OF WERE GENERALLY USED FOR DISPOSAL AND WERE LARGE
ENOUGH TO BE PROPERLY MANAGED AS LANDFILLS. THE FINAL REGULATIONS STILL
REQUIRE THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSED OF IN PILES BE MANAGED AS A
LANDFILL. HOWEVER, AT PUBLIC HEARINGS DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD ON THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS, THE AGENCY BECAME AWARE THAT HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE
OCCASIONALLY STORED IN PILES FOR WHICH THE LANDFILL REGULATIONS ARE
INAPPROPRIATE. COMMENTS AT THE HEARINGS INDICATED THAT SUCH PILES ARE
GENERALLY SMALL, FREQUENTLY LESS THAN 3 METERS HIGH. MANY ARE IN
BUILDINGS OR MAINTAINED OUTSIDE ON CONCRETE OR OTHER PADS. THEY ARE
FREQUENTLY USED TO ACCUMULATE WASTE BEFORE SHIPMENT, TREATMENT, OR
DISPOSAL, AND ARE TYPICALLY COMPOSED OF A SINGLE DRY MATERIAL.
THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBPART ARE DRAWN PARTLY FROM THE LANDFILL
REGULATIONS (SUBPART N) AND PARTLY FROM ANALOGY TO THE STORAGE
REGULATIONS FOR TANKS. SINCE NONE OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS GAVE DETAILS
ON HOW STORAGE PILES SHOULD BE REGULATED, THESE REGULATIONS ARE FOUNDED
LARGELY ON THE DESCRIPTIONS OF STORAGE PILES GIVEN AT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
BECAUSE NONE OF THESE REGULATIONS WERE PROPOSED AS THEY RELATE TO
STORAGE PILES, THEY ARE BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL, AND THE AGENCY
ESPECIALLY SOLICITS COMMENT ON THEM.
1. PROTECTION FROM WIND, BECAUSE MANY PILES ARE COMPOSED OF DRY,
FINELY-DIVIDED MATERIALS, THEY ARE LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT TO WIND
DISPERSAL. WIND-BLOWN HAZARDOUS WASTE POSES THE OBVIOUS THREAT OF
POLLUTION OF NEARBY LAND AND WATER, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF HUMAN HEALTH
EFFECTS FROM INHALATION OR INGESTION. THE AGENCY IS AWARE OF ONE
INSTANCE WHERE MATERIAL BLOWING FROM A VERY LARGE PILE OF ASBESTOS WASTE
POSED A HEALTH RISK FROM INHALATION. THE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS
THEREFORE REQUIRE THAT WASTES PILES CONTAINING A HAZARDOUS WASTE SUBJECT
TO WIND DISPERSAL BE COVERED OR OTHERWISE MANAGED SO THAT WIND DISPERSAL
IS CONTROLLED. PILES INSIDE BUILDINGS ARE ALREADY ADEQUATELY MANAGED
FOR THIS PURPOSE. IN OTHER CASES, THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT OWNERS AND
OPERATORS ARE IN THE BEST POSITIONTO DEVELOP COST-EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO
CONTROL WIND DISPERSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES.
2. WASTE ANALYSIS. THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS SECTION ARE INTENDED AS
A REFINEMENT OF THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS IN SECTION
265.13. AS THE REGULATION FOR WASTE PILES AND THE COMMENT TO THE
REGULATION INDICATES, THE BASIC PURPOSE OF WASTE ANALYSIS IS TO ASSURE
THAT INCOMPATIBLE WASTES ARE NOT MIXED, AND THAT IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE
WASTES ARE PROTECTED FROM SOURCES OF IGNITION OR REACTION. FACILITIES
WHICH RECEIVE ONLY ONE OR A FEW WASTES WHICH ARE STORED IN PILES
TYPICALLY NEED NOT CONDUCT A VERY SOPHISTICATED ANALYSIS OF INCOMING
WASTES; THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DECIDE, FOR EXAMPLE, WHETHER VISUAL
OBSERVATION OF THE COLOR AND TEXTURE OF THE WASTE WILL MEET THE STANDARD
IN THE REGULATION.
3. CONTAINMENT. BESIDES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSURE, THE MAJOR
DIFFERENCE IN THE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN DISPOSAL PILES AND STORAGE PILES
IS THAT THE FORMER MUST HAVE GROUND-WATER MONITORING TO DETECT
CONTAMINATION. IF LEACHATE OR RUN-OFF FROM A PILE IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE,
THEN OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF THE LATTER MUST EITHER PREVENT THE
FORMATION OF LEACHATE AND RUN-OFF OR CONTROL HAZARDOUS LEACHATE AND
RUN-OFF.
IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CHOOSES TO PREVENT THE FORMATION OF LEACHATE
AND RUN-OFF, HE MUST PROTECT THE PILE FROM PRECIPITATION AND RUN-ON, AND
MUST NOT PLACE ANY LIQUIDS OR WASTES CONTAINING FREE LIQUIDS ON THE
PILE. (SEE THE PREAMBLE SECTION ON LANDFILLS FOR A DISCUSSION OF FREE
LIDUIDS). PILES KEPT IN BUILDINGS WILL TYPICALLY MEET THIS
REQUIREMENTS.
ALTERNATIVELY, IN ORDER TO CONTROL LEACHATE AND RUN-OFF, THE PILE
MUST BE PLACED ON AN IMPERMEABLE BASE SO THAT LEACHATE AND RUN-OFF CAN
BE COLLECTED, AND RUN-ON MUST BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE PILE. THE
COLLECTED LEACHATE AND RUN-OFF MUST BE MANAGED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE, AND
AN NPDES PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED IF THE LEACHATE AND RUN-OFF IS
DISCHARGED THROUGH A POINT SOURCE TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 053 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113417
REGULATION
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO PROTECT AGAINST CONTAMINATION
OF GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER, AND SURROUNDING LAND BY LEACHATE AND
RUN-OFF FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE PILES.
4. CLOSURE. BECAUSE THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE STORAGE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES, THE DEFINITION OF STORAGE REQUIRES THAT ALL HAZARDOUS
WASTES AND HAZARDOUS RESIDUES MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE PILE IS CLOSED.
THE DEFINITION OF STORAGE AND THE REGULATIONS IN SUBPART G ALSO REQUIE
THAT HAZARDOUS WASTES AND RESIDUES BE REMOVED FROM THE PILE BASE OR THE
CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE OR OTHER AREA ON WHICH THE PILE SAT, AND FROM ANY
EQUIPMENT OR FACILITY USED TO MANAGE HAZARDOUS LEACHATE OR RUN-OFF FROM
THE PILE. THE CLOSURE PLAN REQUIRED BY SUBPART G MUST ADDRESS THESE
REQUIREMENTS. IN REMOVING HAZARDOUS WASTES OR RESIDUES, THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR BECOMES A GENERATOR OF HAZARDOUS WASTES AND MUST MANAGE THEM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS 262, 263, AND 265 OF THESE
REGULATIONS.
5. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE. THE
PROBLEMS POSED BY IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES ARE DISCUSSED ABOVE IN
THE PREAMBLE SECTION ENTITLED "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE,
REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTE."
THE FIRST ALTERNATIVE FOR MANAGING IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE IN
PILES -- AVAILABLE WHEN PILING THE WASTE RENDERS THE WASTE NO LONGER
INGNITABLE OR REACTIVE -- IS THE SAME ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE FOR MOST
OTHER FORMS OF STORAGE OR DISPOSAL AND IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE SECOND
ALTERNATIVE -- PROTECTING THE WASTE FROM ANY MATERIALS OR CONDITIONS
WHICH MAY CAUSE IT TO IGNITE OR REACT -- IS ANALOGOUS TO THE APPROACH
USED FOR TANKS. IT MAY BE PRACTICAL FOR PILES KEPT IN BUILDINGS AND IN
SOME OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
6. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. THESE REQUIREMENTS
ARE SIMILAR TO THE ANALOGOUS REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS. BECAUSE PILES
PROVIDE LITTLE CONTAINMENT OF THE PILED WASTE, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY
THAT PILED WASTES MAY COMMINGLE WITH OTHER WASTES STORED NEARBY, OR THAT
ADJACENT PILES MAY GROW UNTIL THEY OVERLAP. COMMINGLING OF INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES MUST BE PREVENTED BY SEPARATION OR BY MEANS OF A DIKE, WALL, OR
BERM. IN ADDITION, IF HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE PILED IN THE SAME PLACE THAT
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES WERE PREVIOUSLY PILED, A REASCTION BETWEEN THE NEW
WASTE AND RESIDUES FROM THE PREVIOUS PILE MAY OCCUR. THUS THE AREA MUST
BE DECONTAMINATED SO THAT THE PROSCRIBED REACTIONS DO NOT OCCUR.
(LANDFARMS)
THE AGENCY IS NOW USING THE TERM "LAND TREATMENT FACILITY" IN PLACE
OF "LANDFARM" IN ORDER TO EMPLOY A TERM WHICH MORE ACCURATELY DESCRIBES
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PARTICULAR WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE. THE TERMS
"LANDFARM" AND "LANDFARMING" MISLEADINGLY IMPLY A CONNECTION BETWEEN
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL AND CROP PRODUCTION OR SOIL BENEFICIATION. THE
TERM "LAND TREATMENT," IN CONTRAST, IMPLIES THAT THE LAND OR SOIL IS
USED AS A MEDIUM TO TREAT HAZARDOUS WASTE. THIS MEDIUM WHICH IS
REFLECTED IN THE REGULATIONS, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY'S PHILOSOPHY
THAT APPLYING HAZARDOUS WASTE TO THE SOIL IS A WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE
RESERVED FOR THOSE WASTE STREAMS THAT CAN BE TREATED IN A SOIL SYSTEM.
THE LIMITATIONS OF THIS WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE ARE EXPLAINED IN MORE
DETAIL LATER. THIS PRACTICE SIMULTANEOUSLY CONSTITUTES TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS INCLUDED ONLY THE CLOSURE PORTION OF THE
LANDFARMING REGULAIIONS IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. THE AGENCY HAS
DECIDED TO INCLUDE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE REGULATION IN THE INTERIM
STATUS REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY SERVE IMPORTANT ENVIRONMENTAL
OBJECTIVES, AND GENERALLY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION IN INTERIM
STATUS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO REGULATE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF LAND TREATMENT
DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD BECAUSE THIS IS A DISPOSAL OPTION THAT
PRESENTS HIGH POTENTIAL RISKS IN THE ABSENCE OF CERTAIN OPERATIONAL
CONTROLS. THESE RISKS ARISE FROM THE FACT THAT LAND TREATMENT INVOLVES
THE DIRECT APPLICATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES TO THE LAND SURFACE.
TYPICALLY THIS OCCURS IN THE ABSENCE OF THE TYPE OF LINER SYSTEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH LANDFILLS OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. UNLESS THE PRACTICE
IS CAREFULLY DEFINED AND REGULATED, IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES MAY TRY TO
CHARACTERIZE INDISCRIMINATE DUMPING OF WASTE AS LAND TREATMENT. IN
ADDITION, LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES MAY BE USED TO GROW FOOD-CHAIN
CROPS. THE AGENCY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS TO ENTER THE HUMAN FOOD CHAIN AS A RESULT OF THIS PRACTICE.
SINCE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS CROPS MAY BE GROWN ON SUCH SITES DURING
INTERIM STATUS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THIS CONCERN DURING THE
INTERIM STATUS PERIOD.
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN INCLUDED IN THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS BECAUSE THE AGENCY BELIEVES MONITORING IS SUCH AN ESSENTIAL
FIRST STEP IN THE REGULATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL. SUCH
MONITORING WILL ALSO BE A PART OF ANY FINAL PHASE II REGULATIONS.
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES, HOWEVER, MUST BEGIN
TO INSTALL UNSATURATED ZONE MONITORING SYSTEMS AND BEING TO ESTABLISH
BACKGROUND LEVELS OF VARIOUS PARAMETERS NOW SO THAT THEY WILL BE IN A
POSITION TO MEET THE TREATMENT, GROUND-WATER, AND FOOD-CHAIN CROP
PROTECTION STANDARDS.
1. PURPOSE OF TREATMENT. IN SECTION 260.10 OF THE REGULATIONS
ISSUED TODAY A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY IS DEFINED AS "THAT PART OF A
FACILITY AT WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE IS APPLIED ONTO OR INCORPORATED INTO
THE SOIL SURFACE," OPERATORS OF LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES GENERALLY
APPLY THE WASTE IN THIN LAYERS AND USE COMMON FARM PRACTICES SUCH AS
TILLING, CONTOURING, AND EROSION CONTROL TECHNIQUES. THEY MAY ALSO ADD
NITROGEN AND PHOSPORUS FERTILIZERS TO ENHANCE MICROBIAL DEGRADATION OF
THE WASTE. THE GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF LAND TREATMENT IS THE MICROBIAL
DEGRADATION OF ORGANIC WASTE CONSTITUENTS. COMPARED TO THE MORE
CONVENTIONAL METHODS OF DISPOSING OF WASTE IN LANDFILLS AND SURFACE
IMPOUNDMENTS THIS PRACTICE IS RELATIVELY NEW. IT IS USED PRIMARILY TO
TREAT OILY WASTES, BUT MAY BE FEASIBLE FOR OTHER TYPES OF WASTES.
WHILE EPA DOES NOT WISH TO RULE OUT THE LEGITIMATE USE OF THIS WASTE
MANAGEMENT OPTION, THERE ARE CERTAIN INHERENT RISKS WITH THIS PRACTICE
WHICH MAKE CAREFUL REGULATION NECESSARY. ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS IN
THESE REGULATIONS THAT WILL MINIMIZE SUCH RISKS IS A CLEAR SPECIFICATION
OF THE PURPOSE OF LAND TREATMENT. IN DOING THIS, THE AGENCY HOPES TO
PREVENT THE SITUATION WHERE IRRESPONSIBLE PARTIES MAY CLAIM THAT THEIR
INDISCRIMINATE DUMPING OF WASTE IS LAND TREATMENT. EPA BELIEVES THAT
THE ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR THE LAND TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTES
IS TO TREAT THE WASTE TO REDUCE ITS HAZARDOUS PROPERTIES. THIS
REDUCTION OCCURS THROUGH BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION OR CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN
THE SOIL THAT ALTER THE CHEMICAL STATE OF THE WASTE.
THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT SOIL HAS THE CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY
FILTER AND DILUTE WASTE. HOWEVER, THESE PHYSICAL MECHANISMS PROVIDE
LITTLE OR NO NET REDUCTION IN HAZARD IF THEY DO NOT LATER THE CHEMICAL
STATE OF THE WASTE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE USE OF THE SOIL SOLELY AS A
FILTRATION OR DILUTION MEDIUM IS NOT CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR LAND
TREATMENT. IN ADDITION, ANY BENEFIT DERIVED FROM LAND TREATING
HAZARDOUS WASTE, BEYOND THAT OF THE TREATMENT ITSELF, IS CONSIDERED TO
BE INCIDENTAL, AND NOT AN APPROPRIATE JUSTIFICATION FOR PERMITTING THE
PRACTICE. CONSEQUENTLY, LAND TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MERELY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING NUTRIENTS TO CROPS IS NOT CONSIDERED AN
ACCEPTABLE PRACTICE UNDER THESE REGULATIONS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 054 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113418
REGULATION
BASED ON THE AGENCY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE PURPOSE OF LAND
TREATMENT, THE REGULATION SPECIFIES THAT HAZARDOUS WASTES MUST NOT BE
PLACED IN OR ON LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES UNLESS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT BIOLOGICAL DEGRADATION OR CHEMICAL REACTIONS IN THE
SOIL WILL MAKE THE WASTE LESS HAZARDOUS OR NON-HAZARDOUS. THE
MONITORING REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE REGULATION WILL ASSIST THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR IN CONFIRMING THAT DETERMINATION. THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR MUST BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TREATMENT REQUIREMENT IS
BEING MET AT THE FACILITY. CONTINUED LAND TREATMENT WITHOUT THE ABILITY
TO MAKE THAT DEMONSTRATION IS A VIOLATION OF THESE REGULATIONS.
2. SURFACE WATER RUN-ON AND CONTAMINATED RUN-OFF. THE AGENCY HAS
DECIDED THAT THE TERM "RUN-OFF", AS USED IN THE PROPOSED REGULATION
CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF "DIVERSION STRUCTURES TO DIVERT ALL
SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF FROM THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF A FACILITY," WAS
CONFUSING. THEREFORE THE TERM "RUN-ON" HAS REPLACED THE TERM "RUN-OFF"
IN THESE SITUATIONS. HTAT IS, AS USED IN THESE REGULATIONS, RUN-ON IS
WATER WHICH RUNS ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY
OR LANDFILL FROM OTHER PORTIONS OF THE FACILITY OR FROM OUTSIDE OF THE
FACILITY. FUN-OFF IS NOW DEFINED AS RAINWATER, LEACHATE, OR OTHER
LIQUID WHICH FLOWS FROM THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF A DISPOSAL FACILITY.
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF AND RUN-ON WERE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR LAND TREATMENT
FACILITIES. HOWEVER, THOSE REQUIREMENTS WERE SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSED
GENERAL STANDARDS IN SECTION 250.43 (B) AND (C). THOSE REGULATIONS
REQUIRED THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO CONSTRUCT DIVERSION STRUCTURES CAPABLE
OF PREVENTING RUN-ON FROM ENTERING A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY. A
VARIANCE TO THIS REQUIREMENT WAS ALLOWED WHERE AN OWNER OR OPERATOR
COULD DEMONSTRATE TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR THAT RUN-ON WOULD NOT
ENTER THE SITE AND COME IN CONTACT WITH THE HAZARDOUS WASTE. TEH
PROPOSED REGULATIONS ALSO REQUIRED THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO COLLECT AND
CONFINE RUN-OFF FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS OF THE FACILITY TO A POINT SOURCE
BEFORE DISCHARGE OR TREATMENT.
IN THESE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES WILL BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME REQUIREMENTS AS LANDFILLS REGARDING SURFACE RUN-ON
AND RUN-OFF. RUN-ON MUST BE DIVERTED AWAY FROM THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF
THE LAND TREATMENT FACILITY. RUN-OFF FROM THE ACTIVE PORTIONS MUST BE
COLLECTED. IF THE COLLECTED RUN-OFF IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE IT MUST BE
MANAGED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. IF IT IS NOT A HAZARDOUS WASTE IF MAY
STILL NEED TO BE ANALYZED, TREATED, OR OTHERWISE MANAGED TO COMPLY WITH
SUBTITLE D OF RCRA OR THE CLEAN WATER ACT. FOR A MORE SPECIFIC
DESCRIPTION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS SEE THE "LANDFILL" PORTION OF THIS
PREAMBLE.
THE AGENCY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SURFACE AREA OF THE ACTIVE PORTIONS
OF A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY WILL GENERALYY BE LARGER THAN THE SURFACE
AREA OF THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF A LANDFILL. THIS WILL NECESSITATE MORE
EXTENSIVE RUN-ON DIVERSION STRUCTURES AND RUN-OFF COLLECTION SYSTEMS FOR
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES. EPA BELIEVES, HOWEVER, THAT SUCH CONTROLS
ARE NECESSARY AT LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES BECAUSE THIS DISPOSAL OPTION
INVOLVES THE PLACEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ON, OR BARELY UNDER, THE
SURFACE OF THE LAND. SUCH A TECHNIQUE PRESENTS A SUBSTANTIAL RISK THAT
HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS WILL BE CARRIED OFF THE
SITE BY SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF. A 12 MONTH DELAY FOR RUN ON AND RUN-OFF
CONTROL COMPLIANCE IS ALLOWED IN THESE REGULATIONS. SEE FURTHER
DISCUSSION UNDER "LANDFILLS".
3. RECORDKEEPING. UNDER THE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES MUST ENSURE THAT THE APPLICATION
DATES, THE APPLICATION RATES, THE QUANTITIES, THE RESULTS OF WASTE
ANALYSES, AND THE LOCATION OF EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE PLACED IN THE
FACILITY IS IN THE OPERATING RECORD REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 265.73. SUCH
RECORDKEEPING IS NEEDED TO ALLOW THE OWNER OR OPERATOR AND THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR TO EVALUATE THE FACILITY'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHER
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBPART. FOR EXAMPLE, THE WASTE ANALYSES, THE
APPLICATION RATES, AND QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTES PLACED IN THE
FACILITY WILL ASSIST, THROUGH THE USE OF A MASS-BALANCE ANALYSIS, IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE TREATMENT OBJECTIVE OF THE FACILITY IS BEING
MET. INFORMATION ON APPLICATION DATES AND LOCATIONS WILL ASSIST IN
DETERMINING WHETHER THE UNSATURATED ZONE MONITORING SYSTEM IS PROPERLY
DESIGNED TO DETECT MIGRATION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS.
4. WASTE ANALYSIS. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS CONTAINED GENERAL WASTE
ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS WHICH APPLIED TO ALL FACILITIES. THE GENERAL
WASTE ANALYSIS REGULATIONS IN THESE FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS
REQUIRE WASTE ANALYSIS AS IS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS,
INCLUDING THE LAND TREATMENT STANDARDS. OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF LAND
TREATMENT FACILITIES MUST FURTHER ANALYZE WASTE FOR THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS WHICH CAUSED THE WASTE TO BE LISTED, IF IT IS LISTED, AND
THE CONSTITUENTS WHICH EXCEED THE LEVELS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 1 OF SECTION
261.24 OF THIS CHAPTER. SUCH INFORMATION WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO A
DEMONSTRATION THAT THE WASTE IS BEING MADE LESS HAZARDOUS AT THE
FACILITY AND WILL BE RELEVANT TO BOTH THE GROUND-WATER AND
FOOD-CHAIN-CROP PROTECTION GOALS OF THIS SUBPART.
IF FOOD-CHAIN CROPS ARE GROWN, THE WASTE MUST BE ANALYZED FOR
ARSENIC, CADMIUM, LEAD, AND MERCURY. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR NEED NOT
TEST FOR EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS IF HE HAS WRITTEN INFORMATION TO
INDICATE THAT THE CONSTITUENT IS NOT IN THE WASTE.
5. MONITORING. THE PROPOSED REGULATION REQUIRED SEMI-ANNUAL SOIL
MONITORING OF THE TREATED AREA OF A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY. THIS WAS
TO BE ACCOMPLISHED BY TAKING ONE SOIL CORE PER ACRE TO A DEPTH OF THREE
TIMES THE ZONE OF INCORPORATION (I.E., THREE TIMES THE DEPTH TO WHICH
THE W ASTE WAS TILLED INTO THE SOIL). IF MIGRATION WAS DETECTED, AS
INDICATED BY AN INCREASE IN WASTE CONSTITUENTS OVER BACKGROUND LEVELS IN
THE BOTTOM ONE-THIRD OF THE CORE, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR WAS TO NOTIFY
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR AND CEASE OPERATION IN THE AFFECTED AREA
UNTIL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS COULD BE TAKEN. IN CONTRAST WITH LANDFILLS AND
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS DID NOT SPECIFY
GROUND-WATER MONITORING FOR LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES. THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE OF A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY WAS TO BE
EVALUATED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SOIL MONITORING. BECAUSE OF THIS
DIFFERENCE, THE AGENCY SOLICITED INFORMATION ON THE DESIRABILITY OF
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AT LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES. THE AGENCY
SUGGESTED THAT SOIL MONITORING WOULD DETECT MIGRATION OF WASTE
CONSTITUENTS LONG BEFORE GROUND-WATER MONITORING WOULD.
EPA RECEIVED SEVERAL COMMENTS SUGGESTING THAT GROUND-WATER MONITORING
IN ADDITION TO SOIL MONITORING WAS UNNECESARRY. OTHER COMMENTERS,
HOWEVER, EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT GROUND WATER MONITORING WAS ALSO
NECESSARY. THESE COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT SOIL MONITORING HAS CERTAIN
LIMITATIONS SUCH AS ITS LACK OF RELIABILITY FOR DETECTING HIGHLY MOBILE
CONTAMINANTS. THEY ARGUED THAT SOIL MONITORING "SHOULD NOT BE SOLELY
RELIED UPON TO PROVIDE PROTECTION OF OUR GROUND-WATER RESOURCES."
COMMENTERS ALSO WERE SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAMPLING
PROCEDURES, THE STANDARD FOR WHEN THE TREATMENT SYSTEM HAD FAILED, AND
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION THAT WAS TO FOLLOW DETECTION OF A FAILURE. THE
REQUIREMENT TO ANALYZE EACH SOIL CORE FOR THOSE CONSTITUENTS IN THE
WASTE WHICH MADE IT HAZARDOUS WAS CONSIDERED EXTREME AND IMPRACTICAL.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 055 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113419
REGULATION
COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT INDICATOR SUBSTANCES BE ANALYZED INSTEAD.
COMMENTERS ALSO CHALLENGED THE "THREE-TIMES THE ZONE OF INCORPORATION"
TEST FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE TREATMENT SYSTEM WAS SUCCESSFUL,
ARGUING THAT SUCH A DISTANCE DID NOT RELATE TO THE GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION THREAT; RATHER, OTHER FACTORS, SUCH AS THICKNESS AND
PERMEABILITY OF THE UNSATURATED ZONE, DETERMINE THE POTENTIAL FOR
CONTAMINATING GROUND WATER. USING A SIMILAR ARGUMENT, COMMENTERS ARGUED
THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION SHOULD NOT BE TRIGGERED SIMPLY BY THE APPEARANCE
OF CONTAMINATION AT A DEPTH OF THREE TIMES THE ZONE OF INCORPORATION.
AFTER EXAMINING THESE COMMENTS EPA HAD DECIDED TO FOCUS THE INTERIM
STATUS REGULATIONS ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BASIC MONITORING SYSTEMS
NEEDED TO ACCURATELY DETERMINE WHETHER THE COMPLEX PROCESSES INVOLVED IN
LAND TREATMENT ARE, IN FACT, OCCURRING, AND WHETHER CONTAMINANTS ARE
MIGRATING TO GROUND WATER. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE STANDARD BY WHICH
SUCCESS OR FAILURE IS JUDGED WILL BE PART OF THE PHASE II REGULATIONS.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT THAT STANDARD IS, THE FACILITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO
INSTALL A SYSTEM OF UNSATURATED ZONE AND GROUND WATER MONITORING TO
DETERMINE THE SUCCESS OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS AND IMPACTS ON GROUND
WATER. UNSATURATED ZONE MONITORING INCLUDES BOTH SOIL-PORE WATER AND
SOIL CORE MONITORING.
WHILE UNSATURATED ZONE MONITORING IS USEFULE IN ASSESSING THE
LIKELIHOOD OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION AT NEW FACILITIES AND IN
INDICATING ANY MIGRATION OCCURRING WITH EACH NEW WASTE APPLIATION AT
EXISTING FACILITIES, GROUND-WATER MONITORING IS THE ONLY MECHANISM THAT
CAN ACCURATELY DETECT THE PRESENCE AND DEGREE OF GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION. THEREFORE, GROUND-WATER MONITORING IS REQUIRED AT LAND
TREATMENT FACILITIES. OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF EXISTING LAND TREATMENT
FACILITIES MUST BE ABLE TO DETERMINE THE ACTUAL EFFECT OF THEIR
FACILITIES ON GROUND WATER IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE PHASE II
REQUIREMENTS.
IN ADDITION, THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE NATURE OF LAND TREATMENT
REQUIRES THE OWNER OR OPERATOR TO HAVE AN ACCURATE PICTURE OF THE
TREATMENT PROCESS AT WORK IN THE SOIL. EPA HAS DECIDED THAT SUCH AN
OBJECTIVE REQUIRES INSTALLATION OF BOTH SOIL CORE MONITORING AND
SOIL-PORE WATER MONITORING. SOIL CORE MONITORING IS USEFUL IN
DETERMINING THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE BEING
ATTENUATED AND BROKEN DOWN IN THE SOIL. SOIL-PORE WATER MONITORING IS A
NECESSARY COMPLEMENTARY OR BACK-UP SYSTEM TO ASSURE THAT THE ABSENCE OF
A HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENT IN THE SOIL CORE SAMPLE INDICATES A
BREAKDOWN OF THE WASTE RATHER THAN MERELY THE RAPID MIGRATION OF THE
WASTE MATERIAL THROUGH THE SOIL MAXTRIX. SEVERAL COMMENTS AND THE
RESULTS OF AN EPA-SPONSORED STUDY INDICATE THAT THE LATTER PHENOMENON
CAN OCCUR FOR SOME ORGANIC COMPOUNDS FOUND IN HAZARDOUS WASTES. A
COMBINATION OF SOIL CORE AND SOIL-PORE WATER MONITORING PROVIDES THE
BASIS FOR A MASS BALANCE ANALYSIS OF THE UNSATURATED ZONE TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THE TREATMENT PROCESS IS MEETING THE TREATMENT OBJECTIVE. USING
THE MONITORING DATA AS FEEDBACK ON THE PERFORMANCE OF A SITE, AN OWNER
OR OPERATOR CAN MORE EFFECTIVELY MANIPULATE OPERATING VARIABLES IN ORDER
TO OPTIMIZE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SITE (E.G., WASTE APPLICATION RATES
AND PH CONTROLS).
CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE UPPER SOIL LAYERS IS ALSO NEEDED BECAUSE OF
ANOTHER CHANGE THAT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE REGULATION. THE AGENCY HAS
DECIDED THAT GROWTH OF FOOD-CHAIN CROPS NEED NOT BE BANNED AT HAZARDOUS
WASTE LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES BUT RATHER SHOULD BE CAREFULLY
REGULATED. INFORMATION ABOUT THE PRESENCE OF CONTAMINANTS IN THE UPPER
LAYERS OF THE SOIL IS, THEREFORE, NECESSARY TO ASSESS THE RISK OF
SIGNIFICANT PLANT UPTAKE OF TOXIC CONSTITUENTS.
SOIL-PORE WATER MONITORING IS MORE EASILY ACHIEVED AT LAND TREATMENT
SITES THAN AT LANDFILLS OR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS. LYSIMETERS OR SIMILAR
DEVICES WHICH MEASURE SOIL-PORE WATER CONTAMINATION CAN BE INSTALLED AT
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE AREA WHERE WASTE HAS BEEN APPLIED. THE
RELATIVELY SHALLOW DEPTH OF WASTE APPLICATION AT LAND TREATMENT
FACILITIES ALLOWS LYSIMETERS TO BE REPLACED, AT BOTH EXISTING AND NEW
FACILITIES, WHEN THEY BECOME CLOGGED OR OTHERWISE NONFUNCTIONAL.
FURTHERMORE, LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES TYPICALLY DO NOT HAVE LINERS
WHICH WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE PLACEMENT OF LYSIMETERS.
IN RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON SOIL MONITORING, THE AGENCY
HAS DECIDED NOT OT SPECIFY PARTICULAR PROCEDURES OR PROTOCOLS FOR
CONDUCTING UNSATURATED ZONE MONITORING DURING INTERIM STATUS. OWNERS
AND OPERATORS WILL BE GIVEN THE FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP REASONABLE
MONITORING PLANS THAT MEET THE GENERAL OBJECTIVES SPECIFIED FOR SUCH
PLANS. ONCE ESTABLISHED, THESE PLANS MUST BE FOLLOWED, AND AN OWNER OR
OPERATOR'S FAILURE TO FOLLOW HIS OWN PLAN CONSTITUTES A SEPARATE
VIOLATION OF THESE REGULATIONS.
IN CONSIDERING THE CONSTITUENTS TO BE MONITORED AND ANALYZED FOR IN
THE UNSATURATED ZONE, EPA CONSIDERED THE USE OF INDICATORS. THAT
APPROACH WAS REJECTED, HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE AGENCY HAS NOT YET BEEN ABLE
TO DEVISE A SET OF INDICATORS THAT REFLECT THE SUCCESS OF WASTE
TREATMENT IN THE SOIL. EPA IS REQUIRING THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
MONITOR AND ANALYZE FOR THOSE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS CONTAINED IN
THE WASTES APPLIED AT THE FACILITY THAT CAUSED THOSE WASTES TO BE LISTED
AS HAZARDOUS, IF THEY WERE LISTED, AND THOSE THAT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM
CONTAMINANT LIMITS IN TABLE 1 OF SECTION 261.24 OF THIS CHAPTER. THESE
CONSTITUENTS, AT A MINIMUM, ARE THE ONES WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO
CREATE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS IF THESE WASTES ARE MISMANAGED. SUCH
CONSTITUENTS MUST, THEREFORE, BE INCLUDED IN ANY MONITORING SYSTEM
DESIGNED TO DETERMINE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A LAND TREATMENT SYSTEM IN
REDUCING THE HAZARDOUSNESS OF THE WASTE. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE
CONSTITUENTS TO BE MONITORED ARE SUFFICIENTLY FEW AS NOT TO CAUSE AN
UNDUE BURDEN.
IN RESPONSE TO THE CHALLENGE TO THE "THREE-TIMES THE ZONE OF
INCORPORATION" TEST TO DETERMINE SUCCESS OF TREATMENT, THE AGENCY IS
EXPLORING WHETHER OTHER SI MPLER TESTS CAN BE DEVELOPED. UNTIL THE TIME
THAT SUCH A TEST IS DEVELOPED, OWNERS AND OPERATORS WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE
WASTE-SPECIFIC, CONSTITUENT-SPECIFIC, AND SITE-SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT
THE TREATMENT OBJECTIVE IS BEING MET.
THE FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS REQUIRE OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT UNSATURATED
ZONE MONITORING PLANS. THESE PLANS MUST BE DESIGNED TO DETERMINE
THE CONCENTRATIONS AND MIGRATIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS
IN THE SOIL. THE PLAN MUST ALSO DESCRIBE HOW THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
WILL ESTABLISH BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS OF THOSE CONSTITUENTS
THROUGH TESTING OF SIMILAR UNTREATED SOIL. THE MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE UNSATURATED ZONE MUST INCLUDE SOIL CORE AND SOIL-PORE
WATER MONITORING (GROUND-WATER MONITORING IS REQUIRE.
SEPARATELY UNDER SUBPART F OF THESE REGULATIONS). THE UNSATURATED
ZONE MONITORING PLAN MUST SPECIFY THE OWNER'S OR OPERATOR'S
RATIONALE FOR SUCH KEY ELEMENTS AS THE DEPTH OF MONITORING, THE
NUMBER OF SAMPLES, THE FREQUENCY OF SAMPLING, AND THE TIMING OF
SAMPLING. THESE DECISIONS MUST REFLECT A CONSIDERATION OF THE
VARIABILITY OF THE WASTE AND THE WASTE/SOIL MIXTURE, PROXIMITY
TO GROUND WATER, THE MANNER OF WASTE APPLICATION, AND SOIL
PERMEABILITY.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 056 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113420
REGULATION
6. FOOD-CHAIN CROPS. THE PROPOSED REGULATION PROHIBITED GROWING
FOOD-CHAIN CROPS ON ACTIVE PORTIONS (TREATED AREAS) OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT FACILITIES. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REGULATION WAS TO PROTECT
HUMANS FROM CONSUMING TOXIC MATERIALS THAT MIGHT BE PRESENT IN OR ON
CROPS GROWN ON LAND TO WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE HAS BEEN APPLIED. AT THE
TIME, THE AGENCY CONSIDERED A BAN AS THE ONLY MEANS OF ACHIEVING THIS
OBJECTIVE.
COMMENTERS OBJECTED TO THIS BAN, SUGGESTING THAT SOME CROPS COULD BE
GROWN ON TREATED SOIL WITHOUT ENDANGERING HUMAN HEALTH. INSTEAD OF A
BAN, COMMENTERS SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES SUCH AS SPECIFYING "SAFE"
APPLICATION RATES TO THE SOIL, AND MONITORING CROPS FOR THEIR UPTAKE OF
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS. THE AGENCY ALSO RECEIVED COMMENTS SUGGESTING
THAT THE BAN WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE REGULATORY APPROACH TAKEN TO
PROJECT FOOD-CHAIN CROPS UNDER SUBTITLE D OF RCRA. THOSE REGULATIONS
WERE FINALIZED AS THE "CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITIES AND PRACTICES" (THE CRITERIA, 40 CFR 257) ON
SEPTEMBER 13, 1979. THE CRITERIA PRESCRIBED ANNUAL APPLICATION RATES
AND LIMITS ON CUMULATIVE LOADINGS FOR CADMIUM BASED ON THE SPECIFIC
HEALTH RISK, AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTES CONTAINING PCB'S OR
PATHOGENS. COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT THE APPLICATION OF SOME HAZARDOUS
WASTE TO FOOD-CHAIN CROPS PRESENTS NO GREATER RISK THAN SUCH PRACTICE
WITH SOME NONHAZARDOUS WASTE.
IT IS THE AGENCY'S FIRM BELIEF THAT GROWTH OF FOOD-CHAIN CROPS ON
LAND TO WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE HAS BEEN APPLIED IS AN ISSUE WHICH SHOULD
BE DEALT WITH CAUTIOUSLY, AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED ONLY WHERE THERE IS
CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE PRACTICE IS SAFE. EPA BELIEVES THERE IS
LITTLE REAL NEED TO GROW FOOD-CHAIN CROPS AT LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES.
THE SMALL AMOUNT OF LAND USED FOR LAND TREATMENT REPRESENTS A NEGLIGIBLE
PORTION OF THE TOTAL PRODUCTIVE LAND AVAILABLE FOR CROP GROWTH IN THIS
COUNTRY. FURTHERMORE, THERE ARE OTHER PRODUCTIVE USES OF THE LAND, SUCH
AS FOR ORNAMENTAL HORTICULTURE AND GROWTH OF FIBER CROPS OR OTHER
NON-FOOD CROPS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE AGENCY FEELS THAT WHERE THERE IS CONVINCING
EVIDENCE THAT SUCH CROP GROWTH IS SAFE, IT WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED TO
PROHIBIT IT. IT IS CONCEIVABLE THAT CONSTITUENTS IN A PARTICULAR
HAZARDOUS WASTE MAY NOT BE TAKEN UP BY CERTAIN FOOD-CHAIN CROPS, OR
AFTER A PERIOD OF TREATMENT, THE CONSTITUENTS MAY HAVE DEGRADED INTO
PRODUCTS NON-HAZARDOUS TO HUMANS.
THE AGENCY CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SUGGESTION MADE BY COMMENTERS OF
SPECIFYING "SAFE" APPLICATION RATES. AT THIS TIME, HOWEVER, THE
EXISTING DATA BASE ON RATES OF CROP UPTAKE OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ARE
NOT COMPREHENSIVE ENOUGH TO PERMIT THE AGENCY TO SPECIFY SAFE
APPLICATION RATES. REGULATION BY CROP MONITORING IS LIMITED BY THE FACT
THAT SAFE LEVELS OF MOST HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN CROPS HAVE NOT BEEN
DETERMINED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, THE DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE, OR THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
THE AGENCY ALSO EXAMINED THE APPROACH USED IN THE CRITERIA AND
CONCLUDED THAT THE LIMITS DEVELOPED IN THOSE REGULATIONS FOR CADMIUM
SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THIS REGULATION. THUS THE CADMIUM LIMITS
PRESENT IN THAT REGULATION WILL BE APPLICABLE TO HAZARDOUS WASTE LAND
TREATMENT FACILITIES.
THE CRITERIA INCLUDE TWO APPROACHES FOR THE LAND APPLICATION OF
WASTES CONTAINING CADMIUM. THE FIRST APPROACH INCORPORATES FOUR SITE
MANAGEMENT CONTROLS: CONTROL OF THE PH OF THE WASTE AND SOIL MIXTURE;
ANNUAL CADMIUM APPLICATION LIMITS THAT ARE REDUCED OVER TIME;
CUMULATIVE CADMIUM APPLICATION LIMITS BASED ON SOIL CATION EXCHANGE
CAPACITY (CEC) (SEPCIFIED IN UNITS OF MILLIEQUIVALENTS OF EXCHANGEABLE
CATIONS IN SOIL PER GRAM OF SOIL); AND A RESTRICTION OF THE CADMIUM
CONCENTRATION IN WASTE APPLIED TO FACILITIES WHERE TOBACCO, LEAFY
VEGETABLES AND ROOT CROPS ARE GROWN.
THE SECOND APPROACH ALLOWS UNLIMITED APPLICATION OF CADMIUM PROVIDED
FOUR SPECIFIC CONTROL MEASURES ARE TAKEN. FIRST, THE CROP GROWN CAN
ONLY BE USED AS ANIMAL FEED. SECOND, THE PH OF THE SOIL MUST BE
MAINTAINED AT 6.5 OR ABOVE FOR AS LONG AS FOOD CHAIN CROPS ARE GROWN.
THIRD, A FACILITY OPERATING PLAN MUST DESCRIBE HOW THE ANIMAL FEED WILL
BE DISTRIBUTED TO PREVENT HUMAN INGESTION. FOURTH, FUTURE OWNERS ARE
PROVIDED NOTICE (THROUGH PROVISIONS IN LAND RECORDS OR PROPERTY DEED)
THAT THERE ARE HIGH LEVELS OF CADMIUM IN THE SOIL AND THAT FOOD-CHAIN
CROPS SHOULD NOT BE GROWN.
THE AGENCY DOES NOT BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE CRITERIA SUFFICIENTLY
ADDRESS THE BROAD RANGE OF CONSTITUENTS PRESENT IN HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THEREFORE, EPA HAS DECIDED TO SET ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT RELATE TO
HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS IN WASTE APPLIED AS WELL AS OTHER SUBSTANCES OF
CONCERN (I.E., ARSENIC, LEAD, AND MERCURY) BECAUSE OF THEIR EFFECT ON
FOOD-CHAIN CROPS. THESE ADDITIONAL SUBSTANCES HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
BECAUSE OF THEIR RELATIVELY HIGH TOXICITY TO HUMANS AND EVIDENCE THAT
THEY CAN BE TAKEN UP BY CROPS. MERCURY CAN ENTER PLANTS THROUGH THE
ROOTS AND BE REAILY TRANSLOCATED THROUGHOUT THE PLANT. ARSENIC TENDS TO
ACCUMULATE IN THE ROOTS OF MOST CROPS, WHICH IS A CONCERN WHEN ROOT
CROPS SUCH AS RADISHES, CARROTS, ETC., ARE GROWN. WHEN IN HIGH
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE SOIL, LEAD HAS BEEN SHOWN TO TRANSLOCATE TO CROPS.
THE AGENCY IS CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN
THE WASTE, INCLUDING TOXIC ORGANICS, THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP BY PLANTS.
BECAUSE MOST PLANT UP-TAKE STUDIES HAVE ADDRESSED ONLY INORGANICS, THERE
IS A PAUCITY OF DATA ON THE UP-TAKE OF TOXIC ORGANICS BY CROPS. THE
AGENCY IS AWARE, HOWEVER, THAT DATA MAY EXIST THAT COULD IDENTIFY OTHER
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES OF CONCERN. THEREFORE, EPA IS SEEKING INFORMATION
ON OTHER HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES THAT COULD BE TAKEN UP BY CROPS.
WHERE THE AGENCY DOES NOT YET HAVE A CLEAR SPECIFICATION OF THE
"SAFE" LEVEL OF CONTAMINANTS IN FOOD CROPS, IT WILL ASSUME THAT THE
LEVEL OF SUCH CONTAMINANTS PRESENTLY IN FOOD CROPS NOT GROWN ON
WASTE-AMENDED SOILS IS ACCEPTABLE. AS FURTHER RESEARCH REFINES THE
AGENCY'S THINKING, IT MAY BE THAT HEALTH TOLERANCES IN FOOD CROPS SHOULD
BE HIGHER OR LOWER THAN THE AVERAGE LEVELS OTHERWISE PRESENT IN SUCH
CROPS.
BASED ON THAT ASSUMPTION, EPA HAS DEVISED A TWO-PART TEST TO
DETERMINE WHETHER FOOD-CHAIN CROP GROWTH ON LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES IS
ACCEPTABLE. PRIOR TO GROWING A CROP FOR MARKET ON SOILS THAT HAVE
RECEIVED HAZARDOUS WASTES, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST DOCUMENT THAT THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS IN THE WASTE, AS WELL AS ANY ARSENIC, LEAD,
AND MERCURY, WILL NOT (1) BE TRANSFERRED TO THE EDIBLE PORTION OF THE
CROP BY PLANT UP-TAKE OR DIRECT CONTACT, OR BE TRANSFERRED TO FOOD-CHAIN
ANIMALS; OR IF IT DOES, THAT IT WILL NOT (2) OCCUR IN GREATER
CONCENTRATIONS IN THE CROP THAN IN CROPS GROWN IN THE SAME REGION ON
SIMILAR SOILS WHICH HAVE NOT HAD WASTES APPLIED.
AN OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST USE ACTUAL FIELD STUDIES OF THE CROP FOR
COMPARATIVE PURPOSES. ALSO, THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE COMPARABLE
CROPS ARE GROWN MUST BE SIMILAR TO THE CONDITIONS FOUND AT THE FACILITY.
FOR EXAMPLE, SOIL TYPE, SOIL MOISTURE, SOIL PH, AND SOIL NUTRIENTS,
MUST BE SIMILAR AT BOTH THE FACILITY AND THE CONTROL SITES. THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR MUST ALSO DOCUMENT THE SAMPLE SELECTION CRITERIA, SAMPLE
SIZE DETERMINATION, ANALYTICAL METHODS, AND STATISTICAL PROCEDURES USED
TO MAKE THE DEMONSTRATION. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO
WASTE APPLICATION THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST PRE-TEST A SAMPLE CROP
USING THE TYPE OF WASTE AND APPLICATION RATE THAT WILL BE USED AT THE
FACILITY.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 057 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113421
REGULATION
FINALLY, EPA HAS ADDED A PROVISION TO THESE REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRES
OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES ON WHICH FOOD-CHAIN
CROPS HAVE BEEN GROWN, OR ARE BEING GROWN, TO NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE
REGULATIONS IF THEY INTEND TO AGAIN GROW FOOD-CHAIN CROPS DURING THE
INTERIM STATUS PERIOD. IN ADDITION, A COMMENT IN THE REGULATION
APPRISES AN OWNER OR OPERATOR, WHO HAS NOT ACCORDINGLY NOTIFIED THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR AND WHO PROPOSES TO GROW FOOD-CHAIN CROPS DURING
THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD, THAT THIS IS A CHANGE IN PROCESS AND HE MUST
NOTIFY THE ADMINISTRATOR UNDER SECTION 122.23(C)(3) OF THE CONSOLIDATED
PERMIT REGULATIONS. THESE NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE OF THOSE FACILITIES THAT ARE ENGAGING
IN THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE ACTIVITY OF GROWING FOOD-CHAIN CROPS AT
LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES. THIS WILL ASSIST THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIORITIES FOR PERMITTING.
7. CLOSURE. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS PROVIDED TWO BASIC OPTIONS FOR
CLOSURE OF A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY. ONE OPTION WAS TO RETURN THE SOIL
IN THE TREATED AREA TO ITS PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, AS DETERMINED BY
BACKGROUND SOIL ANALYSIS OR ANALYSIS OF SIMILAR LOCAL SOILS. THE OTHER
OPTION WAS TO REMOVE THE CONTAMINATED SOIL FROM THE FACILITY IF THAT
SOIL MET THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE. (IF IT DID NOT HAVE
ANY OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE, NO FURTHER ACTION WAS
REQUIRED.) HOWEVER, A VARIANCE TO THE SECOND OPTION ALLOWED CLOSURE OF A
FACILITY AS A LANDFILL IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT
THE DESIGN OR LOCATION OF THE SITE PROVIDED LONG TERM INTEGRITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION EQUIVALENT TO A LANDFILL, AS SPECIFIDED IN THE
PROPOSED REGULATIONS.
MANY COMMENTERS ARGUED THAT THE REQUIREMENT TO RETURN THE SOIL TO ITS
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION WAS IMPRACTICAL AND WOULD MAKE LAND TREATMENT
INFEASIBLE. THEY ALSO OBJECTED TO THE PROVISION WHICH REQUIRED THAT THE
SOIL BE REMOVED AT CLOSURE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE EPA EXTRACTION
PROCEDURE (EP) WAS CRITICIZED AS BEING AN INAPPROPRIATE MECHANISM FOR
DETERMINING WHETHER THE SOIL IN THE TREATED AREA WAS HAZARDOUS. THE EP
WAS SAID TO BE TOO LIMITED IN APPLICABILITY, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT ADDRESS
MOST ORGANICS AND SOME METALS. SOME COMMENTERS SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE
CLOSURE PROCEDURES WHICH ALLOW TAILORING THE CLOSURE PROCEDURES TO THE
SITE.
AFTER EXAMINING THESE COMMENTS, THE AGENCY HAS CONCLUDED THAT GREATER
FLEXIBILITY SHOULD BE GIVEN IN THE REGULATION TO ALLOW THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR TO DEVELOP A PLAN THAT CONSIDERS CERTAIN KEY FACTORS AND THAT
MEETS GENERAL HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES. UNDER THE
FINAL INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A LAND
TREATMENT FACILITY MUST DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A FACILITY CLOSURE PLAN.
THE TERMS OF THAT PLAN ARE ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE OWNER OR OPERATOR.
THE PLAN MUST ADDRESS FOUR OBJECTIVES: (1) CONTROLLING THE MIGRATION
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS INTO GROUND WATER;
(2) CONTROLLING THE RELEASE OF CONTAMINATED RUN-OFF TO SURFACE WATER;
(3) CONTROLLING THE RELEASE OF AIRBORNE PARTICULATE CONTAMINANTS; AND
(4) COMPLIANCE WITH THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED FOR FOOD-CHAIN CROPS. THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST CONSIDER A RANGE OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE
FACILITY'S ABILITY TO MEET THE OBJECTIVES. THESE FACTORS INCLUDE THE
WASTE, THE CLIMATE, THE SITE LOCATION, THE SOIL, AND THE DEPTH OF
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST ALSO CONSIDER THE
APPLICABILITY OF VARIOUS CLOSURE METHODS INCLUDING REMOVAL OF THE SOIL,
RUN-OFF COLLECTION AND TREATMENT, USE OF COVER MATERIALS, DIVERSION
STRUCTURES, AND ADDITIONAL MONITORING.
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST ALSO DEVELOP A POST-CLOSURE CARE PLAN.
THE TERMS OF THIS PLAN ARE ALSO ENFORCEABLE AGAINST THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR. UNDER THESE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS THE POST-CLOSURE CARE
PLAN MUST PROVIDE FOR MAINTENANCE OF MONITORING SYSTEMS, RESTRICTION OF
ACCESS AS APPROPRIATE FOR POST-CLOSURE USE, AND CONTROL OF THE GROWTH OF
FOOD-CHAIN CROPS TO THE SAME DEGREE AS REQUIRED FOR AN ACTIVE FACILITY.
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE PLANS FOR LAND
TREATMENT FACILITIES AND LANDFILLS ARE SIMILAR IN TERMS OF OBJECTIVES
BUT DIFFER SLIGHTLY IN THE MECHANISMS BY WHICH THESE OBJECTIVES ARE TO
BE ACHIEVED. THE LANDFILL POST-CLOSURE PLAN REQUIRES THE OWNER OR
OPERATOR TO ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING: (1) MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING OF
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS (IF PRESENT), (2) MAINTENANCE AND MONITORING
OF GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS (IF PRESENT), AND (3) FINAL COVER. FOR LAND
TREATMENT FACILITIES, HOWEVER, THE FIRST TWO ITEMS ARE NOT REQUIRED
BECAUSE THE AGENCY IS NOT AWARE OF ANY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND
THESE FACILITIES ARE RARELY PLAGUED BY GAS PROBLEMS. THIS RESULTS
BECAUSE COVER MATERIAL IS NOT LAID DOWN AFTER THE WASTE IS APPLIED SO
THAT GASES ARE NOT CONFINED, AND DECOMPOSITION OF THE WASTE OCCURS
PREDOMINANTLY IN AN AEROBIC STATE SO THAT METHANE, CARBON MONOXIDE, AND
HYDROGEN SULFIDE ARE NOT PRODUCED. ALTHOUGH FINAL COVER IS ADDRESSED IN
BOTH THE LAND TREATMENT AND LANDFILL CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS
MANDATORY ONLY FOR LANDFILLS. FINAL COVER MUST BE CONSIDERED, BUT IS
NOT MANDATORY, FOR A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY WHERE THE WASTE HAS BEEN
RENDERED NON-HAZARDOUS. WHERE WASTES HAVE BEEN RENDERED LESS HAZARDOUS,
THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER FINAL COVER IS NEEDED, IN PART, WILL BE
DEPENDENT ON THE DEGREE OF RISK TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
PRESENTED BY THE HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS REMAINING IN THE SOIL.
8. IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS PROHIBITED PLACING IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, VOLATILE, OR
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY, BUT ALLOWED A VARIANCE
IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS
WOULD NOT EXCEED A SPECIFIED CONCENTRATION AND THAT THE ATTENUATION
CAPACITY OF THE SOIL WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED THROUGH HEAT
GENERATION, FIRES, OR EXPLOSIONS.
THE PRIMARY CRITICISM OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION, OTHER THAN THE
RESTRICTION ON AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS, WAS THAT THE PROHIBITION WAS
INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE MANY WASTE CLASSIFIED AS IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR
INCOMPATIBLE MIGHT LOSE THESE PROPERTIES WHEN LAND TREATED. THE AGENCY
AGREES AND HAS MODIFIED THE REGULATION. THE FINAL STANDARD REQUIRES THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR TO INCORPORATE IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES INTO THE
SOIL IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE RESULTING WASTE, MIXTURE, OR DISSOLUTION
OF MATERIAL NO LONGER EXHIBITS INGITABLE OR REACTIVE CHARACTERISTICS,
AND COMPLIES WITH SECTION 265.17(B). IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES MAY
ALSO BE PLACED IN A LAND TREATMENT FACILITY IF THEY ARE RENDERED
NON-IGNITABLE OR NON-REACTIVE BEFORE LAND TREATMENT. INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES MAY NOT BE PLACED IN THE SAME LAND TREATMENT AREA UNLESS THE LAND
TREATMENT PROCESS COMPLIES WITH SECTION 265.17(B). FOR A DESCRIPTION OF
THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE DISPOSAL OF IGNITABLE,
REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES SEE THE "GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS"
PORTION OF THIS PREAMBLE.
LANDFILLING HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THE PREFERRED MEANS OF DISPOSING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE. UNTIL THE LAST DECADE, SOME PEOPLE ACTED AS THOUGH,
ONCE BURIED, HAZARDOUS WASTES WOULD CAUSE NO MORE DIFFICULTIES. PAST
PRACTICES OFTEN FOCUSED ONLY ON BURYING THE WASTE TO GET IT OUT OF SIGHT
AND ON CONTROL OF SURFACE PROBLEMS SUCH AS BLOWING LITTER OR VECTORS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 058 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113422
REGULATION
RECENT EXPERIENCES AT LOVE CANAL IN NEW YORK AND OTHER BURIAL OPERATIONS
HAVE DEMONSTRATED THE POTENTIAL FOR SEVERE HUMAN HEALTH AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM IMPROPER LANDFILLING.
MANY ARGUE THAT, SINCE MANY OF THESE WASTES REMAIN HAZARDOUS FOR VERY
LONG PERIODS, THEY SHOULD NOT BE LANDFILLED. EPA AGREES IN PRINCIPLE
THAT IT IS BETTER TO DESTROY OR RECYCLE HAZARDOUS WASTES THAN TO
LANDFILL THEM, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT, FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE,
LAND DISPOSAL WILL BE NECESSARY BECAUSE IT IS TECHNICALLY INFEASIBLE AT
PRESENT TO RECYCLE, TREAT, OR DESTROY ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE.
OVER THE PAST DECADE, RESEARCH AND INVESTIGATIONS OF GOOD AND BAD
PRACTICES, INCLUDING DOCUMENTED DAMAGE CASES, HAVE ADVANCED THE
STATE-OF-THE-ART OF LANDFILLING SIGNIFICANTLY.
LANDFILLING IS MUCH MORE THAN JUST BURIAL OF WASTES, PARTICULARLY FOR
HAZARDOUS WASTES. LANDFILLS MUST PROVIDE LONG-TERM PROTECTION OF GROUND
WATER, SURFACE WATER, AIR, AND HUMAN HEALTH. ALTHOUGH THE
STATE-OF-THE-ART IS STILL DEVELOPING, A NUMBER OF TECHNIQUES ARE NOW
AVAILABLE FOR EFFECTIVELY REDUCING THE ADVERSE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS FROM LANDFILLS.
THE PROBLEMS WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS HAVE PRESENTED CAN BE
DIVIDED INTO TWO BROAD CLASSES, WHICH THESE REGULATIONS ATTEMPT TO
ADDRESS. THE FIRST CLASS INCLUDES FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, PRODUCTION OF
TOXIC FUMES, AND SIMILAR PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THE IMPROPER MANAGEMENT
OF IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, AND INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. THE AGENCY BELIEVES
THAT METHODS FOR DEALING WITH THESE PROBLEMS ARE GENERALLY AVAILABLE
TODAY, AND THAT THEY CAN BEGIN TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THESE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, THE NEED FOR
CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATIONS BY EPA PERMITTING OFFICIALS, OR SUBSTANTIAL
LEAD TIMES. THESE METHODS INCLUDE THE ANALYSIS OF WASTES TO PROVIDE
ENOUGH INFORMATION FOR THEIR PROPER MANAGEMENT; THE CONTROLLED MIXING
OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES OR THEIR SEGREGATION IN SEPARATE LANDFILL CELLS;
AND THE LANDFILLING OF IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTES ONLY WHEN THEY ARE
RENDERED NOT IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE.
THE SECOND CLASS OF PROBLEMS, CONTAMINATION OF SURFACE AND GROUND
WATERS, PRESENTS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE DIFFICULTY. SEVERAL APPROACHES TO
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, INCLUDING PROPER SITING, LINING AND LEACHATE
COLLECTION, DO NOT MEET EPA'S GENERAL INTERNAL GUIDELINES FOR THOSE
STANDARDS IT WILL IMPOSE DURING INTERIM STATUS. SUCH STANDARDS MIGHT
INVOLVE TOO GREAT A PRE-PERMIT INVESTMENT, OR MIGHT BE SO SITE-OR
WASTE-SPECIFIC THAT THEY WOULD REQUIRE CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATIONS BY
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR. SUCH STANDARDS COULD ALSO REQUIRE AUTOMATIC
CLOSURE OR RELOCATION OF SOME FACILITIES, OR SUBSTANTIAL RETROFITTING.
OTHER MEASURES, HOWEVER, ARE AVAILABLE WHICH WILL HELP REDUCE THE
FORMATION OF LEACHATE IN CURRENTLY OPERATING LANDFILLS. THE MEASURES
INCORPORATED IN THESE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS ARE DIVERSION OF
"RUN-ON" (WATER FLOWING OVER THE GROUND ONTO ACTIVE PORTIONS OF THE
FACILITY) AWAY FROM THE ACTIVE FACE OF THE LANDFILL; TREATMENT OF ANY
LIQUID WASTES OR SEMI-SOLID WASTES SO THAT THEY DO NOT CONTAIN FREE
LIQUIDS; PROPER CLOSURE (INCLUDING A COVER) AND POST-CLOSURE CARE TO
CONTROL EROSION AND THE INFILTRATION OF RAINFALL; AND CRUSHING OR
SHREDDING MOST LANDFILLED CONTAINERS SO THAT THEY CANNOT LATER COLLAPSE
AND LEAD TO SUBSIDENCE AND CRACKING OF THE COVER. IN ADDITION, THESE
REGULATIONS REQUIRE GROUND-WATER MONITORING TO DETECT CONTAMINATION OF
GROUND WATER, AND COLLECTION OF RAINWATER AND OTHER RUN-OFF FROM THE
ACTIVE FACE OF THE LANDFILL TO CONTROL SURFACE WATER POLLUTION. AS
DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY UNDER "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE,
REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES," THE AGENCY IS ALSO CONSIDERING
REQUIRING THE SEGREGATION OF WASTES, SUCH AS ACIDS, WHICH WOULD
MOBILIZE, SOLUBILIZE, OR DISSOLVE OTHER WASTES OR WASTE CONSTITUENTS,
SUCH AS HEAVY METALS. THESE REGULATIONS REPRESENT AN IMPORTANT STEP
TOWARD SAFER DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES IN LANDFILLS.
REGULATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE APPEARING IN THE PRESENT SECTIONS ON
"GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS" AND "SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE
OR REACTIVE WASTES" WERE PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN THE GENERAL
STANDARDS. THEY ARE BEING PROMULGATED HERE INTERIM FINAL ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THAT THE AGENCY WILL ACCEPT COMMENTS ON WHETHER THEY ARE
APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. REGULATIONS
ON CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LIQUID WASTE, AND
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS ARE BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL
AND ARE FURTHER DISCUSSED BELOW.
1. LANDFILL CELLS. THESE REGULATIONS INCORPORATE THE CONCEPT OF
LANDFILL CELLS. SUCH CELLS CAN BE USED TO SEPARATE INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
AS SUGGESTED BY THE COMMENTS, THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF A CELL AS "A
PORTION OF A WASTE IN A LANDFILL" HAS BEEN REPLACED BY A "A DISCRETE
VOLUME OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL WHICH USES A LINER TO PROVIDE
ISOLATION OF WASTES FROM ADJACENT CELLS OR WASTES." THIS MAKES THE CELL
A DISCRETE PART OF THE DISPOSAL FACILITY RATHER THAN A PORTION OF WASTE
AS IN THE PROPOSED DEFINITION. THIS ARRANGEMENT, TOGETHER WITH THE
FLEXIBILITY OF CLOSURE REGULATIONS, AND THE CONCEPT OF PARTIAL CLOSURE,
PERMITS DIFFERENT CELLS TO HAVE DIFFERENT CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND MAY
PERMIT DIFFERENT FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS IN APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
CELLS MAY BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATE AREAS OF A LANDFILL, OR TRENCHES OR
PARTS OF TRENCHES, OR SEPARATE PITS. THE DETERMINING CONDITION IS THAT
THE CELL BE A DISCRETE VOLUME SEPARATED BY A LINER OR COVER FROM
ADJACENT CELLS OR OTHER WASTES IN THE FACILITY.
2. SURFACE WATER RUN-ON. A REQUIREMENT FOR CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER
RUN-ON WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. THIS
REQUIREMENT WAS SPECIFIED, HOWEVER, IN THE PROPOSED GENERAL STANDARDS IN
SECTIONS 250.43(B) AND 250.45-2 (B)(7). THE PURPOSE OF THIS STANDARD
WAS TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF SURFACE WATER ENTERING THE LANDFILL
FACILITY. RUN-ON CONTROLS PREVENT (1) EROSION, WHICH MAY DAMAGE THE
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE OF THE LANDFILL, (2) THE SURFACE DISCHARGE OF WASTES
IN SOLUTION OR SUSPENSION, AND (3) THE DOWNWARD, PERCOLATION OF RUN-ON
THROUGH WASTES, CREATING LEACHATE. CONTROL IS ACCOMPLISHED BY
CONSTRUCTING DIVERSION STRUCTURES TO PREVENT SURFACE WATER RUN-ON FROM
ENTERING THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE LANDFILL FACILITY. A NOTE IN THE
PROPOSED REGULATION PROVIDED THAT NO DIVERSION STRUCTURES WERE REQUIRED
WHERE IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR THAT LOCAL
TOPOGRAPHY WOULD PREVENT SURFACE WATER RUN-ON FROM ENTERING THE
FACILITY.
COMMENT WAS RECEIVED THAT THE PROPOSED REGULATION IMPLIED THAT ALL
RUN-ON WOULD HAVE TO BE DIVERTED FROM THE LANDFILL, AND THAT THE
REGULATIONS SHOULD SPECIFY THE CAPACITY OF THE DIVERSION STRUCTURE IN
TERMS OF THE USEFUL LIFE OF THE LANDFILL.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE MAIN AREA OF CONCERN FOR PROTECTION OF
HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE LANDFILL,
NOT THE LANDFILL FACILITY AS A WHOLE (AS MAY HAVE BEEN SUGGESTED BY THE
LANGUAGE OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION). IT IS AT ACTIVE PORTIONS THAT
RUN-ON IS MOST LIKELY (1) TO SEEP INTO THE EXPOSED WASTE, CONTRIBUTING
TO THE FORMATION OF LEACHATE, OR (2) TO ERODE WASTES, OR CONSTITUENTS OF
THEM, AND CARRY THEM AWAY IN RUN-OFF. THE AGENCY REQUIRES IN THESE
REGULATIONS THAT ALL SURFACE WATER RUN-ON BE DIVERTED FROM ACTIVE
PORTIONS. DIVERSION OF RUN-ON MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED BY LOCATING THE
ACTIVE PORTION IN AREAS WHERE THE TOPOGRAPHY NATURALLY PREVENTS RUN-ON,
BY SLOPING OR CONTOURING THE LAND, OR BY CONSTRUCTING DITCHES, CULVERTS,
OR DIKES.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 059 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113423
REGULATION
THE CAPACITY OF DIVERSION STRUCTURES SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR CONSIDERING SITE TOPOGRAPHY, SIZE OF DRAINAGE AREA,
AND SIZE OF THE ACTIVE PORTIONS.
COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED SUGGESTING THAT THE PROPOSED STANDARDS BE
MODIFIED TO ALLOW THE OWNER OR OPERATOR THE FLEXIBILITY TO EITHER DIVERT
SURFACE WATER RUN-ON OR COLLECT AND TREAT ALL OF THE SURFACE RUN-OFF, AS
LONG AS CLEAN WATER ACT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS WERE COMPLIED WITH. THE
AGENCY DISAGREES. EPA BELIEVES THAT SUCH A STANDARD ALLOWS THE
UNNECESSARY INFILTRATION OF WATER INTO THE LANDFILL.
THE AGENCY HAS DETERMINED THAT DIVERSION OF RUN-ON IS APPROPRIATE FOR
INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS. RUN-ON CONTROL IS FOR ACTIVE
PORTIONS ONLY. THE AGENCY EXPECTS THAT RUN-ON DIVERSION STRUCTURES,
WHERE NEEDED BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY, WILL MOST LIKELY BE EARTHEN DIKES OR
BERMS, OR DITCHES, WHICH CAN BE ERECTED WITH EARTH MOVING EQUIPMENT
COMMONLY FOUND AT LANDFILLS. THESE STRUCTURES CAN BE TEMPORARY, AND CAN
MOVE WITH THE ACTIVE PORTIONS AS MATERIAL IS ADDED TO THE LANDFILL.
SUCH STRUCTURES CAN BE DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED ADEQUATELY DURING INTERIM
STATUS WITHOUT CASE-BY-CASE REVIEW BY PERMITTING OFFICIALS.
A 12-MONTH DELAY IS ALLOWED FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REQUIREMENT SO
THAT OPERATORS WILL HAVE ADEQUATE TIME TO MAKE ANY NECESSARY TOPOGRAPHIC
AND HYDROLOGIC DETERMINATIONS AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION.
3. CONTAMINATED SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF. REQUIREMENTS FOR COLLECTING
AND MANAGING CONTAMINATED SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE
PROPOSED INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS, BUT WERE PROPOSED IN THE GENERAL
STANDARDS IN SECTIONS 250.43(C) AND 250.45-2(B)(8). THEIR OBJECTIVE WAS
TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL FOR OFF-SITE MIGRATION OF CONTAMINATED RUN-OFF
TO LAND OR TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES. THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF
DAMAGE INCIDENTS CAUSED BY MISMANAGED OR UNCONTROLLED CONTAMINATED
RUN-OFF FROM LANDFILLS. TEN OF THESE INCIDENTS ARE BRIEFLY DESCRIBED
AND REFERENCED IN THE LANDFILL BACKGROUND DOCUMENT. THESE DAMAGE CASES
DEMONSTRATE THAT RUN-OFF FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
LANDFILLS CAN CAUSE SERIOUS ADVERSE IMPACTS TO LAND AND SURFACE WATERS.
IN CONTAMINATING STREAMS, RUN-OFF FROM LANDFILLS FREQUENTLY RESULTS IN
FISHKILLS AND DESTRUCTION OF OTHER AQUATIC LIFE. DURING THE PERIOD
1963-1774, FORTY-SEVEN SEPARATE FISHKILLS CAUSED BY RUN-OFF FROM WASTE
DISPOSAL WERE RECORDED BY EPA. BASED ON THIS EVIDENCE, EPA BELIEVES
THAT IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT RUN-OFF FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE LANDFILLS BE CONTROLLED DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD.
FURTHERMORE, CONTROL OF RUN-OFF FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE LANDFILLS IS PRESENTLY A WIDELY ACCEPTED AND RELATIVELY SIMPLE
PRACTICE. AS OF JANUARY 1979, ALL BUT TWO STATES SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE
IN THEIR SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS CONTROL OF RUN-OFF FROM AT
LEAST THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF ALL OFF-SITE LANDFILLS.
RUN-OFF CONTROL IS ACCOMPLISHED BY (1) MINIMIZING RUN-OFF AND
(2) COLLECTING AND MANAGING RUN-OFF FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS. RUN-OFF
IS MINIMIZED BY (1) PREVENTING RUN-ON, (2) MINIMIZING THE SIZE OF
THE ACTIVE PORTION, AND (3) PREVENTING DISPOSAL OF LIQUID WASTES
IN THE LANDFILL.
THERE ARE TWO BASIC TYPES OF LANDFILL OPERATIONS: TRENCH METHOD AND
AREA FILL METHOD. BY DESIGN, ALMOST ALL TRENCHES, AND AREA FILLS USING
DEPRESSIONS OR PITS, CONTROL RUN-OFF BECAUSE OF SURFACE CONTOURS (I.E.,
LIQUIDS THAT COME INTO CONTACT WITH THE WASTE RUN-OFF). AREA FILLS
WHICH DO NOT USE DEPRESSIONS CAN BE OPERATED BY BUILDING A BERM OR DIKE
ON THE LOW ELEVATION SIDE TO CONTAIN ANY RUN-OFF. HOWEVER, WHEN
LANDFILLS USING EITHER THE TRENCH OR AREA METHODS BECOME LARGE AND
SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE GRADE, BOTH RUN-OFF AND LEACHATE SEEPS, WHICH OFTEN
OCCUR ON THE OUTER SLOPES OF THE FILL, NEED TO BE COLLECTED. RUN-OFF
WHICH DOES EMERGE FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS MAY BE COLLECTED BY DITCHES,
BERMS, DIKES, AND CULVERTS WHICH DRECT IT (SOMETIMES BY SUMP PUMP) TO
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, BASINS, TANKS, OR TREATMENT FACILITIES. THESE
COLLECTION DEVICES MAY CONSIST OF TEMPORARY STRUCTURES AROUND ACTIVE
PORTIONS. SINCE RUN-OFF USUALLY HAS BEEN IN CONTACT WITH WASTE OR
LEACHATE SEEPS FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS, AND SINCE RUN-OFF SOMETIMES IF
COLLECTED VIA A LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM, IT IS USUALLY CONTAMINATED.
THUS, IT IS USUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN RAIN WATER
RUN-OFF AND LEACHATE RUN-OFF AT THE ACTIVE PORTION OF A LANDFILL.
BECAUSE OF THIS, THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF "RUN-OFF", WHICH WAS "THAT
PORTION OF PRECIPITATION THAT DRAINS OVER LAND . . ." HAS BEEN REVISED
TO "ANY RAINWATER, LEACHATE, OR OTHER LIQUID THAT DRAINS OVER LAND . .
.". THIS CHANGE INDICATES THAT MORE THAN JUST PRECIPITATION MUST BE
COLLECTED.
ONCE COLLECTED, A NUMBER OF OPTIONS EXIST FOR TREATING AND DISPOSING
OF RUN-OFF. THESE ARE THE SAME OPTIONS WHICH EXIST FOR MANAGING LIQUID
WASTES AND LEACHATE AND INCLUDE DEEP WELL INJECTION, LAND TREATMENT,
TREATMENT IN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS (EVAPORATION, AERATION, CHEMICAL
TREATMENT, ETC.), DEWATERING OR MIXING WITH AN ABSORBENT MATERIAL AND
DISPOSAL IN THE LANDFILL, PERCOLATION THROUGH A FILTERING OR ATTENUATION
MEDIUM (E.G., CHARCOAL, CLAY, SOIL, SAND), OR DISCHARGE TO A SEWER OR
OTHER TREATMENT FACILITY.
THE PROPOSED LANDFILL STANDARDS REQUIRED THAT IF SURFACE WATER CAME
INTO CONTACT WITH THE ACTIVE PORTIONS OF A FACILITY, IT WAS TO BE
COLLECTED AND MANAGED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE UNLESS IT WAS ANALYZED AND
FOUND NOT TO BE HAZARDOUS.
THE AGENCY RECEIVED ESSENTIALLY NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED
REQUIREMENT THAT LANDFILL RUN-OFF BE COLLECTED AND TREATED IN SOME
FASHION. MOST OF THE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED STANDARDS CONCERNED THE
CAPACITY OF THE TREATMENT SYSTEMS OR THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE
RUN-OFF. THESE COMMENTS ARE DISCUSSED IN THE BACKGROUND DOCUMENT. THE
CURRENT REGULATION DOES NOT LIMIT THE METHOD OF TREATMENT OF RUN-OFF.
THE REGULATION REQUIRES RUN-OFF FROM ACTIVE PORTIONS TO BE COLLECTED.
THE COLLECTED RUN-OFF IS A SOLID WASTE FROM AN INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY (THE
OPERATION OF THE LANDFILL) AND THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST DETERMINE
WHETHER IT IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 262.11 OF
THIS CHAPTER. IF THE COLLECTED RUN-OFF IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE IT MAST BE
MANAGED AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE. EVEN IF IT IS NOT A HAZARDOUS WASTE, GOOD
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES MAY STILL REQUIRE SOME DEGREE OF TREATMENT OR USE
OF OTHER TECHNIQUES AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, ALTHOUGH SUCH PRACTICES ARE
NOT REQUIRED BY THESE REGULATIONS. A 12 MONTH DELAY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THESE REGULATIONS IS GIVEN SO THAT EXISTING FACILITIES MAY CONSTRUCT NEW
RUN-OFF CONTROL SYSTEMS OR UPGRADE EXISTING SYSTEMS, INCLUDING THOSE
FROM RUN-OFF TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL. IF COLLECTED RUN-OFF IS DISCHARGED
TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES, OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF FACILITIES MUST
HAVE OR APPLY FOR AN NPDES PERMIT UNDER THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
4. WIND DISPERSAL. DISPERSAL OF LANDFILLED HAZARDOUS WASTES BY WIND
IS NOT OFTEN A PROBLEM. THE AGENCY'S MAJOR CONCERN IN REQUIRING THE
CONTROL OF WIND DISPERSAL IS LARGE WASTE PILES WHICH CONSTITUTE DISPOSAL
AND THUS COME UNDER THE LANDFILL REGULATIONS. THE AGENCY IS AWARE OF AT
LEAST ONE CASE IN WHICH WIND DISPERSAL FROM A PILE OF ASBESTOS WASTES
CREATED A HEALTH RISK. IT THEREFORE SEEMS PRUDENT TO REQUIRE THAT,
WHERE LANDFILLED HAZARDOUS WASTE IS SUBJECT TO WIND DISPERSAL, THE
LANDFILL BE MANAGED SO THAT WIND DISPERSAL IS CONTROLLED. APPROPRIATE
METHODS MAY VARY FROM WASTE TO WASTE, AND THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY IS BEST ABLE TO DEVELOP AN ADEQUATE,
COST-EFFECTIVE TECHNIQUE TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 060 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113424
REGULATION
THIS REQUIREMENT WAS NOT PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION IN EITHER THE INTERIM
OR GENERAL STANDARDS. COMMENTS AND MEETINGS FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS BROUGHT TO LIGHT THE FACT THAT PILES ARE
SOMETIMES USED FOR STORING AND DISPOSING OF WASTES, SOME OF WHICH MAY BE
HAZARDOUS. SUBPART L (WASTE PILES) GREW OUT OF THESE COMMENTS, AND ALSO
INCLUDES A REQUIREMENT FOR CONTROLLING WIND DISPERSAL. THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHOULD TYPICALLY NOT REQUIRE MAJOR
CAPITAL EXPENDITURES, DOES NOT REQUIRE CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATIONS BY
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, AND CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
IT IS THEREFORE APPROPRIATE FOR INCLUSION IN THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS. SINCE IT WAS NOT PROPOSED, IT IS BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM
FINAL, AND THE AGENCY SOLICITS COMMENTS ON IT.
5. SURVEYING AND RECORDKEEPING. RECORDING THE LOCATION OF EACH
HAZARDOUS WASTE TYPE WITHIN A LANDFILL CELL WILL HELP ENSURE THAT THIS
INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE FOR PROPER LANDFILL OPERATION, CLOSURE, AND
DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, WHEN NECESSARY. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS INFORMATION IS
USEFUL IN MANAGING POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTES AND MATERIALS, AND
WILL HELP DEAL WITH EMERGENCIES, SUCH AS FIRES AND HELP IN LOCATING
SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION. METHODS OF CORRECTION AND POTENTIAL FOR
FURTHER DAMAGE MAY ALSO BE MORE READILY IDENTIFIED.
THE MAJOR ISSUE RAISED IN THE COMMENTS WAS AN OBJECTION TO THE
PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS THAT EXACT LOCATIONS OF WASTE WITHIN EACH CELL BE
RECORDED. THE AGENCY AGREES THAT THIS REQUIREMENT MAY HAVE BEEN OVERLY
RESTRICTIVE AS APPLIED TO ALL WASTES. THE REGULATION NOW ONLY REQUIRES
RECORDING THE WASTE'S APPROXIMATE LOCATION WITHIN A CELL. HOWEVER, THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST RECORD THE LOCATION OF EACH WASTE TYPE WITH
SUFFICIENT ACCURACY TO ENABLE PROPER MANAGEMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES,
AND LATER TREATMENT, EXCAVATION, OR OTHER REMEDIAL ACTION, IF NECESSARY.
FOR EXAMPLE, WITH AN EXTREMELY MOBILE WASTE THIS MAY MEAN RECORDING ITS
EXACT LOCATION; FOR A LANDFILL OR LANDFILL CELL WHICH RECEIVES ONLY A
FEW TYPES OF WASTES, IT MAY MEAN MERELY RECORDING THE APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF THE DEMARCATIONS BETWEEN WASTES. EPA SUGGESTS THE USE OF A
THREE-DIMENSIONAL GRID SYSTEM, REFERENCING WASTE TYPE LOCATION ON A MAP
WHICH IS KEYED TO PERMANENTLY SURVEYED BENCHMARKS. THE SIZE OF THE
UNITS IN THE GRID SHOULD BE A FUNCTION OF THE NUMBER OF WASTE TYPES,
THEIR AMOUNTS AND THE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS OF EACH TYPE.
6. LANDFILL CLOSURE. AT LEAST 180 DAYS BEFORE LANDFILL CLOSURE
DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST SUBMIT TO
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, FOR HIS APPROVAL, MODIFICATION, OR
DISAPPROVAL, A DETAILED PLAN DESCRIBING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE LANDFILL
WILL BE CLOSED AND MAINTAINED DURING THE POST-CLOSURE PERIOD. (SEE THE
PREVIOUS PREAMBLE DISCUSSION ON CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE).
A FINAL COVER MUST BE PLACED OVER THE LANDFILL AT CLOSURE. THE
CLOSURE PLAN MUST ADDRESS THE FUNCTIONS AND SPECIFY THE DESIGN OF THE
FINAL COVER. IT IS NECESSARY TO PLACE APPROPRIATE COVER ON A LANDFILL
IN ORDER TO CONTROL THE INFILTRATION OF MOISTURE THAT COULD INCREASE
LEACHING, AND TO PREVENT EROSION OR ESCAPE OF WASTES, WASTE
CONSTITUTENTS, OR CONTAMINATED SOIL.
THE PROPOSED STANDARDS INCLUDED SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE
TYPE, DEPTH, PERMEABILITY, AND NUMBER OF SOIL LAYERS REQUIRED FOR THE
FINAL COVER. THEY ALSO INCLUDED SPECIFIC QUANTITATIVE LIMITS ON GRADE
(SLOPE) AND TERRACING OF THE COVER TO PREVENT EROSION.
EPA RECEIVED NUMEROUS COMMENTS OBJECTING TO THESE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS. COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF COVER
MATERIALS, THICKNESSES, AND PERMEABILITIES COULD ACHIEVE EQUIVALENT
RESULTS, AND THAT GREATER FLEXIBILITY WAS NEEDED TO ADDRESS
SITE-SPECIFIC SITUATIONS. NUMEROUS COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THE
PROPOSED 6-INCH CLAY COVER WAS INADEQUATE. SIMILAR OBJECTIONS WERE
RAISED REGARDING THE FINAL GRADE AND TERRACING REQUIREMENTS.
THE PROPOSED REGULATION INCLUDED A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWED ALTERNATE
COVER DESIGNS TO BE SUBSTITUTED AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDED EQUIVALENT
PERFORMANCE, AND THUS THERE WAS SOME FLEXIBILITY. HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED
VARIANCES WOULD NOT HAVE ADDRESSED CONCERNS OVER THE BASIC LEVEL OF
CONTROL SPECIFIED, FOR EXAMPLE, A 6-INCH CLAY COVER.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE COMMENTERS HAVE MADE VALID POINTS. THE
SPECIFIC LIMITS PROPOSED ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ALL SITUATIONS. THE
CONDITIONS AT EACH SITE SHOULD WEIGH MORE HEAVILY THAN PERHAPS THE
PROPOSED REGULATION WOULD ALLOW IN DETERMING AN APPROPRIATE COVER
REQUIREMENT. THE FINAL REGULATIONS PROVIDE THIS FLEXIBILITY BY
REQUIRING THAT CERTAIN OBJECTIVES BE ADDRESSED IN DEVELOPING A CLOSURE
PLAN AND DESIGNING A FINAL COVER. THE SPECIFIED OBJECTIVES ARE: (1)
CONTROL OF POLLUTANT MIGRATION FROM THE FACILITY VIA GROUND WATER,
SURFACE WATER, AND AIR, (2) CONTROL OF SURFACE WATER INFILTRATION,
INCLUDING PREVENTION OF POOLING, AND (3) PREVENTION OF EROSION.
THE REGULATION ALSO LISTS A MINIMUM SET OF TECHNICAL FACTORS WHICH
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST CONSIDER IN ADDRESSING THE CONTROL
OBJECTIVES. WITH REGARD TO COVER DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS, THESE FACTORS
INCLUDE COVER MATERIALS, FINAL SURFACE CONTOURS, POROSITY AND
PERMEABILITY, THICKNESS, SLOPE AND LENGTH OF RUN OF SLOPE, AND TYPE OF
VEGETATION. THE COVER DESIGN SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF
LAYERS, AND THE INDIGENOUS VEGETATION. IT SHOULD AVOID OR MAKE
ALLOWANCES FOR DEEP-ROOTED VEGETATION, AND PREVENT WATER FROM POOLING.
THE DESIGN WILL DEPEND ON THE AVAILABILITY AND CHARACTERISTICS OF
ON-SITE OR NEARBY SOILS, AND A NUMBER OF OTHER SITE-SPECIFIC FACTORS.
THE FINAL COVER DESIGN COULD SIMPLY BE THE PLACEMENT, COMPACTION,
GRADING, SLOPING, AND VEGETATION OF ON-SITE SOILS, OR COULD BE A COMPLEX
DESIGN SUCH AS A COMBINATION OF COMPACTED CLAY OR MEMBRANE LINER PLACED
OVER A GRADED AND SLOPED BASE AND COVERED BY TOPSOIL AND VEGETATION.
THE FINAL REGULATION REQUIRES (IN SUBPART G) THE APPROVAL,
DISAPPROVAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE CLOSURE PLAN BY THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR, AFTER OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS PROCESS IS
NECESSARY TO ASSURE THAT CLOSURE PLANS WILL ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVES
SPECIFIED WITH AN ADEQUATE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE.
BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUBSTANTIALLY, THE REGULATION ON
LANDFILL CLOSURE IS BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL AND THE AGENCY WILL
CONSIDER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON IT. MANY COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
REGULATION SEVERELY CRITICIZED IT FOR BEING TOO INFLEXIBLE. THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THAT THE PRESENT REGULATION RESPONDS TO THESE COMMENTS BY
CREATING AN EXTREMELY FLEXIBLE SYSTEM UNDER WHICH ALL PERTINENT
CHARACTERISTICS OF AN INDIVIDUAL FACILITY CAN BE CONSIDERED IN
DETERMINING HOW IT SHOULD BE CLOSED. SINCE THE SYSTEM LEAVES SO MUCH
LATITUDE FOR THE CREATION OF INDIVIDUAL CLOSURE PLANS, THOSE PLANS WILL
NEED TO BE REVIEWED ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR TO
ASSURE THAT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE REGULATION ARE ACHIEVED.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THE IMPORTANCE OF PROPER CLOSURE JUSTIFIES
THIS INTERACTION WITH THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR DURING THE INTERIM
STATUS PERIOD. THE CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL
FOR PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE LONG-TERM
(AFTER POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD).
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 061 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113425
REGULATION
UNLESS CERTAIN PRECAUTIONS, SUCH AS A STABLE AND PROPERLY DESIGNED
COVER AND FUTURE SITE USE CONTROLS, ARE TAKEN, THERE IS A HIGH
LIKELIHOOD OF FUTURE GROUND WATER, SURFACE WATER, OR AIR CONTAMINATION
OR DIRECT EXPOSURE OF THE PUBLIC TO HAZARDOUS WASTE. OPERATING EXISTING
LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEMS, GAS CONTROL SYSTEMS AND GROUND-WATER
MONITORING SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD ARE ESSENTIAL
TO ELIMINATING FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND DETERMINING WHEN
POST-CLOSURE CARE CAN BE TERMINATED.
7. POST-CLOSURE CARE. IN ORDER FOR THE FINAL COVER TO SATISFY THE
SPECIFIED OBJECTIVES, IT MUST BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED FOLLOWING CLOSURE.
THIS IS ALSO TRUE OF CERTAIN MONITORING AND CONTROL MEASURES, SUCH AS
GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEMS.
EPA RECEIVED FEW COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED POST-CLOSURE CARE
REQUIREMENTS. NONETHELESS, SOME MODIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO
ACCOMMODATE CHANGES MADE IN OTHER SECTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS.
POST-CLOSURE MAINTENANCE OF A LEACHATE MONITORING SYSTEM (UNSATURATED
ZONE MONITORING) IS NOT REQUIRED FOR ALL FACILITIES BECAUSE SUCH
MONITORING SYSTEMS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. (SEE THE DISCUSSION ON
SUBPART G REQUIREMENTS.) A REQUIREMENT THAT EXISTING LEACHATE COLLECTION
AND REMOVAL SYSTEMS BE MAINTAINED, HOWEVER, HAS BEEN SUBSTITUTED.
HAZARDOUS LEACHATE MAY CONTINUE TO BE GENERATED WITHIN THE LANDFILL LONG
AFTER THE SITE IS CLOSED, EVEN WITH A RELATIVELY IMPERMEABLE COVER. THE
AGENCY BELIEVES THAT, IN ORDER FOR AN INSTALLED LEACHATE COLLECTION
SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE ITS PURPOSE, LEACHATE MUST BE REMOVED AS IT IS
GENERATED, EVEN AFTER CLOSURE.
THE ONE POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENT WHICH DID GENERATE A NUMBER OF
COMMENTS WAS THE RESTRICTION AGAINST CONSTRUCTING BUILDINGS ON CLOSED
LANDFILLS WHERE RADIOACTIVE WASTES WERE DISPOSED OF. THE AGENCY AGREES
WITH COMMENTERS TO THE EXTENT THAT CONCERN ABOUT RADIATION (URANIUM AND
PHOSPHATE WASTES) WAS THE BASIS FOR THIS REGULATION AND THAT SUCH
BUILDING RESTRICTIONS SHOULD BE PLACED IN REGULATIONS DEALING
SPECIFICALLY WITH THOSE WASTES. EPA EXPECTS TO PROMULGATE REQUIREMENTS
FOR SUCH WASTES IN ITS PHASE II REGULATIONS.
OTHER COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER ACTIVITIES
WHICH WOULD DAMAGE THE FINAL COVER SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. THE AGENCY
CONCURS, IN GENERAL, AND HAS ADDED A REQUIREMENT IN SECTION 265.117(C)
THAT ACTIVITIES WHICH COULD DISTURB THE INTEGRITY OF THE FINAL COVER OR
ANY LINERS OR THE FUNCTION OF THE MONITORING SYSTEMS, ARE NOT ALLOWED
WITHOUT THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL UNDER SPECIFIED CRITERIA.
WHILE THE POST-CLOSURE CARE REGULATION HAS NOT CHANGED RADICALLY FROM
THE PROPOSED REGULATION, IT IS BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL ALONG
WITH THE CLOSURE REGULATION BECAUSE THE TWO FROM AN INTEGRATED PACKAGE.
COMMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED ON THE POST-CLOSURE CARE REGULATION ALONG
WITH THE CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
8. IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS PROHIBITED
DISPOSING OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE IN A HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILL
UNLESS CERTAIN CONDITIONS WERE MET: AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS COULD NOT
EXCEED A SPECIFIED CONCENTRATION AND THERE COULD BE NO DAMAGE TO THE
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE FACILITY.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT THIS PROVISION "BANNED" LANDFILLING
OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE. THE COMMENTERS SUGGESTED THAT THESE
WASTES CAN BE PLACED IN A LANDFILL IN A WAY, SUCH AS BY BLENDING WITH
SOIL OR OTHER MATERIALS, THAT ELIMINATES OR MINIMIZES THE DANGER OF
FIRES OR EXPLOSIONS.
THE FINAL REGULATION NOW REQUIRES THAT IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES
BE TREATED OR MIXED BEFORE OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER BEING LANDFILLED SO THAT
THEY ARE NO LONGE IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE. MIXING THE WASTE WITH SOIL OR
OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE, DURING, OR IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE WASTE IS PLACED
IN THE LANDFILL IS ALLOWED IF THE RESULTING MIXTURE IS NEITHER IGNITABLE
NOR REACTIVE. THIS TREATMENT MUST MEET THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
HANDLING IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN SECTION
265.17(B). AS EXPLAINED PREVIOUSLY, THE PROVISION IN THE PROPOSED
REGULATION CONCERNING VOLATILITY HAS BEEN DEFERRED.
9. INCOMPATIBLE WASTES. INCOMPATIBLE WASTES OR MATERIALS CAN REACT
WHEN THEY COME IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER, RESULTING IN THE SUBSTANCES
OR REACTIONS LISTED IN APPENDIX V, SUCH AS FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, OR
FORMATION OF TOXIC GAS. SUCH CONTACT CAN BE PREVENTED BY PLACING
INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN SEPARATE LANDFILL CELLS, AS PROPOSED IN THE
LANDFILL REGULATIONS.
COMMENTERS SUPPORTED THIS CONCEPT: SOME SUGGESTED SPECIFIC DEGREES
OF SEPARATION, E.G., CERTAIN SOIL THICKNESS, OR SEPARATION BASED ON
WASTE PROPERTIES. THE AGENCY FOUND NO BASIS FOR ANY SPECIFIC WASTE
SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BECAUSE SO MANY SITE-SPECIFIC VARIABLES ARE
PERTINENT, SUCH AS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LINER OR SEPARATION MATERIAL,
(E.G., PERMEABILITY AND THICKNESS), SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP OF CELLS (E.G.,
ABOVE OR ON THE SIDE OF THE OTHER), COVER MATERIAL, AND WASTE
CHARACTERISTICS. THEREFORE, NO SPECIFIC SEPARATION REQUIREMENT IS
INCLUDED IN THE FINAL REGULATION.
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON OTHER SECTIONS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
INDICATED THAT POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTES CAN BE PREMIXED OR
TREATED BEFORE OR DURING DISPOSAL SO THAT THEY ARE NO LONGER
INCOMPATIBLE. THEREFORE, THE FINAL REGULATION HAS BEEN REVISED TO ALLOW
THE PLACEMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN THE SAME CELL, IF THEY WILL MEET
THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES IN SECTION 265.17(B).
10. BULK LIQUID WASTE. THE DISPOSAL OF LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTE, BOTH
BULK AND CONTAINERIZED, WAS THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL AREA OF THE PROPOSED
LANDFILL REGULATIONS. THE PROPOSED REGULATION SPECIFIED THAT BULK
LIQUID, SEMI-SOLID, AND SLUDGE WASTES MUST NOT BE DISPOSED OF IN A
LANDFILL, UNLESS THEY WERE PRETREATED OR TREATED IN THE LANDFILL "SO
THAT A NON-FLOWING CONSISTENCY IS ACHIEVED TO ELIMINATE THE PRESENCE OF
FREE LIQUIDS PRIOR TO FINAL DISPOSAL IN A LANDFILL." THE PURPOSE OF THIS
PROPOSED REGULATION WAS TO REDUCE THE PRESENCE OF LIQUID WASTES AND FREE
LIQUIDS IN A LANDFILL.
LIQUID WASTES AND FREE LIQUIDS CAN MIGRATE THROUGH A LANDFILL,
DISSOLVING OR MOBILIZING TOXIC SUBSTANCES IN THE PROCESS. IN OTHER
WORDS, LIQUID IN A LANDFILL USUALLY BECOMES A TRANSPORT AND LEACHING
MEDIUM. THE RESULTANT LEACHATE PRODUCES A HYDRAULIC HEAD GREATER THAN
THAT RESULTING FROM PRECIPITATION ALONE. THE ADDITIONAL LIQUIDS,
LEACHING, AND HEAD CAN INCREASE THE AMOUNT AND RATE OF MOVEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS CONTAMINANTS FROM THE LANDFILL TO GROUND WATER.
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATION RANGED FROM SUGGESTIONS THAT
LIQUID WASTES SHOULD BE CATEGORICALLY BANNED FROM LANDFILLS TO
SUGGESTIONS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON LANDFILLING
OF LIQUID WASTES. THERE WERE ALSO COMMENTS THAT THE REGULATIONS SHOULD
ALLOW ABSORPTION OF LIQUID WASTES BY MUNICIPAL REFUSE AND ALLOW IN-SITU
ABSORPTION VIA A WELL OR PIT IN THE LANDFILL.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT THERE ARE CONTROLLED CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH
LIQUIDS IN LANDFILLS CAN BE TOLERATED. FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A SECURE LINER
(CHEMICALLY AND PHYSICALLY RESISTANT TO THE LIQUIDS AND OF LOW
PERMEABILITY) AND A LEACHATE COLLECTION AND REMOVAL SYSTEM, LEACHATE CAN
BE REMOVED FROM ABOVE THE LINER CONTINUOUSLY TO PREVENT BUILD-UP OF A
HYDRAULIC HEAD. THE LOW PERMEABILITY OF THE LINER SHOULD RESULT IN NO
MIGRATION OR A VERY SLOW RATE OF MIGRATION THROUGH IT. THE COLLECTED
LEACHATE CAN THEN BE EITHER TREATED AND DISPOSED OF IN THE FACILITY, OR
OTHERWISE DISPOSED OF. THUS, IF A LANDFILL HAS A LEACHATE COLLECTION
SYSTEM, IN-SITU ABSORPTION CAN BE ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE. THE FINAL
REGULATION THEREFORE ALLOWS IN-SITU ABSORPTION OF BULK LIQUID WASTES
PROVIDED THE LANDFILL HAS A CHEMICALLY AND PHYSICALLY RESISTANT LINER
AND A FUNCTIONING LEACHATE REMOVAL SYSTEM, AND PROVIDED THE CAPACITY TO
REMOVE THE HYDRAULIC HEAD IS NOT EXCEEDED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 062 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113426
REGULATION
WHERE A LANDFILL DOES NOT HAVE A LEACHATE COLLECTION AND REMOVAL
SYSTEM, HOWEVER, LIQUIDS IN THE LANDFILL WILL EVENTUALLY MIGRATE AND
WILL USUALLY CARRY POLLUTANTS OUT OF THE LANDFILL AND INTO GROUND WATER.
THE MANY INCIDENTS OF GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION FROM POORLY OPERATED
HAZARDOUS WASTE LANDFILLS TESTIFY THAT THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM. IN
ADDITION, WHEN LIQUID WASTES ARE DISPOSED OF DIRECTLY INTO A LANDFILL
WITHOUT ASSURING ABSORPTION, THERE IS NO WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER THEY ARE
LARGELY BEING ABSORBED AND HELD BY SOLIDS IN THE LANDFILL, OR ARE
PASSING THROUGH RELATIVELY QUICKLY. LIQUID MIGRATION CAN, HOWEVER, BE
GREATLY REDUCED IF LIQUID WASTES AND WASTES CONTAINING FREE LIQUIDS ARE
TREATED BEFORE BEING LANDFILLED, AS BY MIXING WITH ABSORBENT MATERIALS,
SO THAT FREE LIQUIDS ARE NO LONGER PRESENT. THE REGULATIONS REQUIRE
SUCH TREATMENT IN LANDFILLS THAT DO NOT HAVE APPROPRIATE LEACHATE
COLLECTION AND REMOVAL SYSTEMS. TREATING THE LIQUID WASTE BEFORE IT IS
LANDFILLED GIVES VISUAL CONTROL OF THE LIQUID TO ABSORBENT RATIO, ALLOWS
TESTING TO CONFIRM ABSORBENT CAPACITY, AND ASSURES SLOW RELEASE; THESE
ARE NOT POSSIBLE WHEN IN-SITU ABOSRPTION IS PRACTICED. EXAMPLES OF
ABSORBENT MATERIALS WHICH MAY BE ACCEPTABLE INCLUDE SOIL, FLY ASH, AND
CEMENT KILN DUST. EPA DISCOURAGES THE USE OF BIODEGRADABLE MUNICIPAL
WASTE AS AN ABSORBENT UNTIL STUDIES PROVE ITS LONG-TERM EFFECTIVENESS.
A NUMBER OF COMMENTERS ASKED FOR DEFINITIONS OF THE TERMS
"NON-FLOWING", "SEMI-SOLID", "SLUDGE", OR "FREE LIQUIDS", WHICH WERE
USED TO DESCRIBE HAZARDOUS WASTES IN THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. A NUMBER
OF SUGGESTIONS WERE GIVEN AS TO HOW OR HOW NOT TO DEFINE THESE TERMS.
AFTER REVIEW OF THESE COMMENTS, EPA HAS DECIDED TO USE THE TERM "FREE
LIQUIDS", DEFINED AS "LIQUIDS WHICH READILY SEPARATE FROM THE SOLID
PORTION OF A WASTE UNDER AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE." THIS TERM
AND MEANING BEST REFLECT THE USE TO WHICH THIS TERM IS PUT, WHICH IS TO
DISTINGUISH WHEN A WASTE CONTAINS LIQUIDS WHICH WILL READILY FLOW FROM
THE WASTE IN A LANDFILL TO PRODUCE LEACHATE. FOR SLUDGES OR SEMI-SOLIDS
WHICH ARE NOT OBVIOUSLY LIQUIDS, THE FOLLOWING TEST MAY BE USED TO
DETERMINE IF THEY CONTAIN "FREE LIQUIDS." PLACE A ONE TO FIVE KILOGRAM
(2.2 TO 11.0 LBS) SAMPLE OF WASTE ON A LEVEL OR SLIGHTLY SLOPING PLATE
OF GLASS OR OTHER SIMILARLY FLAT AND SMOOTH SOLID MATERIAL FOR AT LEAST
FIVE MINUTES. IF A LIQUID PHASE SEPARATION IS OBSERVED, THE WASTE
CONTAINS "FREE LIQUIDS." EPA FEELS THIS TEST PROVIDES A PRACTICAL WAY TO
TEST SLUDGES AND SIMI-SOLIDS AND HELPS CLARIFY THE MEANING OF FREE
LIQUIDS UNTIL A MORE RIGOROUS TEST IS DEVISED.
THE TEST IS INTENDED TO SIMULATE, IN A SIMPLE WAY, THE BEHAVIOR OF
SEMI-SOLID WASTES PLACED ON THE SURFACE OF A LANDFILL. IF LIQUIDS CAN
BE OBSERVED AS A SEPARATE PHASE DRAINING OVER AN IMPERMEABLE SUBSTRATE
FROM THE BASE OF A SMALL SAMPLE OF THE WASTE, SUCH LIQUIDS CAN ALSO BE
EXPECTED TO DRAIN FROM THE WASTE ITSELF WHEN IT IS PLACED ON THE SURFACE
OF THE LANDFILL, AND WILL BE FREE TO MIGRATE INTO THE LANDFILL MUCH AS
LIQUID WASTES WOULD. THE FACT THAT LIQUIDS CANNOT BE OBSERVED TO
MIGRATE FROM A SMALL SAMPLE AFTER A FEW MINUTES DOES NOT, OF COURSE,
ASSURE THAT THEY WILL NOT MIGRATE FROM A LARGER SAMPLE, OR AFTER A
LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, OR WHEN THE WASTE IS COMPRESSED BY WASTES PLACED
OVER IT. THIS TEST THUS REPRESENTS A ROUGH MINIMUM FOR THE CONTAINMENT
OF FREE LIQUIDS. THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO STUDY THE PROBLEM OF FREE
LIQUIDS FURTHER AND TO ATTEMPT TO DEVISE TESTS WHICH MORE ACCURATELY
REFLECT THE CONDITIONS OF WASTE WITHIN A LANDFILL. THE AGENCY
SPECIFICALLY SOLICITS FURTHER COMMENTS ON (1) DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY BE
EXPECTED IN APPLYING THE TEST, AND (2) SUGGESTIONS FOR OTHER TESTS OR
IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS TEST WHICH WILL BETTER TEST FOR THE PRESENCE OF
LIQUIDS WHICH CAN RELATIVELY EASILY MIGRATE FROM WASTES.
ALTERNATIVES TO DIRECT DISPOSAL OF LIQUID WASTES IN LANDFILLS INCLUDE
MIXING THE WASTES WITH AN ABSORBANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO LANDFILLING, AS
DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY, CHEMICALLY FIXING OR SOLIDIFYING THE WASTES BEFORE
LANDFILLING, DEWATERING BEFORE LANDFILLING, TREATING THE WASTES TO
RENDER THEM NON-HAZARDOUS, WELL INJECTION, INCINERATION, RESOURCE
RECOVERY, AND STORAGE IN CONTAINERS, TANKS, AND SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS.
THESE OPTIONS MAY BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR SOME WASTES. TAKEN SEPARATELY,
FACILTIY CAPACITIES FOR THESE OPTIONS MAY BE LIMITED IN THE REGION OF
WASTE GENERATION, OR MAY REQUIRE A LONG LEAD TIME TO DEVELOP;
NATIONALLY, NO SINGLE OPTION CAN HANDLE ALL THE HAZARDOUS LIQUID AND
SEMI-SOLID WASTES. TAKEN TOGETHER, HOWEVER, EPA BELIEVES THESE OPTIONS
CAN PROVIDE THE REQUIRED STORAGE, TREATMENT, AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY TO
OFFSET THE AMOUNTS OF LIQUID WASTES CURRENTLY DISPOSED OF BY PRACTICES
PROHIBITED BY THIS REGULATION. INDEED, THIS KIND OF PROHIBITION IS
ALREADY BEING IMPLEMENTED IN SOME STATES. AT LEAST 19 STATES ALREADY
PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT THE DISPOSAL OF BULK LIQUID WASTES IN LANDFILLS.
ALTHOUGH THESE PROVISIONS FOR BULK LIQUID WASTES WERE INCLUDED IN THE
PROPOSED GENERAL STANDARDS, THEY WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS. THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT WHILE TREATING LIQUID WASTES WILL
INCREASE OPERATING COSTS, IT WILL NOT ENTAIL GREAT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
FOR EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES. IN ADDITION, METHODS IMPLEMENTED DURING
THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATION WILL NOT REQUIRE
CASE-BY-CASE DETERMINATIONS BY AGENCY OFFICIALS. HOWEVER, THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THAT GENERATORS, AND OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FACILITIES MAY
NEED MORE THAN SIX MONTHS TO IDENTIFY AND DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES TO
LANDFILLING BULK LIQUID WASTES. THE AGENCY HAS, THEREFORE, DELAYED THE
DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REGULATION FOR 12 MONTHS PAST THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE REGULATIONS.
WHILE THIS REGULATION HAS NOT CHANGED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE ONE
PROPOSED FOR THE GENERAL STANDARDS FOR LANDFILLS, IT IS BEING
PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT GENERATED SO MUCH COMMENT
BUT SO LITTLE DATA WHEN PROPOSED. SOME OF THE COMMENTS REQUESTED
CLARIFICATION OF THE TERMS "SEMI-SOLID," "NON-FLOWING," "SLUDGE," AND
"FREE LIQUIDS." THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT ITS DEFINITION AND TEST FOR
FREE LIQUIDS ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THESE COMMENTS.
OTHER COMMENTS FELL IN A SPECTRUM FORM CONTENTIONS THAT LIQUIDS
SHOULD BE BANNED FROM LANDFILLS TO CONTENTIONS THAT LIQUID IN LANDFILLS
SHOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED AT ALL. FEW OF THESE COMMENTS, HOWEVER,
PROVIDED ANY DATA OR MUCH ARGUMENT EXPLAINING WHY THEY ADOPTED A
PARTICULAR POSITION. THE AGENCY SOLICITS COMMENTS ON THE REGULATION AND
IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN COMMENTS ON (1) WHAT DATA, IF ANY, IS
AVAILABLE TO SHOW THAT LANDFILLED LIQUIDS CAN CONFIDENTLY BE EXPECTED TO
BE ABSORBED AND IMMOBILIZED BY OTHER WASTE IN THE LANDFILL; (2) THE
NATURE AND EXTENT OF TREATMENT THAT COMMENTERS WOULD EXPECT TO CONDUCT
AT LANDFILLS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATION; (3) ALTERNATIVES TO
LANDFILLING LIQUIDS AND WASTES CONTAINING FREE LIQUIDS THAT COMMENTERS
WOULD EXPECT TO PURSUE AS A RESULT OF THE REGULATION; AND (4) THE
NATURE OF THE ADDITIONAL HAZARDS, IF ANY, THAT COMMENTERS EXPECT TO BE
CREATED BY THIS REGULATION, AND HOW THEY MAY COMPARE TO THE GROUND WATER
POLLUTION HAZARDS THAT THE REGULATION ATTEMPTS TO ALLEVIATE.
11. CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTE. THE PROPOSED REGULATION REQUIRED
THAT EACH CONTAINER OF LIQUID HAZARDOUS WASTE BE SURROUNDED BY A
SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INERT SORBENT MATERIAL TO ABSORB ALL THE LIQUID
CONTENTS OF THE CONTAINER. SINCE CONTAINERS ARE KNOWN TO EVENTUALLY
DECAY IN A LANDFILL ENVIRONMENT, THIS REQUIREMENT WAS INTENDED TO
PREVENT MIGRATION OF LIQUID WASTE BY PROVIDING AN ABSORBENT MEDIUM.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 063 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113427
REGULATION
COMMENTERS EXPRESSED DIVERSE OPINIONS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATION,
RANGING FROM SUGGESTIONS THAT CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTES BE BANNED
TOTALLY, TO SUGGESTIONS THAT THEIR PLACEMENT IN LANDFILLS NOT BE
RESTRICTED AT ALL. ALTERNATIVES SCHEMES WERE SUGGESTED FOR PROVIDING
ABSORPTION CAPACITY WITHIN A LANDFILL, SUCH AS PLACING ABSORBENT
MATERIAL INSIDE A CONTAINER, OR SURROUNDING A GROUP OF CONTAINERS
(RATHER THAN SINGLE CONTAINERS) WITH ABSORBENT MATERIAL. THE
REQUIREMENT THAT THE ABSORBENT BE "INERT" WAS ALSO CHALLENGED.
BASED ON FURTHER AGENCY ANALYSIS, THE FINAL REGULATION GENERALLY
PROHIBITS DISPOSAL OF CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTES OR WASTES CONTAINING
FREE LIQUID IN LANDFILLS. DRUMS EVENTUALLY DEGRADE, ALLOWING LIQUIDS TO
ESCAPE. WHEN DRUMS COLLAPSE AND CREATE VOIDS, THEY CAN CAUSE SLUMPING
AND SUBSIDENCE OF THE COVER. THIS MAY INCREASE THE INFILTRATION OF
PRECIPITATION AND CAN ALSO RESULT IN THE ESCAPE OF WASTES THROUGH CRACKS
OR FISSURES IN THE FINAL COVER. FURTHERMORE, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT
THE LIQUID WASTE WILL BE FULLY ABSORBED IN SURROUNDING MATERIAL. IT IS
DIFFICULT TO PREDICT THE ABSORBENT CAPACITY OF A MATERIAL BURIED IN A
LANDFILL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ABSORBENT MATERIAL ITSELF MAY HAVE DECLAYED
BY THE TIME A DRUMMED LIQUID IS RELEASED OR MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN
SATURATED WITH MOISTURE FROM ANOTHER SOURCE (SUCH AS INFILTRATION OR
MOISTURE FROM THE DECAY OF ORGANIC WASTES). LIQUID WASTES RELEASED FROM
A DRUM ALSO WILL MOST LIKELY FORM CHANNELS FROM THE POINT OF LEAKAGE
RATHER THAN BE EVENLY ABSORBED. IN ADDITION, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO
PREDICT WHEN DRUMS WILL FAIL IN A LANDFILL ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS A
PARTICULARLY CRITICAL UNCERTAINTY IN THAT FAILURE COULD OCCUR AFTER THE
POST-CLOSURE CARE PERIOD WHEN FACILITY MAINTENANCE AND GROUND-WATER
MONITORING ARE NO LONGER PERFORMED. CONVERSELY, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE
TO ESTABLISH A RATIONAL TERMINATION OF THE POST-CLOSURE CARE AND
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PERIOD IF THE STABILITY OF THE COVER AND LIQUID
WASTE RELEASE WERE SO UNCERTAIN. IN CONTRAST, IF DRUMMED LIQUIDS ARE
MIXED WITH ABSORBENT MATERIALS, AS BULK LIQUID WASTES MUST BE, A HISTORY
OF TROUBLE-FREE OPERATION AND POST-CLOSURE MONITORING IS A MUCH SURER
INDICATOR THAT THE LANDFILL WILL CONTINUE TO BE FREE FROM GROUND-WATER
CONTAMINATION AFTER POST-CLOSURE CARE AND MONITORING CEASE.
FOR THESE REASONS, EPA BELIEVES THAT A PROHIBITION ON PLACING
CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTE, OR WASTE CONTAINING FREE LIQUIDS IN
LANDFILLS WILL PROVIDE MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROL THAN THE PROPOSED
OPERATING RESTRICTIONS. AT LEAST 11 STATES ALREADY PROHIBIT OR RESTRICT
DISPOSAL OF CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTES AT LANDFILLS.
THE ALTERNATIVES TO LANDFILLING CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTES ARE
ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THOSE FOR BULK LIQUID WASTES, EXCEPT THAT
STORAGE OF THE CONTAINERS PROBABLY WILL BE SIMPLER THAN FINDING STORAGE
FOR BULK LIQUID WASTES. THUS, THE SAME REASONS EXIST FOR PROVIDING A 12
MONTH DELAY IN THE DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THIS REGULATION.
THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT SOME CONTAINERIZED LIQUID WASTES WILL BE
EMPTIED AND TREATED BEFORE BEING PLACED IN A LANDFILL. REMOVING LIQUID
WASTES FROM DRUMS MAY INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF WASTE SPILLS AND WILL
MOST LIKELY RESULT IN INCREASED AIR EMISSIONS FROM VOLATILE WASTE.
ALTHOUGH THESE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS DO NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESS
VOLATILE WASTE, THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO DO SO IN THE PHASE II AND PHASE
III REGULATIONS AS INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE, AND MAY AMEND THESE
INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS WHERE APPROPRIATE. ADDITIONALLY, THE AGENCY
BELIEVES THAT UNTIL THE PROBLEM OF VOLATILE EMISSIONS CAN BE DEALT WITH
IN A MORE SATISFACTORY MANNER, VOLATILE HAZARDOUS WASTE SHOULD GENERALLY
NOT BE PLACED IN ANY DISPOSAL FACILITY. OPENING DRUMS CONTAINING LIQUID
HAZARDOUS WASTE, PARTICULARLY VOLATILE WASTE, REQUIRES SPECIAL SAFETY
PRECAUTIONS, SUCH AS VENTILATION OR USE OF RESPIRATORY EQUIPMENT.
HOWEVER, ADEQUATE HANDLING METHODS ARE CURRENTLY USED AT SOME FACILITIES
TO SAFELY DISPOSE OF BULK LIQUID WASTES, AND TO EMPTY CONTAINERS HOLDING
WASTE WITH FREE LIQUIDS. THESE METHODS CAN GENERALLY BE EMPLOYED AT
OTHER LANDFILLS AS WELL.
THE PROHIBITION ON LANDFILLING CONTAINERS (EMPTY OR FULL) APPLIES TO
55-GALLON DRUMS AND OTHER SIMILAR CONTAINERS, BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO
DEVICES WHICH FUNCTION AS A CONTAINER FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE DURING THEIR
USEFUL LIFE, SUCH AS BATTERIES OR CAPACITORS OR TO VERY SMALL CONTAINERS
SUCH AS AMPULES. THESE TYPES OF CONTAINERS ARE NOT LIKELY TO CONTRIBUTE
SUBSTANTIAL VOLUMES OF LIQUID TO MOST LANDFILLS, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF
OPENING AND EMPTYING THEM APPEARS TO OUTWEIGH THE SMALL BENEFIT GAINED.
SINCE THIS REGULATION HAS BEEN MODIFIED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM THE ONE
PROPOSED FOR INTERIM STATUS, IT IS BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL.
COMMENTS ARE SOLICITED ON THE REGULATION AND ESPECIALLY ON THE FOUR
POINTS LISTED PREVIOUSLY UNDER "BULK LIQUID WASTES."
12. EMPTY CONTAINERS. THE AGENCY ALSO IS CONCERNED THAT EMPTY
CONTAINERS BURIED IN A LANDFILL CAN COLLAPSE AND DISRUPT THE FINAL
COVER. THEREFORE, THE LANDFILLING OF EMPTY CONTAINERS IS ALSO
PROHIBITED. EACH EMPTY CONTAINER MUST BE CRUSHED FLAT, SHREDDED, OR IN
SOME OTHER MANNER REDUCED IN VOLUME, BEFORE BEING INCORPORATED INTO THE
LANDFILL. EPA ASSUMES THAT MOST EMPTY CONTAINERS WILL BE CRUSHED BY
LANDFILL EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO OR DURING DISPOSAL IN THE LANDFILL.
CURRENT PROCEDURES IN AT LEAST SIX STATES ALREADY CALL FOR EMPTY
DRUMS TO BE CRUSHED BEFORE DISPOSAL IN A LANDFILL.
SINCE THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS DID NOT CONTAIN A REQUIREMENT FOR THE
DISPOSAL OF EMPTY CONTAINERS, THE AGENCY IS PROMULGATING THIS REGULATION
INTERIM FINAL. THE AGENCY SOLICITS COMMENTS ON THIS REGULATION,
ESPECIALLY (1) ON THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF ACTIVITIES WHICH COMMENTERS
EXPECT TO CONDUCT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS, AND (2) HOW THESE
ACTIVITIES RELATE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF EMISSIONS DURING THE DISPOSAL OF
VOLATILE HAZARDOUS WASTE.
INCINERATION IS A RELATIVELY WELL-DEVELOPED AND WELL-UNDERSTOOD
TECHNOLOGY. PROPERLY EXECUTED, IT CAN ACCOMPLISH SAFE DESTRUCTION OF
PRIMARILY ORGANIC HAZARDOUS WASTE, PERMANENTLY REDUCING LARGE COLUMES OF
WASTE MATERIALS TO NON-TOXIC GASEOUS EMISSIONS AND SMALL AMOUNTS OF ASH
AND OTHER RESIDUES. INCINERATION CAN OFTEN PROVIDE AN OPTIMUM,
PERMANENT SOLUTION TO HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT WITH MINIMAL LONG-TERM
ECOLOGICAL BURDEN.
THE PROPOSED SECTION 250.45-1 TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN
REQUIREMENTS FOR INCINERATION CANNOT BE IMPLEMENTED DURING INTERIM
STATUS. THE TIME AND COSTS OF UPGRADING WITH THESE STANDARDS WOULD BE
CONSIDERABLE, AND THE DESIGNS WOULD REQUIRE EPA APPROVAL DURING THE
PERMITTING PROCESS. AS A RESULT, THE AGENCY HAS DEVELOPED A FEW GENERAL
OPERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR INCINERATION WHICH CAN BE IMPLEMENTED DURING
THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD. THESE STANDARDS WILL IMPROVE OPERATING
PROCEDURES BY ELIMINATING SOME PRACTICES WHICH HAVE RESULTED IN PROBLEMS
IN THE PAST.
TECHNICAL CRITERIA FOR ISSUING PERMITS WILL BE PROMULGATED DURING
PHASE II OF THE RCRA REGULATORY PROGRAM. THESE WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A
DESIGN AND OPERATION GUIDANCE MANUAL WHICH WILL ASSIST PERMITTING
OFFICIALS AND THE REGULATED COMMUNITY IN EVALUATING THE ADEQUACY OF
SPECIFIC INCINERATORS. MOST OF THE SPECIFIC, QUANTITATIVE DESIGN,
OPERATION, AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ISSUED WHEN ADEQUATE
TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THESE STANDARDS CAN BE FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 064 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113428
REGULATION
THE PHASE I REGULATIONS APPLY TO INCINERATORS WHICH BURN HAZARDOUS
WASTE REGARDLESS OF THEIR SIZE, CAPACITY, PHYSICAL OR MECHANICAL TYPE,
OR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION. THE INCINERATION OF GASEOUS, LIQUID
SEMI-SOLID, AND SOLID HAZARDOUS WAWTE, AND BLENDS THEREOF, IS SUBJECE TO
THESE REGULATIONS. THE INCINERATION OF CUMBUSTIBLE WASTES OF VARYING
HEATING VALUES, AS WELL AS AQUEOUS AND OTHER WASTES WHICH MAY REQUIRE
CO-INCINERATION WITH AUXILIARY FUELS, IS ALSO SUBJECT TO THE SUBPART O
STANDARDS. BOILERS WHICH BURN WASTE PRIMARILY TO RECOVER ENERGY ARE NOT
NOW COVERED BY SUBTITLE C OF RCRA.
THESE STANDARDS WERE NOT PROPOSED TO BE EFFECTIVE DURING THE INTERIM
STATUS PERIOD. HOWEVER, AS COMMENTS SUGGESTED, THE AGENCY BELIEVES THAT
SEVERAL OF THE PROPOSED "GOOD OPERATING PRACTICE" REGULATIONS CAN
BENEFICIALLY BE INSTITUTED DURING INTERIM STATUS TO REDUCE HAZARDS
ASSOCIATED WITH POOR OPERATING PROCEDURES. THE INCINERATION STANDARDS
FOR THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD ARE BEING PROMULGATED INTERIM FINAL, AND
THE AGENCY WILL ACCEPT COMMENTS ON THEM. TO SOME EXTENT, THESE
STANDARDS ARE DERIVED FROM PARTS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. AN
ANLAYSIS OF THE MAJOR COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THESE PARTS OF THE PROPOSED
SECTION 250.45-1 STANDARDS FOLLOWS.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS FELT THAT RCRA WAS NOT INTENDED TO REGULATE
INCINERATION, CONTENDING INSTEAD THAT THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS THE
APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR REGULATING INCINERATORS. TO SUPPORT THEIR
ARGUMENT, THESE COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT SECTION 1004(3) OF RCRA (WHICH
DEFINES "DISPOSAL") SPOKE IN TERMS OF LAND DISPOSAL SITUATIONS INVOLVING
PRIMARILY WATER AND SOILS, AND WAS NOT RELEVANT TO INCINERATION.
THE AGENCY DISAGREES WITH THIS ARGUMENT. INCINERATION IS IN FACT A
TREATMENT PROCESS. IT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF "TREATMENT" IN SECTION
1004(34) OF RCRA:
. . . ANY METHOD, TECHNIQUE, OR PROCESS, INCLUDING NEUTRALIZATION
DESIGNED TO CHANGE THE PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, OR BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER OR
COMPOSITION OF ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE SO AS TO NEUTRALIZE SUCH WASTE OR SO
AS TO RENDER SUCH WASTE NON-HAZARDOUS, SAFER FOR TRANSPORT, AMENABLE FOR
RECOVERY, AMENABLE FOR STORAGE, OR REDUCED IN VOLUME . . .
THE OBJECTIVE OF INCINERATING HAZARDOUS WASTE IS NORMALLY TO CHANGE
THE PHYSICAL FORM OR CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE WASTE SO AS TO RENDER
IT LESS HAZARDOUS. INCINERATION MAY ALSO RENDER THE WASTE "SAFER FOR
TRANSPORT, AMENABLE FOR RECOVERY, AMENDABLE FOR STORAGE, OR REDUCED IN
VOLUME."
THEREFORE, INCINERATION IS A TREATMENT PROCESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF
RCRA, AND THE AGENCY HAS A MANDATE TO PRODUCE OPERATION, LOCATION,
DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS FOR THE INCINERATION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT. THE
INTERACTION OF RCRA AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT IS DISCUSSED ABOVE.
1. GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS. SOME COMMENTERS REQUESTED THAT A
SPECIFIC PERIOD OF TIME DURING START-UP AND SHUTDOWN BE DESIGNATED,
DURING WHICH THE PROPOSED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (FOR COMBUSTION AND
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY) WOULD NOT APPLY. THESE COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT
DURING THESE PERIODS, TEMPERATURE AND OTHER COMBUSTION CONDITIONS ARE
SUBJECT TO WIDE FLUCTUATIONS, AND THUS, OBTAINING THE REQUIRED
DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCIES DURING THESE TIMES WOULD BE DIFFICULT. THE
AGENCY AGREES THAT THESE FLUCTUATIONS CAN OCCUR DURING START-UP PERIODS,
AND BELIEVES THAT THIS UNDOUBTEDLY RESULTS IN HAZARDOUS EMISSIONS. TO
COUNTER THIS PROBLEM, THE FINAL RULES REQUIRE THAT INCINERATORS ACHIEVE
NORMAL STEADY STATE COMBUSTION CONDITIONS, USING AUXILIARY FUEL, BEFORE
WASTES ARE INTRODUCED.
2. MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS. A NUMBER OF COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED
ON THE PROPOSED MONITORING AND FACILITY INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.
COMMENTERS RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EXPENSE AND RELIABILITY OF THE
REQUIRED GASEOUS MONITORING EQUIPMENT, THE FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION, AND
THE SPECIFICATION OF MONITORING POINTS. DETAILED MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS AND THE COMMENTS ON THESE REQUIREMENTS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN
THE PHASE II AND PHASE III REGULATIONS. IN THESE PHASE I RULES, THE
AGENCY HAS SPECIFIED A MINIMUM SCHEDULE FOR MONITORING AND INSPECTING
THE OPERATION OF INCINERATORS. COMBUSTION AND EMISSION CONTROL
EQUIPMENT MUST BE MONITORED, AND OPERATING CORRECTIONS MADE WHEN
NECESSARY, AT LEAST EVERY 15 MINUTES, TO ENSURE THAT CRITICAL CONDITIONS
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO VARY IN AN UNCONTROLLED MANNER. IN ADDITION,
INSPECTION POINTS, SUCH AS VISIBLE STACK EMISSIONS AND CRITICAL PUMPS,
ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH BOTH THE MINIMUM
FREQUENCIES SPECIFIED IN THE SUBPART O STANDARDS, AND IN THE FACILITY
INSPECTION SCHEDULE (SEE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION ON "INSPECTIONS").
3. WASTE ANALYSIS. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTE ANALYSIS WERE
CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS. AS EXPLAINED EARLIER IN THE PREAMBLE DISCUSSION ENTITLED
"WASTE ANALYSIS", EACH TECHNICAL SECTION OF THE FINAL RULES CONTAINS
WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE MANAGEMENT METHOD REGULATED
IN THAT SECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINAL SUBPART O STANDARDS INCLUDE
WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS WHICH SPECIFY THE PARAMETERS AND
CONSTITUENTS FOR WHICH EACH TYPE OF WASTE MUST BE ANALYZED. THIS
ANALYSIS WILL ENABLE THE OPERATOR TO DETERMINE THE TYPE OF POLLUTANTS
WHICH MIGHT BE EMITTED FROM THE INCINERATOR AND TO ESTIMATE THE
NECESSARY COMBUSTION CONDITIONS. IN ADDITION, THE FINAL GENERAL WASTE
ANALYSIS RULES REQUIRE THAT EACH SHIPMENT BE INSPECTED AND, IF
NECESSARY, ANALYZED TO VERIFY THAT THE WASTE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AT THE
FACILITY IS THE SAME AS THAT WHICH WAS EXPECTED. THE WASTE ANALYSIS
STANDARDS SPECIFIED IN SUBPART O ARE MINIMUM PROCEDURES NECESSARY TO
ADEQUATELY OPERATE AN INCINERATOR. MOST REPUTABLE HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATION OPERATORS CURRENTLY OBTAIN CONSIDERABLY MORE DETAILED
INFORMATION ON A NEW WASTE BEFORE INCINERATING IT THAN THESE STANDARDS
REQUIRE. ALL TESTING REQUIRED IN SUBPART O IS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN DISCUSSED ABOVE.
4. ENERGY RECOVERY. SOME COMMENTERS CLAIMED THAT MANY WASTE OILS,
AND SOLVENTS ARE USABLE AS FUELS AND ARE HAZARDOUS ONLY BECAUSE OF THEIR
IGNITABILITY, AND THAT TOO GREAT AN ECONOMIC BURDEN WOULD RESULT FROM
SUBJECTING THESE RELATIVELY EASILY COMBUSTED MATERIALS TO THE DETAILED
COMBUSTION, MONITORING, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN THE PROPOSED
RULES. THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED THAT THE BURNING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FOR
ENERGY RECOVERY WILL NOT NOW BE COVERED UNDER THE HAZARDOUS WASTE
PROVISIONS OF RCRA. (HOWEVER, STORAGE OR TRANSPORTATION OF LISTED
HAZARDOUS WASTE PRIOR TO ENERGY RECOVERY IS COVERED BY THESE
REGULATIONS.) ACCORDINGLY, IF WASTE OILS AND SOLVENTS ARE BURNED AS A
FUEL IN A BOILER PRIMARILY TO PRODUCE STEAM OR USABLE ENERGY, THIS
ACTION IS NOT NOW COVERED BY THESE REGULATIONS.
FACILITIES IN WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTES ARE BURNED, AND IN WHICH ENERGY
RECOVERY IS ONLY INCIDENTAL OR MINIMAL, ARE SUBJECT TO THE SUBPART O
INCINERATOR STANDARDS. EXAMPLES OF ACTIVITIES COVERED BY THESE
REGULATIONS INCLUDE (1) COINCINERATING WASTES WITH HIGH THERMAL VALUE TO
HELP OFFSET THE LACK OF THERMAL VALUE IN OTHER WASTE, AND (2) DESTROYING
WASTES IN AN INCINERATOR TO WHICH A WASTE HEAT RECOVERY BOILER HAS BEEN
ADDED. THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER A FACILITY IS SUBJECT TO THE SUBPART
O STANDARDS DEPENDS ON THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE UNIT IN WHICH THE
WASTE IS DESTROYED. IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE STEAM, SUCH AS
IN A POWER BOILER, THE OPERATION IS NOT COVERED. IF THE PRIMARY PURPOSE
IS TO TREAT WASTES, THEN THE UNIT IS SUBJECT TO THE SUBPART O STANDARDS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 065 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113429
REGULATION
5. CLOSURE. AT CLOSURE, ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
RESIDUES (INCLUDING ASH, SCRUBBER WATERS, AND SCRUBBER SLUDGES) MUST BE
REMOVED FROM THE INCINERATOR.
COMMENTERS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED RULES DID NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS
RESIDUES FROM INCINERATORS. PURSUANT TO SECTION 261.3(E), RESIDUES
REMOVED FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE HAZARDOUS
WASTES, AND THEY MUST BE MANAGED AS HAZARDOUS WASTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS 262, 263, AND 265, UNLESS THE OWNER
OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RESIDUE IS NOT A HAZARDOUS WASTE.
THE INCINERATOR OPERATOR IS A "GENERATOR" WITH REGARD TO SUCH WASTES,
UNLESS THEY ARE EXEMPTED. A COMMENT TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN ADDED TO
THE FINAL RULES.
BECAUSE INCINERATION IS THE MOST PREVALENT METHOD CURRENTLY USED TO
THERMALLY TREAT HAZARDOUS WASTE, BOTH THE PROPOSED AND FINAL RULES
CONTAIN A SEPARATE SECTION SPECIFIC TO THIS WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE.
HOWEVER, INCINERATION IS ONLY ONE TYPE OF MANAGEMENT PROCESS THAT CAN BE
USED TO THERMALLY TREAT HAZARDOUS WASTE. THERE ARE SEVERAL LESS
CONVENTIONAL METHODS THAT ARE BEING DEVELOPED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO
CLASSIC INCINERATION. FOR EXAMPLE, AN EPA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM IS EXPLORING THE PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF A MICROWAVE
DISCHARGE SYSTEM FOR DESTRUCTION OF TOXIC COMPOUNDS IN GASEOUS, LIQUID,
AND SOLID FORMS. CURRENTLY, THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN FOUND SUCCESSFUL, WITH
SOME INHERENT LIMITATIONS, FOR TREATING CERTAIN TOXIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS.
SEVERAL COMMENTERS WERE CONCERNED THAT, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED RULES
CONTAINED NO REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO METHODS OTHER THAN INCINERATION
TO THERMALLY DEGRADE HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE PROPOSED RULES MIGHT
DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF ALTERNATIVE THERMAL
TREATMENT PROCESSES.
THE AGENCY INTENDS TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THESE
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES. THEREFORE, THE FINAL RULES CONTAIN A SEPARATE
SUBPART SPECIFIC TO THERMAL TREATMENT PROCESSES OTHER THAN INCINERATION.
IN ADDITION, A DEFINITION OF "THERMAL TREATMENT" HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE
FINAL RULES TO MORE EXPLICITLY DEFINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
INCINERATORS AND OTHER THERMAL TREATMENT DEVICES. THERMAL TREATMENT IS
DEFINED AS:
"THE TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN A DEVICE WHICH USES ELEVATED
TEMPERATURES AS THE PRIMARY MEANS TO CHANGE THE CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, OR
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTER OR COMPOSITION OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE. EXAMPLES OF
THERMAL TREATMENT PROCESSES ARE INCINERATORS, MOLTEN SALT PYROLYSIS
CALCINATION, WET AIR OXIDATION, AND MICROWAVE DISCHARGE."
INCINERATORS ARE A SUBSET OF THE THERMAL TREATMENT CLASS; THUS, MOST
OF THE PHASE I SUBPART P STANDARDS FOR THERMAL TREATMENT FACILITIES ARE
SIMILAR TO THE PHASE I SUBPART O INCINERATOR STANDARDS. THIS SECTION OF
THE PREAMBLE ONLY DISCUSSES THOSE ASPECTS WHICH DIFFER.
THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS REQUIRE THAT THERMAL TREATMENT PROCESSES
ACHIEVE STEADY STATE (NORMAL) CONDITIONS OF OPERATION BEFORE INTRODUCING
HAZARDOUS WASTE. THE RATIONALE FOR THIS REQUIREMENT IS THE SAME AS FOR
INCINERATORS. THE STEADY STATE REQUIREMENT FOR THERMAL TREATMENT HAS
BEEN MODIFIED BECAUSE SOME ACCEPTABLE THERMAL TREATMENT PROCESSES MAY
NOT OPERATE IN A STEADY STATE MANNER (E.G., BATCH-WISE OR NON-CONTINUOUS
PROCESSES IN WHICH WASTE IS INTRODUCED TO THE TREATMENT CHAMBER PRIOR TO
THE APPLICATION OF HEAT).
ALTHOUGH NOT PROPOSED AS AN INTERIM STATUS STANDARD, A BAN ON OPEN
BURNING OF HAZARDOUS WASTES WAS CONTAINED IN THE GENERAL FACILITY
STANDARDS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS. THIS REQUIREMENT HAS
BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR THERMAL
TREATMENT BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PRACTICE DICTATE THAT OPEN BURNING BE ENDED NOW. COMMENTS RECEIVED ON
THE PROPOSED STANDARD CENTERED AROUND THE MILITARY'S NEED TO DISPOSE OF
EXPLOSIVES IN THE OPEN. THE AGENCY AGREES THAT OPEN BURNING AND OPEN
DETONATION ARE CURRENTLY THE ONLY ALTERNATIVES FOR DISPOSAL OF MOST
MUNITIONS, AND THUS A MODIFIED AND MORE DETAILED VERSION OF THE PROPOSED
VARIANCE FOR WASTE EXPLOSIVES HAS BEEN RETAINED IN THE FINAL RULES.
WASTE EXPLOSIVES AND BULK PROPELLANTS ARE INHERENTLY DANGEROUS TO CUT
OR DISASSEMBLE TO MAKE THEM AMENABLE TO PRESENT THERMAL TREATMENT
TECHNOLOGIES. THIS HAZARD IS DEMONSTRATED BY THE NUMBER OF DAMAGE
INCIDENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED DURING CUTTING AND HANDLING PROCESSES AT
EXPLOSIVES MANUFACTURING FACILITIES. OPEN BURNING AND OPEN DETONATION
OF KNOWN TYPES AND AMOUNTS OF BULK PROPELLANTS AND EXPLOSIVES CAN BE
CONDUCTED SAFELY WITHOUT HARM TO HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE AGENCY HAS DECIDED TO ALLOW OPEN BURNING AND OPEN DETONATION OF
WASTE EXPLOSIVES DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD, PROVIDED THAT IT IS
CONDUCTED AT MINIMUM DISTANCES FROM THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS. THESE
MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCES WERE DEVELOPED AND PUBLISHED BY THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. THE INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR OPEN BURNING
ALLOW SMALL AMOUNTS OF EXPLOSIVES (UP TO 100 POUNDS) TO BE OPEN BURNED
OR OPEN DETONATED AT A MINIMUM OF 204 METERS (670 FEET) FROM LOCATIONS
WHERE THERE MAY BE PERSONS IN THE OPEN (E.G., THE PROPERTY OF OTHERS),
AND SUCCEEDINGLY GREATER DISTANCES FOR GREATER AMOUNTS OF EXPLOSIVES.
THESE LIMITS WERE DEVELOPED BY DOD AS MINIMUM SAFE DISTANCES FOR THE
PROTECTION OF PERSONS IN THE OPEN FROM FRAGMENTATION, FLYING DEBRIS, OR
THE EFFECTS OF OVERPRESSURE. SINCE DOD DOES NOT PROVIDE SAFE DISTANCES
FOR PROTECTION FROM FRAGMENTATION FOR AMOUNTS OF EXPLOSIVE WASTE LARGER
THAN 30,000 POUNDS, THE AGENCY HAS LIMITED THE AMOUNT OF EXPLOSIVE WASTE
THAT CAN BE OPEN BURNED AT ANY ONE TIME TO 30,000 POUNDS.
TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE AND DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR THERMAL TREATMENT
PROCESSES ARE BEING DEVELOPED. THESE TECHNICAL CRITERIA WILL BE
ADDRESSED DURING PHASES II AND III OF THE RCRA REGULATORY PROGRAM.
THESE STANDARDS WILL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A DESIGN AND OPERATION GUIDANCE
MANUAL, WHICH WILL ASSIST PERMITTING OFFICIALS, THE REGULATED COMMUNITY,
AND THE PUBLIC IN EVALUATING THE ADEQUACY OF SPECIFIC TYPES OF THERMAL
TREATMENT PROCESSES.
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS COVERED THE TREATMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
PRIMARILY BY SETTING STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT IN BASINS (NOW TANKS),
SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS, LAND TREATMENT FACILITIES, AND INCINERATORS.
WHILE THESE ARE THE PRIMARY KINDS OF EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES USED TO
TREAT HAZARDOUS WASTE, CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE CAN ALSO BE CONDUCTED IN OTHER TYPES OF EQUIPMENT BY
PROCESSES SUCH AS DISTILLATION, CENTRIFUGATION, REVERSE OSMOSIS, ION
EXCHANGE, AND FILTRATION. THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS CONTAINED A SECTION
DESIGNED TO REGULATE SUCH CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT.
BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF POSSIBLE PROCESSES, AND
BECAUSE THE PROCESSES ARE FREQUENTLY WASTE-SPECIFIC, EPA HAS NOT
ATTEMPTED TO DEVELOP DETAILED REGULATIONS FOR ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OF
PROCESS OR EQUIPMENT.
THE AGENCY'S PRIMARY CONCERNS IN DEVELOPING THESE REGULATIONS HAS
BEEN, AS IT HAS BEEN FOR OTHER TYPES OF FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT, THE
SAFE CONTAINMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS, AND
TREATMENT BYPRODUCTS THROUGH WASTE ANALYSIS, INSPECTIONS, S-ECIAL
ATTENTION TO THE HANDLING OF IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES, AND PROPER CLOSURE. IN THESE RESPECTS, MOST CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL,
AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT OPERATIONS PRESENT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME
PROBLEMS AND REQUIRE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME SOLUTIONS AS THE TREATMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES IN TANKS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 066 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113430
REGULATION
THE EQUIPMENT IS TYPICALLY STATIONARY AND FAIRLY LARGE, AND THE
MATERIALS USED AND THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN THAT PART OF THE
EQUIPMENT WHICH CONTAINS THE WASTE ARE NOT DISSIMILAR FROM THE MATERIALS
USED AND THE PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED IN CONSTRUCTING TANKS.
IN ADDITION, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN SUBPART J, THE AGENCY HAS
REORIENTED ITS TANK REGULATIONS TO COVER TREATMENT IN TANKS AS WELL
AS STORAGE, AND MANY OF THE CURRENT TANK REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN
DRAWN FROM THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT. FOR THESE REASONS, THE PRESENT REGULATIONS
FOR CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT AND FOR TANKS HAVE
BOTH BEEN DERIVED FROM A MERGING OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR
THESE TYPES OF EQUIPMENT, FOR BASINS (WHICH ARE NOW TREATED AS
TANKS), AND FOR STORAGE AND TREATMENT GENERALLY. THE TANK
REGULATIONS AND THE CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
REGULATIONS ARE NOW ESSENTIALLY IDENTICAL, AND THE RATIONALE FOR
FOR THE REGULATIONS ON CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
IS THEREFORE PRESENTED ABOVE WITH THE RATIONALE FOR THE
REGULATIONS ON TANKS.
THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO DEVELOP SOMEWHAT MORE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR
CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FACILITIES IN THE PHASE II
AND PHASE III REGULATIONS, AND FOR THIS REASON THESE REGULATIONS HAVE
BEEN INCORPORATED IN A SEPARATE SUBPART.
THE REGULATIONS FOR CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
(SUBPART Q) DIFFER FROM THOSE FOR TANKS (IN SUBPART J) IN ONE RESPECT,
SUBPART Q CONTAINS NO REQUIREMENT FOR MAINTAINING A FREEBOARD OR
INSPECTING TO ENSURE THAT THE FREEBOARD IS MAINTAINED BECAUSE, TO THE
AGENCY'S KNOWLEDGE, THE TREATMENT PROCESSES REGULATED UNDER SUBPART Q
ARE CONDUCTED IN COVERED CONTAINMENT DEVICES, AND A FREEBOARD IS
UNNECESSARY.
EPA RECEIVED A NUMBER OF COMMENTS ON ITS PROPOSED SECTION 3004
REGULATIONS REQUESTING THE AGENCY TO CLARIFY WHETHER PIPES AND OTHER
TYPES OF TOTALLY ENCLOSED FACILITIES IN WHICH HAZARDOUS WASTE MAY BE
TREATED WOULD BE CONSIDERED HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES AND
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET SECTION 3004 STANDARDS AND OBTAIN A PERMIT.
COMMENTERS POINTED OUT THAT IN SOME PRODUCTION PROCESSES, WASTES
(PARTICULARLY ACID AND ALKALINE SOLUTIONS) ARE TREATED IN-PIPE, OFTEN
RESULTING IN A NON-HAZARDOUS DISCHARGE.
EPA AGREES THAT TO CLASSIFY "TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT SYSTEMS,"
SUCH AS PIPES, AS HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT FACILITIES AND TO REQUIRE
THEM TO MEET SECTION 3004 STANDARDS AND OBTAIN A PERMIT WOULD NOT MAKE A
GREAT DEAL OF SENSE. THESE FACILITIES BY DEFINITION DO NOT RELEASE
WASTES OR WASTE CONSTITUENTS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THEREFORE
STRINGENT CONTROLS ARE NOT "NECESSARY TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT." SUCH CONTROLS MIGHT ALSO DISCOURAGE THE USE OF SUCH
FACILITIES, WHICH IN MANY WAYS REPRESENT THE OPTIMUM IN GOOD WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. IT MAY ALSO BE VERY DIFFICULT AS A PRACTICAL
MATTER TO PERMIT OR OTHERWISE REGULATE THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES -- MANY
ARE INDOORS, ARE PART OF COMPLICATED PLUMBING SYSTEMS WHICH DO NOT FALL
WITHIN RCRA'S JURISDICTION, AND DO NOT HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED STARTING AND
END POINTS. ACCORDINGLY, EPA HAS EXCLUDED THESE FACILITIES FROM
REGULATION UNDER THIS PART.
PERSONS WHO HANDLE HAZARDOUS WASTE IN WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE A
"TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY" SHOULD CAREFULLY READ THE
DEFINITION OF THAT TERM IN SECTION 260.10 OF THIS CHAPTER. THE KEY
CHARACTERISTIC OF SUCH A FACILITY IS THAT IT DOES NOT RELEASE ANY
HAZARDOUS WASTE OR CONSTITUENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE INTO THE ENVIRONMENT
DURING TREATMENT. THUS, IF A FACILITY LEAKS, SPILLS, OR DISCHARGES
WASTE OR WASTE CONSTITUENTS, OR EMITS WASTES OR WASTE CONSTITUENTS INTO
THE AIR DURING TREATMENT, IT IS NOT A "TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT
FACILITY" WITHIN THE MEANING OF THESE REGULATIONS.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT CHARACTERISTIC OF A TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT
FACILITY IS THAT IT MUST BE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO AN INDUSTRIAL
PRODUCTION PROCESS. THUS, SUCH A FACILITY LOCATED AT AN OFF-SITE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR EXCLUSION FROM
THESE REGULATIONS.
AFTER TREATMENT IN A TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY, THE
RESULTING DISCHARGE, TREATMENT RESIDUE, ETC., MAY BE A HAZARDOUS WASTE
AND SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THIS PART. OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF SUCH
FACILITIES SHOULD CONSULT SECTION 261.3 OF THIS CHAPTER TO DETERMINE
WHETHER THAT IS THE CASE.
UNDER SECTION 250.40(E)(6) OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION, THE DISPOSAL
OF HAZARDOUS WASTES VIA UNDERGROUND INJECTION, PURSUANT TO THE SAFE
DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) REGULATIONS, WAS NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION
UNDER THE RCRA SUBTITLE C PROGRAM. THAT EXCLUSION WAS BASED ON SECTION
1006 OF RCRA WHICH REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INTEGRATE RCRA
REGULATIONS WITH PROGRAMS UNDER THE AGENCY'S OTHER STATUTORY
AUTHORITIES, INCLUDING THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT. COMMENTERS WERE
GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF EPA'S EFFORTS TO COORDINATE ITS PROGRAMS, BUT
SOME EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT EXCLUSIVE RELIANCE ON THE UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM UNDER THE SDWA IN ADDRESSING THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES WOULD
NOT FULLY SATISFY THE KEY HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS EMBODIED IN
RCRA.
BASED ON A REVIEW OF THE COMMENTS AND FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THIS ISSUE,
EPA HAS CONCLUDED THAT UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES MUST BE
REGULATED UNDER RCRA DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD. THUS THE AGENCY
HAS DEVELOPED SUBPART R IN PART 265 WHICH SPECIFIES THE PARTICULAR
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY UNDERGROUND
INJECTION. IN ADDITION, OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
INJECTION WELLS WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (OTHER THAN
SUBPARTS G AND H) APPLICABLE TO ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE,
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES. THE AGENCY RECOGNIZES THAT SOME OF THESE
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT APPLY DIRECTLY TO ALL UNDERGROUND INJECTION
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, IN THE SAME SENSE THAT SOME MAY NOT APPLY DIRECTLY
TO ALL OTHER TYPES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES. THE REQUIREMENTS,
HOWEVER, ARE WRITTEN WITH SUFFICIENT FLEXIBILITY AND VARIANCES TO
ACCOMODATE THE DIFFERENCES AMONG FACILITIES, INCLUDING THE SOMEWHAT
DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUTES "DISPOSAL" AS
THAT TERM IS DEFINED IN SECTION 1004(3) OF RCRA. THE DEFINITION
SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES "INJECTION . . . OF ANY SOLID WASTE OR HAZARDOUS
WASTE INTO OR ON ANY LAND OR WATER." MOREOVER THERE IS NO SPECIFIC
LANGUAGE IN THE ACT INDICATING THAT INJECTION ACTIVITIES THAT MAY BE
SUBJECT TO THE SDWA ARE NECESSARILY BEYOND RCRA JURISDICTION. RCRA WAS
ENACTED AFTER THE SDWA. THE CONGRESS, THEREFORE, HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
IMPOSE ANY SPECIFIC LIMITS ON RCRA JURISDICTION THAT IT DEEMED
APPROPRIATE. IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THE CONGRESS DID PLACE LIMITS ON
RCRA JURISDICTION TO COORDINATE RCRA PROGRAMS WITH THE CLEAN WATER ACT.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEFINITION OF "SOLID WASTE" UNDER RCRA EXCLUDES "SOLID
OR DISSOLVED MATERIALS IN . . . INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES WHICH ARE POINT
SOURCES SUBJECT TO PERMITS UNDER SECTION 402 OF THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT".
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 067 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113431
REGULATION
NO SUCH STATUTORY EXCLUSION EXIST FOR UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES.
SECTION 1006 DOES REQUIRE THE ADMINISTRATOR TO INTEGRATE THE
PROVISIONS OF RCRA WITH APPROPRIATE PROVISIONS OF VARIOUS STATUTES
(INCLUDING THE SDWA) WHICH EPA ADMINISTERS. SUCH INTEGRATION IS ONLY
REQUIRED, HOWEVER, "TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE DONE IN A MANNER
CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS AND POLICIES EXPRESSED" IN RCRA AND THE OTHER
STATUTES.
WHEN EPA'S STATUTORY AUTHORITIES PROVIDE OVERLAPPING JURISDICTION
OVER CERTAIN ACTIVITIES IT IS WITHIN THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATOR
TO DECIDE WHICH PROGRAM WILL BE USED TO REGULATE THE ACTIVITY. IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF EACH LAW, THE ADMINISTRATOR WILL
INCORPORATE THE KEY ELEMENTS OF EACH STATUTE INTO ITS REGULATORY
PROGRAM. SECTION 1006 OF RCRA PROVIDES STATUTORY RECOGNITION THAT SUCH
COORDINATED REGULATORY PROGRAMS ARE APPROPRIATE.
IN EVALUATING THE PROPOSED REGULATION, EPA DECIDED THAT COMPLETE
RELIANCE ON THE UIC PROGRAM TO HANDLE UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD COULD NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESS
THREE KEY RCRA CONCERNS. FIRST, RCRA IS AIMED AT PROTECTION OF A BROAD
RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA, INCLUDING GROUNDWATER, SURFACE WATER, AIR,
AND LAND. THE UIC PROGRAM IS DIRECTED AT THE PROTECTION OF UNDERGROUND
SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER. SECOND, SECTION 3004 OF RCRA REQUIRES THE
ADMINISTRATOR TO ESTABLISH STANDARDS "TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT." THIS LANGUAGE INDICATES THAT RCRA REGULATIONS WERE TO
ADDRESS A BROADER RANGE OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS THAN THE UIC PROGRAM.
THIRD, THE UIC PROGRAM DOES NOT HAVE THE EQUIVALENT OF AN INTERIM STATUS
PERIOD WHEN OWNERS OR OPERATORS WHO DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY
UNDERGROUND INJECTION ARE SUBJECT TO FEDERALLY ENFORCEABLE STANDARDS.
ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS UNDER THE UIC PROGRAM MUST AWAIT:
THE IDENTIFICATION OF STATES NEEDING A PROGRAM; THE DEVELOPMENT OF
STATE PROGRAMS FOR PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY; THE APPROVAL OR
DISAPPROVAL OF THOSE PROGRAMS BY EPA; AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UIC
PROGRAMS FOR PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT RESPONSIBILITY. EPA DOES NOT BELIEVE
THAT UIC PRIMARY ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS WILL BE IN PLACE IN ALL STATES ON
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS. THEREFORE, IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE CONTROL OVER UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
DURING THE INTERIM STATUS PERIOD, AS CONTEMPLATED BY RCRA, IT IS
NECESSARY TO REGULATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION UNDER THESE REGULATIONS.
SECTION 1006 DIRECTS THE ADMINISTRATOR, IN THE COORDINATION OF EPA'S
OTHER STATUTES WITH RCRA, TO AVOID DUPLICATION AND TO STRUCTURE RCRA
REGULATIONS SO THAT THEY WILL NOT BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS
OF OTHER STATUTES (SUCH AS THE SDWA). EPA IS MINDFUL OF THAT
REQUIREMENT AND INTENDS TO COORDINATE THE LATER STAGES OF THE RCRA AND
UIC PROGRAMS SO THAT THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME IN THE
SDWA WILL BE PRESERVED. EPA DOES NOT BELIEVE, HOWEVER, THAT THE
REGULATION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION OF HAZARDOUS WASTES IN THESE INTERIM
STATUS REGULATIONS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SDWA. AS MENTIONED EARLIER
THE UIC PROGRAM DOES NOT HAVE THE EQUIVALENT OF AN INTERAM STATUS
PERIOD. THUS THERE CAN BE NO CONFLICT WITH SDWA PROVISIONS.
THE REGULATION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION DURING INTERIM STATUS WAS NOT
A PART OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION, BUT THE DECISION TO DO SO WAS
PARTIALLY BASED ON FACTORS RAISED IN PUBLIC COMMENTS. MOREOVER, THE
AGENCY DOES NOT EXPECT THAT THE APPLICATION OF SOME OF THE GENERAL
REQUIREMENTS, OTHERWISE REQUIRED AT ALL FACILITIES, TO UNDERGROUND
INJECTION RAISES SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES THAN THOSE RAISED AND
ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS.
THEREFORE, THE INCLUSION OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION IN THESE REGULATIONS
AND THE APPLICATION OF CERTAIN GENERAL REQUIREMENTS TO INJECTION WELLS
ARE BEING ISSUED AS "INTERIM FINAL." THIS APPROACH PROVIDES FOR PROMPT
IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS CONCERNING THESE PRACTICES, IN KEEPING
WITH RCRA GOALS AND POLICIES, WHILE ALLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUBLIC
COMMENT TO REVEAL ANY UNIQUE PROBLEMS THAT MAY ARISE IN APPLYING THE
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS TO UNDERGROUND
INJECTION.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION WILL NOT, HOWEVER, BE SUBJECT TO SUBPART G AND
H OF THE INTERIM STATUS REGULATIONS WHICH ADDRESS CLOSURE AND
POST-CLOSURE CARE AS WELL AS THE FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS NECESSARY TO
ENSURE IMPLEMENTATION OF CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS.
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE NEED TO BE COORDINATED
WITH THE MORE SPECIFIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO UNDERGROUND
INJECTION. EPA HAS DECIDED, THEREFORE, TO ADDRESS CLOSURE AND
POST-CLOSURE AS PART OF THE PROPOSED REGULATION DESCRIBED BELOW.
SUBPART R OF THESE REGULATIONS INDICATES THOSE PARTS OF THE
REGULATION WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION. IN
ADDITION IT SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED THAT THE GROUND-WATER MONITORING
REQUIREMENTS OF SUBPART F HAVE NOT BEEN APPLIED TO UNDERGROUND INJECTION
AT THIS TIME. SUBPART R ALSO INDICATES THAT IT APPLIES TO CLASS I AND
CLASS IV WELLS AS THOSE TERM ARE DEFINED UNDER SECTION 122.32 OF THE
CONSOLIDATED PERMITTING REGULATIONS.
THIS PROVISION IS DESIGNED TO SHOW THAT THESE REGULATIONS COVER, AT A
MINIMUM, THOSE UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITIES THAT WILL BE SUBJECT TO
CONTROL UNDER THE UIC PROGRAM.
THE AGENCY IS PROPOSING REGULATIONS THAT PROVIDE MORE SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS TO DEAL WITH THE PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
PRESENTED BY UNDERGROUND INJECTION. THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS WILL
AMEND SUBPART R AND WILL ADDRESS ISSUES RELATING TO DIRECT INJECTION OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE, GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS, WASTE ANALYSIS,
MONITORING, CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING,
AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
THE SECTIONS OF THE REGULATIONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 3004 OF RCRA
PERTAINING TO RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET FOR REVIEW IN LIGHT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FEDERAL REPORTS ACT, 44 U.S.C. 3501 ET SEQ. TIME HAS NOT
PERMITTED COMPLETION OF THIS REVIEW.
THE AGENCY HAS DEVELOPED OR WILL PREPARE TWO SETS OF DOCUMENTS IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE SECTION 3004 RULES. THIS SECTION OF THE PREAMBLE
DESCRIBES THESE DOCUMENTS.
EIGHTEEN BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED TO EXPLAIN AND
RESPOND TO COMMENTS ON THE PHASE I RULES. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WILL
ACCOMPANY THE PHASE II AND PHASE III REGULATIONS AS THEY ARE PUBLISHED.
THESE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS BASICALLY CORRESPOND TO EACH SECTION OR
SUBPART OF THE FINAL RULES. EACH CONTAINS AN EXPLANATION OF THE DATA
AND REASONING WHICH LED THE AGENCY TO PROPOSE EACH REGULATION, AN
IN-DEPTH REVIEW OF THE COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE REGULATION, AN ANALYSIS
OF THE COMMENTS, AND THE AGENCY'S RATIONALE FOR ACCEPTING OR REJECTING
THESE COMMENTS.
COPIES OF THESE DOCUMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE EPA
REGIONAL OFFICE LIBRARIES AND AT THE EPA HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY, ROOM
2404, WATERSIDE MALL, 401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C., 20460. EPA
WILL PUBLISH A NOTICE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER WHEN THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE
ALL BEEN REPORDUCED AND DISTRIBUTED TO THESE LIBRARIES.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 068 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113432
REGULATION
THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE FROM SOLID WASTE INFORMATION, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 26 WEST ST. CLAIR STREET, CINCINNATI,
OHIO 45268, WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THESE REGULATIONS ARE PROMULGATED.
A LIST OF THESE BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS IS AS FOLLOWS:
1. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY (INCLUDING GENERAL ISSUES
CONCERNING INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS)
2. GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
3. SECURITY
4. GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS
5. PERSONNEL TRAINING
6. PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION, CONTINGENCY PLANS, AND EMERGENCY
PROCEDURES
7. MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING, AND REPORTING
8. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR GROUND-WATER MONITORING
9. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE CARE
10. INTERIM STATUS FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
11. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR CONTAINERS AND PILES
12. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR TANKS
13. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
14. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR LAND TREATMENT
15. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR LANDFILLS
16. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR INCINERATORS
17. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR THERMAL TREATMENT
18. INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT.
THESE REGULATIONS, AND THOSE YET TO BE PROMULGATED IN PHASES II AND
III, WILL CONSTITUTE THE FULL SET OF REQUIREMENTS FOR MANAGING HAZARDOUS
WASTE. HOWEVER, THEIR RELIANCE ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND THE
INCORPORATION OF VARIANCE PROCEDURES PROVIDE CONSIDERABLE FLEXIBILITY TO
ACCOMMODATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES, SPECIAL NEEDS OF SPECIFIC LOCATIONS, AND
VARIATIONS IN WASTE CHARACTERISTICS.
TO ASSIST BOTH OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF FACILITIES AND REGULATORY
OFFICIALS, EPA WILL PREPARE A SERIES OF DESIGN AND OPERATION MANUALS.
THESE WILL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF REGULATIONS, BUT WILL PROVIDE GUIDANCE
ON HOW FACILITIES MAY BE DESIGNED AND OPERATED TO MEET THE STANDARDS.
THE MANUALS WILL ALSO PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON WHAT MODIFICATIONS AND
VARIATIONS ARE LIKELY TO BE EFFECTIVE UNDER THE VARIANCE PROCEDURES.
THEY WILL BE ORGANIZED TO CORRESPOND CLOSELY TO THE REGULATIONS AND WILL
BE BASED ON THE COLLECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AGENCY, THE LITERATURE, AND
EXPERTS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. MANUALS WILL ALSO BE PREPARED FOR
TESTING, TRAINING, AND MONITORING.
EPA EXPECTS TO PREPARE THE FOLLOWING MANUALS:
1. TRAINING
2. GROUND-WATER MONITORING
3. AIR MONITORING
4. FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
5. CONTAINERS
6. TANKS
7. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
8. WASTE PILES
9. LAND TREATMENT
10. LANDFILLING
11. INCINERATION
12. THERMAL TREATMENT
13. CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
THE AGENCY EXPECTS TO ISSUE THESE MANUALS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE
(I.E., SIX MONTHS AFTER PROMULGATION) OF THE PHASE II TECHNICAL
REGULATIONS. THEY WILL BE REVISED FROM TIME TO TIME AS MORE INFORMATION
BECOMES AVAILABLE, AND AS THE FINAL PHASE III REGULATIONS ARE DEVELOPED.
THE DOCUMENTS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE EPA REGIONAL OFFICE
LIBRARIES AND THE EPA HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY, ROOM 2404, WATERSIDE MALL,
401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460. LATER THE AGENCY WILL
PUBLISH THE DOCUMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTION THROUGH SOLID WASTE INFORMATION,
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 26 WEST ST. CLAIR STREET,
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268.
DATED: MAY 2, 1980.
DOUGLAS COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR.
TITLE 40 IS AMENDED BY ADDING NEW PARTS 264 AND 265 AS SET FORTH
BELOW.
THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE BEING PROMULGATED ON AN INTERIM FINAL
BASIS (SEE PREAMBLE SECTION IIB3 FOR DISCUSSION):
SEC.
264.12 REQUIRED NOTICES.
265.12 REQUIRED NOTICES.
265.17 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES.
265.90 APPLICABILITY.
265.91 GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM.
265.92 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS.
265.93 PREPARATION, EVALUATION AND RESPONSE.
265.94 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING.
SEC.
265.111 CLOSURE PERFORMANCE STANDARD.
265.112 CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN.
265.113 TIME ALLOWED FOR CLOSURE.
265.117 POST-CLOSURE CARE AND USE OF PROPERTY; PERIOD OF CARE.
265.118 POST CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN.
265.176 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.198 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.228 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE.
265.251 PROTECTION FROM WIND.
265.252 WASTE ANALYSIS.
265.253 CONTAINMENT.
265.256 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.257 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.310 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE.
265.314 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LIQUID WASTE.
265.315 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS.
265.405 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.430 APPLICABILITY.
EPA WILL ALSO ACCEPT COMMENTS ON THE PROPRIETY OF INCLUDING THE
FOLLOWING SECTIONS AS INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS (SEE PREAMBLE SECTION
IIB3 FOR DISCUSSION):
SEC.
265.13 GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 069 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113433
REGULATION
SEC.
265.192 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.193 WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS.
265.22 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.223 CONTAINMENT SYSTEM.
265.225 WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS.
265.229 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.230 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.28 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.282 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.302 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.312 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.401 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.402 WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS.
COMMENTS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO: RCRA DOCKET CLERK, ROOM 2711
WATERSIDE MALL, 401 M STREET, S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460.
SEC.
264.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY.
264.2 (RESERVED)
264.3 RELATIONSHIP TO INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS.
264.4 IMMINENT HAZARD ACTION.
264.5-264.9 (RESERVED)
264.10 APPLICABILITY.
264.11 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.
264.12 REQUIRED NOTICES.
264.13 GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS.
264.14 SECURITY.
264.15 GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.
264.16 PERSONNEL TRAINING.
264.17-264.29 (RESERVED)
264.30 APPLICABILITY.
264.31 DESIGN AND OPERATION OF FACILITY.
264.32 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.
264.33 TESTING AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT.
264.34 ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEM.
264.35 REQUIRED AISLE SPACE.
264.36 SPECIAL HANDLING FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
264.37 ARRANGEMENT WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
264.38-264.49 (RESERVED).
264.50 APPLICABILITY.
SEC.
264.51 PURPOSE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
264.52 CONTENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
264.53 COPIES OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
264.54 AMENDMENT OF CONTINGENCY PLANT.
264.55 EMERGENCY COORDINATOR.
264.56 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
264.57-264.69 (RESERVED)
264.70 APPLICABILITY.
264.71 USE OF MANIFEST SYSTEM.
264.72 MANIFEST DISCREPANCIES
264.73 OPERATING RECORD.
264.74 AVAILABILITY, RETENTION AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.
264.75 ANNUAL REPORT.
264.76 UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT.
264.77 ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
264.78-264.999 (RESERVED)
APPENDIX I-RECORDKEEPING INSTRUCTIONS.
APPENDIX II-EPA REPORT FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS.
AUTHORITY: SECS. 1006,2002(A), AND 3004 OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976,
AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(A), AND 6924).
(A) THE PURPOSE OF THIS PART IS TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM NATIONAL
STANDARDS WHICH DEFINE THE ACCEPTABLE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE.
(B) THE STANDARDS IN THIS PART APPY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL
FACILITIES WHICH TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE, EXCEPT AS
SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE IN THIS PART OR PART 261 OF THIS
CHAPTER.
(C) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART APPLY TO A PERSON DISPOSING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL SUBJECT TO A PERMIT ISSUED
UNDER THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND SANCTUARIES ACT ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN A RCRA PERMIT BY RULE GRANTED TO SUCH A
PERSON UNDERPART 122 OF THIS CHAPTER. (COMMENT: THESE PART 264
REGULATIONS DO APPLY TO THE TREATMENT OR STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
BEFORE IT IS LOADED ONTO AN OCEAN VESSEL FOR INCINERATION OR DISPOSAL AT
SEA.)
(D) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART APPLY TO A PERSON DISPOSING OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION SUBJECT TO A PERMIT
ISSUED UNDERAN UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL (UIC), PROGRAM APPROVED OR
PROMULGATED UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY
ARE REQUIRED BY SECTION 122.45 OF THIS CHAPTER. (COMMENTS: THESE PART
264 REGULATIONS DO APPLY TO THE ABOVE-GROUND TREATMENT OR STORAGE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE BEFORE IT IS INJECTED UNDERGROUND.)
(E) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART APPLY TO THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A
POTW WHICH TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSED OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ONLY TO THE
EXTENT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN A RCRA PERMIT BY RULE GRANTED TO SUCH A
PERSON UNDER PART 122 OF THIS CHAPTER.
(F) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART DO NOT APPLY TO A PERSON WHO
TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSED OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN A STATE WITH A RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED UNDER SUBPARTS 1 AND B OF PART 123 OF
THIS CHAPTER OR WITH A RCRA PHAS II HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED
UNDER SUBPART FO OF PART 123 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH
(D) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE AUTHORIZED STATE RCRA PROGRAM DOES NOT COVER
DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION.
(G) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART DO NOT APPLY TO:
(1) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY PERMITTED, LICENSED, OR
REGISTERED BY A STATE TO MANAGE MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE, IF
THE ONLY HAZARDOUS WASTE THE FACILITY TREATES, STORES, OR DISPOSED OF IS
EXECUDED FOR REGULATION UNDER THIS PART BY SECTION 261.5 OF THIS
CHAPTER;
(2) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY WHICH TREATS OR STORES
HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHICH TREATMENT OR STORAGE MEETS THE CRITERIA IN
SECTION 261.6(A) OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SECTION
261.6(B) OF THIS CHAPTER PROVIDES OTHERWISE;
(3) A GENERATOR ACCUMULATING WASTE ON-SITE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
262.34 OF THIS CHAPTER,
(4) A FARMER DISPOSING OF WASTE PESTICIDES FROM HIS OWN USE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 262.51 OF THIS CHAPTER; OR
(5) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY,
AS DEFINED IN SECTION 260.10.
A FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR WHO HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIM STATUS-AS DEFINED IN SECTION 3005(E) OF RCRA
AND REGULATIONS UNDER SECTION 122.23 OF THIS CHAPTER MUST COMPLY WITH
THE REGULATIONS SPECIFIED IN PART 265 OF THIS CHAPTER IN LIEU OF THE
REGULATIONS IN THIS PART, UNTIL FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION OF HIS
PERMIT APPLICATION IS MDE. (COMMENT: AS STATED IN SECTION 300T(A) OF
RCRA, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF REGULATIONS UNDER THE SECTION, I.E.,
PARTS 122 AND 124 OF THIS CHAPTER, THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PERMIT.
SECTION 3005(E) OF RCRA PROVIDES FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF AN
EXISTING FACILITY WHICH MEETS CERTAIN CONDITIONS UNTIL FINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION OF THE OWNER'S OR OPERATOR'S PERMIT
APPLICATION IS MADE.)
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 070 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113434
REGULATION
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS,
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS MAY BE BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7003 OF RCRA.
THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBPART APPLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, EXCEPT AS SECTION 264.1 PROVIDES OTHERWISE.
EVERY FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST APPLY TO EPA FOR AN EPA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EPA NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
(45FR12746).
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY THAT HAS ARRANGED TO RECEIVE
HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE MUST NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
ADMINSTRATOR IN WRITING AT LEAST FOUR WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE THE
WASTE IS EXPECTED TO ARRIVE AT THE FACILITY. NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT
SHIPMENTS OF THE SAME WASTE FROM THE SAME FOREIGN SOURCE IS NOT
REQUIRED.
(B) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY THAT RECEIVES HAZARDOUS WASTE
FROM AN OFF-SITE SOURCE (EXCEPT WHERE THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS ALSO THE
GENERATOR) MUST INFORM THE GENERATOR IN WRITING THAT HE HAS THE
APPROPRIATE PERMIT(S) FOR, AND WILL ACCEPT, THE WASTE THE GENERATOR IS
SHIPPING. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST KEEP A COPY OF THIS WRITTEN NOTICE
AS PARTOF THE OPERATING RECORD.
(C) BEFORE TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION OF A FACILITY DURING
ITS OPERATING LIFE, OR OF A DISPOSAL FACILITY DURING THE POST-CLOSURE
CARE PERIOD, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST NOTIFY THE NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR
IN WRITING OF THE REQUIREMENTSOF THIS PART AND PART 122 OF THIS CHAPTER.
(COMMENT: AN OWNER'S OR OPERATOR'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE NEW OWNER OR
OPERATOR OF THE REQUIREMENTSOF THIS PART IN NO WAY RELIEVES THE NEW
OWNER OR OPERATOR OF HIS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABABLE
REQUIREMENTS.)
(A) (1) BEFORE AN OWNER OR OPERATOR TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSES OF
ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE, HE MUST OBTAIN A DETAILED CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL
ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPOLE OF THE WASTE. AT MINIMUM, THIS
ANALYSIS MUST CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH MUST BE KNOWN TO TREAT,
STORE, OR DISPOSE OF THE WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS PART OR WITH THE CONDITIONS OF A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER PART 122,
SUBPARTS A AND B, AND PART 124 OF THIS CHAPTER.
(2) THE NALAYSIS MAY INCLUDE DATA DEVELOPED UNDER PART 261 OF THIS
CHAPTER, AND EXISTING PUBLISHED OR DOCUMENTED DATA ON THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE OR ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED FROM SIMILAR PROCESSES.
(COMMENT: FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACILITY'S RECORDS OF ANALYSES PERFORMED
ON THE WASTE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS, OR STUDIES
CONDUCTED ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED FROM PROCESSES SIMILAR TO THAT
WHICH GENERATED THE WASTE TO BE MANAGED AT THE FACILITY, MAY BE INCLUDED
IN THE DATA BASE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH (A)(1) OF THIS
SECTION. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN OFF-SITE FACILITY MAY ARRANGE FOR
THE GENERATOR OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE TO SUPPLY PART OF ALL OF THE
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION. IF THE
GENERATOR DOES NOT SUPPLY THE INFORMATION, AND THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
CHOOSES TO ACCEPT A HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS RESPONSIBL
FOR OBTAINING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THIS SECTION.)
(3) THE ANALYSIS MUST BE REPEATED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT IT IS
ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. AT A MINIMUM, THE ANALYSIS MUST BE REPEATED:
(I) WHEN THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS NOTIFIED, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE,
THAT THEPROCESS OR OPERATION GENERATING THE HAZARDOUS WASTE HAS CHANGED;
AND
(II) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, WHEN THE RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION
REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH (A)(4) OF THIS SECTION INDICATE THAT THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY DOES NOT MATCH THE WASTE DESIGNATED ON
THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER.
(4) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN OFFSITE FACILITY MUST INSPECT NAD, IF
NECESSARY, ANALYZE EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE MOVEMENT RECEIVED AT THE
FACILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT MATCHES THE IDENTIFY OF THE WASTE
SPECIFIED ON THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER.
(B) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST DEVELOP AND FOLLOW A WRITTEN WASTE
ANALYSIS PLANT WHICH DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURES WHICH HE WILL CARRY OUT TO
COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION. HE MUST KEEP THIS PLANT AT
THE FACILITY. AT A MINIMUM, THE PLAN MUST SPECIFIY:
(1) THE PARAMETERS FOR WHICH EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE ANALYZED
AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THESE PARAMETERS (I.E., HOW
ANALYSIS FOR THESE PARAMETERS WILL PRIVDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION ON THE
WAST'S PROPERTIES TO COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION);
(2) THE TEST METHODS WHICH WILL BE USED TO TEST FOR THESE PARAMETERS;
(3) THE SAMPLING METHODS WHICH WILL BE USED TO OBTAIN A
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE WASTE TO BE ANALYZED. A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE MAY BE OBTAINED USING EITHER:
(I) ONE OF THE SAMPLING METHODS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX I OF PART 261
OF THIS CHAPTER; OR
(II) AN EQUIVALENT SAMPLING METHODS.
(COMMENT; SEE SECTION 261.20(C) OF THIS CHAPTER FOR RELATED
DESCUSSION.)
(4) THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE INITIAL ANALYSIS OF THE WASTE WILL
BE REVIEWED OR REPEATED TO ENSURE THAT THE ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE AND UP
TO DATE; AND ANALYSIS FOR ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE AND
(5) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, THE WASTE ANALYSES THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATORS HAVE AGREED TO SUPPLY.
(C) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, THE WASTE ANALYSIS PLANT REQUIRED IN
PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SECTION MUST ALSO SPECIFY THE PROCEDURES WHICH
WILL BE USED TO INSPECT AND, IF NECESSARY, ANALYZE EACH MOVEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED AT THTE FACILITY TO ENSURE THAT IT MATCHES THE
IDENTITY OF THE WASTE DESIGNEATED ON THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST OR
SHIPPING PAPER. AT A MINIMUM, THE PLAN MUST DESCRIBE:
(1) THE PROCEDURES WHICH WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE THE IDENTITY OF
EACH MOVEMENT OF WASTE MANAGED AT THE FACILITY; AND
(2) THE SAMPLING METHODS WHICH WILL BE USED TO OBTAIN A
REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE WASTE TO BE IDENTIFIED, IF THE
IDENTIFICATION METHOD INCLUDES SAMPLING.
(COMMENT: PART 122, SUBPART B, OF THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES THAT THE
WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN BE SUBMITTED WITH PART B OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.)
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST PREVENT THE UNKNOWNING ENTRY, AND
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY, OF PERSONS OR
LIVESTOCK ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF HIS FACILITY, UNLESS HE CAN
DEMONSTRATE TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR THAT:
(1) PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE WASTE, STRUCTURES, OR EQUIPMENT WITHIN
THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY WILLNT INJURE UNKNOWING OR
UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS OR LIVESTOCK WHICH MAY ENTER THE ACTIVE PORTION OF
A FACILITY; AND
(2) DISTRUBANCE OF THE WASTE OR EQUIPMENT, BY THE UNKNOWING OR
UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY OF PERSONS OR LIVESTOCK ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF A
FACILITY, WILL NOT CAUSE A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART.
(COMMENT: PART 122, SUBPART B, OF THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES THAT AN
OWNER OR OPERATOR WHO WISHES TO MAKE THE DEMONSTRATION REFERRED TO ABOVE
MUST DO SO WITH PART OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.)
(1) A 24-HOUR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (E.G., TELEVISION MONITORING OR
SURVEILLANCE BY GUARD OR FACILITY PERSONNEL) WHICH CONTINUOUSLY MONITORS
AND CONTROLS ENTRY ONTO THE ACTIVE PROTION OF THE FACILITY; OR
(2) (I) AN ARTIFICAIAL OR NATURAL BARRIER (E.G., A FENCE IN GOOD
REPAIR OR A FENCE COMBINED WITH A CLIFF), WHICH COMPLETELY SURROUNDS THE
ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY; AND
(II) A MENS TO CONTAROL ENTRY, AT ALL TIME, THROUGH THE GATES OR
OTHERENTRANCES TP THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY (E.G., AN
ATTENDANT, TELEVISION MONITORS, LOCKED ENTRACE, OR CONTROLLED ROADWAY
ACCESS TO THE FACILITY). (COMMENT: THE REQUIREMENTSOF PARAGRAPH (B) OF
THIS SECTION ARE SATISFIED IN THE FACILITY OR PLANT WITHIN WHICH THE
ACTIVE PORTION IS LOCATED ITSELF HAS A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, OR A BARRIER
AND A MEANS TO CONTROL ENTRY, WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PARAGRAPH (B)(1) OR (B)(2) OF THIS SECTION.)
(C) UNLESS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR HAS MADE A SUCCESSFUL DEMONSTRATION
UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A)(1) AND (A)(2) OF THIS SECTION, A SIGN WITH THE
LEGEND, "DANGER-UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT", MUST BE POSTED AT EACH
ENTRACE TO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF A FACILITY, AND AT OTHER LOCATIONS, IN
SUFFICIENT NUMBERS TO BE SEEN FROM ANY APPROACH TO THIS ACTIVE PORTION,
THE LEGEND MUST BE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH AND IN ANY OTHERLANGUAGE
PREDOMINAT IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE FACILITY (E.G., FACILITIES IN
COUNTIES BORDERING THE CANADIAN PROVIDENCE OF QUEBEC MUST POST SIGNS IN
FRENCH; FACILITIES IN COUNTIES BORDERING MEXICO MUST POST SIGNS IN
SPANISH), AND MUST BE LEGIBLE FROM A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 25 FEET.
ESISTING SIGNS WITH A LEGEND OTHER THAN "DANGER-UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL
KEEP OUT" MAY BE USED IF THE LEGEND ON THE SIGN INDICATES THAT ONLY
AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE ACTIVE PORTION, AND THAT
ENTRY ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION CAN BE DANGEROUS.
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST INSPECT HIS FACILITY FOR MALFUNCTIONS
AND DETERIORATION, OPERATOR ERROS, AND DISCHARGES WHICH MAY BE
CAUSING-OR MAY LEAD TO-(1) RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO
THE ENVIRONMENT OR (2) A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
MUST DEVELOP AND FOLLOW A WRITTEN SCHEDULE FOR INSPECTING MONITORING
EQUIPMENT, SAFETY AND EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT, SECURITY DEVICES, AND
OPERATING AND STRUCTURAL EQUIPMENT (SUCH AS DIKES AND SUMP PUMPS) THAT
ARE MIPORTANT TO PREVENTING, DETECTING, OR RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL
OR HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS.
(2) HE MUST KEEP THIS SCHEDULE AT THE FACILITY.
(3) THE SCHEDULE MUST IDENTIFY THE TYPES OF PROBLEMS (E.G.,
MALFUNCTIONS OR DETERIORATION) WHICH ARE TO BE LOOKED FOR DURING THE
INSPECTION (E.G., INOPERATIVE SUMP PUMP, LEAKING FITTING, ERODING DIKE,
ETC.).
(4) THE FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION MAY VARY FOR THE ITEMS ON THE
SCHEDULE. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE RATE OF POSSIBLE
DETERIORATION OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE PROBABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
OR HUMAN HEALTH INCIDENT IF THE DETERIORATION OR MALFUNCTION OR ANY
OPERATOR ERROR GOES UNDETECTED BETWEEN INSPECTIONS. AREAS SUBJECT TO
SPILLS, SUCH AS LOADING AND UNLOADING AREAS, MUST BE INSPECTED DAILY
WHEN IN USE. (COMMENT: PART 122, SUBPART B, OF THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES
THE INSPECATION SCHEDULE TO BE SUBMITTED WITH PART B OF THE PERMIT
APPLICATION. EPA WILL EVALUATE THE SCHEDULE ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE
APPLICATION TO ENSURE THAT IT ADEQUATELY PROTECTS HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT. AS PART OF THIS REVIEW, EPA MAY MODIFY OR AMEND THE
SCHEDULE AS MAY BE NECESSARY.)
(C) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST REMEDY ANY DETERIORATION OR
MALFUNCTION OF EQUIPMENT OR STRUCTURES WHICH THE INSPECTION REVEALS ON A
SCHEDULE WHICH ENSURES THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT LEAD TO AN
ENVIRONMENTAL OR HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD. WHERE A HAZARD IS IMMINENT OR HAS
ALREADY OCCURRED, REMEDIAL ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY.
(D) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST RECORD INSPECTIONS IN INSPECTION LOG
OR SUMMARY. HE MUST KEEP THESE RECORDS FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM
THE DATE OF INSPECTION. AT A MINIMUM, THESE RECORDS MUST INCLUDE THE
DATE AND TIME OF THE INSPECTION, THE NAME OF THE INSPECTOR, A NOTATION
OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE, AND THE DATE AND NATURE OF ANY REPAIRS OR
OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIONS.
(A)(1) FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE A PROGRAM OF
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION OR ON-THE-JOB TRAINING THAT TEACHES THEM TO
PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IN A WAY THAT ENSURES THE FACILITITY'S COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST ENSURE
THAT THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES ALL THE ELEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (D)(3) OF THIS SECTION.
(2) THIS PROGRAM MUST BE DIRECTED BY A PERSON TRAINED IN HAZARDOUS
WASTE INCLUDE INSTRUCTION WHICH TEACHES FACILITY PERSONNEL HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (INCLUDING CONTINGENCY PLANT IMPLEMENTATION)
RELEVANT TO THE POSITIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE EMPLOYED.
(3) AT A MINIMUM, THE TRAINING PROGRAM MUST BE DESIGNED TO
ENSURE THAT FACILITY PERSONNEL AR ABLE TO RESPON EFFECTIVELY TO
EMERGENCIES BY FAMILIARIZING THEM WITH EMERGENCY PROCEDURES,
EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT, AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING, WHERE
APPLICABLE:
(I) PROCEDURES FOR USING, INSPECTING, REPAIRING, AND REPLACING
FACILITY EMERGENCY AND MONITORING EQUIPMENT;
(II) KEY PARAMETERS FOR AUTOMATIC WASTE FEED CUT-OFF SYSTEMS;
(II) COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEMS;
(IV) RESPONSE TO FIRES OR EXPLOSIONS;
(V) RESPONSE TO GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS; AND
(VI) SHUTDOWN OF OPERATIONS.
(B) FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE THE PROGRAM
REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE
EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS OR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF
THEIR EMPLOYMENT OR ASSIGNMENT TO A FACILITY, OR TO A NEW POSITION AT A
FACILITY, WHICHEVER IS LATER. EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THESE REGULATIONS MUST NOT WORK IN UNSUPERVISED POSITIONS UNTIL THEY
HAVE COMPLETED THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS
SECTION.
(C) FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST TAKE PART IN AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF
THE INITIAL TRAINING REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION.
(D) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST MAINTAWN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND
RECORDS AT THE FACILITY;
(1) THE JOB TITLE FOR EACH POSITION AT THE FACILITY RELATED TO
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE FILLING EACH
JOB
(2) A WRITTEN JOB DESCRIPTION FOR EACH POSITION LISTED UNDER
PARAGRAPH (D)(1) OF THIS SECTION. THIS DESCRIPTION MAY BE CONSISTENT IN
ITS DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY WITH DESCRIPTIONS FOR OTHER SIMILAR POSITIONS
IN THE SAME COMPANY LOCATION OR BARGAINING UNIT, BUT MUST INCLUDE THE
REQUISITE SKILL, EDUCATION, OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS, AND DUTIES OF
EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO EACH POSITION; (3) A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE
TYPE AND AMOUNT OF BOTH INTRODUCTORY AND CONTINUING TRAINING THAT WILL
BE GIVEN TO EACH PERSON FILLING A POSITION LISTED UNDER PARAGRAPH (D)
(1) OF THIS SECTION
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 071 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113435
REGULATION
(4) RECORDS THAT DOCUMENT THAT THE TRAINING OR JOB EXPERIENCE
REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A), (B), AND (C) OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO, AND COMPLETED BY, FACILITY PERSONNEL.
(E) TRAINING RECORDS ON CURRENT PERSONNEL MUST BE KEPT UNTIL CLOSURE
OF THE FACILITY; TRAINING RECORDS ON FORMER EMPLOYEES MUST BE KEPT FOR
AT LEAST THREE YEARS FORM THE DATE THE EMPLOYEE LAST WORKED AT THE
FACILITY. PERSONNEL TRAINING RECORDS MAY ACCOMPANY PERSONNEL
TRANSFERRED WITHIN THE SAME COMAPNY.
THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBPART APPLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, EXCEPT AS SECTIONS 264.1 PROVIDES OTHERWISE.
FACILITIES MUST BE DESIGNED, CONTSRUCTED, MAINTAINED, AND OPERATED TO
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF FIRE, EXPLOSION, OR ANY UNPLANNED SUDDEN OR
NON-SUDDEN RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO
AIR, SOIL, OR SUFACE WATER WHICH COULD THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR THE
ENVIRONMENT.
ALL FACILITIES MUST BE EQUIPPED WITH THE FOLLOWING, UNLESS IT CAN BE
DEMONSTRATED TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR THAT NONE OF THE HAZARDS
POSED BY WASTE HANDLED AT THE FACILITY COULD REQUIRE A PARTICULAR KIND
OF EQUIPMENT SPECIFIED BELOW;
(A) AN INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING
IMMEDIATE EMERGENCY INSTRUCTION (VOICE OR SIGNAL) TO FACILITY PERSONNEL;
(B) A DEVICE, SUCH AS A TELEPHONE (IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AT THE SCENE
OF OPERATIONS) OR A HAND-HELD TWO-WAY RADIO, CAPABLE OF SUMMONING
EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FROM THE LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE DEPARTMENT,
OR STATE OR LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS;
(C) PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, FIR CONTROL EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING
SPECIAL EXTINGUISHING EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS THAT USING FOAM, INERT GAS, OR
DRY CHEMICALS), SPILL CONTROL EQUIPMENT AND DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT;
AND
(D) WATER AT ADEQUATE VOLUME AND PRESSURE TO SUPPLY WATER HOSE
STREAMS, OR FOAM PRODUCING EQUIPMENT, OR AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS, OR WATER
SPRAY SYSTEMS.
(COMMENT: PART 122, SUBPART B, OF THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES THAT AN
OWNER OR OPERATOR WHO WISHES TO MAKE THE DEMONSTRATION REFERRED TO ABOVE
MUST DO SO WITH PART B OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.)
ALL FACILITY COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEMS, FIR PROTECTION
EQUIPMENT, SPILL CONTROL EQUIPMENT, AND DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT, WHERE
REQUIRED, MUST BE TESTED AND MAINTAINED AS NECESSARY TO ASSURE ITS
PROPER OPERATION IN TIME OF EMERGENCY
(A) WHENEVERY HAZARDOUS WASTE IS BEING POURED, MIXED, SPREAD, OR
OTHERWISE HANDLED, ALL PERSONNEL INVOLVED IN THE OPERATION MUST HAVE
IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO AN INTERNAL ALARM OR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION DEVICE,
EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH VISUAL OR VOICE CONTACT WITH ANOTHER
EMPLOYEE, UNLESS THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR HAS RULES THAT SUCH A DEVICE
IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 264.32.
(B) IF THERE IS EVER JUST ONE EMPLOYEE ON THE PREMISES WHILE THE
FACILITY IS OPERATING, HE MUST HAVE IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO A DEVICE, SUCH
AS A TELEPHONE (IMMEDIATELY AVAILABLE AT THE SCENE OF OPERATION) OR A
HAND-HELD TWO-WAY RADIO, CAPABLE OF SUMMONING EXTERNAL EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE, UNLESS THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR HAS RULES THAT SUCH A
DEVICE IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 264.32.
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST MAINTAIN AISLE SPACE TO ALLOW THE
UNOBSTRUCTED MOVEMENT OF PERSONNEL, FIRE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT, SPILL
CONTROL EQUIPMENT, AND DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT TO ANY AREA OF FA-ILITY
OPERATION IN AN EMERGENCY, UNLESS IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED TO THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR THAT AISLE SPACE IS NOT NEEDED FOR ANY OF THESE PURPOSES.
(COMMENT: PART 122, SUBPART B, OF THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES THAT AN
OWNER OR OPERATOR WHO WISHES TO MAKE THE DEMONSTRATION REFERRED TO ABOVE
MUST DO SO WITH PART B OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION.)
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO PRVENT ACCIDENTAL
IGNITION OR REACTION OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE. THIS WASTE MUST BE
SEPARATED AND PROTECTED FROM SOURCE OF IGNITION OR REACTION INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO: OPEN FLAMES, SMOKING, CUTTING AND WELDING, HOT
SURFACES, FRICTIONAL HEAT, SPARKS (STATIC, ELECTRICAL, OR MECHANICAL),
SPONTANEOUS IGNITION (E.G., FROM HEAT-PRODUCING CHEMICAL REACTIONS), AND
RADIANT HEAT. WHILE IGNITIABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE IS BEING HANDLED THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST CONFINE SMOKING AND OPER FLAME TO SPECIALLY
DESIGNATED LOCATION. "NO SMOKING" SIGNS MUST BE CONSPICUOUSLY PLACED
WHEREVER THERE IS A HAZARD FROM IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
(A) THEOWNER OR OPERATOR MUST ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING
ARRANGEMENTS, AS APPROPRIATE FOR THE TYPE OF WASTE HANDLED AT HIS
FACILITY AND THE POTENTIAL NEED FOR THE SERVICES OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS:
(1) ARRANGEMENTS TO FAMILIARIZE POLICE, FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS WITH THE LAYOUT OF THE FACILITY, PROPERTIES OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLED AT THE FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED HAZARDS, PLACES
WHERE FACILITY PERSONNEL WOULD NORMALLY BE WORKING, ENTRACES TO THE
ROADS INSIDE THE FACILITY, AND POSSIBLE EVACUATION ROUTES;
(2) WHERE MORE THAN ONE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT MIGHT RESPOND TO
AN EMERGENCY, AGREEMENTS DESIGNATING PRIMARY EMERGENCY AUTHORITY TO A
SPECIFIC POLICE AND A SPECIFIC FIR DEPARTMENT, AND AGREEMENTS WITH ANY
OTHER TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE PRIMARY EMERGENCY AUTHORITY;
(3) AGREEMENTS WITH STATE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS, EMERGENCY
RESPONSE CONTRACTORS, AND EQUIPMENT SUPPLIERS; AND
(4) ARRANGEMENTS TO FAMILIARIZE LOCAL HOSPITALS WITH THE PROPERTIES
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE HANDLED AT THE FACILITY AND THEY TYPES OF INJURIES OR
ILLNESSES WHICH COULD RESULT FROM FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, OR RELEASES AT THE
FACILITY.
(B) WHERE STATE OR LOCAL AUTHORITIES DECLINE TO ENTER INTO SUCH
ARRANGEMENTS, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST DOCUMENT THE REFUSAL IN THE
OPERATING RECORD.
THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBPART APPLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, EXCEPT AS SECTION 264.1 PROVIDES OTHERWISE.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 072 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113436
REGULATION
(A) EACH OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST HAVE A CONTINGENCY PLANT FOR HIS
FACILITY. THE CONTINGENCY PLANT MUST BE DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE HAZARDS TO
HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT FROM FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, OF ANY UNPLANNED
SUDDEN OR NON-SUDDEN RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS TO AIR, SOIL, OR SURFACE WATER.
(B) THE PROVISIONS OF THE PLAN MUST BE CARRIED OUR IMMEDIATELY
WHENEVER THERE IS A FIR, EXPLOSION, OR RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSITUENTS WHICH COULD THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR THE
ENVIRONMENT.
(A) THE CONTINGENCY PLANT MUST DESCRIBE THE ACTIONS FACILITY
PERSONNEL MUST TAKE TO COMPLY WITH SECTIONS 264.51 AND 264.56 IN
RESPONSE TO FIRES, EXPLOSIONGS OR ANY UNPLANNED SUDDED OR NON-SUDDEN
RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO AIR, SOIL,
OR SURFACE WATER AT THE FACILITY.
(B) IF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR HAS ALREADY PREPARED A SPILL PREVENTION,
CONTROL COUNTERMEASURES (SPCC) PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART 112 OR PART
151 OF THIS CHAPTER, OR SOME OTHER EMERGENCY OR CONTINGENCY PLAN, HE
NEED ONLY AMEND THAT PLAN TO INCORPORATE HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROVISIONS THAT ARE SUFFICIENT TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS
PART.
(C) THE PLANT MUST DESCRIBE ARRANGEMENTS AGREED TO BY LOCAL POLICE
DEPARMENTS, FIRE DEPARTMENT, HOSPITALS, CONTRACTORS, AND STATE AND LOCAL
EMERGENCY REPSONSE TEAMS TO COORDINATE EMERGENCY SERVICES, PURSUANT TO
SECTUON 264.37.
(D) THE PLAN MUST LISTE NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND PHONE NUMBERS (OFFICE
AND HOME) OF ALL PERSONS QUALIFIED TO ACT AS EMERGENCY COORDINATOR (SEE
SECTION 264.55), AND THIS LISTE MUST BE KEPT UP TO DATE. WHERE MORE
THAN ONE PERSON IS LISTED, ONE MUST BE NAMED AS PRIMARY EMERGENCY
COORDINATOR AND OTHER MUST BE LISTED IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY WILL BE
LISTED IN ORDER IN WHICH THEY WILL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY AS ALTERNATES.
FOR NEW FACILITIES, THIS INFORMATION MUST BE SUPPLIED TO THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR AT THE TIME OF CERTIFICATION, RATHER THAN AT THE TIME OF
PERMIT APPLICATION.
(E) THE PLANT MUST INCLUDE A LIST OF ALL EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AT THE
FACILITY (SUCH AS FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS, SPILL CONTROL EQUIPMENT,
COMMUNICATIONS AND ALARM SYSTEMS (INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL), AND
DECONTAMINATION EQUIPMENT), WHERE THIS EQUIPMENT IS REQUIRED. THIS LIST
MUST BE KEPT UP TO DATE. IN ADDITION, THE PLAN MUST INCLUDE THE
LOCATION AND A PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF EACH ITEM ON THE LIST, AND A
BRIEF OUTLINE OF ITS CAPABILITIES.
(F) THE PLAN MUST INCLUDE AN EVACUATION PLANT FOR FACILITY PERSONNEL
WHERE THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT EVACUATION COULD BE NECESSARY. THIS
EVALUATION COULD BE NECESSARY. THIS PLAN MUST DESCRIBE SIGNAL(S) TO BE
USEDTO BEGIN EVACUATION, EVACUATION ROUTES, AND ALTERNATE EVACUATION
ROUTES (IN CASES WHERE THE PRIMARY ROUTES COULD BE BLOCKED BY RELEASES
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR FIRES).
A COPY OF THE CONTINGENCY PLAN AND ALL REVISIONS TO THE PLAN MUST BE:
(A) MAINTAINED AT THE FACILITY; AND
(B) SUBMITTED TO ALL LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, FIRE DEPARTMENTS,
HOSPITALS, AND STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAMS THAT MAY BE
CALLED UPON TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES.
(COMMENT: THE CONTINGENCY PLANT MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR WITH PART B OF THE PERMIT APPLICATION UNDER PART 122,
SUBPARTS A AND B, OF THIS CHAPTER AND, AFTER MODFICATION AND APPROVAL,
WILL BECOME AS CONDITION OF ANY PERMIT ISSUED.)
THE CONTINGENCY PLAN MUST BE REVIEWED, AND IMMEDIATELY AMENDED.
IF NECESSARY, WHENEVER.
(A) THE FACILITY PERMIT IS REVISED;
(B) THE PLAN FAILS IN AN EMERGENCY;
(C) THE FACILITY CHANGES-IN ITS DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION,
MAINTENANCE, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES-IN A WAY THAT MATERIALLY INCREASES
THE POTENTIAL FOR MATERIALLY INCREASES THE POTENTAIL FOR FIRES,
EXPLOSIONS, OR RELEASES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE OR HAZARDOUS WASTE
CONSTITUENTS, OR CHANGES THE RESPONSE NECESSARY IN AN EMERGENCY;
(D) THE LIST OF EMERGENCY COORDINATORS CHANGES; OR
(E) THE LIST OF EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CHANGES.
(COMMENT: A CHANGE IN THE LISTS OF FACILITY EMERGENCY COORDINATORS
FOR EQUIPMENT IN THE CONTINGENCY PLAN CONSTITUTES A MINOR MODIFICATION
TO THE FACILITY PERMIT TO WHICH THE PLAN IS A CONDITION.)
AT ALL TIMES, THERE MUST BE AT LEAST ONE EMPLOYEE EITHER ON THE
FACILITY PREMISES OR ON CALL(I.E., AVAILABLE TO RESPOND TO AN EMERGENCY
BY REACHING THE FACILITY WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME) WITH THE
RESPONSBILITY FOR COORDINATING ALL EMERGENCY RESPONSE MEASURES. THIS
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR MUST BE THROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH ALL ASPECTS OF THE
FACILITY'S CONTINGENCY PLAN, ALL OPERATIONS AND ACTIVITIES AT THE
FACILITY, THE LOCATION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTE HANDLED, THE
LOCATION OF ALL RECORDS WIHTIN THE FACILITY, AND THE FACILITY LAYOUT, IN
ADDITION THIS PERSON MUST HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO COMMIT THE RESOURCES
NEEDED TO CARRY OUT THE CONTINGENCY PLAN.
(COMMENT: THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES ARE MORE
FULLY SPELLED OUT IN SECTION 264.56. APPLICABLE RESPONSIBILITES FOR THE
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR VARY, DEPEDNING ON THE FACTORS SCUH AS TYPE AND
VARIETY OF WASTE(S) HANDLED BY THE FACILITY, AND TYPE AND COMPLEXITY OF
THE FACILITY.)
(A) WHENEVER THERE IS AN IMMINENT OR ACTUAL EMERGENCY SITUATION, THE
EMERGENCY SITUATION, THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR (OR HIS DESIGNEE WHEN THE
EMERGENCY COORDINATOR IS ON CALL) MUST IMMEDIATELY:
(1) ACTIVATE INTERNAL FACILITY ALARMS OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS
WHERE APPLICABLE, TO NOTIFY ALL FACILITY PERSONNEL; AND
(2) NOTIFY APPROVIATE STATE OR LOCAL AGENCIES WITH DESIGNATED
RESPONSE ROLES IF THEIR HELP IS NEEDED.
(B) WHENEVER THERE IS A RELEASE, FIRE OR EXPLSOION, THE EMERGENCY
COORDINATOR MUST IMMEDIATELY IDENTIFY THE CHARACTER, EXACT SOURCE,
AMOUNT, AND AREAL EXTENT OF ANY RELEASE MATERIALS. HE MAY DO THIS BY
THE OBSERVATION OR REVIEW OF FACILITIY RECORDS OR MANIFESTS, AND IF
NECESSARY, BY CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.
(C) CONCURRENTLY, THE EMERGENCYCOORDINATOR MUST ASSESS POSSIBLE
HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT THAT MAY RESULT FROM THE
RELEASE, FIR, OR EXPLSION. THIS ASSESSMENT MUST CONSIDER BOTH DIRECT
AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF THE RELEASE, FIRE, OR EXPLSION (E.G., THE
EFFECTS OF ANY TOXIC, IRRIATING, OR ASPHYXIATING GASES THAT ARE
GENERATED, OR THE EFFECTS OF ANY HAZARDOUS SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF FROM
WATER OR CHEMICAL AGENTS USED TO CONTROL FIRE AND HEAT-INDUCED
EXPLOSIONS).
(D) IF THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR DETERMINES THAT THE FACILITY HAS HAD
A RELEASE, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION WHICH COULD THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH, OR THE
ENVIRONMENT, OUTSIDE THE FACILITY, HE MUST REPORTE HIS FINDINGS AS
FOLLOWS:
(1) IF HIS ASSESSMENT INDICATES THAT EVACUATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES,
HE MUST BE AVAILABLE TO HELP APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS DECIDE WHETHER LOCAL
AREAS SHOULD BE EVACUATED; AND
HE MUST IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY EITHER THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL DESIGNATED
AS THE ON-SCENE COORDINATOR FOR THAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA, (IN THE
APPLICABLE REGIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN UNDER PART 1510 OF THIS TITLE) OR
THE NATIONAL RESPONSE CENTER (USING THEIR 24-HOUR TOLL FREE NUMBER
800/424-8802). THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 073 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113437
REGULATION
(I) NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF REPORTER;
(II) NAME AND ADDRESS OF FACILITY;
(III) TIME AND TYPE OF INCIDENT (E.G., RELEASE, FIRE);
(IV) NAME AND QUANTITY OF MATERIAL(S) INVOLVED, TO THE EXTENT
INVOLVED, TO THE EXTENT KNOWN:
(V) THE EXTENT OF INJURIES, IF ANY; AND
(VI) THE POSSIBLE HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH, OR THE ENVIRONMENT,
OUTSIDE THE FACILITY.
(E) DURING AN EMERGENCY, THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR MUST TAKE ALL
RESONABLE MEASURES NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT FIRES, EXPLOSIONS, AND
RELEASES DO NOT OCCUR, RECUR, OR SPREAD TO OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE AT THE
FACILITY. THESE MEASURES MUST INCLUDE, WHERE APPLICABLE, STOPPING
PROCESS AND OPERATIONS, COLLECTING AND CONTAINING RELEASE WASTE, AND
REMOVING OR ISOLATING CONTAINERS.
(F) IF THE FACILITY STOPS OPERATIONS IN RESPONSE TO A FIRE,
EXPLOSION, OR RELEASE, THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR MUST MONITOR FOR LEAKS,
PRESSURE BUILDUP, GAS GENERATION, OR RUPTURES IN VALVES, PIPES, OR OTHER
EQUIPMENT, WHEREVER THIS IS APPROPRIATE.
(G) IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN EMERGENCY, THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR MUST
PROVIDE FOR TREATING, STORING, OR DISPOSING OF RECOVERED WASTE,
CONTAMINATED SOIL OR SURFACE WATER, OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL THAT RESULTS
FROM A RELEASE, FIRE, OR EXPLOSION AT THE FACILITY.
(COMMENT: UNLESS THE OWNER OR OPERATOR CAN DEMONSTRATE, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 261.3(C) OR (D) OF THIS CHAPTER, THAT THE
RECOVERED MATERIAL IS NOT A HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
BECOMES A GENERATOR OF HAZARDUS WASTE AND MUST MANAGE IT IN ACCORDA-CE
WITH ALL APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF PARTS 262, 263, AND 264 OF THIS
CHAPTER.)
(H) THE EMERGENCY COORDINATOR MUST ENSURE THAT, IN THE AFFECTED
AREA(S) OF THE FACILITY:
(1) NO WASTE THAT MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RELEASED MATERIAL IS
TREATED, STORED, OR DISPOSED OF UNTIL CLEANUP PROCEDURES ARE COMPLETED;
AND
(2) ALL EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT LISTED IN THE CONTINGENCY PLAN IS CLEANED
AND FIT FOR ITS INTENDED USE BEFORE OPERATIONS ARE RESUMED.
(I) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST NOTIFY THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, AND
APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES, THAT THE FACILITY IS IN
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH (H) OF THIS SECTION BEFORE OPERATIONS ARE
RESUMED IN THE AFFECTED AREA(S) OF THE FACILITY.
(J) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST NOTE IN THE OPERATING RECORD THE TIME,
DATE, AND DETAILS OF ANY INCIDENT EHAT REQUIRES IMPLEMENTING THE
CONTINGENCY PLAN. WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER THE INCIDENT, HE MUST SUBMIT A
WRITTEN REPORT ON THE INCIDENT TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR. THE
REPORT MUST INCLUDE:
(1) NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE OWNER OR OPERATOR;
(2) NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE FACILITY;
(3) DATE, TIME, AND TYPE OF INCIDENT (E.G., FIRE, EXPLOSION);
(4) NAME AND QUANTITY OF MATERIAL(S) INVOLVED;
(5) THE EXTENT OF INJURIES, IF ANY;
(6) AN ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL HAZARDS TO HUMAN HEALTH OR
THE ENVIRONMENT, WHERE THIS IS APPLICABLE; AND
(7) ESTIMATED QUANTITY AND DISPOSITION OF RECOVERED MATERIAL THAT
RESULTED FROM THE INCIDENT.
THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBPART APPLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF BOTH
ON-SIRE AND OFFSITE FACILITIES, EXCEPT AS SECTION 264.1 PROVIDES
OTHERWISE. SECTIONS 264.71, 264.72, AND 264.76 DO NOT APPLY TO OWNERS
AND OPERATORS OF ON-SITE FACILITIES THAT DO NOT RECIEVE ANY HAZARDOUS
WASTE FROM OFF-SITE SOURCES.
(A) IF A FACILITY RECEIVES HAZARDOUS WASTE ACCOMPANIED BY A MANIFEST,
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, OR HIS AGENT, MUST:
(1) SIGN AND DATE EACH COPY OF THE MANIFEST TO CERTIFY THAT THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE COVERED BY THE MANIFEST WAS RECEIVED;
(2) NOTE ANY SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN THE MANIFEST (AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 264.72(A)) ON EACH COPY OF THE MANIFEST;
(COMMENT: THE AGENCY DOES NOT INTEND THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A
FACILITY WHOSE PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 264.13(C) INCLUDE WASTE ANALYSIS
MUST PERFORM THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE SIGNING THE MANIFEST AND GIVING IT TO
THE TRANSPORTER. SECTION 264.72(B), HOWEVER, REQUIRES REPORTING AN
UNRECONCILED DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED DURING LATER ANALYSIS.)
(3) IMMEDIATELY GIVE THE TRANSPORTER AT LEAST ONE COPY OF THE SIGNED
MANIFEST;
(4) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY, SEND A COPY OF THE MANIFEST TO
THE GENERATOR; AND
(5) RETAIN AT THE FACILITY A COPY OF EACH MANIFEST FOR AT LEAST THREE
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY.
(B) IF A FACILITY RECEIVES, FROM A RAIL OR WATER (BULK SHIPMENT)
TRANSPORTER, HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH IS ACCOMPANIED BY A SHIPPING PAPER
CONTAINING ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE MANIFEST (EXCLUDING THE
EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION, AND SIGNATURES),
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, OR HIS AGENT, MUST:
(1) SIGN AND DATE EACH COPY OF THE SHIPPING PAPER TO CERTIFY THAT THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE COVERED BY THE MANIFEST WAS RECEIVED:
(2) NOTE ANY SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN THE MANIFEST (AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 264.72(A)) ON EACH COPY OF THE MANIFEST; (COMMENT: THE AGENCY
DOES NOT INTEND THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY WHOSE
PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 264.13(C) INCLUDE WASTE ANALYSIS MUST PERFORM
THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE SIGNING THE MANIFEST AND GIVING IT TO THE
TRANSPORTER. SECTION 264.72(B) HOWEVER, REQUIRES REPORTING AN
UNRECONCILED DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED DURING LATER ANALYSIS.)
(3) IMMEDIATELY GIVE THE TRANSPORTER AT LEAST ONE COPY OF THE SIGEND
MANIFEST;
(4) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY, SEND A COPY OF THE MANIFEST TO
THE GENERATOR; AND
(5) RETAIN AT THE FACILITY A COPY OF EACH MANIFEST FOR AT LEAST THREE
YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY.
(B) IF A FACILITY RECEIVES, FROM A RAIL OR WATER (BULK SHIPMENT)
TRANSPORTER, HAZARDOUS WASTE WHICH IS ACCOMPANIED BY A SHIPPING PAPER
CONTAINING ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE MANIFEST (EXCLUDING THE
EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION, AND SIGNATURES),
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, OR HIS AGENT MUST:
(1) SIGN AND DATE EACH COPY OF THE SHIPPING PAPER TO CERTIFY THAT THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE COVERED BY THE SHIPPING PAPER WAS RECEIVED;
(2) NOTE ANY SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN THE SHIPPING PAPER (AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 264.72(A)) ON EACH COPY OF THE SHIPPING PAPER.
(COMMENT: THE AGENCY DOES NOT INTEND THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A
FACILITY WHOSE PROCEDURES UNDER SECTION 264.13(C) INCLUDE WASTE ANALYSIS
MUST PERFORM THAT ANALYSIS BEFORE SIGNING THE SHIPPING PAPER AND GIVING
IT TO THE TRANSPORTER. SECTION 264.72(B), HOWEVER, REQUIRES REPORTING
AN UNRECONCILED DISCREPANCY DISCOVERED DURING LATER ANALYSIS.)
(3) IMMEDIATELY GIVE THE RAIL OR WATER (BULK SHIPMENT) TRANSPORTER AT
LEAST ONE COPY OF THE SHIPPING PAPER;
(4) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY, SEND A COPY OF THE OF THE
SHIPPING PAPER TO THE GENERATOR; HOWEVER, IF THE MANIFEST IS RECEIVED
WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE DELIVERY, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR, OR HIS AGENT,
MUST SIGN AND DATE THE MANIFEST AND RETURN IT TO THE GENERATOR IN LIEU
OF THE SHIPPING PAPER; AND
(COMMENT: SECTION 262.23(C) OF THIS CHAPTER REQUIRES THE GENERATOR
TO SEND THREE COPIES OF THE MANIFEST TO THE FACILITY WHEN HAZARDOUS
WASTE IS SENT BY RAIL OR WATER (BULK SHIPMENT).)
(5) RETAIN AT THE FACILITY A COPY OF EACH SHIPPING PAPER AND MANIFEST
FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DELIVERY.
(A) MANIFEST DISCREPANCIES ARE DIFFERENCS BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OR
TYPE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE DESIGNATED ON THE MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER,
AND THE QUANTITY OR TYPE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE A FACILITY ACTUALLY
RECEIVES. SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITY ARE: (1) FOR BULK
WASTE, VARIATIONS GREATER THAN 10 PERCENT IN WEIGHT, AND (2) FOR BATCH
WASTE, ANY VARIATION IN PIECE COUNT, SUCH AS A DISCREPANCY OF ONE DRUM
IN A TRUCKLOAD. SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCIES IN TYPE ARE OBVIOUS
DIFFERENCES WHICH CAN BE DISCOVERED BY INSPECTION OR WASTE ANALYSIS,
SUCH AS WASTE SOLVENT SUBSTITUTED FOR WASTE ACID, OR TOXIC CONSTITUENTS
NOT REPORTED ON THE MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER.
(B) UPON DISCOVERING A SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCY, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
MUST ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY WITH THE WASTE GENERATOR OR
TRANSPORTER (E.G., WITH TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS).
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 074 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113438
REGULATION
IF THE DISCREPANCY IS NOT RESOLVED WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE
WASTE, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST IMMEDIATELY SUBMIT TO THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR A LETTER DESCRIBING THE DISCREPANCY AND ATTEMPTS TO
RECONCILE IT, AND A COPY OF THE MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER AT ISSUE.
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST KEEP A WRITTEN OPERATING RECORD AT HIS
FACILITY.
(B) THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST BE RECORDED, AS IT BECOMES
AVAILABLE, AND MAINTAINED IN THE OPERATING RECORD UNTIL CLOSURE OF THE
FACILITY:
(1) A DESCRIPTION AND THE QUANTITY OF EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED,
AND THE METHOD(S) AND DATES OF ITS TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL AT
THE FACILITY AS REQUIRED BY APPENDIX I;
(2) THE LOCATION OF EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE WITHIN THE FACILITY AND THE
QUANTITY AT EACH LOCATION. FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES, THE LOCATION AND
QUANTITY OF EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE RECORDED ON A MAP OR DIAGRAM OF
EACH CELL OR DISPOSAL AREA. FOR ALL FACILITIES, THIS INFORMATION MUST
INCLUDE CROSS-REFERENCES TO SPECIFIC MANIFEST DOCUMENT NUMBERS, IF THE
WASTE WAS ACCOMPANIED BY A MANIFEST;
(3) RECORDS AND RESULTS OF WASTE ANALYSES PERFORMED AS SPECIFIED IN
SECTION 264.13;
(4) SUMMARY REPORTS AND DETAILS OF ALL INCIDENTS THAT REQUIRE
IMPLEMENTING THE CONTINGENCY PLAN AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 264.56(J);
(5) RECORDS AND RESULTS OF INSPECTIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION
264.15(D) (EXCEPT THESE DATA NEED BE KEPT ONLY THREE YEARS); AND
(6) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, NOTICES TO GENERATORS AS SPECIFIED IN
SECTION 264.12(B).
(A) ALL RECORDS, INCLUDING PLANS, REQUIRED UNDER THIS PART MUST BE
FURNISHED UPON REQUEST, AND MADE AVAILABLE AT ALL REASONABLE TIMES FOR
INSPECTION, BY ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, OR REPRESENTATIVE OF EPA WHO IS
DULY DESIGNATED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.
(B) THE RETENTION PERIOD FOR ALL RECORDS REQUIRED UNDER THIS PART IS
EXTENDED AUTOMATICALLY DURING THE COURSE OF ANY UNRESOLVED ENFORCEMENT
ACTION REGARDING THE FACILITY OR AS REQUESTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR.
(C) A COPY OF RECORDS OF WASTE DISPOSAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES
UNDER SECTION 264.73(B)(2) MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR AND LOCAL LAND AUTHORITY UPON CLOSURE OF THE FACILITY.
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST PREPARE AND SUBMIT A SINGLE COPY OF AN
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR BY MARCH 1 OF EACH YEAR.
THE REPORT FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS IN APPENDIX II MUST BE USED FOR THIS
REPORT. THE ANNUAL REPORT MUST COVER FACILITY ACTIVITIES DURING THE
PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR AND MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
(A) THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, NAME, AND ADDRESS OF THE FACILITY;
(B) THE CALENDAR YEAR COVERED BY THE REPORT;
(C) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH
HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATOR FROM WHICH THE FACILITY RECEIVED A HAZARDOUS
WASTE DURING THE YEAR; FOR IMPORTED SHIPMENTS, THE REPORT MUST GIVE THE
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE FOREIGN GENERATOR;
(D) A DESCRIPTION AND THE QUANTITY OF EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE THE
FACILITY RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, THIS
INFORMATION MUST BE LISTED BY EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF EACH
GENERATOR;
(E) THE METHOD OF TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FOR EACH HAZARDOUS
WASTE; AND
(F) THE CERTIFICATION SIGNED BY THE OWNER OR OPEATOR OF THE FACILITY
OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
IF A FACILITY ACCEPTS FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL ANY
HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM AN OFF-SITE SOURCE WITHOUT AN ACCOMPANYING
MANIFEST, OR WITHOUT AN ACCOMPANYING SHIPPING PAPER AS DESCRIBED IN
SECTION 263.20(E)(2) OF THIS CHAPTER, AND IF THE WASTE IS NOT EXCLUDED
FROM THE MANIFEST REQUIREMENT BY SECTION 261.5 OF THIS CHAPTER, THEN THE
OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST PREPARE AND SUBMIT A SINGLE COPY OF A REPORT TO
THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE WASTE.
THE REPORT FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS IN APPENDIX II MUST BE USED FOR THIS
REPORT. THE REPORT MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION:
(A) THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, NAME, AND ADDRESS OF THE FACILITY;
(B) THE DATE THE FACILITY RECEIVED THE WASTE;
(C) THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, NAME, AND ADDRESS OF THE GENERATOR
AND THE TRANSPORTER, IF AVAILABLE;
(D) A DESCRIPTION AND THE QUANTITY OF EACH UNMANIFESTED HAZARDOUS
WASTE AND FACILITY RECEIVED;
(E) THE METHOD OF TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL FRO EACH HAZARDOUS
WASTE;
(F) THE CERTIFICATION SIGNED BY THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY
OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE; AND
(G) A BRIEF EXPLANATION OF WHY THE WASTE WAS UNMANIFESTED, IF KNOWN.
(COMMENT: SMALL QUANTITIES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ARE EXCLUDED FROM
REGULAION UNDER THIS PART AND DO NOT REQUIRE A MANIFEST. WHERE A
FACILITY RECEIVES UNMANIFESTED HAZARDOUS WASTES, THE AGENCY SUGGESTS
THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OBTAIN FROM EACH GENERATOR A CERTIFICATION
THAT THE WASTE QUALIFIES FOR EXCLUSION. OTHERWISE, THE AGENCY SUGGESTS
THAT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR FILE AN UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT FOR THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE MOVEMNT.)
IN ADDITION TO SUBMITTING THE ANNUAL REPORT AND UNMANIFESTED WASTE
REPORTS DESCRIBED IN SECTIONS 264.75 AND 246.76, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
MUST ALSO REPORT TO THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR RELEASES, FIRES, AND
EXPLOSIONS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 264.56(J).
THE RECORDKEEPING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 264.73 SPECIFY THAT AN OWNER
OR OPERATOR MUST KEEP A WRITTEN OPERATING RECORD AT HIS FACILITY. THIS
APPENDIX PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR KEEPING PORTIONS OF THE
OPERATING RECORD. SEE SECTION 264.73(B) FOR ADDITIONAL RECORDKEEPING
REQUIREMENTS.
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST BE RECORDED, AS IT BECOMES AVAILABLE,
AND MAINTAINED IN THE OPERATING RECORD UNTIL CLOSURE OF THE FACILITY IN
THE FOLLOWING MANNER:
RECORDS OF EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED, TREATED, STORED, OR
DISPOSED OF AT THE FACILITY WHICH INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:
(1) A DESCRIPTION BY ITS COMMON NAME AND THE EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE
NUMBER(S) FROM PART 261 OF THIS CHAPTER WHICH APPLY TO THE WASTE. THE
WASTE DESCRIPTION ALSO MUST INCLUDE THE WASTE'S PHYSICAL FORM, I.E.,
LIQUID, SLUDGE, SOLID, OR CONTAINED GAS. IF THE WASTE IS NOT LISTED IN
PART 261, SUBPART D, OF THIS CHAPTER, THE DESCRIPTION ALSO MUST INCLUDE
THE PROCESS THAT PRODUCED IT (FOR EXAMPLE, SOLID FILTER CAKE FROM
PRODUCTION OF EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER W051).
EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE LISTED IN PART 261, SUBPART D, OF THIS CHAPTER,
AND EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTIC DEFINED IN PART 261, SUBPART C,
OF THIS CHAPTER, HAS A FOUR-DIGIT EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER ASSIGNED TO
IT. THIS NUMBER MUST BE USED FOR RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING PURPOSES.
WHERE A HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE LISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE,
OR WHERE MORE THAN ONE HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERISTIC APPLIES TO THE
WASTE, THE WASTE DESCRIPTION MUST INCLUDE ALL APPLICABLE EPA HAZARDOUS
WASTE NUMBERS.
(2) THE ESTIMATED OR MANIFEST-REPORTED WEIGHT, OR VOLUME AND DENSITY,
WHERE APPLICABLE, IN ONE OF THE UNITS OF MEASURE SPECIFIED IN TABLE 1;
(3) THE METHOD(S) (BY HANDLING CODE(S) AS SPECIFIED IN TABLE 2) AND
DATE(S) OF TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 075 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113439
REGULATION
TABLE OMITTED
TABLE 2 -- HANDLING CODES FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
METHODS.
ENTER THE HANDLING CODE(S) LISTED BELOW THAT MOST CLOSELY REPRESENTS
THE TECHNIQUE(S) USED AT THE FACILITY TO TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF
EACH QUANTITY OF HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED.
1. STORAGE S01 CONTAINER (BARREL, DRUM, ETC.)
S02 TANK
S03 WASTE PILE
S04 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
S05 OTHER (SPECIFY)
2. TREATMENT (A) THERMAL TREATMENT T06 LIQUID INJECTION INCINERATOR
T07 ROTARY KILN INCINERATOR T08 FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATOR T09 MULTIPLE
HEARTH INCINERATOR T10 INFRARED FURNACE INCINERATOR T11 MOLTEN SALT
DESTRUCTOR T12 PYROLYSIS T13 WET AIR OXIDATION T14 CALCINATION T15
MICROWAVE DISCHARGE T16 CEMENT KILN T17 LIME KILN T18 OTHER (SPECIFY)
(B) CHEMICAL TREATMENT T19 ABSORPTION MOUND T20 ABSORPTION FIELD T21
CHEMICAL FIXATION T22 CHEMICAL OXIDATION T23 CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION T24
CHEMICAL REDUCTION T25 CHLORINATION T26 CHLORINOLYSIS T27 CYANIDE
DESTRUCTION T28 DEGRADATION T29 DETOXIFICATION T30 ION EXCHANGE T31
NEUTRALIZATION T32 OZONATION T33 PHOTOLYSIS T34 OTHER (SPECIFY) (C)
PHYSICAL TREATMENT (1) SEPARATION OF COMPONENTS T35 CENTRIFUGATION T36
CLARIFICATION T37 COAGULATION T38 DECANTING T39 ENCAPSULTION T40
FILTRATION T41 FLOCCULATION T42 FLOTATION T43 FOAMING T44 SEDIMENTATION
T45 THICKENING T46 ULTRAFILTRATION T47 OTHER (SPECIFY) (2) REMOVAL OF
SPECIFIC COMPONENTS T48 ABSORPTION-MOLECULAR SIEVE T49 ACTIVATED CARBON
T50 BLENDING T51 CATALYSIS T52 CRYSTALLIZATION T53 DIALYSIS T54
DISTILLATION T55 ELECTRODIALYSIS T56 ELECTROLYSIS T57 EVAPORATION T58
HIGH GRADIENT MAGNETIC SEPARATION T59 LEACHING T60 LIQUID ION EXCHANGE
T61 LIQUID-LIQUID EXTRACTION T62 REVERSE OSMOSIS T63 SOLVENT RECOVERY
T64 STRIPPING T65 SAND FILTER T66 OTHER (SPECIFY) (D) BIOLOGICAL
TREATMENT T67 ACTIVATED SLUDGE T68 AEROBIC LAGOON T69 AEROBIC TANK T70
ANAEROBIC LAGOON T71 COMPOSTING T72 SEPTIC TANK T73 SPRAY IRRIGATION T74
THICKENING FILTER T75 TRICKING FILTER T76 WASTE STABILIZATION POND T77
OTHER (SPECIFY) T78-79 (RESERVED)
3. DISPOSAL D80 UNDERGROUND INJECTION D81 LANDFILL D82 LAND
TREATMENT D83 OCEAN DISPOSAL D84 SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT (TO BE CLOSED AS A
LANDFILL) D85 OTHER (SPECIFY)
BILLING CODE 6560-01-M.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 076 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113440
REGULATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT
BLANK FORM OMITTED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 077 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113441
REGULATION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FACILITY REPORT -- PARTS B & C
(COLLECTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF SECTION 3004 OF RCRA)
BLANK FORM OMITTED.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 078 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113442
REGULATION
IMPORTANT: READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING THIS FORM.
FOR GENERATORS WHO SHIP THEIR WASTE OFF-SITE TO FACILITIES WHICH THEY
DO NOT OWN OR OPERATE; FILL IN THE REPORTING YEAR FOR THIS REPORT
(E.G., 1982).
NOTE. -- GENERATORS WHO SHIP HAZARDOUS WASTE OFF-SITE TO A FACILITY
WHICH THEY OWN OR OPERATE MUST COMPLETE THE FACILITY (PART B) REPORT
INSTEAD OF THE PART A REPORT.
FOR OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF ON-SITE OF OFF-SITE FACILITIES THAT TREAT,
STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE; FILL IN THE REPORTING YEAR FOR
THIS REPORT (E.G., 1982).
FOR FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS WHO ACCEPT FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE,
OR DISPOSAL ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM AN OFF-SITE SOURCE WITHOUT AN
ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST; FILL IN THE DATE THE WASTE WAS RECEIVED AT THE
FACILITY (E.G. 04-12-1982).
SECTION II. THRU SECTION IV. -- INSTALLATION I.D. NUMBER, NAME OF
INSTALLATION, AND INSTALLATION MAILING ADDRESS
IF YOU RECEIVED A PREPRINTED LABLE FROM EPA, ATTACH IT IN THE SPACE
PROVIDED AND LEAV SECTIONS II THROU IV BLANK. IF THERE IS AN ERROR OR
OMISSION ON THE LABEL, CROSS OUT THE INCORRECT INFORMATION AND FILL IN
THE APPROPRIATE ITEM(S). IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE A PREPRINTED LABEL,
COMPLETE SECTION II THROUGH SECTION IV.
SECTION V. -- LOCATION OF INSTALLATION
IF YOUR INSTALLATION LOCATION ADDRESS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE MAILING
ADDRESS, ENTER THE LOCATION ADDRESS OF YOUR INSTALLATION.
SECTION VI. -- INSTALLATION CONTACT
ENTER THE NAME (LAST AND FIRST) AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE PERSON
WHOM MAY BE CONTACTED REGARDING INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.
SECTION VII. -- TRANSPORTATION SERVICES USED (FOR PART A REPORTS
ONLY)
LIST THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR EACH TRANSPORTER WHOSE
SERVICES YOU USED DURING THE REPORTING YEAR.
SECTION VIII. -- COST ESTIMATES FOR FACILITIES (FOR PART B REPORTS
ONLY)
A. ENTER THE MOST RECENT COST ESTIMATE FOR FACILITY CLOSURE IN
DOLLARS. SEE SUBPART H OF 40 CFR PART 264 OR 265 FOR MORE DETAIL.
B. FOR DISPOSAL FACILITIES ONLY, ENTER THE MOST RECENT COST ESTIMATE
FOR POST CLOSURE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE. SEE SUBPART H OF 40 CFR
PART 264 OR 265 FOR MORE DETAIL.
SECTION IX. -- CERTIFICATION
THE GENERATOR OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (PART A REPORTS) OF
THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
(PARTS B AND C REPORTS) MUST SIGN AND DATE THE CERTIFICATION WHERE
INDICATED. THE PRINTED OR TYPED NAME OF THE PERSON SIGNING THE REPORT
MUST ALSO BE INCLUDED WHERE INDICATED.
NOTE. -- SINCE MORE THAN ONE PAGE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH REPORT, ENTER
THE PAGE NUMBER OF EACH SHEET IN THE LOWER RIGHT CORNER AS WELL AS THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES.
FACILITY ANNUAL REPORT FOR OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE
FACILITIES THAT TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE.
NOTE. -- GENERATORS WHO SHIP HAZARDOUS WASTE OFF-SITE TO A FACILITY
THEY OWN OR OPERATE MUST COMPLETE THIS PART B REPORT INSTEAD OF THE
GENERATOR (PART A) ANNUAL REPORT.
COMPLETING THIS FORM.
SECTION XVI. -- TYPE OF REPORT
PUT AN "X" IN THE BOX MARKED PART B.
SECTION XVII. -- FACILITY'S EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ENTER THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER FOR YOUR FACILITY.
FIGURE OMITTED
SECTION XVIII. -- GENERATOR'S EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
ENTER THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE GENERATOR OF THE WASTE
DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION XXI WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY YOUR FACILITY DURING
THE REPORTING YEAR. A SEPARATE SHEET MUST BE USED FOR EACH GENERATOR.
IF THE WASTES CAME FROM A FOREIGN GENERATOR, ENTER THE EPA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER OF THE IMPORTER IN THIS SECTION AND ENTER THE NAME
AND ADDRESS OF THE FOREIGN GENERATOR IN SECTION XXII. COMMENTS. IF THE
WASTE WAS GENERATED AND TREATED, STORED, OR DISPOSED OF AT THE SAME
INSTALLATION, LEAVE THIS SECTION BLANK.
SECTION XIX. -- GENERATOR'S NAME
ENTER THE NAME OF THE GENERATOR CORRESPONDING TO THE GENERATOR'S EPA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IN SECTION XVIII.
IF THE WASTE WAS GENERATED AND TREATED, STORED, OR DISPOSED OF AT
THE SAME INSTALLATION, ENTER "ON-SITE".
IF THE WASTE CAME FROM A FOREIGN GENERATOR, ENTER THE NAME OF THE
IMPORTER CORRESPONDING TO THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IN SECTION
XVIII.
SECTION XX. -- GENERATOR'S ADDRESS
ENTER THE ADDRESS OF THE GENERATOR CORRESPONDING TO THE GENERATOR'S
EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IN SECTION XVIII. IF THE WASTE WAS GENERATED
AND TREATED, STORED OR DISPOSED OF AT THE SAME INSTALLATION, LEAVE THIS
SECTION BLANK. IF THE WASTE CAME FROM A FOREIGN GENERATOR, ENTER THE
ADDRESS OF THE IMPORTER CORRESPONDING TO THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
IN SECTION XVIII.
SECTION XXI. -- WASTE IDENTIFICATION
ALL INFORMATION IN THIS SECTION MUST BE ENTERED BY LINE NUMBER. A
SEPARATE LINE ENTRY IS REQUIRED FOR EACH DIFFERENT WASTE OR MIXTURE OF
WASTES THAT YOUR FACILITY RECEIVED DURING THE REPORTING YEAR. THE
HANDLING CODE APPLICABLE TO THAT WASTE AT THE END OF THE REPORTING YEAR
SHOULD BE REPORTED. IF A DIFFERENT HANDLING CODE APPLIES TO PORTIONS OF
THE SAME WASTE, (E.G., PART OF THE WASTE IS STORED WHILE THE REMAINDER
WAS "CHEMICALLY FIXED" DURING THE YEAR), USE A SEPARATE LINE ENTRY FOR
EACH PORTION.
FIGURE OMITTED
SECTION XXI-A. -- DESCRIPTION OF WASTE
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTES THAT ARE LISTED UNDER 40 CFR PART 261, SUBPART
D, ENTER THE EPA LISTED NAME, ABBREVIATED IF NECESSARY. WHERE MIXTURES
OF LISTED WASTES WERE RECEIVED, ENTER THE DESCRIPTION WHICH YOU BELIEVE
BEST DESCRIBES THE WASTE.
FOR UNLISTED HAZARDOUS WASTE IDENTIFIED UNDER 40 CFR PART 261,
SUBPART C, ENTER THE DESCRIPTION WHICH YOU BELIEVE BEST DESCRIBES THE
WASTE. INCLUDE THE SPECIFIC MANUFACTURING OR OTHER PROCESS GENERATING
THE WASTE (E.G., GREEN SLUDGE FROM WIDGET MANUFACTURING) AND IF KNOWN,
THE CHEMICAL OR GENERIC CHEMICAL NAME OF THE WASTE.
SECTION XXI-B. -- EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER
FOR LISTED WASTE, ENTER THE FOUR DIGIT EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER
FROM 40 CFR PART 261, SUBPART D, WHICH IDENTIFIES THE WASTE.
FOR A MIXTURE OF MORE THAN ONE LISTED WASTE, ENTER EACH OF THE
APPLICABLE EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBERS.
FOUR SPACES ARE PROVIDED. IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED CONTINUE ON THE
NEXT LINE(S) AND LEAVE ALL OTHER INFORMATION ON THAT LINE BLANK.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 079 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113443
REGULATION
FIGURE OMITTED.
FOR UNLISTED HAZARDOUS WASTES, ENTER THE EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBERS
FROM 40 CFR PART 261, SUBPART C, APPLICABLE TO THE WASTE. IF MORE THAN
FOUR SPACES ARE REQUIRED, FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED ABOVE.
SECTION XXI-C. -- HANDLING CODE
ENTER ONE EPA HANDLING CODE FOR EACH WASTE LINE ENTRY. WHERE SEVERAL
HANDLING STEPS HAVE OCCURRED DURING THE YEAR, REPORT ONLY THE HANDLING
CODE REPRESENTING THE WASTE'S STATUS AT THE END OF THE REPORTING YEAR OR
ITS FINAL DISPOSITION. EPA HANDLING CODES ARE GIVEN IN APPENDIX I OF
THIS PART.
SECTION XXI-D. -- AMOUNT OF WASTE
ENTER THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WASTE DESCRIBED ON THIS LINE WHICH YOU
RECEIVED DURING THIS REPORTING YEAR.
SECTION XXI-C. -- UNIT OF MEASURE
ENTER THE UNIT OF MEASURE CODE FOR THE QUANTITY OF WASTE DESCRIBED ON
THIS LINE. UNITS OF MEASURE WHICH MUST BE USED IN THIS REPORT AND THE
APPROPRIATE CODES ARE:
FIGURE OMITTED
UINTS OF VOLUME MAY NOT BE USED FOR REPORTING BUT MUST BE CONVERTED
INTO ONE OF THE ABOVE UNITS OF WEIGHT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE
APPROPRIATE DENSITY OR SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE WASTE.
SECTION XXII. -- COMMENTS
THIS SPACE MAY BE USED TO EXPLAIN OR CLARIFY ANY ENTRY. IF USED,
ENTER A CROSS-REFERENCE TO THE APPROPRIATE SECTION NUMBER.
NOTE. -- SINCE MORE THAN ONE PAGE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH REPORT, ENTER
THE PAGE NUMBER OF EACH SHEET IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER AS WELL AS
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES.
WHERE REQUIRED BY 40 CFR 264 OR 265, SUBPARTS F OR R, ATTACH
GROUND-WATER MONITORING DATA TO THIS REPORT.
UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT FOR FACILITY OWNERS OR OPERATORS WHO ACCEPT
FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL ANY HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM AN OFF-SITE
SOURCE WITHOUT AN ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST.
COMPLETING THIS FORM
FOR THE UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT, EPA FORMS 8700-13 AND 8700-13B
MUST BE FILLED OUT ACCORDING TO THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE PART-B FACILITY
ANNUAL REPORT EXCEPT THAT: (1) BLOCKS FOR WHICH INFORMATION IS NOT
AVAILABLE TO THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THE REPORTING FACILITY MAY BE
MARKED "UNKNOWN," AND (2) THE FOLLOWING SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS APPLY:
SECTION VIII. -- COST ESTIMATES FOR FACILITIES
DO NOT ENTER CLOSURE OR POST-CLOSURE COST ESTIMATES.
SECTION XVI. -- TYPE OF REPORT
PUT AN "X" IN THE BOX MARKED PART C.
SECTION XXI-A. -- DESCRIPTION OF WASTE
USE AS MANY LINE NUMBERS AS ARE NEEDED TO DESCRIBE THE WASTE.
SECTION XXI-C. -- HANDLING CODE
ENTER THE HANDLING CODE WHICH DESCRIBES THE STATUS OF THE WASTE ON
THE DATE THE REPORT IS FILED.
SECTION XXI-D. -- AMOUNT OF WASTE
ENTER THE AMOUNT OF WASTE RECEIVED, RATHER THAN A TOTAL ANNUAL
AGGREGATE.
SECTION XXII. -- COMMENTS
A. ENTER THE EPA IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, NAME, AND ADDRESS OF THE
TRANSPORTER, IF KNOWN. IF THE TRANSPORTER IS NOT KNOWN TO YOU, ENTER
THE NAME AND CHAUFFEUR LICENSE NUMBER OF THE DRIVER AND THE STATE AND
LICENSE NUMBER OF THE TRANSPORTING VEHICLE WHICH PRESENTED THE WASTE TO
YOUR FACILITY, IF KNOWN.
B. ENTER AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE WASTE MOVEMENT WAS PRESENTED TO
YOUR FACILITY; WHY YOU BELIEVE THE WASTE IS HAZARDOUS; AND HOW YOUR
FACILITY PLANS TO MANAGE THE WASTES. CONTINUE ON A SEPARATE BLANK SHEET
OF PAPER IF ADDITIONAL SPACE IS NEEDED.
DO NOT ATTACH MONITORING DATA.
SEC.
265.1 PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND APPLICABILITY.
265.2-265.3 (RESERVED)
265.4 IMMINENT HAZARD ACTION.
265.5-265.9 (RESERVED)
265.10 APPLICABILITY.
265.11 IDENTIFICATION NUMBER.
265.12 REQUIRED NOTICES.
265.13 GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS.
265.14 SECURITY.
SEC.
265.15 GENERAL INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.
265.16 PERSONNEL TRAINING.
265.17 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE, REACTIVE, OR INCOMPATIBLE
WASTES.
265.18-265.29 (RESERVED)
265.30 APPLICABILITY.
265.31 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF FACILITY.
265.32 REQUIRED EQUIPMENT.
265.33 TESTING AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT.
265.34 ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEM.
265.35 REQUIRED AISLE SPACE.
265.36 (RESERVED)
265.37 ARRANGEMENTS WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES.
265.38-265.49 (RESERVED)
265.50 APPLICABILITY.
265.51 PURPOSE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
265.52 CONTENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
265.53 COPIES OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
265.54 AMENDMENT OF CONTINGENCY PLAN.
265.55 EMERGENCY COORDINATOR.
265.56 EMERGENCY PROCEDURES.
265.57-265.69 (RESERVED)
265.70 APPLICABILITY.
265.71 USE OF MANIFEST SYSTEM.
265.72 MANIFEST DISCREPANCIES.
265.73 OPERATING RECORD.
265.74 AVAILABILITY, RETENTION, AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.
265.75 ANNUAL REPORT.
265.76 UNMANIFESTED WASTE REPORT.
265.77 ADDITIONAL REPORTS.
265.78-265.89 (RESERVED)
265.90 APPLICABILITY.
265.91 GROUND-WATER MONITORING SYSTEM.
265.92 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS.
265.93 PREPARATION, EVALUATION, AND RESPONSE.
265.94 RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING.
265.95-265.109 (RESERVED)
265.110 APPLICABILITY.
265.111 CLOSURE PERFORMANCE STANDARD.
265.112 CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN.
265.113 TIME ALLOWED FOR CLOSURE.
265.114 DISPOSAL OR DECONTAMINATION OF EQUIPMENT.
265.115 CERTIFICATION OF CLOSURE.
265.116 (RESERVED)
265.117 POST-CLOSURE CARE AND USE OF PROPERTY; PERIOD OF CARE.
265.118 POST-CLOSURE PLAN; AMENDMENT OF PLAN.
265.119 NOTICE TO LOCAL LAND AUTHORITY.
265.120 NOTICE IN DEED TO PROPERTY.
265.121-265.139 (RESERVED).
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 080 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113444
REGULATION
SEC.
265.140 APPLICABILITY.
265.141 (RESERVED)
265.142 COST ESTIMATE FOR FACILITY CLOSURE.
265.143 (RESERVED)
265.144 COST ESTIMATE FOR POST-CLOSURE MONITORING AND MAINTENANCE.
265.145-265.169 (RESERVED)
265.170 APPLICABILITY.
265.171 CONDITION OF CONTAINERS.
265.172 COMPATIBILITY OF WASTE WITH CONTAINER.
265.173 MANAGEMENT OF CONTAINERS.
265.174 INSPECTIONS.
265.175 (RESERVED)
265.176 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.177 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.178-265.189 (RESERVED)
265.190 APPLICABILITY.
265.191 (RESERVED)
265.192 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.193 WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS.
265.194 INSPECTIONS.
265.195-265.196 (RESERVED)
265.197 CLOSURE.
265.198 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.199 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.200-265.219 (RESERVED)
265.220 APPLICABILITY.
265.221 (RESERVED)
265.222 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.223 CONTAINMENT SYSTEM.
265.224 (RESERVED)
265.225 WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS.
265.226 INSPECTIONS.
265.227 (RESERVED)
265.228 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE.
265.229 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.230 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.231-265.249 (RESERVED)
265.250 APPLICABILITY.
265.251 PROTECTION FROM WIND.
265.252 WASTE ANALYSIS.
265.253 CONTAINMENT.
265.254-265.255 (RESERVED)
265.256 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTES.
265.257 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.258-265.269 (RESERVED)
265.270 APPLICABILITY.
265.271 (RESERVED)
265.272 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.273 WASTE ANALYSIS.
265.275-265.275 (RESERVED)
265.276 FOOD CHAIN CROPS.
265.277 (RESERVED)
265.278 UNSATURATED ZONE (ZONE OF AERATION) MONITORING.
SEC.
265.279 RECORDKEEPING.
265.280 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE.
265.281 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.282 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.283-265.299 (RESERVED)
265.300 APPLICABILITY.
265.301 (RESERVED)
265.302 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.303-265.308 (RESERVED)
265.309 SURVEYING AND RECORDKEEPING.
265.310 CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE.
265.311 (RESERVED)
265.312 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.313 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.314 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LIQUID WASTE.
265.315 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTAINERS.
265.316-265.339 (RESERVED)
265.340 APPLICABILITY.
265.341-265.342 (RESERVED)
265.343 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.344 (RESERVED)
265.345 WASTE ANALYSIS.
265.346 (RESERVED)
265.347 MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS.
265.348-265.350 (RESERVED)
265.351 CLOSURE.
265.352-265.369 (RESERVED)
265.370 APPLICABILITY.
265.371-265.372 (RESERVED)
265.373 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.374 (RESERVED)
265.375 WASTE ANALYSIS.
265.376 (RESERVED)
265.377 MONITORING AND INSPECTIONS.
265.378-265.380 (RESERVED)
265L381 CLOSURE.
265.382 OPEN BURNING; WASTE EXPLOSIVES.
265.383-265.399 (RESERVED)
265.400 APPLICABILITY.
265.401 GENERAL OPERATING REQUIREMENTS.
265.402 WASTE ANALYSIS AND TRIAL TESTS.
265.403 INSPECTIONS.
265.404 CLOSURE.
265.405 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
265.406 SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES.
265.407-265.429 (RESERVED)
265.430 APPLICABILITY.
265.431-265.999 (RESERVED)
APPENDIX I -- RECORDKEEPING INSTRUCTIONS.
APPENDIX II -- EPA REPORT FORM AND INSTRUCTIONS.
APPENDIX III -- EPA INTERIM PRIMARY DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.
APPENDIX IV -- TESTS FOR SIGNIFICANCE.
APPENDIX V -- EXAMPLES OF POTENTIALLY INCOMPATIBLE WASTE.
AUTHORITY: SECS. 1006, 2002(A), AND 3004 OF THE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
ACT, AS AMENDED BY THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976,
AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C 6905, 6912(A), AND 6924).
(A) THE PURPOSE OF THIS PART IS TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM NATIONAL
STANDARDS WHICH DEFINE THE ACCEPTABLE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
DURING THE PERIOD OF INTERIM STATUS.
(B) THE STANDARDS IN THIS PART APPLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
FACILITIES WHICH TREAT, STORE, OR DISPOSE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE WHO HAVE
FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERIM STATUS UNDER SECTION
3005(E) OF RCRA AND SECTION 122.22 OF THIS CHAPTER, UNTIL FINAL
ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION OF THEIR PERMIT APPLICATION IS MADE. THESE
STANDARDS APPLY TO ALL TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS
WASTE AT THESE FACILITIES AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS,
EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE IN THIS PART OF PART 261 OF
THIS CHAPTER.
(COMMENT: AS STATED IN SECTION 3005(A) OF RCRA, AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF REGULATIONS UNDER THAT SECTION, I.E., PARTS 122 AND 124 OF THIS
CHAPTER, THE TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IS
PROHIBITED EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH A PERMIT. SECTION 3005(E) OF RCRA
PROVIDES FOR THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF AN EXISTING FACILITY WHICH MEETS
CERTAIN CONDITIONS UNTIL FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION OF THE OWNER'S
AND OPERATOR'S PERMIT APPLICATION IS MADE.)
(C) THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART DO NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PERSON DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL
SUBJECT TO A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER THE MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND
SANCTUARIES ACT;
(COMMENT: THESE PART 265 REGULATIONS DO APPLY TO THE TREATMENT OR
STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BEFORE IT IS LOADED ONTO AN OCEAN VESSEL FOR
INCINERATION OR DISPOSAL AT SEA, AS PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS
SECTION.)
(2) A PERSON DISPOSING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF UNDERGROUND
INJECTION SUBJECT TO A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER AN UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL (UIC) PROGRAM APPROVED OR PROMULGATED UNDER THE SAFE DRINKING
WATER ACT;
(COMMENT: THESE PART 265 REGULATIONS DO APPLY TO THE ABOVEGROUND
TREATMENT OR STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BEFORE IT IS INJECTED
UNDERGROUND. THESE PART 265 REGULATIONS ALSO APPLY TO THE DISPOSAL OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION, AS PROVIDED IN
PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SECTION, UNTIL FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DISPOSITION OF
A PERSON'S PERMIT APPLICATION IS MADE UNDER RCRA OR UNDER AN APPROVED OR
PROMULGATED UIC PROGRAM).
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 081 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113445
REGULATION
(3) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A POTW WHICH TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSES
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE;
(COMMENT: THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY UNDER PARAGRAPHS
(C)(1) THROUGH (C)(3) OF THIS SECTION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PART 264 OF THIS CHAPTER TO THE EXTENT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN A PERMIT BY
RULE GRANTED TO SUCH A PERSON UNDER PART 122 OF THIS CHAPTER, OR ARE
REQUIRED BY SECTION 122.45 OF THIS CHAPTER.)
(4) A PERSON WHO TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSES OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN A
STATE WITH A RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM AUTHORIZED UNDER SUBPARTS A
AND B, OR SUBPART F, OF PART 123 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT THAT THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART WILL CONTINUE TO APPLY AS STATED IN PARAGRAPH
(C)(2) OF THIS SECTION, IF THE AUTHORIZED STATE RCRA PROGRAM DOES NOT
COVER DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY MEANS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION;
(5) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY PERMITTED, LICENSED, OR
REGISTERED BY A STATE TO MANAGE MUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE, IF
THE ONLY HAZARDOUS WASTE THE FACILITY TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSES OF IS
EXCLUDED FROM REGULATION UNDER THIS PART BY SECTION 261.5 OF THIS
CHAPTER;
(6) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY WHICH TREATS OR STORES
HAZARDOUS WASTE, WHICH TREATMENT OR STORAGE MEETS THE CRITERIA IN
SECTION 261.6(A) OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SECTION
261.6(B) OF THIS CHAPTER PROVIDES OTHERWISE;
(7) A GENERATOR ACCUMULATING WASTE ON-SITE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION
262.34 OF THIS CHAPTER, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE
INCLUDED IN SECTION 262.34 OF THIS CHAPTER;
(8) A FARMER DISPOSING OF WASTE PESTICIDES FROM HIS OWN USE IN
COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 262.51 OF THIS CHAPTER; OR
(9) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A TOTALLY ENCLOSED TREATMENT FACILITY,
AS DEFINED IN SECTION 260.10.
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS,
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS MAY BE BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 7003 OF RCRA.
THE REGULATIONS IN THIS SUBPART APPLY TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF ALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES, EXCEPT AS SECTION 265.1 PROVIDES OTHERWISE.
EVERY FACILITY OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST APPLY TO EPA FOR AN EPA
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EPA NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
(45 FR 12746).
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF A FACILITY THAT HAS ARRANGED TO RECEIVE
HAZARDOUS WASTE FROM A FOREIGN SOURCE MUST NOTIFY THE REGIONAL
ADMINISTRATOR IN WRITING AT LEAS FOUR WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE DATE OF
THE WASTE IS EXPECTED TO ARRIVE AT THE FACILITY. NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT
SHIPMENTS OF THE SAME WASTE FROM THE SAME FOREIGN SOURCE IS NOT
REQUIRED.
(B) BEFORE TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OR OPERATION OF A FACILITY DURING
ITS OPERATING LIFE, OR OF A DISPOSAL FACILITY DURING THE POST-CLOSURE
CARE PERIOD, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST NOTIFY THE NEW OWNER OR OPERATOR
IN WRITING OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART AND PART 122 OF THIS
CHAPTER. (ALSO SEE SECTION 122.23(C) OF THIS CHAPTER.)
(COMMENT: AN OWNER'S OR OPERATOR'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY THE NEW OWNER
OR OPERATOR OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART IN NO WAY RELIEVES THE NEW
OWNER OR OPERATOR OF HIS OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
REQUIREMENTS.)
(A)(1) BEFORE AN OWNER OR OPERATOR TREATS, STORES, OR DISPOSES OF ANY
HAZARDOUS WASTE, HE MUST OBTAIN A DETAILED CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL
ANALYSIS OF A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE OF THE WASTE. AT A MINIMUM, THIS
ANALYSIS MUST CONTAIN ALL THE INFORMATION WHICH MUST BE KNOWN TO TREAT,
STORE, OR DISPOSE OF THE WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS PART.
(2) THE ANALYSIS MAY INCLUDE DATA DEVELOPED UNDER PART 261 OF THIS
CHAPTER, AND EXISTING PUBLISHED OR DOCUMENTED DATA ON THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE OR ON WASTE GENERATED FROM SIMILAR PROCESSES.
(COMMENT: FOR EXAMPLE, THE FACILITY'S RECORD OF ANALYSES PERFORMED
ON THE WASTE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS, OR STUDIES
CONDUCTED ON HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED FROM PROCESSES SIMILAR TO THAT
WHICH GENERATED THE WASTE TO BE MANAGED AT THE FACILITY, MAY BE INCLUDED
IN THE DATA BASE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH (A)(1) OF THIS
SECTION. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN OFF-SITE FACILITY MAY ARRANGE FOR
THE GENERATOR OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE TO SUPPLY PART OR ALL OF THE
INFORMATION REQUIRED BY PARAGRAPH (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION. IF THE
GENERATOR DOES NOT SUPPLY THE INFORMATION, AND THE OWNER OR OPERATOR
CHOOSES TO ACCEPT A HAZARDOUS WASTE, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING THE INFORMATION REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THIS
SECTION.)
(3) THE ANALYSIS MUST BE REPEATED AS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT IT IS
ACCURATE AND UP TO DATE. AT A MINIMUM, THE ANALYSIS MUST BE REPEATED:
(I) WHEN THE OWNER OR OPERATOR IS NOTIFIED, OR HAS REASON TO BELIEVE,
THAT THE PROCESS OR OPERATION GENERATING THE HAZARDOUS WASTE HAS
CHANGED; AND
(II) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, WHEN THE RESULTS OF THE INSPECTION
REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH (A)(4) OF THIS SECTION INDICATE THAT THE HAZARDOUS
WASTE RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY DOES NOT MATCH THE WASTE DESIGNATED ON
THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER.
(4) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF AN OFF-SITE FACILITY MUST INSPECT AND,
IF NECESSARY, ANALYZE EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE MOVEMENT RECEIVED AT THE
FACILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT MATCHES THE IDENTITY OF THE WASTE
SPECIFIED ON THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST OR SHIPPING PAPER.
(B) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST DEVELOP AND FOLLOW A WRITTEN WASTE
ANALYSIS PLAN WHICH DESCRIBES THE PROCEDURES WHICH HE WILL CARRY OUT TO
COMPLY WITH PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION. HE MUST KEEP THIS PLAN AT
THE FACILITY. AT A MINIMUM, THE PLAN MUST SPECIFY:
(1) THE PARAMETERS FOR WHICH EACH HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE ANALYZED
AND THE RATIONALE FOR THE SELECTION OF THESE PARAMETERS (I.E., HOW
ANALYSIS FOR THESE PARAMETERS WILL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION WITH
PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION);
(2) THE TEST METHODS WHICH WILL BE USED TO TEST FOR THESE PARAMETERS;
(3) THE SAMPLING METHOD WHICH WILL BE USED TO OBTAIN A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE OF THE WASTE TO BE ANALYZED. A REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE MAY BE
OBTAINED USING EITHER:
(I) ONE OF THE SAMPLING METHODS DESCRIBED IN APPENDIX I OF PART 261
OF THIS CHAPTER; OR
(II) AN EQUIVALENT SAMPLING METHOD.
(COMMENT: SEE SECTION 260.20(C) OF THIS CHAPTER FOR RELATED
DISCUSSION.)
(4) THE FREQUENCY WITH WHICH THE INITIAL ANALYSIS OF THE WASTE WILL
BE REVIEWED OR REPEATED TO ENSURE THAT THE ANALYSIS IS ACCURATE AND UP
TO DATE;
(5) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, THE WASTE ANALYSES THAT HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATORS HAVE AGREED TO SUPPLY; AND
(6) WHERE APPLICABLE, THE METHODS WHICH WILL BE USED TO MEET THE
ADDITIONAL WASTE ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC WASTE MANAGEMENT
METHODS AS SPECIFIED IN SECTIONS 265.193, 265.225, 265.252, 265.273,
265.345, 265.375, AND 265.402.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 082 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113446
REGULATION
(C) FOR OFF-SITE FACILITIES, THE WASTE ANALYSIS PLAN REQUIRED IN
PARAGRAPH (B) OF THIS SECTION MUST ALSO SPECIFY THE PROCEDURES WHICH
WILL BE USED TO INSPECT AND, IF NECESSARY, ANALYZE EACH MOVEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE RECEIVED AT THE FACILITY TO ENSURE THAT IT MATCHES THAT
IDENTITY OF THE WASTE DESIGNATED ON THE ACCOMPANYING MANIFEST OR
SHIPPING PAPER. AT A MINIMUM, THE PLAN MUST DESCRIBE:
(1) THE PROCEDURES WHICH WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE THE IDENTIDY OF
EACH MOVEMENT OF WASTE MANAGED AT THE FACILITY; AND
(2) THE SAMPLING METHOD WHICH WILL BE USED TO OBTAIN A REPRESENTATIVE
SAMPLE OF THE WASTE TO BE IDENTIFIED, IF THE IDENTIFICATION METHODS
INCLUDES SAMPLING.
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST PREVENT THE UNKNOWING ENTRY, AND
MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY FOR THE UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY, OF PERSONS OR
LIVESTOCK ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF HIS FACILITY, UNLESS:
(1) PHYSICAL CONTACT WITH THE WASTE, STRUCTURES, OR EQUIPMENT WITH
THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY WILL NOT INJURE UNKNOWING OR
UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS OR LIVESTOCK WHICH MAY ENTER THE ACTIVE PORTION OF
A FACILITY, AND
(2) DISTURBANCE OF THE WASTE OR EQUIPMENT, BY THE UNKNOWING OR
UNAUTHROIZED ENTRY OF PERSONS OR LIVESTOCK ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF A
FACILITY, WILL NOT CAUSE A VIOLATION OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART.
(B) UNLESS EXEMPT UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A)(1) AND (A)(2) OF THIS SECTION,
A FACILITY MUST HAVE:
(1) A 24-HOUR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM (E.G., TELEVISION MONITORING OR
SURVEILLANCE BY GUARDS OF FACILITY PERSONNEL) WHICH CONTINUOUSLY
MONITORS AND CONTROLS ENTRY ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY: OR
(2)(I) AN ARTIFICIAL OR NATURAL BARRIER (E.G., A FENCE IN GOOD REPAIR
OR A FENCE COMBINED WITH A CLIFF), WHICH COMPLETELY SURROUNDS THE ACTIVE
PORTION OF THE FACILITY; AND
(II) A MEANS TO CONTROL ENTRY, AT ALL TIMES, THROUGH THE GATES OR
OTHER ENTRANCES TO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF THE FACILITY (E.G., AN
ATTENDANT, TELEVISION MONITORS, LOCKED ENTRANCE, OR CONTROLLED ROADWAY
ACCESS TO THE FACILITY). (COMMENT: THE REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH (B)
OF THIS SECTION ARE SATISFIED IF THE FACILITY OR PLANT WITHIN WHICH THE
ACTIVE PORTION IS LOCATED ITSELF HAS A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, OR A BARRIER
AND A MEANS TO CONTROL ENTRY, WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
PARAGRAPH (B)(1) OR (B)(2) OF THIS SECTION.)
(C) UNLESS EXEMPT UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A)(1) AND (A)(2) OF THIS SECTION,
A SIGN WITH THE LEGEND, "DANGER - UNAUTHORIZED PERSONNEL KEEP OUT", MUST
BE POSTED AT EACH ENTRANCE TO THE ACTIVE PORTION OF A FACILITY, AND AT
OTHER LOCATIONS, IN SUFFICIENT NUMBERS TO BE SEEN FROM ANY APPROACH TO
THIS ACTIVE PORTION. THE LEGEND MUST BE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH AND IN ANY
OTHER LANGUAGE PREDOMINANT IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE FACILITY (E.G.,
FACILITIES IN COUNTIES BORDERING THE CANADIAN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC MUST
POST SIGNS IN FRENCH; FACILITIES IN COUNTIES BORDERING MEXICO MUST POST
SIGNS IN SPANISH), AND MUST BE LEGIBLE FROM A DISTANCE OF AT LEAST 25
FEET. EXISTING SIGNS WITH A LEGEND OTHER THAN "DANGER- UNAUTHORIZED
PERSONNEL KEEP OUT" MAY BE USED IF THE LEGEND ON THE SIGN INDICATES THAT
ONLY AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ARE ALLOWED TO ENTER THE ACTIVE PORTION, AND
THAT ENTRY ONTO THE ACTIVE PORTION CAN BE DANGEROUS. (COMMENTS: SEE
SECTION 265.117(B) FOR DISCUSSION OF SECURITY REQUIREMENTS AT DISPOSAL
FACILITIES DURING THE POST-CLOSURE PERIOD.)
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST INSPECT HIS FACILITY FOR MALFUNCTIONS
AND DETERIORATION, OPERATOR ERRORS, AND DISCHARGES WHICH MAY BE CAUSING
- OR MAY LEAD TO - (1) RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSTITUENTS TO THE
ENVIRONMENT OR (2) A THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST
CONDUCT THESE INSPECTIONS OFTEN ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY PROBLEMS IN TIME TO
CORRECT THEM BEFORE THEY HARM HUMAN HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT.
(B)(1) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST DEVELOP AND FOLLOW A WRITTEN
SCHEDULE FOR INSPECTING ALL MONITORING EQUIPMENT, SAFETY AND EMEMRGENCY
EQUIPMENT, SECURITY DEVICES, AND OPERATING AND STRUCTURAL EQUIPMENT
(SUCH AS DIKES AND SUMP PUMPS) THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO PREVENTING,
DETECTING, OR RESPONDING TO ENVIRONMENTAL OR HUMAN HEALTH HAZARDS.
(2) HE MUST KEEP THIS SCHEDULE AT THE FACILITY.
(3) THE SCHEDULE MUST IDENTIFY THE TYPES OF PROBLEMS (E.G.,
MALFUNCTIONS OR DETERIORATION) WHICH ARE TO BE LOOKED FOR DURING THE
INSPECTION (E.G., INOPERATIVE SUMP PUMP, LEAKING FITTING, ERODING DIKE,
ETC.)
(4) THE FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION MAY VARY FOR THE ITEMS ON THE
SCHEDULE. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE BASED ON THE RATE OF POSSIBLE
DETERIORATION OF THE EQUIPMENT AND THE PROBABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
OR HUMAN HEALTH INCIDENT IF THE DETERIORATION OR MALFUNCTION OR ANY
OPERATOR ERROR GOES UNDETECTED BETWEEN INSPECTIONS. AREAS SUBJECT TO
SPILLS, SUCH AS LOADING AND UNLOADING AREAS, MUST BE INSPECTED DAILY
WHEN IN USE. AT A MINIMUM, THE INSPECTION SCHEDULE MUST INCLUDE THE
ITEMS AND FREQUENCIES CALLED FOR IN SECTIONS 265.174, 265.194, 265.226,
265.347, 265.377, AND 265.403.
(C) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST REMEDY ANY DETERIORATION OR
MALFUNCTION OF EQUIPMENT OR STRUCTURES WHICH THE INSPECTION REVEALS ON A
SCHEDULE WHICH ENSURES THAT THE PROBLEM DOES NOT LEAD TO AN
ENVIRONMENTAL OR HUMAN HEALTH HAZARD. WHERE A HAZARD IS IMMINENT OR HAS
ALREADY OCCURRED, REMEDIAL ACTION MUST BE TAKEN IMMEDIATELY.
(D) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST RECORD INSPECTIONS IN AN INSPECTION
LOG OR SUMMARY. HE MUST KEEP THESE RECORDS FOR AT LEAST THREE YEARS
FROM THE DATE OF INSPECTION. AT A MINIMUM THESE RECORDS MUST INCLUDE
THE DATE AND TIME OF THE INSPECTION, THE NAME OF THE INSPECTOR, A
NOTATION OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE, AND THE DATE AND NATURE OF ANY
REPAIRS OR OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIONS.
(A)(1) FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE A PROGRAM OF
CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION OR ON-THE-JOB TRAINING THAT TEACHES THEM TO
PERFORM THEIR DUTIES IN A WAY THAT ENSURES THE FACILITY'S COMPLIANCE
WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PART. THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST ENSURE
THAT THIS PROGRAM INCLUDES ALL THE ELEMENTS DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT
REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (D)(3) OF THIS SECTION.
(2) THIS PROGRAM MUST BE DIRECTED BY A PERSON TRAINED IN HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES, AND MUST INCLUDE INSTRUCTION WHICH TEACHES
FACILITY PERSONNEL HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES (INCLUDING
CONTINGENCY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION) RELEVANT TO THE POSITIONS IN WHICH THEY
ARE EMPLOYED.
(3) AT A MINIMUM, THE TRAINING PROGRAM MUST BE DESIGNED TO ENSURE
THAT FACILITY PERSONNEL ARE ABLE TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY TO EMERGENCIES
BY FAMILIARIZING THEM WITH EMERGENCY PROCEDURES, EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT,
AND EMERGENCY SYSTEMS, INCLUDING WHERE APPLICABLE:
(I) PROCEDURES FOR USING, INSPECTING, REPAIRING, AND REPLACING
FACILITY EMERGENCY AND MONITORING EQUIPMENT;
(II) KEY PARAMETERS FOR AUTOMATIC WASTE FEED CUT-OFF SYSTEMS:
(III) COMMUNICATIONS OR ALARM SYSTEMS:
(IV) RESPONSE TO FIRES OR EXPLOSIONS:
(V) RESPONSE TO GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION INCIDENTS; AND
(B) FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST SUCCESSFULY COMPLETE THE PROGRAM REQUIRED
IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THESE REGULATIONS OR SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF THEIR
EMPLOYMENT OR ASSIGNMENT TO A FACILITY, OR TO A NEW POSITION AT A
FACILITY, WHICHEVER IS LATER. EMPLOYEES HIRED AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THESE REGULATIONS MUST NOT WORK IN UNSUPERVISED POSITIONS UNTIL THEY
HAVE COMPLETED THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS
SECTION.
800519
FEDERAL REGISTER PART 7
EPA, HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265 FRL 1446-8 VOLUME 45 NUMBER 98
PART 083 OF 106
COSTLE D M ADMINISTRATOR
EPA
113447
REGULATION
(C) FACILITY PERSONNEL MUST TAKE PART IN AN ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE
INITIAL TRAINING REQUIRED IN PARAGRAPH (A) OF THIS SECTION.
(D) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST MAINTAIN THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND
RECORDS AT THE FACILITY;
(1) THE JOB TITLE FOR EACH POSITION AT THE FACILITY RELATED TO
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT, AND THE NAME OF THE EMPLOYEE FILING EACH
JOB;
(2) A WRITTEN JOB DESCRIPTION FOR EACH POSITION LISTED UNDER
PARAGRAPH (D)(1) OF THIS SECTION. THIS DESCRIPTION MAY BE CONSISTENT IN
ITS DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY WITH DESCRIPTIONS FOR OTHER SIMILAR POSITIONS
IN THE SAME COMPANY LOCATION OR BARGAINING UNIT, BUT MUST INCLUDE THE
REQUISITE SKILL, EDUCATION, OR OTHER QUALIFICATIONS, AND DUTIES OF
FACILITY PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO EACH POSITION;
(3) A WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF THE TYPE AND AMOUNT OF BOTH INTRODUCTORY
AND CONTINUING TRAINING THAT WILL BE GIVEN TO EACH PERSON FILLING A
POSITION LISTED UNDER PARAGRAPH (D)(1) OF THIS SECTION;
(4) RECORDS THAT DOCUMENT THAT THE TRAINING OR JOB EXPERIENCE
REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPHS (A), (B), AND (C) OF THIS SECTION HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO, AND COMPLETED BY, FACILITY PERSONNEL.
(3) TRAINING RECORDS ON CURRENT PERSONNEL MUST BE KEPT UNTIL CLOSURE
OF THE FACILITY. TRAINING RECORDS ON FORMER EMPLOYEES MUST BE KEPT FOR
AT LEAST THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE THE EMPLOYEE LAST WORKED AT THE
FACILITY. PERSONNEL TRAINING RECORDS MAY ACCOMPANY PERSONNEL
TRANSFERRED WITHIN THE SAME COMPANY.
(A) THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST TAKE PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT ACCIDENTAL
IGNITION OR REACTION OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE. THIS WASTE MUST BE
SEPARATED AND PROTECTED FROM SOURCES OF IGNITION TO: OPEN FLAMES,
SMOKING, CUTTING AND WELDING, HOT SURFACES, FRICTIONAL HEAT, SPARKS
(STATIC, ELECTRICAL, OR MECHANICAL), SPONTANEOUS IGNITION (E.G., FROM
HEAT-PRODUCING CHEMICAL REACTIONS), AND RADIANT HEAT. WHILE IGNITABLE
OR REACTIVE WASTE IS BEING HANDLED, THE OWNER OR OPERATOR MUST CONFINE
SMOKING AND OPEN FLAME TO SPECIALLY DESIGNED LOCATIONS. "NO SMOKING"
SIGNS MUST BE CONSPICUOUSLY PLACED WHEREVER THERE IS A HAZARD FROM
IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE.
(B) WHERE SPECIFICALLY REQUIRED BY OTHER SECTIONS OF THIS PART, THE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, OR DISPOSAL OF IGNITABLE OR REACTIVE WASTE, AND THE
MIXTURE OR COMMINGLING OF INCOMPATIBLE WASTES, OR INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
AND MATERIALS, MUST BE CONDUCTED SO THAT IT DOES NOT:
(1) GENERATE EXTREME HEAT OR PRESSURE, FIRE OR EXPLOSION, OR VIOLENT
REACTION;
(2) PRODUCE UNCONTROLLED TOXIC MISTS, FUMES, DUSTS, OR GASES IN
SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES TO THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH;
(3) PRODUCE UNCONTROLLED FLAMMABLE FUMES OR GASES IN SUFFICIENT
QUANTITIES TO POSE A RISK OF FIRE OR EXPLOSIONS;
(4) DAMAGE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE DEVICE OR FACILITY
CONTAINING THE WASTE; OR
(5) THROUGH OTHER LIKE MEANS THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH OR THE
ENVIRONMENT.