Friday
February 12, 1993
Part VIII
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 261
Exemption of Petroleum-Contaminated
Media and Debris From Underground
Storage Tanks From RCRA Hazardous
Waste Requirements; Proposed Rule
15:39Fab 11,1993 VerDate 11-FEB-93 JM340999 POOOOOO FrmOOOH Fmt4717 SW4717 E:\FR\FM\P12FE3.PT2
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
8504
Federal Register / VoL •. 58,-No.. 28 /» Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
IFHL-4595-9]
BIN2050-AD69
Exemption of Petroleum-Contaminated
Media and Debris From Underground
Storage Tanks From RCRA Hazardous
Waste Requirements: Proposed Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protectipn
Agency,
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take final
action on an issue deferred in the 1990
hazardous waste Toxicity
Characteristics (TC) rule under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The Agency proposes to
exempt, from certain portions of EPA's
hazardous waste regulations, petroleum-
contaminated media and debris, such as
soils and groundwater, that are
generated from underground storage
tank (UST) corrective actions that are
subject to subtitle I of RCRA. The
exemption would be limited to the 25
newly listed organic chemicals under
tho TC (i.e., Hazardous Waste Codes
D018 through D043 only). After
consideration of comments received in
response to this proposed rule, EPA will
publish a rule containing the Agency's
final determination regarding the
permanent regulatory status of UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris under RCRA.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule must be submitted on or
before April 13,1993. ,
ADDRESSES: Written comments on
today's proposal should be addressed to
the docket clerk at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, RCRA Docket (OS-305), 401M
Streat, SW., Washington, DC 20460. One
original and two copies of comments
should bo sent and identified by
regulatory docket reference number F-
93-DPUP-FFFFF. The docket is open
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
Docket materials may be reviewed by
appointment by calling (202) 260-9327.
Copies of docket materials may be made
at a cost of $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information about this proposal,
contact the RCRA/Superfund Hotline,
Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460, (800) 424-9346
(toll-free) or (703) 412-9810 (local). For
the hearing impaired, the number is
(800) 553-7672 (toll-free), or (703) 412-
3323 (local). For technical information
on this proposal, contact John
Heffelfinger in the EPA Office of
Underground Storage Tanks at (703)
308-8881. To obtain copies of the
reports or other materials referred to in
this proposal, contact the RCRA Docket
at the phone number or address listed
above.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
A. Toxicity Characteristics Rule
The Toxicity Characteristics (TC) rule
for identifying hazardous wastes was
promulgated by the Agency on March
29,1990 (55 FR11798), was amended
on June 29,1990 (55 FR 26986), and
became effective on September 25,1990.
The rule replaced the Extraction
Procedure (EP) leach test with the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), added 25 organic
chemicals to the list of toxic
constituents of concern, and established
regulatory levels for these organic
chemicals.
The overall effect of the TC rule was
to subject additional solid wastes to
regulatory control under the hazardous
waste provisions of subtitle C of RCRA..
Under this rule, a waste may be a
hazardous waste if any chemicals listed
in the rule, such as benzene, are present
in leachate from the waste (generated
from use of the TCLP) at or above the
specified regulatory levels. Management
of such hazardous waste is subject to
stringent RCRA subtitle C controls.
B. The UST Deferral
Among the wastes that could be TC
wastes are petroleum contaminated
media and debris. At the time of
promulgation of the final TC rule, the
Agency made a determination to
temporarily defer applicability of the TC
rule to media and debris (e.g., soils and
groundwater) contaminated with
petroleum from underground storage
tanks (USTs) that are subject to the
corrective action requirements of
subtitle I of RCRA. 55 FR 11862 (March
29,1990), as amended 55 FR 26986
(June 29,1990). The deferral was
limited to the 25 newly listed organic
chemicals under the TC (i.e., Hazardous
Waste Codes D018 through D043 only).
See 40 CFR 261.4(b)(10).
The deferral was the result of several
factors. See 55 FR 11836 (March 29,
1990). Because the potential impact of
the TC on materials generated from UST
cleanups did not become apparent until
very late in the rulemaking process, at
the time of promulgation of the final TC
rule, the Agency had little information
regarding the full impact of the TC rule
on UST cleanups, particularly regarding
the amount of contaminated media that
would become hazardous waste and the
type of management feasible and
appropriate for such waste. However,
available information suggested that the
impact of applying subtitle C to UST
cleanups might be severe in terms of the
administrative feasibility of both the
subtitle C and subtitle I programs. A
preliminary assessment indicated that
the number of UST cleanup sites and
the amount of media and debris at each
site that would exhibit the toxicity
characteristic could be extremely high,
with EPA expecting hundreds of
thousands of UST releases to be
identified in the next few years. The
Agency believed that subjecting all, or
even a portion, of these sites to subtitle
C requirements could overwhelm the
hazardous waste permitting program
and the capacity of existing hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
In addition, EPA believed that
imposition of the requirements could
delay UST cleanups significantly,
require an enormous new commitment
of Federal and State resources, and
undermine the State and local focus of
the UST program. All of these factors
suggested that EPA needed additional
time to determine with more certainty
what the impacts of the TC would be on
UST cleanups before subjecting such
materials to hazardous waste
requirements. In addition, EPA needed
time to investigate whether regulatory
changes could be made to RCRA subtitle
C regulations to allow appropriate
integration of the two programs. EPA
also believed that the UST regulations
governing cleanup at these sites would
be adequate to protect human health
and the environment in the interim,
until a final determination was made
regarding the regulation of UST wastes.
In the preamble explaining the need
for the deferral, EPA committed to
undertaking several studies and
meetings in order to make a final
determination concerning the regulation
of these UST wastes under the subtitle
C program. Since the temporary deferral
was published on March 29,1990, EPA
has conducted several studies and held
meetings with interested members of the
public regarding the temporary deferral
and the anticipated effects of regulating
UST petroleum-contaminated media
and debris as hazardous wastes under
subtitle C of RCRA. EPA recently
published a Notice of Data Availability
summarizing the findings of these
studies and the results of the public
meetings. 55 FR 36866 (August 14,
1S;3er*t>11,1G93 V«D«lo11-FEB-93 JM340999 POOOOOO FrmOOXK Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
8505
1992). Comments received in response
to the Notice of Data Availability will
also be used by the Agency in making
its final determination regarding the
permanent regulatory status of UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris as hazardous waste under RCRA
subtitle C.
II. Explanation of Today's Proposal
Today's action proposes to exempt
contaminated media and debris, that are
generated from petroleum UST
corrective actions that are subject to
subtitle I of RCRA, from certain portions
of the RCRA Toxicity Characteristics
rule. The exemption would be limited to
the 25 newly listed organic chemicals
under the TC rule (i.e., Hazardous Waste
Codes D018 through D043 only).
- The proposed action would be
accomplished by maintaining the
language contained in the current
temporary deferral for UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris, found
at 40 CFR 261.4(b)(10). This deferral
currently reads as follows:
Section 261.4 Exclusions
*****
(b) Solid wastes which are not hazardous
wastes. The following solid wastes are not
hazardous wastes:
*****
(10) Petroleum-contaminated media and
debris that fail the test for the Toxicity
Characteristic of section 261.24 (Hazardous
Waste Codes D018 through D043 only) and
are subject to the corrective action
regulations under part 280 of this chapter.
If EPA issues the final determination
as it is being proposed today, the
current language of the deferral would
remain unchanged. Each of the
individual elements of the proposal is
discussed in more detail below.
A. Contaminated Media and Debris
The term contaminated media
includes naturally-occurring materials
such as soil, groundwater, surface water,
and air that have become contaminated
with substances released from
petroleum underground storage tanks.
The term debris means solid material
exceeding 60 mm (2.5 inch) particle size
that is: (1) A manufactured object; or (2)
plant or animal matter; or (3) natural
geologic material. This term is defined
by EPA at 40 CFR 268.2(g). See 57 FR
37270 (Aug. 18, 1992). The definition of
debris includes material that is plant or
animal matter such as grass, trees, and
stumps; or is natural geologic material
such as rocks and boulders; or is a solid,
man-made material such as concrete,
buried tires, buried empty drums, as
well as empty petroleum USTs and
empty piping that are present at the site.
Included in this term are the UST and
piping from which the petroleum
substance was released, provided they
are empty in accordance with EPA's
closure regulations for underground
storage tanks. 40 CFR 280.70(a) of these
regulations defines an UST system to be
empty when "no more than 2.5
centimeters (one inch) of residue, or 0.3
percent by weight of the total capacity
of the UST system, remain in the
system."
B. Petroleum UST Corrective Actions
Under today's proposal, contaminated
media and debris are exempted if
"subject to the corrective action
regulations" under 40 CFR part 280.
EPA interprets this to include all media
and debris generated in response to
known or suspected releases from a
petroleum UST system. The term
"petroleum UST system" is defined in
EPA's UST regulations at 40 CFR
280.12. Responses to releases from
petroleum UST systems are covered by
EPA's UST regulations at 40 CFR part
280 under subpart E—Release
Reporting, Investigation, and
Confirmation, and subpart F—Release
Response and Corrective Action for UST
Systems Containing Petroleum and
Hazardous Substances.
The proposed exemption also
includes contaminated media and
debris discovered as a result of routine
petroleum UST closures, UST site
assessments, and UST replacements.
The rationale for this approach is that
the discovery of contamination when
performing these routine activities
requires reporting under EPA's UST
regulations, as the contamination
represents a known or suspected release
from an UST. See 40 CFR 280.50. Such
releases are subject to subparts E and F
of EPA's UST regulations, referenced
above.
C, Subtitle I of RCRA
Today's proposal applies only to
contaminated media and debris from
petroleum USTs that are subject to the
corrective action regulations under
subtitle I of RCRA (40 CFR part 280.60-
280.67). Contaminated media and debris
from non-subtitle I regulated sources
(e.g., above ground tanks; farm and
residential motor fuel USTs of 1100 or
less gallons capacity) are not included
in the proposed exemption. These
materials, however, are the subject of a
separate proposed rulemaking by the
Agency. This separate rulemaking is
discussed elsewhere in today's
preamble.
USTs storing heating oil for
consumptive use on the premises where
stored are not regulated under subtitle I
and, thus, are not covered by the
proposed exemption. However, •
contaminated media and debris
generated from residential heating oil
tanks are "household wastes" under 40
CFR 261.4(b)(l). Under EPA's subtitle C
regulations, household wastes are solid
wastes but are excluded from
consideration as hazardous wastes.
Thus, contaminated media and debris
from residential heating oil tanks are not
hazardous wastes under subtitle C of
RCRA.
D. Request for Comments
EPA requests commenters to indicate
their support or opposition, with
supporting rationale, to the proposed
exemption for UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris as
described in the preceding paragraphs.
In particular, EPA is interested in
comments addressing whether the scope
of the proposed exemption is
appropriate, or whether it should be
broadened or narrowed. EPA is also
interested in any analytical test data that
indicate the concentration of the TCLP
constituents in petroleum UST-
contaminated media and debris. EPA
also requests comments on alternatives
to the exemption proposed today, which
are discussed below.
E. Other Options Considered
1. Expansion of the Exemption to all TC
Contaminants
When the temporary deferral was
clarified in June, 1990, it was limited to
the 25 newly listed organic
contaminants under the 1990 TC rule.
The deferral does not apply to the
original 14 contaminants identified
under EPA's 1980 Extraction Procedure
(EP) toxicity characteristic rule. The
contaminants regulated under the EPTC
are arsenic, barium, cadmium,
chromium, lead, mercury, selenium,
and silver, as well as endrin, lihdane,
methoxychlor, toxaphene, 2,4-D, and
2,4,5-TP silvex. The deferral was limited
only to the new contaminants because
the issue of the relationship between
hazardous waste rules and UST
cleanups came to the Agency's attention
during the development of the TC
rulemaking, and was a result of the
regulation of new constituents under
that rule.
Since the original 14 contaminants
were not part of the temporary deferral,
generators are currently obligated to
make a determination of whether the
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris would be hazardous for the
original 14 constituents. Generators are
allowed to make the determination
either by subjecting the materials to the
TCLP, or "applying knowledge of the
5:39Feb11,1993 VerDate11-FEB-93 JW340999 POOOOOO FrmOOOOS Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
8506 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
hazard characteristic of the waste in
light of the materials or the processes
used" (40 CFR 262.11(c)).
EPA believes it may also be
unnecessary to require a hazardous
waste determination for the 14 EP
contaminants. As discussed in the
preamble to EPA's underground storage
tank regulations on September 23,1988
(53 FR 37189), information the Agency
had at that time from several States
indicated it was highly unlikely that
UST petroleum-contaminated soils
would exhibit the characteristic of EP
toxicity, even for lead that may have
resulted from releases of leaded
gasoline. Further, with the phase-out of
leaded gasoline, it would seem even less
likely for contaminated media and
debris resulting from more recent
releases of gasoline to exhibit the
Toxicity Characteristic for lead. Thus,
inclusion of these contaminants in the
exemption would appear to have no
impact on protection of human health or
the environment, and testing for these
contaminants appears unnecessary.
In addition, including these
contaminants in the exemption will
result in cost savings in the form of
avoided TCLP sampling and analysis
costs because owners and operators
\vould no longer be required to
determine whether petroleum
contaminated media and debris exhibits
the Toxicity Characteristic. If UST
owners make this determination
through TCLP testing of the materials,
rather than applying some form of
"knowledge" about them, laboratory
analytical costs can range from a few
hundred to more than a thousand
dollars per sample. Since several
samples of the contaminated media and
debris would likely be necessary in
order to adequately characterize the
contamination at a particular site, the
savings in sampling and analysis costs
could amount to several thousand
dollars per facility. These cost savings
could bo used to pay for proper
management of the contaminated media
and debris, rather than for unnecessary
sampling and laboratory analyses.
Therefore, the Agency is interested hi
obtaining comments from the public
regarding whether the final rule for the
exemption should include these
contaminants. EPA is particularly
interested in commenters* rationale for
Including these contaminants within the
exemption, and hi any supporting data
that indicate the concentration of these
contaminants in petroleum UST-
contaminated media and debris.
2. Expansion of the Exemption to Other
Hazardous Waste Characteristics
EPA considered, but has tentatively
rejected, proposing to expand the
exemption for UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris to the
other three characteristics of hazardous
waste, in addition to the Toxicity
Characteristic. These three
characteristics are Ignitability,
Corrosivity, and Reactivity. See 40 CFR
260.20-260.23. EPA generally believes
that UST petroleum-contaminated
media and debris are unlikely to exhibit
these characteristics and, thus, would be
unlikely to be regulated as hazardous
waste because of these characteristics.
However, in the event that UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris were to exhibit one of these
characteristics, improper management
of the media or debris could pose severe
acute human health or environmental
impacts. The Agency believes that the
potential for such acute impacts
warrants management of contaminated
media and debris as hazardous waste, in
the unlikely event that these materials.
exhibit one of these three
characteristics. EPA is interested in
public comments on this aspect of
today's proposal.
3. Subtitle I Management Standards for
Contaminated Media and Debris
Another option considered by EPA hi
lieu of regulation under subtitle C was
to develop Federal management
standards under subtitle I for the
treatment and disposal of UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris. Such management standards
may provide a greater degree of
certainty regarding the ultimate
disposition of these materials than the
current subtitle I regulatory structure,
while avoiding the problems associated
with regulating these materials under
subtitle C. This approach, however,
would reduce the flexibility that the
States currently have in terms of
establishing technology requirements,
cleanup standards, and oversight
processes that they consider adequate
and appropriate for management of
these materials.
This approach would also tend to
inhibit the development of innovative
technologies for remediation of these
materials. The Agency is currently
promoting the use of innovative
technologies for cleanups and the
streamlining of State corrective action
procedures, in an effort to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of corrective
actions. Establishing Federal
management standards for UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris could limit the effectiveness of
these efforts.
Establishing new regulations under
subtitle I would likely require States to
enact new legislation or regulations to
be "no less stringent" than the Federal
requirements in order to obtain approval
of their State UST program to operate in
lieu of the Federal program. This could
cause administrative problems for those
States that have already received
approval of their State UST program
from EPA, as well as delay those that are
far along in the approval process.
EPA is interested hi comments on this
issue, particularly regarding the scope
and content of potential Federal
management standards for UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris under subtitle I. EPA is interested
hi comments regarding the usefulness
and desirability of such Federal
standards, in view of existing State UST
corrective action and solid waste
management programs.
m. Basis for Today's Proposal
A. Purpose and Legal Basis
The primary purpose of today's action
is to allow corrective action, including
management of petroleum-contaminated
media and debris, to occur under the
authority of subtitle I of RCRA rather
than under overlapping requirements of
both subtitle C and subtitle I. Subtitle I
contains comprehensive requirements
for the reporting and cleanup of soil and
groundwater contamination from • .
petroleum USTs. Further, subtitle I
requires that treatment or disposal of
soils be conducted in compliance with
applicable State and local requirements.
See 40 CFR 280.62.
Subtitle I requirements are primarily
implemented by each of the individual
States and Territories, under provisions
of subtitle I State Program Approval
regulations, or under Memoranda of
Agreement with EPA in States whose •
programs have not yet been approved by
EPA. In the case of an approved State,
EPA has deemed the State's UST
program to be "no less stringent" than
the Federal subtitle I program. In a State
operating under a Memorandum of
Agreement with EPA, the State is
implementing the subtitle I regulations
on behalf of EPA. EPA retains the
authority to implement the
requirements, where necessary, in
unapproved States. In either case, the
UST program is protective of human
health and the environment, despite
differences in specific corrective action
procedures or approaches that may exist
between States.
EPA believes that States are hi the
best position to oversee management of
1&38F«b11.1S33 VwDale 11-FEB-93 JW340999 POOOOOO FrmOXXM Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
8507
the approximately 50,000 new UST
releases identified each. year. As
discussed below, EPA studies confirm
that State agencies are currently
managing UST petroleum-contaminated
media and debris in a manner that
protects human health and the
environment. Thus, it is unnecessary to
subject these materials to management
as hazardous wastes under subtitle C of
RCRA.
Section 1004 of RCRA defines a
"hazardous waste" as a solid waste
which may pose a substantial threat
"when improperly * * * managed." In
addition, section 3001 of RCRA
authorizes EPA to determine whether
subtitle C regulation is appropriate in
determining whether to designate a
waste as "hazardous." EPA thus may
determine that subtitle C regulation is
not appropriate because such wastes are
not "hazardous" when properly
managed and, based on existing.
regulatory programs, would not be
mismanaged. Under this approach,
regulation of UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris under
subtitle C is not necessary to protect
human health and the environment, due
to the presence of the Federal subtitle I
regulations for underground storage
tanks and the UST programs that are
active in each of the States.
EPA is also concerned about the
implementation and risk impacts
associated with subjecting some or all
aspects of petroleum UST cleanups sto
subtitle C. As discussed in more detail
below, EPA believes that the findings of
its studies and the information received
during the course of meetings with
interested members of the public
support today's proposal for a final
determination to make permanent the
current temporary deferral for UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris.
B. EPA's Studies
The findings of the Agency's studies
corroborate the preliminary assessment
that EPA made at the time of
promulgation of the temporary deferral.
Specifically, the findings of EPA's
studies indicate that removing the TC
deferral would significantly affect UST
cleanup procedures, delay remedial
actions, and increase soil remediation
costs. Further, delays in site
remediation caused by compliance with
subtitle C requirements could increase
health and environmental risks prior to
cleanup.
In addition to findings concerning the
impacts of removing the deferral, these
studies also indicate that many States
have programs in place to adequately
regulate the management of UST
petroleum contaminated media and
debris. The vast majority of these State
programs address in some manner the
entire cycle of UST petroleum
contaminated soils and groundwater
management, from initial
characterization through storage and
ultimate treatment or disposal.
1. Technical Study
The Agency has made available for
public comment a draft report titled "TC
Study of Petroleum UST Contaminated
Media and Debris." This report is
organized as follows:
• Estimates of the amounts of UST
petroleum contaminated soils that might
be expected to exhibit the hazardous
waste characteristic of toxicity if
subjected to the TCLP test,
• Impacts on hazardous waste
capacity nationwide if these materials
required management as a hazardous
waste,
• State management practices for
petroleum contaminated soils from
USTs,
« Overview of technologies currently
used for management of petroleum K
contaminated soils and groundwater,
and
• Impacts on the RCRA subtitle I and
C programs of removing the temporary
deferral.
2. Impacts Study
The Agency has also made available
for public comment a draft report titled
"The Impacts of Removing the TCLP
Deferral for Petroleum-Contaminated
Media at Underground Storage Tank
Sites." This report is organized as
follows:
• Procedural impacts of removing the
deferral with regard to changes that
would be required in cleanup
procedures, technologies and the pace
of UST corrective actions,
• Cost impacts of removing the
deferral, both to the regulated
community, as well as EPA and States,
and
• Preliminary assessment of health
risk impacts associated with removing
the temporary deferral.
3. Study Findings
As stated previously, EPA believes
that these study findings support a final
determination to make permanent the
current temporary deferral for UST
petroleum contaminated media and
debris. The primary study findings that
serve as a basis for making the deferral
permanent are summarized below.
a. Procedural impacts. Removal of
the deferral would result in substantial
delays in UST cleanups due to the
necessity of issuing a RCRA permit, by
EPA or authorized States, for cleanups
that involve treatment of TC-hazardous
contaminated media on site (other than
treatment that occurs on site in tanks in
less than 90 days, or other units exempt
from permitting). EPA's studies estimate
that approximately 10% to 20% of the
soil contaminated at a petroleum UST
release may exhibit the Toxicity
Characteristic. A significant
consideration, however, is that this
percentage contamination may exist at
the majority of UST release sites, which
currently average about 50,000 new
release sites identified each year. EPA's
studies indicate that on-site treatment of
soils currently occurs at at least 20% of
the UST soil remediation sites, with the
trend increasing toward additional on-
site treatment of soils. The situation
with regard to groundwater
contamination is also an important
consideration. Virtually all treatment of
petroleum-contaminated groundwater at
UST release sites is performed on site.
Although some of the groundwater
treatment techniques may be exempt
from RCRA permitting requirements,
others would not be exempt.
Delays in UST cleanups would occur,
in part, due to the tremendous increase
in the number of permit applications for
UST cleanups that would likely have to
be handled with current Federal or State
RCRA subtitle C permitting staff
resources. It takes approximately one to
four years, at current workload levels, to
issue a RCRA subtitle C permit. Further,
in States riot yet authorized under
subtitle C for the TC portion of the
regulatory program, EPA alone would be
responsible for issuance of permits. The
substantial delays discussed above
would allow subsurface contamination
to continue and spread, increasing the
costs of remediation, and increasing the
potential for ground water
contamination and for additional
receptors to be affected.
Removal of the deferral would result
in significant changes in the UST
corrective action process. The current
subtitle I remedial decision-making
process is relatively simple and
straightforward, compared to the more
complex process associated with
managing contaminated media and
debris as hazardous waste. One example
of the increased complexity of
implementing remedial measures for
hazardous waste would be the need to
evaluate on-site versus off-site options
for the management of the material. This
would include identifying RCRA
permitted treatment, storage, or disposal
(TSD) facilities that would accept the
waste, balancing transportation and off-
site disposal costs with on-site
management costs, and formal
15:39 Feb 11.1993 VerDate11-FEB-93 M 340999 PO 00000 Fnm 00005 Fnrt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
8508
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
consideration of the risks and benefits of
on-site versus off-site management.
If the TC deferral were eliminated, the
flexibility EPA currently allows States
in the choice of cleanup technologies
would be significantly reduced. For
example, based on the current subtitle C
regulations, UST owners and operators
would likely be limited, in practice, to
a choice of three cleanup options: (1)
Excavate and send contaminated soil
off-site to RCRA subtitle C permitted
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities, (2) treat soils on-site
in loss than 90 days in a tank, in
accordance with subtitle C tank
generator and accumulation regulations,
or (3) become a permitted TSD facility,
thereby allowing on-site treatment of the
petroleum contaminated media and
debris.
, With regard to the above management
scenarios under subtitle C, the Agency
is not aware of any currently used
cleanup technologies that would
involve the treatment of large volumes
of petroleum-contaminated soils on site
in tanks for less than 90 days. Thus, this
appears to be an unlikely management
alternative), As for obtaining a RCRA
TSD permit, two States have estimated
owner/operator administrative costs to
obtain a TSD permit for petroleum
release sites ranging from $21,000 to
$80,000. Because of the delays and
relatively high cost of a subtitle C TSD
permit, which would be required for
many on-site remediations of hazardous
waste, petroleum contaminated soil
management and disposal is more likely
to be conducted off-site if it were
considered hazardous waste. Since
disposal in a subtitle C landfill is
generally less expensive than subtitle C
incineration, the Agency believes that
for the majority of sites, the practical
result of regulating UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris as
hazardous waste would be the
excavation and disposal of these
materials in subtitle C landfills. This
option, however, may be limited in
time. When the TC land disposal
restrictions are promulgated,
incineration or other forms of treatment
would likely be required for these
materials prior to disposal, if they were
considered hazardous waste.
On the contrary, the flexibility
afforded under subtitle I for managing
UST petroleum-contaminated media
and debris as non-hazardous allows for
the use of a much broader spectrum of
management options for these materials,
such as aeration, low temperature
thermal treatment, soil vapor extraction,
and bioremediation. While there is
currently variation between states in the
Subtitle I soil technologies commonly
•on
used, the majority currently rely
excavation and relatively simple
treatment and disposal methods. The
trend during the past several years,
however, and EPA's preferred approach
to management of these materials, is to
treat them on site, in situ, i.e., without
excavation or transportation off-site.
Since the Agency believes that, in
most cases, the practical result of
regulating UST petroleum-contaminated
media and debris as hazardous waste at
this time would be the excavation and
disposal of these materials in subtitle C
landfills, this would adversely affect the
Agency's current efforts to promote the
use of innovative technologies for
treatment of these materials, particularly
those that can be used in situ, such as
bioremediation and soil vapor
extraction. In addition, EPA estimates
that landfilling of these materials at
subtitle C facilities would increase the
amount of waste going to these facilities
by 8 to 20 percent annually. Since the
Agency's studies confirm that these
materials are currently being managed
under subtitle I State programs that are
protective of human health and the
environment, the Agency believes that it
would be more prudent to reserve the
nation's limited hazardous waste
landfill capacity for those wastes that
might otherwise be mismanaged, or for
which no equivalent subtitle I-type
program exists.
Although it is difficult to estimate the
precise pace at which UST remediations
would proceed when the contaminated
media and debris is considered
hazardous waste, EPA's studies indicate
that they would take substantially
longer than cleanups currently managed
solely under subtitle I. Several factors
may contribute to the increased
duration of cleanups, such as more
extensive sampling and analysis
requirements, and increased complexity
of corrective action procedural
requirements, as described previously.
More important, however, than the
increased length of time needed to
perform the actual cleanup, are the
delays that would occur prior'to the
beginning of corrective action,
particularly if the site requires
permitting. For example, permit
standards and conditions are
established on a site-specific basis
under subtitle C. In-situ soil vapor
extraction or bioremediation are
treatment approaches with which the
RCRA program has little permitting
experience to date, so uncertainties exist
as to the most appropriate permit
conditions for such cleanups. This
uncertainty is likely to result in further
delays in issuing of permits for such
sites, as w.ell as the imposition of
additional permit conditions that are
beyond the conditions typically
imposed by States under subtitle I.
In addition to the permitting
requirements for the "regulated unit,"
i.e., the remediation unit where TC-
hazardous waste is treated, stored, or
disposed at the UST site, any existing
"solid waste management units," or
SWMUs, at the facility would have to be
cleaned up in accordance with RCRA
section 3004(u) corrective action
authorities and EPA's corrective action
guidance for permitted hazardous waste
TSD facilities. SWMUs at a typical UST
facility might include a used oil tank, a
trash disposal area, or an old drum
storage area, but include virtually any
portion of the property at which solid
waste has ever been managed. Cleanup
for these units under a RCRA TSD
permit would generally be to risk-based
levels, as determined on a site-specific
basis. See 55 FR 30798 (July 27,1990).
As part of the permit conditions, UST
owners or operators would be required
to undertake a RCRA Facility
Assessment, a RCRA Facility
Investigation, a Corrective Measures
Study and, finally, Corrective Measures
Implementation for any SWMUs at the
site. In addition, public participation
requirements apply prior to issuance of
each RCRA permit. This includes local
notice of the proposed permit action
and providing the public an opportunity
for public hearings on the permit. These
additional requirements add to delays in
the subtitle C permitting process and are
likely to severely discourage UST
owners from undertaking on-site, in-situ
cleanups. This result has also been
corroborated by an Agency study on
Corrective Action Management Units
(CAMUs). See 57 FR 48195 (October 22,
1992). The study indicates that applying
the hazardous waste land disposal
restrictions to remediation wastes
increases risks by causing less
treatment, and less on-site treatment in
particular, thereby increasing risks from
transport of hazardous waste and
leaving wastes in place without
treatment;
An important consideration for UST
cleanups that would require subtitle C
permitting is that cleanup cannot begin
until the permit is issued. The delays-
associated with permit issuance will
allow contamination to continue
unabated, increasing the costs of
remediation and increasing the potential
for groundwater contamination and for
additional receptors to be affected.
b. Risk impacts. EPA's studies
considered human health risk impacts
that potentially would result if the UST
petroleum-contaminated media deferral-
were removed. The studies evaluated
1S39F«t>11,1933 V«cO*t»11-FEB-93 JM340999 POOOOOO FrmOOOOS Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
8509
three components of health risk. The
first component is interim risk, which is
the health risk present at an UST site
prior to remediation, including drinking
water risks, and risks such as fire and
explosions, and inhalation of vapors.
Interim risk would be expected to rise
significantly without the exemption,
since permitting delays prior to
remediation would allow increased
migration of petroleum contaminants,
thereby increasing exposure potentials
for populations near the site.
EPA also evaluated a second
component of risk, known as residual
risk. Residual risk is the health risk
remaining at the site following soil and
groundwater remediation. EPA's studies
indicate that residual risk would likely
remained unchanged, i.e., neither
increased nor decreased, by removal of
the deferral and regulation of UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris as hazardous waste. This is due
to the fact that the Toxicity
Characteristic is not relevant to residual
risk, because it is not a cleanup
standard. Rather, the TC and associated
subtitle C regulations impose
requirements on how the waste
generated from a cleanup can be
managed. The soil and groundwater
cleanup standards for the UST portion
of the remediation is likely to be
identical either with or without the
exemption being proposed today.
The remaining component of risk, the
treatment/disposal risk, relates to the
exposure potential associated with
treatment or disposal of contaminated
soil and groundwater. The effect of
removing the deferral on this element of
risk is ambiguous. Different subtitle I
and subtitle C technologies imply
increased exposure potential, while
others imply decreased potential. For
example, in general, leak protection and
subsurface monitoring at subtitle C
landfills is generally superior to that at
subtitle D landfills, where UST
. petroleum-contaminated soils may be .
disposed of in certain States. Thus,
health risk potential is likely reduced by
disposal in a subtitle C landfill versus
subtitle D. In other cases, however,
thermal treatment of subtitle I soils
would provide more rapid contaminant
destruction,than subtitle C landfilling.
Under this scenario, this type of
treatment would likely pose less risk
than subtitle C disposal.
A further risk consideration involves
the transport of contaminated soils.
When soils are hauled over long
distances, as would more likely be the
case if they required management as
hazardous waste and were excavated for
off-site landfilling or incineration, the
potential for accidental releases of
contaminants is increased. Many States
lack commercial subtitle C capacity to
manage these materials, so transport
over long distances is likely. In contrast,
subtitle I treatment often occurs on site,
as indicated in EPA's studies. Off-site
treatment and disposal under subtitle I
is typically accomplished within the
State, resulting in far less hauling
distances for the contaminated soils
and, thus, less risk due to
transportation.
c. Cost Impacts. EPA's study findings
indicate that per-site remediation costs
under subtitle C would be substantially
higher than those currently incurred
under subtitle I. As discussed
previously, as a practical matter, the
techniques that would likely be used in
managing UST petroleum-contaminated
media and debris as hazardous waste
would be more limited than those
currently used under subtitle I. For the
majority of cases, it is likely that
excavation followed by subtitle C
landfilling or incineration would occur.
For sites involving soil management
only, the studies indicate that typical
subtitle C costs may range from two to
15 times or more higher than the costs
of cleanup under subtitle I. The primary
source of this increase is the relative
expense of the likely subtitle C soil
management approaches compared to
those currently used under subtitle I.
The broad range of the increase is
dependent upon the subtitle C approach
selected by the UST owner or
necessitated by site conditions.
For example, unit costs for subtitle I
thermal treatment of soils in one State
average $55 per cubic yard, compared to
$1060 for subtitle C incineration and
$510 for subtitle C landfills. Assuming
management of 150 cubic yards of soil,
subtitle I costs would be $8250,
compared to $76,500 for subtitle C
landfilling and $159,000 for subtitle C .
incineration.
:.'- As a direct result of this increase in
per-site cleanup costs, the removal of
the deferral would result in significant
nationwide increases in annual.UST
remediation costs. The range of possible
subtitle C management approaches and
soil and groundwater remediation.
technologies makes it difficult to predict
the size of the increases. However,
based on reasonable assumptions about
the likely mix of technologies selected,
EPA's studies indicate national cost
increases may range from $1.9 billion to
$4.0 billion in each of the first five years
following removal of the deferral. These
estimates represent an 81 percent to 108
percent increase over current subtitle I
projected cleanup costs.
Based on the discussion of risk
impacts previously, such cost increases
are unnecessary in achieving adequate
protection of human health and the
environment. Further, if hazardous
waste permitting of UST cleanups
occurred, there would likely be a ;
decrease in the protection currently
provided under subtitle I UST programs,
but at an increased cost.
C. Public meetings
In the preamble to the 1990 TC rule,
EPA also stated its intention to convene
a public forum to discuss the issues
associated with regulating UST
petroleum-contaminated soils and
debris under subtitle C of RCRA. To
fulfill this commitment, in September
and December, 1991, EPA convened
several meetings with various interested
parties (including representatives from
the States, Congressional staff,
environmental groups and the waste
treatment and waste generating
industries) to discuss issues related to
the cleanup of petroleum contamination
from UST as well as non-UST sources,
and the potential impacts of the TC rule
on these cleanups.
The thirteen States attending these
meetings expressed significant concern
about the adverse environmental
impacts resulting from the application
of the TC rule to petroleum UST
releases. The State representatives
indicate'd that regulation of petroleum
contaminated media and debris as '
hazardous waste would significantly
increase the cost of cleanup of these
releases, substantially delay cleanup,
and in some cases (by delaying cleanup)
negatively impact human health and the
environment.
A number of States have funds that
provide a significant portion of the
cleanup costs for petroleum UST
releases. According to these States, if
petroleum contaminated media and
debris are regulated as hazardous
wastes, the resulting dramatic increases
in costs of waste management would
significantly impair the ability of the
State to pay for future cleanups. Further,
if there is no guarantee that payment
will be forthcoming, several States
believe that many responsible parties
and their cleanup contractors will be
much less willing to report and respond
promptly to releases. The net result,
according to these States, will be that
fewer sites will be remediated and
remediations will be delayed, thus
increasing the migration of
contamination off-site, and in turn
negatively impacting human health and
the environment.
In the view of many States, the delays
associated with RCRA subtitle C
management would allow for
volatilization and migration of certain
15:39Fet>11,1993 VerDate11-FEB-93 Jkl340999 POOOOOO Fnm00007 Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
8510 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
TC constituents, such as benzene, prior
to cleanup. These States point to RCRA
testing and permitting as significant
sources of delay. In addition, States
cautioned EPA to recognize that,
because of the high costs associated
with subtitle C management, there
would be a significant disincentive to
, promptly report and undertake
corrective action for petroleum releases.
Thoy explained that UST owners may
instead purposely allow the waste to
volatilize until it no longer exhibits the
toxicity characteristic, thus rendering it
non-hazardous.
Groups representing the waste
generating industries (e.g., petroleum
and petrochemical industries) at the
meetings generally agreed with the
views being expressed by the States,
although several stated that the
problems associated with applying
subtitle C standards to remediations
wore not unique to petroleum
contaminated media.
Environmental group representatives
acknowledged the importance of these
problems, but saw the issue as similar
to other claims that regulations deter
effective corrective actions. The
environmental group representatives
agreed on the merits of streamlining the
subtitle C administrative processes and
procedures (e.g., RCRA subtitle C
permitting, as discussed later in this
notice), but felt that regulatory control
was necessary to ensure environmental
safety. The environmental group
representatives also argued that the
important benefits of a RCRA permit,
particularly public involvement and
facility-wide corrective action, would be
lost if EPA adopted the approach
suggested by the States, i.e., making the
UST deferral permanent.
Certain representatives of the
hazardous waste treatment industry
expressed strong concerns with
exemption from the TC rule as the
mechanism for solving the
implementation problems posed by
subtitle C regulation of petroleum
contaminated media and debris.
According to these representatives, EPA
should consider streamlining the RCRA
permitting process for the cleanup and
disposal of petroleum contaminated
media and debris. They specifically
suggested that EPA consider issuing
pormits-by-rule for petroleum
contaminated media and debris, as well
as for other cleanup wastes. They also
expressed concern that the UST deferral
effectively exempts petroleum
contaminated media and debris from the
RCRA technical standards, in particular
tha land disposal restrictions. Other
representatives of the waste treatment
industry however, supported the
deferral and favored expanding it to
other cleanup wastes.
A complete summary of these
meetings is hi the docket for this
rulemaking. The various viewpoints
expressed in these meetings will be
considered as part of EPA's final
decisionmaking concerning the deferral.
IV. Regulatory Alternatives Under
Subtitle C
The studies indicate that subjecting
petroleum UST cleanups to the full
range of subtitle C regulations would
have significant adverse impacts.
However, in the context of other
previous rulemakings, EPA has explored
the concept of alternative, ostensibly
more streamlined, types of RCRA
regulatory approaches that could be
used to expedite cleanups. Some of
these alternatives are discussed below.
EPA is interested in comments from the
public on the efficacy of using these
approaches in dealing with UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris under subtitle C of RCRA as an
alternative to the exemption being
proposed today.
One alternative is reflected in the
proposed rulemaking for mobile
treatment units (52 FR 20914, June 3,
1987). Thermal treatment of UST
petroleum contaminated soilsr often in
mobile thermal treatment units, is an
innovative soil treatment technology
that is increasing in use. The primary
legal impediments to obtaining this type
of "streamlined" permit for UST
corrective actions under subtitle C are
the need to provide for site specific
public participation (as required under
RCRA 7004), and the requirement to
address facility-wide corrective action
(under RCRA 3004(u)). Given that any
treatment permit would have to address
these statutory requirements, and that
doing so would require a considerable
time and resource commitment on the
part of the issuing government
agency(s), as well as the permittee, it
may be that creating this type of permit
for UST petroleum cleanup situations
would actually have little
"streamlining" effect.
Another approach is the use of
emergency permits under Subtitle C of
RCRA as an alternative to full subtitle C
permitting. Emergency permits under 40
CFR 270.61 could be used hi some
situations involving petroleum UST
releases. The problem is that these
permits are of such short duration (90
days) that they would not be useful for
extended cleanup operations, or for sites
where cleanup is not being conducted
hi response to an actual "emergency"
situation. Of the 112,000 UST cleanups
initiated that have been reported to EPA
by the States, only 5900 were
categorized as emergency responses.
The concept of permits-by-rule has
been considered as a mechanism that
could alleviate the administrative
impacts of individually permitting
petroleum UST cleanups under subtitle
C, while maintaining the substantive
controls and standards (including the
land disposal restrictions) provided
under Subtitle C. However, as noted
above, Section 7004(b)(2) of RCRA
specifies that permits issued under
RCRA for hazardous waste facilities
must undergo a local hearing process.
Thus, the utility of "permits-by-rule"
may be limited under RCRA. See NRDC
v. EPA, 907 F.2d 1146 (DC Cir. 1990)
(remanding a hazardous waste permit-
by-rule).
Even if the administrative problems
associated with issuing permits for
petroleum UST cleanups activities
could be resolved, additional problems
of regulating these cleanups under
subtitle C remain. For example, UST
owners or operators would have to
register as a hazardous waste generator
and obtain a generator identification
number if they are generating soils or
groundwater that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic. The thousands of
facilities each year that may be involved
in such transactions would impose
additional burdens on the issuing
agency, and likely add to delays in the
cleanup process. In addition, generators
of hazardous waste are required to
prepare and submit to EPA a biennial
report of their hazardous waste
generation activities, resulting in an
increased paperwork burden to the
regulated community, and additional
administrative costs to EPA to process
such reports.
EPA requests comment on the legal
and technical defensibility of the above
regulatory alternatives for regulation of
these materials under RCRA subtitle C.
EPA is concerned that some of the
alternatives either may present legal
concerns or fail to provide sufficient
flexibility to remedy the environmental
problems caused by regulating these
materials as hazardous waste. EPA also
requests suggestions concerning other
changes to the subtitle C regulations that
will allow EPA to regulate these
materials under subtitle C while at the
same time providing the flexibility to
avoid the counterproductive impacts of
subtitle C regulation of UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris
discussed previously. EPA is also asking
for comment on these and other
regulatory alternatives in a related
rulemaking concerning non-UST
petroleum contaminated media and
debris.
1539F«t>l1.1W3 VwMs 11-FEB-93 JW 3X0999 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
8511
V. Process for the Final Determination
EPA will review and evaluate the
public comments on the studies, public
meetings, and this proposed rule as part
of its decisionmaking concerning the
regulatory status of UST petroleum-
contaminated media and debris.
Following review of all the public
comments submitted on these notices,
EPA will publish in the Federal
Register its final determination
regarding the regulatory status of UST
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris.
VI. Relationship to Non-UST
Petroleum-Contaminated Media and
Debris
In a separate action (57 FR 61542,
December 24,1992) the Agency has
proposed suspension of the TC rule for
the 25 newly listed organic
contaminants for three years for
environmental media and debris
contaminated by petroleum products -
released from sources other than RCRA
subtitle I regulated USTs. This
suspension has been requested by
several States. During the suspension
period, the Agency would collect
additional data, perform additional
analyses, and explore other
administrative and legal mechanisms to
better tailor RCRA regulatory
requirements to unique issues
associated with remediation of non-UST
petroleum releases. ,
Persons who would like to submit
comments to EPA regarding the separate
action for media and debris
contaminated by non-UST releases must
do so by submitting comments
specifically addressing that action, to
the appropriate RCRA docket.
. .The Agency believes it is appropriate
to examine the application of the TC
rule to petroleum-contaminated media
and debris from USTs and non-UST
sources separately. Programs that
regulate USTs and,non-UST sources of
petroleum contaminated media and
debris can be distinct, with their own
regulatory and administrative
structures. Hence, the impacts of the TC
rule on UST and non-UST cleanups can
differ. For this reason, the ultimate
determinations as to how to regulate
UST and non-UST petroleum
contaminated media and debris could
be different.
Different exemptions, however, for
very similar or identical types of waste,
may be confusing to the regulated
community and may pose challenges for
the enforcement program. EPA is
interested in obtaining comment from
the public regarding whether and to
what extent these two distinct
exemptions should be made consistent
or identical. Commenters may want to
focus their attention on four differences
in the non-UST proposal and today's
proposal, discussed below.
First, the exemption in the non-UST
proposal is limited to petroleum-
contaminated media and debris
generated at sites that are the subject of
a site-specific enforcement order or
other written approval from the State.
The Agency believes a similar provision
is unnecessary in today's proposal, due
to the existence of the Federal corrective
action regulations for USTs under
subtitle I of RCRA, and the existence of
active UST regulatory programs in each
State that provide oversight of UST
corrective action activities.
Second, the non-UST proposal limits
the exemption to media and debris that
are contaminated solely with petroleum
product. The Agency believes a similar
provision is unnecessary in today's
proposal. Subtitle I of RCRA contains a
well-defined universe of "petroleum
UST systems" to which the exemption
would apply. These petroleum UST
systems are subject to the Federal UST
corrective action regulations and the
State programs discussed above,
whether they contain petroleum product
only, or other petroleum substances,
such as used oil, in certain
circumstances.
Third, although not a part of the
preferred option, the non-UST proposal
solicits comment on whether to limit
that exemption to releases of less than
a specified size, e.g., less than 10,000
gallons of released product. Larger spills
might be subject to full subtitle C
controls. While this provision may be
^appropriate for above ground spills
where the quantity of released product
can be more easily estimated, the
Agency believes such a provision is
unsuitable for releases from
underground storage tanks, because it
would be difficult, if not impossible, to
ascertain, the amount of material that
had been released into the subsurface
environment prior to the initiation of
cleanup.
Fourth, both proposals limit the
exemption to the 25 newly h'sted TC
constituents. However, the non-UST
proposal solicits comment on further
limiting the scope of the non-UST
suspension only to those TC
constituents which are known to be
indigenous to petroleum product. The
Agency is considering three
contaminants in this regard under the
non-UST rule—benzene, cresols, and
methyl ethyl ketone. The Agency
believes such a limitation is
unnecessary in today's proposal,
however, because contaminated media
and debris is exempt only if it is
generated from a subtitle I petroleum-
UST system, which is well defined. See
40 CFR part 280.12. For example, a
petroleum UST to which hazardous
waste had been added would no longer
be a subtitle I petroleum UST system
(rather, it would be subject to subtitle C
regulations). Thus, media and debris
contaminated by releases from such a
tank would not be exempt under today's
proposal.
VH. Effect on Subtitle C State
Authorization
Since today's proposal will, when
finalized, make permanent the existing
temporary exemption already contained
in EPA's hazardous waste regulations,
there would be no impact on State
subtitle C hazardous waste programs,
whether authorized by EPA for the TC
or not. EPA did not require States to
adopt the UST temporary deferral, nor
would they be required to adopt the
exemption being proposed today, when
final, since this provision is less
stringent than subjecting UST
petroleumicontaminated media and
debris to the full requirements of the TC
rule.
VHI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12291 (46 FR 13193)
requires that regulatory agencies
determine whether a new regulation
constitutes a "major" rulemaking and, if
so, that a Regulatory Impact Analysis
(RIA) be conducted. An RIA consists of
the quantification of the potential
benefits, costs, and economic impacts of
a major rule. A major rule is defined in
Executive Order 12291 as a regulation
likely to result in: (1) An annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or .
.more; (2) a major increase in costs or
prices for consumers, individuals,
industries, Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; or (3) a significant adverse
effect on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of United States based
enterprises to compete with foreign
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
As discussed elsewhere in this
preamble, EPA has estimated that
today's proposed rule will result
indirectly in significant cost savings, by
avoiding the increased costs that would
otherwise be associated with regulating
UST petroleum-contaminated media,
and debris as hazardous waste. See
EPA's draft reports titled "TC Study of
Petroleum UST Contaminated Media
and Debris" and "The Impacts of
15:39Fob 11,1993 VerOate 11-FEB-93 JM340999 POOOOOO Fmi00009 Fmt4701 Sfm!4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
-------
8512
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Removing the TCLP Deferral for
Petroleum-Contaminated Media at
Underground Storage Tank Sites" for
documentation of those cost savings.
Also, EPA does not believe the rule
will significantly affect consumers,
individuals, industries, Federal, State,
or local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, innovation, or
international trade. Therefore, EPA has
determined that today's proposed rule is
not a major rule and that a Regulatory
Impact Analysis is not required.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) of 1980 {Pub, L. 96-345),
whenever a Federal agency publishes a
nolica of rulemaking for a proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for comment a Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis that describes the
impact of the rule on small entities,
including small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions, unless the Agency head
certifies that the proposed action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
This proposal will provide significant
regulatory relief to businesses, including
many small businesses, faced with
corrective action as a result of releases
from petroleum USTs. Therefore,
pursuant to section 605(b) of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.
605(b), the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose any
additional reporting, recordkeeping, or
information collection requirements on
any member of the regulated public.
Therefore, no estimate of public
reporting burden is required for this
rule.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
' Dated: January 20,1993.
William K.Reilly,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 93-3475 Filed 2-11-93; 8:45 am]
BILUNQ CODE 65«0-50-P
15:39 Ftb 11,1M3 VwD*l8l1-FEB-93 Jkt 340999 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt4701 Sfmt4702 E:\FR\FM\P12FE2.PT2
------- |