UntodStatw
Environmental Protection
Agtncy
Office of Solid Whet*
and Ermrgtncy RwpoitM
WMhington, DC 20460
EPA/530-SW-88-007
Decemher.1987
Solid Waste
Report to Congress
EPA Activities and
Accomplishments
Under the Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act:
Fourth Quarter Fiscal year 1986
through Fiscal year 1987
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION : 1
2.0 REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT: 3
2.1 Introduction - 3
2.2 RCRA Hazardous Waste Universe 4
2.2.1 Listing Activities -4
2.2.2 Decision on Delisting Hazardous Wastes .....6
2.2.3 Report to Congress on Dioxins 8
2.3 HSWA Small Quantity Generator Provision 9 •
2.3.1 Report to Congress "-9
2.3.2 Small Quantity Generator Rule 9
2.4 HSWA-Mandated Design and Operating Provisions for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities 10
2.4.1 Double Liner and Leak Detection Rules 10
2.4.2 Surface Impoundment Retrofitting 11
2.4.3 Liquids in Landfills 12
2.4.4 Secondary Containment of Hazardous Waste Storage Tanks ...... 13
2.4.5 Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces 14
2.4.6 Location Standards 15
• 2.5 Land Disposal Restrictions 16
2.5.1 The Framework Rule 17
2.5.2 The Solvents and Dioxin Rule .19
2.5.3 The California List Rule 20
2.5.4 Scheduled Wastes 21
2.6 New Rules for Permitting/Closure 22
2.6.1 Corrective Action 22
2.6.2 Alternate Concentration Limits 25
2.6.3 Closure: Hybrid and Clean Closure 26-
2.6.4 SubpartX -...27
2.6.5 Final Codification Rule 28
2.7 Special Wastes 32
2.7.1 Mining Wastes '. 32
2.7.2 Oil and Gas/Geothermal 33
2.7.3 Utilities Report to Congress 35
2.8 Subtitle D 35
2.8.1 Subtitle D Report to Congress 36
2.8.2 Subtitle D Criteria Revisions 38
• 2.8.3 Household Hazardous Waste Management 39
2.8.4 Report to Congress on Municipal Waste Combustion 40
2.8.5 Municipal Waste Combustion—Regulatory Activities 41
2.8.6 Domestic Sewage 42
-------
2.9 Waste Minimization '• 43
2.9.1 Hazardous Waste Minimization 43
2.9.2 Procurement Guidelines... 45
3.0 ENHANCING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 47
3.1 Introduction : 47 .
3.2 Surveys and Data Development 47
3.2.1 RCRIS 47
3.2.2 Biennial Report Revisions 48
3.2.3 TSDR/Generator Survey 49
3.3 Improving the Definition of RCRA 51
3.3.1 "Relisting" of Hazardous Waste , 51
3.3.2 TSCA Section 4 Rule 52
3.3.3 Air Toxicity Characteristic 52
3.3.4 Joint EPA/NRC Initiative on the Regulation of Commercial
Mixed Waste 53
3.4 Small Quantity Generator Exception Reporting Rule 54
3.5 Streamlining the Permit Process 55
3.5.1 Permit Modification Rule..... 55
3.5.2 Mobile Treatment Unit Rule 57
3.5.3 Changes in Interim Status Facilities 58
3.6 Hazardous Waste Combustion ; .....59
3.6.1 Revised Incinerator Regulations 59
3.7 Monitoring Improvements and Other Technical Amendments 60
3.7.1 SubpartF 60
3.7.2 Appendices VIII and IX 61
3.7.3 Revisions to Solid Waste Testing Manual 62
3.8 RCRA/CERCLA Integration 62
4.0 STATE AUTHORIZATION AND REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION 64
4.1 Introduction 64
4.1.1 Overview .....64
4.1.2 RCRA Implementation Plan 64
4.2 Summary Statistics on State Authorization 67
4.2.1 State Consolidated RCRA Authorization Manual (SCRAM) 69
4.2.2 National Conference on State Authorization 69
, • 4.2.3 Training/Grants '. •' 69
5.0 PERMITTING ACTIVITIES 71
5.1 Introduction 71
5.2 Summary Statistics 73
5.3 Implementation 75
5.3.1 Closure Guidance 75
5.3.2 ACL Guidance 77
5.3.3 RCRA Facility Assessments 77
5.3.4 Training Workshop S eries on Hazardous Waste Combustion
Sampling and Analysis 78
5.3.5 Incinerator Guidance '. 79
11
-------
5.3.6 "Performance Improvement Project" on Hazardous Waste
Incineration Permittin g 79
6.0 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 81
6.1 Introduction 81
6.2 Summary Statistics 82
6.3 Implementation Activities ...' --83
6.3.1 Land Disposal Restrictions Enforcement S trategy -. 83
6.3.2 Land Disposal Restrictions Inspection Manual and
Checklists 84
6.3.3 Model Order for Corrective Actions at Interim S tatus
Facilities 85
6.3.4 Training for States and Regional Offices 86
6.3.5 Implementation Strategies and Guidance 87
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Section 2006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires that
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) transmit to Congress an
annual report describing the activities to implement RCRA. This report describes the
activities of the Agency in carrying out the mandates of RCRA and the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, starting from the last quarter of fiscal year
1986 and going through the end of fiscal year 1987.
The bulk of the activity over the past several years has been focused on
development and implementation of the regulatory framework for the safe management of
hazardous waste. However, this report also covers several activities we have undertaken to
satisfy many of the 1984 HSWA provisions for solid waste.
In the past year, we, as a nation, have experienced a renewed awareness of the
problems of solid waste management and will need to balance our priorities to
accommodate both hazardous and solid waste. As a country, we now need to set a course
that ensures that we arrive at our ultimate goal of a comprehensive waste management
system, be it for hazardous-or solid waste, that assures protection of human health and the
environment.
Chapter Two of this report describes regulatory development activities mandated by
RCRA and HSWA, including rulemaking under Subtitle C and a variety of Reports to
Congress for activities under Subtitle D.
Chapter Three describes activities undertaken to enhance the regulatory framework
under Subtitle C that were not specifically mandated by either RCRA or HSWA. These
activities were undertaken by the Agency to ensure that it fulfilled its general mandate of
protection of human health and the environment in the most effective manner possible.
-------
Chapter Four describes activities we have undertaken to implement the regulatory
framework under Subtitle C in both the States and Regions. This chapter also reports on
the status of State authorizations as of the end of this fiscal year.
Chapter Five covers activities related to the permitting of hazardous waste
management facilities.. The status of permits for different types of facilities is included
along with a description of such implementation activities as training and guidance.
Finally, Chapter Six reports on enforcement activities under Subtitle C of RCRA.
In this chapter, a summary of enforcement statistics is presented, as well as a variety of
implementation activities including training, guidance, and major enforcement policies.
2 '
-------
2.0 REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT:
MEETING THE RCRA/HSWA-PROVISIONS
2.1 Introduction ,
i
In this chapter, we discuss major accomplishments in satisfying provisions directly
mandated by RCRA as amended by HSWA in 1984. The last 15 months (including the
end of fiscal year 1987) have been highly productive, as demonstrated by major progress in
the development and implementation of several major new regulations under Subtitle C.
i
One example of this progress in regulatory development was the November 7,
1986, promulgation of the final framework rujle to implement the' Land Disposal
Restrictions program mandated by Section 3004 i of RCRA. This rulemaking marks a
turning point in the management of hazardous waste in the United States by prohibiting the
disposal of hazardous waste that does not meet performance standards based on best
demonstrated available treatment (BDAT) technology. Treatment of hazardous wastes prior
to disposal to reduce their toxicity and mobility will greatly lessen the risks caused by land
disposal of hazardous waste.
During this reporting period, we have also made substantial progress in the
development of several Reports to Congress that coyer topics under Subtitle D, as well as
in the development of regulations for revising the technical criteria for municipal solid
waste landfills. :
i
The chapter begins by describing-activities under Subtitle C, then follows with
descriptions of activities and progress under Subtitlb D, and finally concludes with a review
of our activities and accomplishments on waste minimization.
-------
2.2 RCRA Hazardous Waste Universe
2.2.1 Listing Activities
HSWA directed EPA to expand the list of hazardous wastes to include additional
dioxin-containing wastes and additional solvents, and to determine whether to list as
hazardous wastes from 15 specific industries.
In response, EPA has listed seven wastes streams as hazardous because of the
presence of dioxins. EPA has also listed one additional halogenated solvent within the
F002 category (spent halogenated solvents) and three additional solvents within the F005
category (spent nonhalogenated solvents). In regard to the 15 specific industries, EPA has
promulgated additional hazardous waste listings for 4 industries (toluene diisocyanate,
carbamates, organobromines,1 and chlorinated aliphatics) and has proposed listings for 4
others (chlorinated aliphatics, dimethyl hydrazine, bromacil, and linuron).
Draft rules are under development for streams generated by the preservation or
surface protection of wood (which can contain dioxins), the production of coke and coke
by-products, and petroleum refining. In addition, EPA is still evaluating whether to list as
hazardous, wastes from the other HSWA-designated industries (i.e., chlorinated aromatics,
dyes and pigments, inorganic chemicals, coal slurry pipeline effluent, and paint
production).
Toxicitv Characteristic: Under RCRA, wastes are considered hazardous if they are
specifically listed as hazardous (a complex and technically demanding regulatory process)
or if they exhibit one or more of the- following characteristics: corrosiveness, ignitability,
reactivity, and toxicity. The toxicity of wastes is of key concern to RCRA because of the
potential for toxic constituents to leach from wastes treated or disposed of on land and to
contaminate sources of drinking water.
Congress, through provisions in HSWA, directed the Agency to examine
deficiencies in its extraction procedure (EP) toxicity test as a predictor of the leaching
1 Within the organobromine industry, the listing for methyl bromide has been proposed but not yet
promulgated.
-------
potential of wastes and to make whatever changes were necessary to make the test more
consistent and comprehensive. The EP toxicity test, for instance, effectively addressed the .
leaching of metals, but did not adequately address the leaching of organic compounds. We
have therefore developed a new test procedure, the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), to better predict the teachability, of organic toxicants (i.e., volatile
compounds) from wastes. In addition, HSWA also directed the Agency to develop
additional hazardous waste characteristics. As a result, the Agency proposed in June 1986
to modify its existing toxicity characteristic. This proposal would make a number of major
changes to the existing characteristic. Specifically, it would (1) require the use of new
leach procedures—TCLP; (2) add 38 organic compounds to the characteristic; and (3) use
compound-specific dilution/attenuation factors in developing the regulatory levels. These
regulatory levels take into consideration potential human health effects and potency, as well
as the persistence of the constituent in the environment and its potential to migrate from a
disposal site.
Used Oil: Used oil is generated in large quantities and tends to contain a variety of
mobile and persistent contaminants, including toxic organic compounds and a number of
heavy metals. Substantial amounts of used oil are currently being recycled—a management
approach that the Agency strongly encourages. In November of 1985, the Agency issued a
proposed rule that would list used oil as a hazardous waste. In the same proposal, the
Agency also set out special management standards for recycled used oil. A large number of
comments were received on these proposals, many of which opposed any listing of used
oil as a hazardous waste because such a listing would discourage recycling and lead to
illegal disposal of substantial quantities of used oil.
Based on these comments, the Agency put out a notice in November' 1986 that
explained our decision not to list recycled used oil as a hazardous waste. In the same
notice, however, the Agency did not make a final decision on listing used oil as a
hazardous waste when the oil was to be disposed of. The Agency, over the last fiscal year,
has conducted a number of technical projects in an effort to determine how to best regulate
used oil bound for disposal. For example, we reviewed, compiled, and analyzed data on
' the concentrations of hazardous constituents found in various types of used oils. Some of
-------
these data were receivedirom used oil processors and some from commenters responding
to the proposed rule. During this time, the Agency also evaluated industrial practices that
involved mixing of used oil with hazardous waste and the impact of oil on publicly owned
water treatment plants. We also evaluated State hazardous waste programs in which used
oil was regulated as a hazardous waste.
In addition, the Agency has conducted a number of regulatory and policy studies,
including a review of all available used oil characterization, treatment, and combustion data;
an analysis of "Do-It-Yourselfer" (DIY) programs throughout the continental United States;
an analysis of the hazards associated with environmentally unsafe used oil disposal
practices; an analysis of the used oil facility management standards originally proposed in
November 1985; a review of space heater combustion; and an internal laboratory analysis
of used oil. In a related matter, on January 26, 1987, EPA issued a,notice of tentative
denial of petitions received from these parties that EPA suspend certain provisions of the
waste-as-fuel administrative standards that had been issued in final form in November
1985. Specifically, petitioners requested that EPA grant a time extension for applicability
of the used oil lead specification. The Agency is currently reviewing comments received on
its tentative decision.
2.2.2 Decision on Delisring Hazardous Wastes
Under part 261 of the hazardous waste regulations, EPA listed nearly 100 industrial
waste streams and 360 discarded chemical products as hazardous. These wastes were
listed because they typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes, or they are known to contain toxic constituents or to be otherwise
hazardous. Any waste stream that qualifies as one of the streams listed in Subpart D of
Part 261 of the regulations is regulated as hazardous.
EPA has recognized, however, that a listed waste generated from a particular
facility may not actually be hazardous. This could be the case if the waste:
1. Does not exhibit the characteristics, or contain the constituents, for which it
was originally listed; and
-------
2. Does not present any factors (including constituents other than those for
which the waste was listed) that could cause the waste to be hazardous; or
3. Contains the listed or additional constituents in concentrations below levels
of regulatory concern or in an immobile form.
These situations can occur, for example, if a facility uses manufacturing treatment
processes or raw materials that are different from those that were assumed for the industry
when the regulations were written. The regulations (in 40 CFR § 260.20 and §260.22),
therefore, contain a procedure that allows anyone to petition the Agency to exclude or >
"delist" such waste streams from'hazardous waste regulation.
Wastes petitioned for delisting are evaluated to determine whether they may pose a
•threat to health and safety if mismanaged. The Agency currently uses two models in its
delisting petition review to assess the mobility of toxic constituents. The Vertical and
Horizontal Spread (VHS) model is used to evaluate the mobility of metals and inorganic
constituents in the waste. The Organic Leachate Model (OLM), which was finalized during
fiscal year 1987, is used in conjunction with the VHS model to evaluate the mobility of
organic constituents in the waste, if they are present. The models take into account waste-
specific factors for constituent concentration and waste volume, and predict the dilution and
dispersion of the constituents from the waste in a hypothetical drinking water aquifer. The
results of the model evaluations are predicted compliance-point concentrations for each
contaminant present in the waste, which are then compared to the Agency's regulatory
standards. A predicted compliance-point concentration greater than the regulatory standard
would indicate that the petitioned waste has the potential to contaminate ground water and
provides a basis for denying a delisting petition. If ground-water monitoring data are
available demonstrating that an aquifer is contaminated, this may be grounds for denying a
delisting petition.
During the last quarter of fiscal year 1986 and throughout early fiscal year 1987, the
activities of the delisting program centered around meeting the Congressionally mandated
HSWA deadline of November 8, 1986, to promulgate final decisions for the 150 petitions
that were previously granted temporary exclusions. By the November 8 deadline, final
actions were taken on 147 of the 150 temporary exclusions. Of the three temporary
-------
exclusions that were not finalized, one had been referred to the Agency by a State and
required significant efforts to complete, .and two were proposed but not finalized because of
petitioner requests for an extension to the comment period for the proposed rule.
For the 147 temporary exclusions for which final actions were taken, 32 were
granted'exclusions; 43 were denied exclusions; 38 were withdrawn after the petitioners
were notified by the Agency that a denial decision was pending; and 34 were removed from
delisting consideration because of changes in listing criteria, cessation of waste generation
during the time the temporary exclusion was in effect, or closure of facilities and/or waste
handling units.
During fiscal year 1987, EPA expanded its spot-check sampling program by
visiting a total of 23 facilities to-verify information submitted by petitioners. These spot-
check sampling trips were intended not only to verify waste-specific data provided by the
petitioner, but also to deter intentional efforts to submit inaccurate data.
2.2.3 Report to Congress on Dioxins
The National Dioxin Strategy was developed to provide a coordinated management
framework for the myriad of dioxin-related activities occurring across the Agency.
In addition to extensive research and regulatory activities, the strategy included a
study of the extent of dioxin contamination in the country as a whole. The study was
initiated at Congressional request following environmental contamination and human
exposure incidents resulting from improper waste disposal at Times Beach, Missouri; Love
Canal, New York; and Jacksonville, Arkansas.
The multiyear, multimillion dollar study investigated hundreds of known and
potentially contaminated sites around the country. Sites were grouped into categories—
trichlorophenol production and waste disposal sites, pesticide formulation facilities,
pesticide use areas (forests, rice fields, rangelands), "background" soil and fish, and
combustion sources.
-------
Results confirming contamination have been referred to Federal, State, and local
agencies for appropriate action. Follow-on activities are under way, including additional
rulemaking under HSWA and TSCA and an investigation of other potential sources of
contamination.
2.3 HSWA Small Quantity Generator Provision .
2.3.1 Report to Congress
In the past, all facilities generating less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste
per month were classified as "small quantity generators" (SQGs) and were exempt from
most of the requirements imposed on large quantity generators. Concerned about the
potential hazard posed by waste from SQGs, Congress decided, in 1984, to require that
small quantity generators, in particular those generating between 100 and 1,000 kilograms
of hazardous waste per month, be subject to regulation. Thus, Congress instructed EPA to
develop new standards for the SQGs, to prepare a report defining the universe of SQGs,
and to evaluate the regulatory impact of new requirements on these generators.
Issued in September 1986, EPA's Report to Congress estimated that 17.5,000
SQGs generate nearly 760,000 metric tons of hazardous waste annually (probably less than
1 percent of the national total). It found that most SQGs are'small, locally owned
operations in such industries as vehicle maintenance, metal manufacturing, photography,
dry cleaning, printing, and construction. The regulatory burden of RCRA varies by facility
type and waste stream, but will probably cause no facility closings.
2.3.2 Small Quantity Generator Rule
The Agency promulgated the SQG rule in March 1986; it became effective in
September of that year. Under these requirements, SQGs must make a determination on
whether their wastes are hazardous, allow wastes to be handled only by EPA-sanctioned
transporters and waste management facilities, comply with Department of Transportation
requirements for shipping wastes offsite, use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest
System, including reporting of lost shipments (a September 1987 requirement), and
maintain copies of manifests for 3 years. In addition, if the waste is to be shipped more
-------
than 200 miles SQGs will be allowed to accumulate wastes ohsite for 180 days or 270 days
without the need to obtain interim status or a RCRA permit; however, they will be required
to comply with special containment and storage procedures. Nevertheless, they are still
exempt from biennial reporting and from manifest requirements is recycled wastes are
transported away by the reclaimer.' In order to provide adequate time for SQGs to adapt to
the new requirements, EPA gave these facilities until March 1987 to comply.
2.4 HSWA-Mandated Design and Operating Provisions for Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities
2.4.1 Double Liner and Leak Detection Rules
The HSWA amendments called for the enhancement of design standards at. land
disposal units for the purpose of ensuring ground-water protection. In May 1987, EPA
proposed a rule to increase the level of such technological control for ground-water
protection by establishing leak detection performance and design criteria that will improve
liquid removal, collection, and response to leaks at these units.
The proposed rule requires use of an approved leak detection system for new units,
which the statute defines as a system or technology capable of detecting leaks of hazardous
constituents at the earliest practicable time. The proposal also requires, as part of this
system, double liners, leachate collection and removal systems, a construction quality
assurance program, and a response program addressing the detection of liquids in a leak
detection system.
Final promulgation of this rule will implement a major portion of the Agency's
"Liquid Management Strategy." This strategy consists of two elements: (1) the
minimization of leachate generation in the unit and (2) the removal of leachate from the unit.
This proposed rule helps to implement the strategy by focusing on the latter. Once the land
disposal system is in place, its elements should function in an integrated and interdependent
manner to prevent leachate migration out of a land disposal unit.
To supplement the proposed rule on leak detection, EPA also issued, in May 1987,
a Liner/Leak Detection Rule Background Document. This document included data on
10
-------
'constructing liners and leak detection systems, on using the appropriate best demonstrated
available technologies (BOAT) for meeting the proposed regulations, and on,quantifying
leak detection system performance. In April 1987, EPA issued a Notice of Available Data
and Request for Comments regarding the effectiveness of specific types of double liner
systems. This notice offered data on the performance of different kinds of liners and
announced EPA's release of two minimum technology draft guidance documents on the
design, construction, and operation of single and double liners and leachate collection
systems.
2.4.2 Surface Impoundment Retrofitting
Under HSWA, surface impoundments that were in existence on November 8,
1984, must be retrofitted to meet double liner design standards by November 8, 1988,
unless the owner or operator obtains an exemption or ceases receipt of hazardous waste.
Exemptions are available if the facility meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Has one liner for which there is no evidence of leakage, is in compliance
with ground-water monitoring standards, and is more than one-quarter mile
away from an underground source of drinking water,
2. Generally, is part of a particular phase of a wastewater biological treatment
system that is subject to a Clean Water Act permit, and is in compliance with
Clean Water Act effluent limitations for best available technology and with
RCRA ground-water monitoring standards;
3. Is located, designed, and operated so that .there will be no migration of any
hazardous constituent into ground water or surface water at any future time;
4. The owner or operator has entered into a mandatory corrective action
agreement or order with the EPA Administrator or a State prior to October
1984: In this case, the conditions of the corrective order would protect
human health and the environment to at least the same degree offered by the
s-tatutory double liner leachate collection system and ground-water
monitoring requirement; and
5. The use of alternative design and operating practices, together with location
characteristics, will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituents at
least as effectively as double liners and leachate collection systems.
11
-------
In July 1986, EPA announced the availability of a guidance document entitled
Interim Status Surface Impoundments-Retrofitting Variances. This document explains
the Congressional intent behind HSWA's requirements, discusses EPA's implementation
policies, and recommends the types of information that owners and operators should
submit for each of the five exemptions above. The Agency received 51 requests for
waivers. The status of these waivers, as of the end of fiscal year 1987, is zero granted,
four denied, 19 withdrawn, and 28 under review.
2.4.3 Lionid-s in Landfills
Liquid hazardous wastes are of particular concern when disposed of in landfills
because they can dramatically affect the integrity of the landfill liner, migrating into ground
water themselves (often carrying additional dissolved hazardous material) and allowing
• migration of other wastes carried by infiltrated water. The HSWA therefore required EPA
to promulgate regulations that minimize the disposal of containerized liquid hazardous
wastes or hazardous wastes containing free liquids, and that prohibit disposal of liquids
which have been absorbed into materials that either biodegrade or release the liquids under
compression.
EPA proposed the necessary regulations in December 1986. This rule would curtail
disposal of liquid wastes as defined in HSWA. Exemptions are allowed if the container in
question was not originally designed for waste storage (e.g., a battery or capacitor) or is a
"lab pack" containing very small quantities of laboratory wastes, or is an ampule.
Previously, liquid wastes could be exempt if free-standing liquids were removed by
decanting, absorption, or treatment (e.g., solidification); the December proposal would
eliminate this exemption. Prior to being placed in a landfill, all free liquids must now be
solidified by a nonbiodegradable. absorbent so that the mixture does not release liquids
under pressure.
In June 1987, EPA issued another proposed rule requesting comments on certain
parts of the December 1986 rule. The Agency is interested in alternatives to new criteria for
defining biodegradable absorbents, new regulatory language for absorbent "pillows"
12
-------
(prepackaged'absorbents), and new regulatory language that clarifies that absorbents are
not the sole allowable form of treatment. . -.».
2.4.4 Secondary Containment of Hazardous Waste Storage Tanks
In 1980, EPA published interim status standards for the storage or treatment of
hazardous waste in tanks. These standards focused on operating measures designed to
prevent releases. In 1981, we published permitting standards for hazardous waste storage
or treatment .ranks that can be entered for inspection. The emphasized adequacy^of design,
structural integrity, and inspection procedures. These standards deferred possible action on
requiring secondary containment, for example, providing an impervious base underlying
• the tanks that would completely contain spills and leaks until they could be removed.
In July 1986, EPA published new rules for hazardous waste storage and treatment
tank systems that require the use of secondary containment with interstitial monitoring (i.e.,
equipment to detect leaks of wastes into the space between the primary and secondary
containments) for all new systems, and call for the phasing-in of the same requirements for
existing systems. The Agency took this action because it concluded that no other leak
detection method is generally reliable for hazardous waste tank systems. All existing
systems storing or treating dioxin-containing wastes must now install secondary
containment and interstitial monitoring within 2 years. Other tank systems must install
secondary containment by the time the tank is 15 years old, except when required periodic
tests show that the tank system is leaking. If a leak is detected, secondary containment.
systems must be installed before the tank system is returned to service.
The rule allows two types of variances: (1) if an alternative design or operating
• practice will detect leaks and prevent migration within a "zone of engineering control"
within which the owner or operator can and will quickly clean up a spill or release or (2) if
a release does occur, there will be no substantial present or potential hazard to human health
or the environment. Statutory provisions do not allow for the second variance for new
underground tank systems.
-------
In addition to the requirement for secondary containment, the July 1986 rule
established design and installation standards for new tank systems. It also set up
requirements for inspection, corrosion protection, monitoring , operating procedures, spill-
response, financial assurance, closure, and post-closure.
To support this rule, EPA published, in February 1987, a comprehensive guidance
document expanding on variance procedures and methods, Technical Resource Document
for Obtaining Variances from the Secondary Containment Requirement for Hazardous
Waste Tank Systems. In December 1986, the Agency had also published a document,
entitled Technical-Resource Document for the Storage and Treatment of Hazardous Waste
in Tank Systems, that provides technical guidance to owners and operators, as well as
permit writers for hazardous waste tank systems. This document outlines the proper
design and installation of tank systems, including parameters for secondary containment
and corrosion prevention. The publication of the final rule and its accompanying guidance
document represents a significant step forward in controlling releases from hazardous
waste tanks.
2.4.5 Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
In May 1987, the Agency proposed a rule to control the burning of hazardous waste
fuels in all boilers and industrial furnaces. This form of hazardous waste management has
been exempted from regulation since May 1980, when the initial hazardous waste rules
were promulgated as part of a general exemption for legitimate recycling activities.
Under the proposed rule, organic constituents would be controlled by a
99.99 percent destruction and removal efficiency; additionally, specific limits would be
established for metals and hydrogen chloride. Emissions of residual organic compounds
would be minimized by limiting flue gas carbon monoxide levels to ensure that the devices
are operated at a high combustion efficiency. Metals and hydrogen chloride emissions
would be controlled with risk-based standards established by back-calculating from safe
ambient levels, using air dispersion factors for reasonable worst-case facilities. The
national emission standards could be waived if the owner or operator demonstrated, by
site-specific risk assessment, that safe ambient levels would not be exceeded.
14
-------
The proposed rules would apply to all boilers and industrial furnaces except those
burning extremely small quantities of waste." Small quantity burners would be exempt from
all substantive requirements under a risk-based exemption. These facilities would have to
meet only separate notification and record-keeping requirements.
*
' Many comments from the public have centered on the risk-based approach used for
regulating hydrogen chloride and toxic metals and on the appropriate allowable carbon
monoxide levels in the flue gas to ensure that human health and the environment are
protected. At issue is the appropriateness of the Agency's characterization of model
facilities, the assessment of reasonable worst-case scenarios, and the health effects data
used in the analysis to set back-calculated protective stack emission levels.
2.4.6 Location Standards
Current RCRA standards put certain limits on the siting of hazardous waste
management facilities (40 CFR 264.18 and 265.18). They prohibit locating-any portion of
a new facility within 200 feet of a seismic fault that has been active within the last 10,000
years. They also require any facility within a 100-year floodplain to be designed and
operated so as to prevent washout of any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood if such a
washout could endanger human health or the environment. They prohibit placement of
hazardous noncontainerized or bulk liquids in salt domes, salt bed formations,
underground mines, or caves (except for the Department of Energy's waste isolation
project in New Mexico). Finally, land-based treatment, storage, and disposal units must
meet technical requirements that depend in part on the facility's location; EPA has issued
two supporting guidance manuals focusing on the relationship between facility location and
the potential for ground-water contamination.
^Section 3004(o)(7) of HSWA authorizes EPA to develop criteria for defining
acceptable locations for new and existing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as
necessary to protect human health and the environment. Although the site-location issue
for hazardous waste facilities has generally focused on contamination of ground water by
land-based facilities, EPA is also investigating other routes of exposure, such as air
15
-------
emissions and surface water contamination. EPA plans to propose these standards in the
spring of 1988.
EPA has issued two guidance manuals discussing the relationship between facility
*
location and the potential for ground-water contaminations; these are entitled:
Criteria for Identifying Areas of Vulnerable Hydrogeology Under RCRA
(July 1986), and
Permit Writers' Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Storage and
Disposal Facilities — Phase I — Criteria for Location Acceptability and
Existing Applicable Regulations (February 1985).
The first document was issued in response to the Congressional mandate in
HSWA, Section 3004(o)(7). :
2.3
Land Disposal Restrictions
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 marked an
important turning point in the management of hazardous waste. In that legislation,
Congress enacted the broad national policy that "reliance on land disposal should be
minimized or eliminated, and land disposal should be the least favored method for
managing hazardous waste" [emphasis added, §1002(b)(7)]. Congress implemented this
policy with an aggressive program to ban the continued'land disposal of particular
categories of hazardous waste beyond certain firm dates, requiring instead that wastes be
treated so as to reduce or eliminate their hazardous properties before their residues can be
placed in secure hazardous waste landfills.
The overall schedule for implementation of the land disposal restrictions program is
5 years. Within this^period, HSWA sets out a series of short-term, inflexible deadlines or
"hammers." As each hammer falls, further land disposal of a particular group of hazardous
wastes is banned unless the waste has been treated to levels or by methods specified by
EPA. On a site- and waste-specific basis, further land disposal of untreated wastes may be
allowed if it can be demonstrated that there will be no migration of hazardous constituents
from the disposal unit for as long as the waste remains hazardous. Congress named three
principal groups of hazardous wastes, each with its own deadline.
16
-------
1. Solvents and Dioxins: Deadline—November 8. 1986. This class covers a
large number of solvents used in industry, as well as certain wastes
contaminated with dioxin.
2. The "California List" Wastes: Deadline—Julv 8. 1987. The next hammer
covers a group of wastes originally listed by the State of California and
adopted intact within HSWA. The list includes 12 classes of wastes,
including liquids containing free cyanides, various metals, polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), and liquids with a pH less than 2.0; irr-addition, liquid or
solid wastes containing halogenated organic compounds were also included
within this class.
:J »•
3. "Scheduled" Wastes: Deadlines—August 8. 1988: June 8. 1989: and Mav
8. 1990. Congress placed all other wastes listed or identified under RCRA
Section 3001 within a third category and required EPA to set a schedule for
banning them from land disposal on a timetable that would restrict at least
one-third of them by August 8, 1988; at least two-thirds by June 8, 1989;
and the rest by May 8, 1990. - -
2.5.1 The Framework Rule
On November 7, 1986, EPA promulgated its firsFrrnaTrule under the new program,
banning solvents and dioxins from land disposal as required by the first hammer deadline
of November 8, 1986. This rule also set the general technical and policy framework for the
land disposal restrictions program as a whole and is therefore also referred to as the
"framework rule."
Under the provisions of the framework rule, the land disposal restrictions program
covers wastes produced by regulated "small quantity generators" (defined as those that
produce between 100 and 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, or greater than
1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste) as well as large quantity generators. It
exempts only those that generate less than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste per month, or
less than 1 kilogram of acute hazard waste. The restrictions apply to both interim status
and permitted facilities, regardless of current permit conditions. EPA interprets the land
disposal ^restrictions program to apply prospectively from the effective dates of the
regulations and does not require treatment of wastes previously disposed of. .
Treatment Standards: Under HSWA, the Agency must define the treatment
standards for all hazardous wastes before 1990. After wastes have been treated to the level
17
-------
or by the methods specified, the wastes can be disposed of on land. .As defined by this
rule, the key element of the Agency's land disposal restrictions program is its reliance on
technology-based standards for defining treatment requirements for the various categories
of wastes.
In setting a technology-based treatment standard, the Agency may specify a
concentration level of constituents in waste residuals or mandate the use of a particular
technology. Performance standards themselves are based on the actual performance of the
"best demonstrated available technologies" (BOAT) for a waste or a waste category. In •
some cases, performance is measured by subjecting the residual left by the treatment
technology to a leach test and then measuring the concentrations of the hazardous
substances extracted. For certain other wastes, performance levels are tested by a whole
waste analysis. In either case, a treater may certify, through knowledge of the process .
used to treat, that a waste has been treated to the necessary level. This is consistent with
the language of HSWA, which requires the Agency to set "levels or methods of treatment,
if any, which substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to human health and the
environment are minimized" [§3004(m)(l)].
The Agency must determine whether a particular technology is "demonstrated" and
"available." To be demonstrated, the technology must exist in full-scale operation. To be
available, it must (1) be commercially available, (2) present less risk to human health and
the environment than land disposal of untreated wastes, and (3) substantially diminish the
toxicity of a waste or substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the site.
' ' The Agency made some modifications to the framework rule when it published its
July 8,1987, rule on the California List wastes. Under these modifications, wastes cannot
be diluted as the only .method of treatment in order to meet applicable standards, or to
circumvent the effective date of a prohibition on land disposal. This later rule also prohibits
use of evaporation as the sole method of treatment to remove hazardous constituents from a
waste banned from a surface impoundment. Finally, the rule also provides .additional
18
-------
administrative flexibility for facilities modifying or expanding their operations in order to
expedite the development of needed treatment capacity.
Petitions, Variances. Exemptions, and Waivers: Under HSWA, the EPA
Administrator is allowed to grant a national variance from the statutory date, not to exceed
2 years, if national capacity for treatment or recovery of a particular waste category is
inadequate. In addition, the Administrator may grant case-by-case extensions of the
effective date when an applicant can show that alternative treatment capacity is not
reasonably available and the applicant can demonstrate that he has entered into a binding
contractual agreement that will result in the development of sufficient capacity to treat the
type of waste being generated. EPA established the variance from the treatment standards
to account for wastes that are significantly different from the wastes evaluated in setting
treatment standards. For EPA to grant this variance, the petitioner must successfully
demonstrate that the waste is significantly different and cannot meet the treatment
standards.
Under another provision of the statute, the framework rule allows petitions for
continued disposal of untreated wastes if the petitioner can demonstrate that no hazardous
constituents will migrate from the disposal unit for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
2.5.2 The Solvents and Dioxin Rule
The Agency promulgated its final rules establishing specific treatment standards
based on BDAT for spent solvents (F001-F005) and dioxin-containing wastes (F020-
F023, F026-F028). These restrictions were effective on November 7, 1986. The
Administrator also granted 2-year national capacity extensions of the effective date to the
following subset of waste because of a: lack of treatment capacity: •
• All dioxin-containing wastes;
Wastes generated by small quantity generators;
Wastes resulting from CERCLA (Superfund) response actions and RCRA
corrective actions; and
19
-------
Solvent-water mixtures, solvent-containing sludges and solids, and solvent-
contaminated soils containing less than 1 percent total F001-F005 solvent
constituents as listed.
2.5.3 The California List Rule
On July 8, 1987, the Agency issued its final rule on the California List wastes in
accordance with the statutory schedule. This rule did not, however, set treatment standards
for all wastes on the California List. For some wastes, the Agency allowed the statutory
limits (concentration levels unrelated to performance levels based on best demonstrated
available treatment technology) to take effect. The rule took effect on the promulgation
date, except where these wastes are disposed of in injection wells, for which the statutory
date is August 8,1988. The prohibition affects the following types of wastes:
Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing free cyanides at concentrations greater than or equal to
' 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1).
Liquid hazardous wastes, including free liquids associated with any solid or
sludge, containing the following metals (or elements) or compounds of
these metals (or elements) at concentrations greater than or equal to those
specified below:
arsenic and/or compounds (as As) 500 mg/1
cadmium and/or compounds (as Cd) 100 mg/1
- chromium and/or compounds (as Cr VI) 500 mg/1
- lead and/or compounds (as Pb) 500 mg/1
mercury and/or compounds (as Hg) 20 mg/1
- nickel and/or compounds (as Ni) 134 mg/1
selenium and/or compounds (as Se) 100 mg/1
thallium and/or compounds (as Th) 130 mg/1
• Liquid hazardous wastes having a pH less than or equal to 2.
Liquid hazardous wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at
concentrations greater than or equal to 50 parts per liter.
Hazardous wastes containing halogenated organic compounds in total
concentrations greater than or equal to 1,000 milligrams per kilogram.
20
-------
The Agency proposed to modify the statutory limits for some of the wastes listed
above (e.g., metal-containing liquid hazardous wastes) and to set treatment standards for
these wastes in the future. The Agency is currently receiving formal comments on whether
or not to set performance levels below the statutory limits.
The rule did set treatment standards for halogenated organic compound (HOC)
wastes (except for wastewaters less ihan 1,000 mg/1 HOC), PCS wastes, and corrosives.
The standard for halogenated organics is incineration in accordance with existing RCRA
regulations. The standard for PCBs is incineration in accordance with both RCRA and
TSCA regulations. For HOCs requiring incineration, the Agency granted a 2-year variance
because of a nationwide capacity shortage. No extension is granted for the incineration of
PCBs, but alternative treatment methods will be allowed under petition. Corrosive wastes
must be treated so that their pH is greater than 2.
2.5.4 ' Scheduled Wastes
The balance of hazardous wastes subject to the land disposal restrictions program
include the scheduled wastes, or "thirds," so called because HSWA sets a schedule by
which all .untreated wastes listed under Section 3001 of RCRA not covered under the two
earlier rules will be banned in three successive groups by 1990.
Congress gave the Agency discretion in setting priorities for wastes under this
schedule. The Agency made scheduling assignments based on the hazard, volume, and
mobility of the constituents of these wastes. The schedule was published in the Federal
Register on May 28, 1986 (51 FR 19300, 40 CFR 268.10). High-volume, high-hazard
wastes will be addressed first, under the August 1988 rule, with lower volume, lower
hazard wastes restricted last under the 1990 rule. Work is proceeding on schedule for this
rule; the Agency expects to propose treatment standards based on BDAT for the First Third
by winter of 1988.
21
-------
2.6 New Rules for Permitting/Closure
2.6.1 Corrective Action
The broad authorities-added by HSWA (RCRA Sections 3004(u), 3004(v), and
3008(h)) changed the scope of the Agency's corrective action program. No longer geared
just to the detection and correction of releases to ground water from regulated hazardous
waste management units, the new sections stipulate that any Subtitle C permit issued to a
RCRA facility must require corrective action for releases of hazardous waste or
constituents, both within and beyond the facility boundary, resulting from current and past
solid waste management practices. Furthermore, owners/operators now have to
demonstrate financial assurance for the cbsts of corrective action for known releases of
hazardous wastes and constituents.
In order to implement the corrective action requirement, the Agency has initiated
several activities during fiscal year 1987. As a result of these activities, the Agency has:
• Promulgated regulations to codify certain corrective action requirements;
Developed a national strategy for RCRA corrective action and issued several
guidance documents;
Created a data base on corrective action technology; and
• Made substantial progress in the development of a proposed rule to
comprehensively address technical and procedural requirements for
corrective action for releases from solid waste management units.
Codification nfHSWA corrective action requirements: The basic HSWA corrective"
action requirements were codified in a final rule published on July 15, 1985 (50 CFR
28702). The preamble to the rule identified the types of facilities and units subject to
corrective action and provided definitions for hazardous waste facilities, releases, and solid
waste management units (SWMUs). In addition, the rule codified the statutory requirement
for financial assurances for cleanup of known releases.
Other requirements, including the. submission of information on hazardous waste
releases, were addressed in a rule proposed in March 1986 (51 FR 10706). Under this
22
-------
proposal, owners and operators of facilities would be required to submit, along with their
Part B application, detailed information on their facility and descriptive information on any
release of hazardous waste from the SWMUs either within or beyond the facility boundary.
This was ah important step, since the information allows the Agency to determine the
existence or likelihood of a hazardous waste release. Evidence of a release could trigger
inclusion of a corrective action schedule of compliance in a facility's permit. The proposal
"<*$>
would also codify the statutory requirement that corrective action address releases beyond
the facility boundary. The final rule addressing these requirements was published in
December 1987.
In a related matter, the Agency determined that the requirement to submit a
corrective action plan-and feasibility studies-with the Part B permit application, in the case
of ground-water release from regulated units, could unnecessarily delay the issuance of
permits to hazardous waste facilities, and would be inconsistent with corrective action at
SWMUs. Thus, the Agency proposed in December 1986 (51 FR 33318) to. amend the
regulations, allowing, at the Agency's discretion, corrective action plans and feasibility
studies to be completed after permit issuance under an enforceable schedule of compliance.
This rule was promulgated on June 22, 1987.
Financial Assurance for Corrective Action: Under Section 3004's requirements for
corrective action, facilities must provide assurances of financial responsibility forthe cost
of completing corrective actions for every solid waste management unit (SWMU) operating
within a facility. In October 1986, the Agency proposed a detailed set of mechanisms to
allow facilities to satisfy these financial assurance requirements through use of a trust fund,
surety bond guaranteeing performance, letter of credit, financial test, or corporate
guarantee. The proposal applies to all types of units, for all known releases, to any
environmental medium (e.g., air, surface water, ground water).
National Strategy for Corrective Action and Program Development: The Agency
issued a strategy outlining the framework for managing and implementing a corrective
action program, entitled the "National RCRA Corrective Action Strategy," in October 1986.
Since corrective actions extend to both operating facilities (i.e., those with interim status or
a RCRA permit) and facilities that are closed, closing, or in post-closure, the program must
23
-------
address a wide variety of situations. The primary goal is to fashion a program that protects
human health and the environment and is consistent with the Comprehensive
.Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The national
strategy lends structure and organization to the program and identifies areas in which the
Agency must develop specific policies, guidelines, and regulations over the next several
years.
The Agency has designed a six-step process for cleaning up hazardous waste
releases. The steps are:
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA);
Interim measures, if the Agency believes they are warranted;
RCRA facility investigation;.
Corrective measures study;
Corrective measures plan approval; and
Corrective measures implementation.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
During the past 15 months, the Agency has issued a number of documents designed
to help improve the corrective action program. These documents cover technical criteria for
evaluating hazardous waste releases and the effectiveness of corrective action measures and
the technical procedures for preparing and implementing the corrective action plan. In
November 1986, the Agency issued the guidance document "Testing Methods: SW-846"
(3rd edition) which sets forth suitable methods for testing, sampling, and analysis for
hazardous wastes. At the same time, the Agency also, issued "The Corrective Action Plan,"
which provides the technical framework for developing corrective action orders and permit
requirements. In October 1986, the Agency issued methods for setting up ground-water
monitoring systems and guidance on conducting a RCRA Facility Assessment (described in
more detail in Section 5.3.4 of this report). The Agency is also developing criteria that
indicate when corrective action technologies have achieved specific target levels. These
criteria will be included in the corrective action rule under development and in other future
guidance documents.
24
-------
Developing a Biblio°raphi'c Data Base for Corrective Action Technology: The
Agency has begun developing a computer data base to help permit writers evaluate
corrective action plans. The data base will provide information on technologies that have
actually been used to manage or clean up hazardous waste. Permit writers can use the
information to identify and evaluate potential technologies for use at specific sites.
The data base draws on information available from a number of sources, including
journal articles, proceedings of conferences, and State reports. The technologies discussed
in the data base cover all -environmental media. The data base will be expanded and
updated periodically.
2.6.2 Alternate Concentration Limits
One of the central concerns of RCRA is to control any unacceptable leakage of
hazardous materials from regulated unit land disposal sites of any kind—surface
impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, or landfills. Under the ground-water
protection standard required by 40 CFR 264, Subpart F, each facility's permit contains—
for each hazardous constituent entering the ground water from a regulated unit—a
concentration limit beyond which degradation of ground-water quality must not be allowed.
These concentration limits determine when corrective action is required. All such sites
must conduct monitoring programs to verify that leaks are not occurring. If unacceptable
leakage is detected, the sites are subject to the corrective action requirements of Subpart F.
Three possible concentration limits can be used to establish the ground-water
protection standard:
1. Background levels of the hazardous constituents;
2. Maximum concentrations listed in Table 1 of Section 264.94(a) of the
regulations; and
3. Alternate Concentration Limits.
The purpose of using Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL) in place of either of the
first two standards is to allow flexibility to respond to situations. in which these other
standards would be unnecessarily stringent. To obtain an ACL, a permit applicant must
25
-------
demonstrate that hazardous constituents detected in the ground water will not pose a
substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment.
ACLs are therefore site specific and must be carefully established, using the 19
factors, or criteria, listed in the regulation. Detailed information on each of these criteria is
not required in every ACL demonstration because each demonstration requires different
types and amounts of information, depending on site-specific characteristics.
2.6.3 Closure: Hvbrid and Clean Closure
At the end of their useful life, all RCRA facilities are subject to strict requirements
for site closure and post-closure care. Under these requirements, we have given owners
and operators of land disposal facilities two basic options:
1. Allow the waste to remain in place, cap the facility to reduce infiltration, and
conduct post-closure monitoring and site maintenance, or
2. Remove all hazardous waste from the facility, thus eliminating the need for
post-closure care (referred to as clean closure).
Based on experience in reviewing and approving closure plans, the Agency
proposed, in March 1987, a significant modification to the closure regulations. The new
proposal outlines a third closure alternative, the so-called "hybrid" approach, which
combines both existing closure options. The Agency also promulgated certain amendments
to the clean closure approach in March 1987.
Hvhrid Closure: Rather than designing all caps to minimize infiltration and
allowing the waste to remain in place, the new hybrid approach would require the removal
of the majority of contaminated materials and would allow covers and post-closure
monitoring to be designed based on identified "exposure pathways of concern." For
example, if the constituents remaining in the soil were highly immobile and would not
migrate to ground water, the cover could be designed to prevent direct contact and
inhalation of constituents—which might in this case be the pathways of concern—rather
than minimize infiltration. This approach allows the method of closure to be tailored to the
specific conditions at a site. It also creates an incentive to remove waste from a unit, rather
26
-------
than to leave waste in place and rely on control strategies-(such as capping) to minimize
migration of constituents.
Revised Clean Closure: Under earlier closure standards, an owner or operator
could choose either to remove all waste residuals and contaminated soil or to demonstrate
that the materials remaining at any stage of the removal were no longer a hazardous waste.
We concluded, however, that under the later clean closure approach, there might-still be a
possibility of significant and potentially harmful levels of hazardous constituents remaining
in surface impoundments without these units having to comply with landfill closure, post-
closure care, and monitoring requirements.-
The hew rule upgrades requirements for owners and operators choosing the clean
closure approach. They now have to remove or decontaminate all wastes, waste residues,
contaminated containment system components (e.g., contaminated portions of liners),
contaminated subsoils, and structures and-equipment contaminated with waste and leachate.
All removed residues, subsoils, and equipment must be managed as hazardous waste
unless they are delisted as hazardous wastes or do not exhibit any of the characteristics of
hazardous wastes.
2.6.4 Suboart X
RCRA regulates a wide variety of hazardous waste management facilities. The
Agency has issued specific standards for all the major categories, including containers,
tanks, surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, landfills, incinerators,
underground injection wells, and research, development, and demonstration facilities.
There are, however, a number of miscellaneous facility types for which the Agency.
has not issued standards and, therefore, cannot be permitted by the Agency or the States as
hazardous waste management units. Examples include placement of hazardous wastes in •
salt formations, underground mines, open burning or open detonation units, or thermal
treatment units other than incinerators, industrial boilers, or industrial furnaces. Other
examples may eifierge in the future. With the HSWA mandate for banning most land
27
-------
disposal of untreated hazardous waste, the need for permitting standards for alternative
technologies and practices has become critical.
To respond to this problem, the Agency proposed standards under Subpart X of
Part 264 in November 1986. (Final promulgation occurred in November 1987.) Subpart
X sets out general performance requirements for miscellaneous units other than those for
which standards currently exist
Such facilities must be located, designed,, constructed, operated,
maintained, and closed in such a manner as to prevent releases to ground
water, surface water, surface and subsurface soils, and air that may
adversely affect human health or the environment.
Subpart X permits must contain appropriate monitoring, analysis,
inspection, response, reporting, and corrective action requirements.
• Miscellaneous facilities that are disposal units must adhere to the post-
closure standards of Part 264 Subpart G and other requirements specifically
included in the permit
2.6.5 Final Codification Rule
In December 1987, the Agency issued a final rule codifying several requirements of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. This rule is a companion to the
Agency's rule of July 1985, which codified those provisions of HSWA that took effect
immediately or shortly after HSWA's enactment. The second codification rule implements
changes to regulations relating to corrective action and permitting for RCRA facilities.
Among its major features are provisions to implement the statutory requirements pertaining
to corrective action for releases beyond a facility's boundary (see Section 2.6.1) and to
corrective action for hazardous waste injection wells. It also addresses permit procedures,
including (1) permit modifications, (2) the "permit-as-shield" provision on compliance with
new requirements imposed by statute, (3) the imposition of permit conditions above those
mandated by the regulations as necessary to protect .human health and the environment, and
(4) post-closure permits. Finally, it deals with the immediate effectiveness in authorized
States of new Federal requirements imposed by HSWA .
28
-------
Permitting Requirements: One of HSWA's principal additions to existing RCRA
provisions is to require applicants to include information on individual solid waste
management units (SWMUs) in their Part B applications. This information would include
descriptions of the SWMUs, as well as all available information pertaining to any release
from these units. The Agency or an authorized State can also require the permit applicant to
conduct sampling and analysis at the SWMUs to determine whether more detailed analysis
is necessary.
The Agency does not intend this rule to require extensive sampling and analysis at
every solid waste management unit, but believes that sampling and analytical data are often
necessary as part of a preliminary assessment These data should be available before a
permit is issued, but should not place an unreasonable burden on the owner or operator to
assemble. The proposed rule also requires the Agency to conduct a RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA), (see also Section 5.4(d) below) to determine whether a release from a
SWMU has occurred or is likely to occur. Sampling is required only where there is
insufficient evidence upon which to make an initial release determination.
Although the emphasis of the corrective action program is on addressing releases
that are identified at the time of permit issuance, the Agency recognizes the need to detect
and correct future releases from SWMUs. We do not, however, believe that it is necessary
to require at this rime routine ground-water monitoring at all SWMUs located on Subtitle C
facilities. Such monitoring may be required in the future as part of the Subtitle D program,
but for the present the Agency intends to require monitoring of individual SWMUs only on
a case-by-case basis. Permits will be reviewed after 5 years to determine whether
additional corrective action requirements are necessary.
Inier.Tion Wells: A hazardous waste injection well must have authorization to
operate under both RCRA and the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program set up
through the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA). RCRA authorization is obtained through
interim status or through a permit-by-rule. Neither RCRA nor SDWA authorization alone
is sufficient to inject hazardous waste. RCRA permits-by-rule issued after November 8,
1984, must address the corrective action requirements of RCRA, which cover releases of
hazardous waste or constituents from any SWMU at the facility, including units other than
29
-------
the injection well itself. If the well is one of several SWMUs, then the necessary corrective
action requirements are addressed through the first RCRA permit issued to the other
hazardous waste units at the facility. If the well is the only SWMU on the site, the Agency
implements corrective action requirements as they apply to SWMUs on the surface
concurrently with the UIC permit process as a "rider permit" to the UIC permit The same
rider permit approach applies to other situations, such as injection wells that were issued
UIC permits before November 8,1984.
Pe.rmh Modifications: The codification rule allows permits to be modified because
of amended standards or regulations, even if the permittee does not request such a
modification, in cases where statutory changes or new or amended regulatory standards
affect the basis of the permit. Permit holders are protected through standard rulemaking
procedures against arbitrary or unnecessary changes, and we do not believe that this
authority will unduly restrict planning efforts at RCRA facilities. The authority is not used
for minor procedural changes, but only for significant amendments that may provide a
substantial increase in protection of human health or the environment at a particular site.
(See Section 3.5.1 for a further discussion of permit modification activities.)
Pfrmit-as-Shield: When new requirements are imposed by HSWA provisions or
the Pan 268 regulations implementing the land disposal restrictions, they become effective
immediately for all permits. EPA does not require that permits be modified to reflect such
changes. (New permits, however, typically cite these requirements so that their
applicability is clear.) These new requirements become effective and enforceable at RCRA
' facilities, regardless of whether a facility's permit has specific conditions that require
compliance. It is the responsibility of the owner/operator to comply with new requirements
even where contrary permit conditions exist.
Permit Conditions Necessary to Protect Human Health and the Environment:
Under HSWA Section 3005(c), Congress grants EPA "omnibus" authority to impose
permit conditions necessary to protect human health and the environment. In specific
circumstances in which regulatory requirements may be inadequate, the Agency can use
this authority to impose those additional permit requirements it considers necessary. The
Agency intends to use this requirement only where necessary to protect human health and
30
-------
the environment, and only to address specific environmental circumstances that are not
adequately covered in existing regulations.
Post-Closure Permits: RCRA requires that all landfills, 'surface impoundments,
waste piles, and land treatment units that received hazardous wastes after July 26, 1982,
comply with the same ground-water monitoring, unsaturated zone monitoring, and
corrective action requirements that apply to new units. To implement this requirement, the
Agency amended its post-closure permits to clarify that they apply to all land disposal units
receiving hazardous waste after that date. Land disposal units that receive waste after the
effective date of the Part 264 regulations must obtain permits and meet the Part 264
requirements, even if they close under interim status. The one exception to -this
requirement is if they can demonstrate that these units have met the Part 264 standards for
closure by removal.
Closure &v Removal: When surface impoundments, waste' piles, and land-
treatment units close by removal or decontamination in accordance with Part 265, they do
not require post-closure care under a post-closure permit. Some facilities, however, may
not meet these requirements and therefore retain post-closure responsibilities, including the
requirement to obtain post-closure permits. The Agency has decided to use the Part B
application process as the primary mechanism for collecting the information to allow a
determination to be made as to whether a regulated unit that closed by removal or
decontamination did so in compliance with the corresponding requirements of Part 264.
The new rule, however, allows owners or operators to perform an "equivalency
demonstration" outside of the Part B permit process to show that a unit has been closed in
full compliance with Part 264 removal or decontamination standards. If the Agency finds
this demonstration acceptable, it will not require a Part B- application or a post-closure
permit.
State Authority: Prior to HSWA, a State with final authorization had full delegated
authority to administer its program in lieu of the Federal program; Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State, and the Agency could not issue permits for any
facilities in a State where the State was authorized to issue permits. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were promulgated or enacted, the State was obligated to
31
-------
enact equivalent authority within a specified schedule; the new requirements did not take
effect until the State adopted the requirements as State law.. Under HSWA, however, new
requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect.in authorized States at the
same time that they take effect in nonauthorized States. The Agency carries out these
responsibilities, including the issuance of permits, until the State is granted authorization to
do so. The deadline for States to apply for authorization for new HSWA authority is
July 1,1989 (or July 1,1990 if a State statutory change is needed).
2.7 Special Wastes
RCRA Section 3001 exempts a number of high-volume wastes-from regulation
under Subtitle C pending the completion of special studies to evaluate potential management
techniques, the danger these wastes pose to human health and the environment, and a
number of other waste-category-specific factors described in RCRA Section 8002.
Following completion of these studies, the Agency has six months to make a determination
on whether the subject wastes should be regulated under Subtitle C. During the past
reporting period, the Agency has worked extensively on three waste categories—mining
wastes; wastes from oil, gas, and geothermal energy exploration, development, and
production; and coal- fired electric utility wastes.
2.7.1 Mining Wastes
At the end of 1985, the Agency submitted its first Report to Congress, Wastes from
the Extraction andBeneficiation of Metallic Ores, Phosphate Rock, Asbestos, Overburden
from Uranium Mining and Oil Shale , as required under RCRA Section 3001(b)(3)(C). On
July 7, 1986, six months after submission of this report, the Agency determined that
regulation under RCRA Subtitle C was not warranted at that time for the wastes studied in
the report. This set in motion a series of activities to determine the type of regulations that
should be implemented and to write necessary guidance for managing these wastes.
The Agency was concerned, however, that while extraction and beneficiation
wastes do not require Subtitle C regulation, they may pose unreasonable risks if they
continued to be exempted from regulation under RCRA. The Agency therefore proposed
32
-------
plans to develop a program for mining wastes under Subtitle D of RCRA, the purpose of
which would be to help develop effective State-implemented programs for mining waste.
The Agency set up an External Communications Committee (ECC) to receive
comments from the public as well as from other government agencies and industry on how
to tailor mining waste regulations under Subtitle D. The Agency combined the
recommendations gathered by the ECC with ones developed internally to fashion a final
Regulatory Development Plan, which was released in June 1987. It outlined a Subtitle D
approach and suggested additional studies of the six mining wastes discussed in a second
report to Congress. In June, the Agency completed a Mining Waste Management Plan
based on the Regulatory Development Plan; regulations are tentatively scheduled to be
proposed in 1988. New reports on mining processing waste streams will be proposed in
1988.
In October 1985 (i.e., prior to the Report to Congress), the Agency proposed to
narrow the scope of the mining wastes exemption, eliminating certain wastes from the
processing of ores and minerals and relisting six smelting wastes previously listed as
hazardous. In response to extensive comments, however, the Agency withdrew this
proposal in October 1986 pending additional studies under RCRA Section 8002. Thus,
these wastes remain conditionally exempt from RCRA Subtitle C regulation until EPA
completes a Section 8002 study of them and determines whether Subtitle C regulation is
appropriate. A second report to Congress, to be issued in April 1988, will cover wastes
from the processing of copper, lead, zinc and zinc oxide, aluminum, and bauxite.
The Agency is currently undertaking scoping studies to determine what sectors and
wastes might be addressed in a third and final report to Congress. The April 1988 Report
to Congress will identify the sectors and types of wastes that might be considered in the
third report.
2.7.2 Oil and Gas/Geothermal
The Agency has prepared a draft Report to Congress on wastes from the
exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and geoth'ermal energy.
33
-------
Like the mining wastes, these wastes had been exempted from Subtitle C regulation in'the
1980 amendments to RCRA. The study has been conducted in accordance with a series of
court ordered deadlines, negotiated under a settlement between the Alaska Center for the
Environment and the Agency. Under its schedule, the Agency completed a general
technical report in October 1986, a report on field sampling of wastes in January 1987, and
a draft Report to Congress in August 1987. The final Report to Congress is to be issued
by December 31,1987.
In mid-1986, the Agency conducted field sampling of oil and gas wastes at selected
sites throughout the country to characterize exempt oil and gas wastes and to identify
constituents of potential concern. Samples of drilling muds, produced water, and other
wastes were taken from a limited number of field sites throughout the continental United
States and Alaska. The results of this wprk were published in an extensive report in
January 1987.
In parallel with'the field sampling, work began on a general technical report
describing the methodologies to be used for the final Report to Congress, including the
planned approach for 'evaluating risks and documenting current and recent damages
associated with oil, gas, and geothermal operations, and for estimating costs associated
with potential future options for additional waste management requirements. This report
was circulated for comment and discussed at public meetings.
At the end of August 1987, the Agency completed its draft Report to Congress,
containing the results of its analysis of (1) current and alternative waste management
practices, (2) case studies documenting damages associated with field operations,
(3) potential risks to health and the environment associated with current waste management
practices, (4) the costs and economic impacts of potential additional waste management
requirements, and (5) the status of State regulatory requirements in the principal producing
States. On December 28,1987, EPA issued its final report.
34
-------
2.7.3 Utilities Report to Congress
The Agency has prepared a draft Report to Congress on waste from the combustion
of coal by electric utility power plants pursuant to the requirements of Section 8002 (n) of
RCRA, as amended in 1980. Under Section 3001 (b)(3)(A), the Agency is prohibited
from regulating these wastes as hazardous under Subtitle C until at least six months after
this report is submitted to Congress.
This draft report examines those wastes generated by electric utilities burning coal.
These wastes account for approximately 90 percent of all wastes generated from the
combustion of fossil fuels. There are 514 coal-fired power plants currently operating in the
United States. Their generating capacities range from 50 MW to more than 3,000 MW
with an average capacity of 500 MW. Approximately 69 million tons of ash and 16 million
tons of flue gas desulfurization wastes are generated annually. Because of an increase in
the use of coal for electrical generation, it has been projected that, by the year 2000, wastes
from the coal-fired generating plants will increase by 75 percent, which translates into
120 million tons of ash and 50 million tons of flue gas desulfurization wastes'.
The draft report was developed by the Agency with active interagency involvement.
Participating on the Agency's work group were the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority.
The final report is scheduled to be submitted to-Congress in early 1988. After
submittal, the Agency will hold public hearings. Within six months of submittal, the
Agency will publish in the Federal Register a determination on the need for regulation of
wastes generated by the combustion of coal in the electrical utility industry.
2.8 Subtitle D
Subtitle D of RCRA established a cooperative framework for Federal, State, and
local governments to control the management of solid waste. As part of this framework,
the Agency developed criteria that set minimum performance standards for all solid waste
35
-------
disposal facilities. These "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and
Practices" (40 CFR Part 257) were promulgated by the Agency in 1979.
2.R.I Subtitle D Report to Congress
In 1984, HSWA required the Agency to conduct a study of the extent to which the
Subtitle D Criteria (40 CFR 257) are adequate to protect human health and the environment
from ground-water contamination. In addition, the study was to include recommendations
with respect to any additional enforcement authorities deemed necessary to protect ground
water. This study will result in submittal of a Report to Congress. For the study, the
Agency collected data in three areas:
• Subtitle D waste characteristics;
Subtitle D facility characteristics; and
• State Subtitle D program characteristics. . • .
Waste Characteristics: Subtitle D wastes are those solid wastes regulated under
RCRA that are not subject to hazardous waste regulation under Subtitle C. Many
Subtitle D waste streams have been identified and are discussed in Chapter 3 of this report.
The quantity of Subtitle D waste generated annually is enormous. Municipal solid waste
and industrial nonhazardous waste, only two of the Subtitle D waste streams, account for
more than 500 million tons of waste per year. The characteristics of Subtitle D wastes vary
considerably as a result of regional differences in climate and socioeconomics.
Facility Characteristics: Three sources of Subtitle D facility characteristics data
were used. The first, the Subtitle D Census, was the most comprehensive. The Census
was conducted as a mail survey and includes responses from Subtitle D regulatory program
offices in every State and territory in the United States. Landfills, surface impoundments
(Sis), and land application units (LAUs) were covered in the Census; however, the quality
of data varied. The respondents rated landfill data quality highest and surface
impoundment data quality lowest. The Census identified approximately 227,000 Subtitle D
facilities. Eighty-five percent were SI, 8 percent were LAUs, and 7 percent were landfills.
36
-------
The other two sources of data were the Municipal Solid Waste Survey and the
Industrial Survey. Both surveys were initiated to fill data gaps left by the Census,
Approximately 9,300 municipal solid waste landfills (MSWLFs) were identified by
the Census, while the municipal survey predicted that 6,500 MSWLFs are currently active.
The apparent discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that the Census data are older (1984)
than the Survey data (1986) and therefore may include facilities that were closed by 1986.
In addition, States may have broadly defined MSWLFs for the Census and included
landfills that may not have actually been MSWLFs.
Very few Subtitle D facilities employ release prevention controls (e.g., liners and
run-on/run-off controls), and only a small percentage conduct environmental monitoring.
For example, the Census indicates that only 25 percent of the municipal solid waste
landfills monitor ground water. Ground-water monitoring is even less prevalent at Sis,
where only 4 percent of the units have monitoring, and LAUs, where 6 percent of the units
have ground-water monitoring.
State Program Characteristics: The Subtitle D program is implemented and
enforced by the States. The following four areas were examined:
1. Program organization and management;
2. Identification and status of solid waste facilities;
3. Permit and regulation mechanisms; and
4. Enforcement programs.
The Subtitle D universe is extremely large. Because of limited budgets and staff,
few State programs address the full spectrum of facilities and activities. The focus of most
State Subtitle D programs has been on MSWLFs. In general, only half of the Subtitle D
facilities in the United States had been permitted and only 30 percent had been inspected in
1984.
The Agency issued Phase I of this Report to Congress in November 1986, under
the title Phase I Report Subtitle D Study; data from the Municipal Landfill Survey and the
37
-------
Industrial Facility Survey were not, however, available for this report. The final report will
include the Agency's final conclusions about solid waste disposal facilities and practices
and is being developed for issuance to Congress in early 1988..
1.8.2 Subtitle D Criteria Revisions
HSWA also requires the Agency to revise the Subtitle D Criteria for solid waste
disposal facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or small quantity generator
hazardous waste. The HSWA provisions specify that the revised Criteria shall address, at
a minimum, facility location, ground-water monitoring, and corrective action, as
appropriate.
The Agency has devoted substantial time and resources to developing revisions to
the Criteria. Public meetings were held to obtain views of various parties interested in solid
waste management. The Agency also met with various industry/trade associations and
environmental groups to learn of their key concerns. An unusually large Agency Work
Group was assembled in order to obtain input from other Agency program offices,
including the Regional Offices. This work group met many times during fiscal year 1987
and also included representatives of many State solid waste management agencies. Major
meetings have also been held with top Agency management to determine the focus and
direction of the Criteria revisions.
The Agency has prepared numerous drafts of the revised Criteria for review by the
Work Group and Agency management. In addition to addressing location, ground-water
monitoring, and corrective action, the Criteria revisions will address other environmental
concerns included in the current Part 257 Criteria (e.g., landfill gas controls). Data
gathered for the Subtitle D Report to Congress will be used in developing and supporting
the Criteria revisions.
The Criteria revisions, directed to municipal solid waste landfills, are scheduled to
be proposed in the Federal Register in early 1988. The Agency will then hold public
hearings on the proposal prior to developing the final rule.
38
-------
2.8.3 Household Hazardous Waste Management
Hazardous waste is not generated exclusiyely by industrial and commercial sectors;
ordinary private households routinely dispose of significant quantities of hazardous
materials in the form of drain openers, oven cleaners, wood and metal cleaners and
polishes, discarded pharmaceuticals, oil and fuel additives, carburetor and fuel injection
cleaners and starter fluids, paint thinners, paint strippers and removers, herbicides,
pesticides, grease and rust solvents, fungicides, and wood preservatives. The Agency has
endorsed and supported voluntary collection programs, the focus of which is to encourage
proper management of small-quantity household hazardous wastes through community-
sponsored programs.
Interest in the area of household .hazardous waste began in 1981-82. One of the
first household hazardous waste collection days was held in Lexington Massachusetts, in
1982. Since 1981, more than 800 locally sponsored household hazardous waste collection
programs have been held in 40 different States, evidence of the increasing attention toward,
and interest in, these programs. The majority of these collection days have been day-long
events sponsored and.financed by a local community, State, or private firm. On the
collection day, residents bring their household hazardous wastes to a designated location
where the wastes are identified, packaged, and labeled by trained personnel. The wastes
then are taken to licensed hazardous waste management facilities for recycling, incineration,
or disposal.
The Agency has developed a working definition of household hazardous waste
based upon the RCRA definition of hazardous waste. EPA also has developed a regulatory
definition .of the "household" concept (40 CFR 261.4(b)). A waste is hazardous if it
exhibits any of the characteristics of corrosivity, ignitability, reactivity, or toxicity or if it is
listed as being hazardous. From this definition, the Agency has developed a list of generic
types of household wastes that contain hazardous components'. The Agency has also
issued a report entitled Household Hazardous Waste and Related Collection Programs.
The report focuses on the following topics: (1) the definition of household hazardous
waste; (2) the quantities of household hazardous waste in the municipal waste stream;
(3) the impacts of household hazardous waste on homeowners, solid waste collection and
. 39 •
-------
disposal personnel, and the environment; and (4) household hazardous waste collection
programs at the State and local levels.
The Agency's other activities in the household hazardous waste area include
sponsoring an annual conference. In November, 1986, the Agency sponsored the first
conference in Washington, D.C.; approximately 300 people attended. The second annual
conference was held in November 1987, in San Diego, California, with a similar turnout.
These annual conferences are held to provide a forum for people who run household
hazardous waste programs to share experiences and identify effective strategies for
managing these wastes. In addition, these conferences provide the Agency with an
opportunity to address RCRA and CERCLA liability issues of concern to the administrators
of these programs.
2.8.4 Report to Congress on Municipal Waste Combustion
' Under Section 102 of the HSWA, Congress required EPA to submit a report on the
potential health risks of municipal waste combustion (MWC) caused by emissions of
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, along with technical evaluations of operating practices
appropriate for controlling these emissions. This directive follows from the National
Dioxin Study, initiated in 1984, which recommended study of possible dioxin emissions
from a variety of combustion sources, of which municipal waste combustors were one.
Low levels of dioxins are found throughout the environment and have caused a
high level of public concern because of their potential toxicity and persistence. The
Agency's Municipal Waste Combustion Study, submitted to Congress in June 1987, drew
on a wide variety of- technical studies addressing all aspects of emissions estimation,
control efficiencies and costs, and risk assessment. The original Congressional directive
was expanded to include consideration of paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide, hydrochloric
acid, and metals in addition to dioxins and dioxin-related compounds.
The report also provided a listing of "good combustion practices" for minimizing
organic emissions from MWCs, along with a risk and cost analysis for their application for
existing and new facilities. Uniform application of dry scrubber and high efficiency
40
-------
paniculate collection systems would reduce these .risks by approximately a factor often, to
0.2 to 3 cases for existing sources and 0.3 to 1 for those projected. Adding dry scrubbers
to existing paniculate controls would increase costs by $4 to $12 per ton, depending on the
type of combustor. Since many existing modular combustors (which account for about
9 percent of existing facilities) have no flue gas treatment, the costs for those units would
be higher, ranging from $7 to $16 per ton.
2.8.5 Municipal Waste Combustion—Regulatory Activities
The burning of municipal solid waste is an attractive waste management option
because it reduces the volume of waste by 70 to 90 percent and may also be used to recover
energy with which to generate electricity. There are 111 municipal waste combustion
facilities now in operation, with another 200 planned. Current U.S. combustion capacity is
45,000 tons per day; new facilities will increase this to 117,000 to 252,000 tons per day by'
the year 2000.
Following the analysis completed in the Report to Congress, the Agency published
its intention to regulate municipal waste combustors under Section 111 of the Clean Air
Act. This authority allows the Agency to regulate MWC emissions in the aggregate or in
terms of individual "designated pollutants." Pending publication of this regulation, we
have issued operational guidance for new MWC facilities. This guidance establishes
alkaline scrubbers plus fabric filter or electrostatic precipitators as the presumptive standard
for best available control technology.
Regulations under Section 111 will reflect the best technological systems of
continuous emission reduction that have been demonstrated for municipal waste
combustors considering costs, any non-air quality health or environmental effects, and
energy requirements. The standards will include emission limits and quantitative
requirements for monitoring. Under Section 111, the standards will apply to all sources
constructed after proposal of the regulations rather than after final promulgation of the rule.
41
-------
The Agency is also developing a sampling protocol and guidance to determine
whether residual ash is hazardous, and is examining options for ash disposal that would be
tailored around the unique properties of ash in a land disposal scenario.
2.8.6 Domestic Sewage
A number of hazardous wastes are excluded from regulation under RCRA because
they are discharged to publicly owned sewage treatment plants (POTWs) in combination
with domestic sewage and'are therefore regulated under the discharge requirements of those
plants. In the 1984 HSWA amendments, Congress required EPA to study the number and
types of generators that dispose of hazardous wastes under this exemption, and, within 18
months of submitting this report, to revise and expand its regulations as necessary to
ensure protection of human health and the environment.
The Agency submitted its Domestic Sewage Study to Congress in February .1986,
as required, and is scheduled to propose regulations under the Clean Water Act in May
1988. It is expected that the proposal will include a number of significant requirements:
Administrative Requirements: Plants would have to update their industrial
user inventories and lists of significant industrial users every 30 months.
Industrial users would have to notify plants of discharges to sewers of listed
or characteristic hazardous wastes. Plants would be required to have legal
authority to issue individual discharge permits of each "significant industrial
user" as defined under the new regulations. They would also have to obtain
legal authority to develop local limits based on the "best professional
judgment" determination of Best Available Technology (BAT).
•
Specific Discharge Prohibitions: Limits are set on the
ignitability/explosivity and the reactivity of wastes discharged to treatment
plants.
. Spills and Batch Discharges: Plants would require their industrial users to
develop and implement plans and procedures to prevent and control spills
and batch discharges.
42
-------
2.9 Waste Minimization
2.9.1 Hazardous Waste Minimization
Congress placed new emphasis on the need for minimizing the generation of
hazardous waste in HSWA Section 1003(b):
The Congress hereby declares it to be the national policy of the United States that,
wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated
as expeditiously as possible. Waste that is nevertheless generated should be
treated, stored, or disposed of so as to minimize the present and future threat to
human health and the environment.
Under Section 8002 (r), Congress further required EPA to report on "the feasibility
and desirability of establishing standards of performance or of taking other additional
actions ... to require the generators of hazardous waste to reduce the volume or quantity
and toxicity of the hazardous waste they generate." At its extreme, such action could mean
the establishment of industry-specific rules, similar to Effluent Limitations under the Clean
Water Act or New Source Performance Standards under the Clean Air Act, that would
specify industrial process performance to limit the generation of hazardous waste.
The Agency submitted its report in October 1986. For the purposes of the report,
we defined waste minimization as a combination of any source reduction or recycling
activities that result in either the reduction of total volume or quantity of hazardous waste or
in the reduction of toxicity of hazardous waste. The land disposal restrictions program has
already set in motion a major diversion of hazardous waste from land disposal toward
incineration and other treatment technologies. Because of the emphasis on treatment in the
land disposal restrictions program, the report did not cover treatment, even though
treatment can be a legitimate form of waste minimization.
The Agency evaluated several options according to their effectiveness in reducing
volume and toxicity, their economic impacts, and logistical problems of implementation.
After evaluating these options, we concluded that mandatory measures to implement source
reduction and recycling are neither desirable nor feasible. First, existing economic
incentives to reduce waste are already very strong. These include shortages in available
treatment and disposal capacity, rising costs of treatment and disposal, concerns over
43
-------
financial liability for waste improperly treated or disposed of, and lack of availability of
liability insurance. Second, mandatory programs would be difficult and costly, both for
the Agency and for industry. At best it would take over a decade to design and implement a
mandatory program, which would do nothing to alleviate near-term capacity shortages.
Third, mandatory programs would interfere with private production decisions, most likely
producing inefficient results and negative economic impacts.
The Agency is now in the process of implementing its waste minimization strategy.
The goal of this strategy is to promote the implementation of waste minimization practices
by industry, wherever feasible. To achieve this goal, the Agency has adopted a strategy
that has both a short-term and a long-term component. The Agency's short-term strategy
includes:
1 Promoting industry waste minimization activities by establishing a
clearinghouse that develops and disseminates both technical and generic
information to waste generators, States, and trade associations on industrial
processes, case studies, economic benefit studies, and other matters;
2. Measuring industry waste minimization practices by establishing a baseline
data system consisting of surveys and case studies;
3 Conducting appropriate research to evaluate emerging technologies,
eliminate technical barriers, and develop generic waste minimization audit
protocols; and
4 Assessing industry progress and, if necessary, identifying and evaluating
potential regulatory and nonregulatory options for successfully increasing
waste minimization practices.
The long-term strategy includes one additional component:
Monitoring changes over time in industry behavior by conducting
longitudinal analyses and case studies of specific industries and firms.
This last component represents a continuation of Agency efforts to assess industry
waste minimization efforts by examining changes in the number of waste minimization
practices being implemented by industry over the next several years. Given current time
constraints, the Agency is unable in its short-term strategy (1987-90) to both establish a
baseline of information and systematically determine quantitative changes in waste
44
-------
minimization. Therefore, longer-term efforts need to include national surveys and case
studies of industrial firms to assess changes in industry behavior over time such that the
Agency can determine the extent to which industry is moving to minimize waste generation.
The implementation of this strategy is designed to be interactive in nature, so that
activities under one objective provide input to another activity and vice-versa. For instance,
a major component of this strategy is to collect relevant information and measure industry
efforts aimed at minimizing waste generation. Results from these activities can identify
particular industry and technology processes in which waste generation is being minimized
and allow the Agency to promote waste minimization to other companies through its
clearinghouse, as well as identifying targets of opportunity for further research in areas
where waste minimization may not be occurring.
Results of these activities provide the Agency with data to access industry efforts at
minimizing waste generation and to identify and evaluate potential regulatory and non-
regulatory options, if necessary, to successfully increase waste minimization practices.
2.9.2 Procurement Guidelines
Section 6002 of RCRA directs all procuring agencies that use appropriated Federal
funds to procure items containing the highest percentage of recovered materials practicable
given that reasonable levels of competition, cost, availability, and technical performance are
maintained. The Agency is given the responsibility for (1) designating items that can be
produced with recovered materials and (2) promulgating guidelines-to assist procuring
agencies in carrying out the requirements of Section 6002 and for implementing the policy
and programs at all levels of government
Under/this RCRA requirement, the Agency identifies items that can be produced
with recovered materials, conducts feasibility studies to determine the extent of the item's
use by procuring agencies and other factors, selects items as the subject of procurement
guidelines, and prepares and implements the guidelines.
' Guidelines have been completed for fly ash used in cement and concrete and for
paper and paper products made from recycled material, and have been proposed for asphalt
45
-------
made from recycled tires and re-refined lubricating oils. Amendments have also been
proposed that would strengthen the paper guideline. In addition, the Agency is developing
guidelines for retread tires and insulating materials made from recycled paper and glass.
In order to justify a procurement guideline for any given material, it is necessary to
demonstrate that certain criteria are met:
1. Evidence of a significant solid waste management problem;
2. Availability of economic methods of-recovery;
3. Technically proven use; and
4. Substantial Federal purchasing power.
Based on these criteria, the Agency conducts feasibility studies to identify candidate
items to be the subject of procurement guidelines, assess the potential market for the items
among affected procuring agencies, evaluate the costs to the item's manufacturer or
supplier of complying with relevant Federal procurement rules, assess other relevant costs
and benefits, identify relevant legislation, and generally provide an overview of the
feasibility of developing guidelines for various items.
In 1984, HSWA added paragraph (i) to Section 6002 of RCRA. This new
provision requires procuring agencies to develop an affirmative procurement program for
procuring items designated by the Agency. The program must be consistent with Federal
procurement requirements and must contain at least four elements:
1. A recovered materials preference program;
2. An agency promotion program;
if
3.' A program for requiring estimates, certification, and verification; and
4. Annual review and monitoring of the effectiveness of the procurement
program.
Section 6002 gives the Agency responsibility, in promulgating guidelines, to assist
procuring agencies in carrying out these requirements.
46
-------
3.0 ENHANCING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter we discuss activities that were not directly mandated by RCRA or
HSWA, but were nevertheless necessary for the Agency to carry out its mission of
protecting human health and the environment from unacceptable risks presented by
hazardous wastes. These activities were undertaken to improve upon the existing
regulatory framework where new information or experience in the past several years
indicated that specific changes were necessary. The scope of such activities is broad.
Some examples include:
• Initiatives to improve the definition of hazardous wastes;
. . Streamlining of the permit process to save the resources of the Agency and
' the regulated community, as weu as to expedite the development of new
treatment capacity in anticipation of the-land disposal restrictions program;
and
. • Technical changes to regulations pertaining to ground-water monitoring and
hazardous waste combustion to achieve optimal protection of human health
and the environment in the most expeditious manner possible.
3.2 Surveys and Data Development
3.2.1 RCRIS
The RCRA program manages large and growing amounts of data on facility
permitting, inspections, hazardous waste generation, biennial reports, special surveys, and
other issues. The current Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS) was not
designed to handle the volume of data being managed today, and is not able to respond
flexibly enough to the reporting demands of RCRA management, the Regional Offices, or
the States.
47
-------
The Agency has proposed, and is in the midst of developing, a more flexible and
capable data management system to serve this program. CaUed the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Information System (RGRIS), it is scheduled to replace HWDMS in 1989.
The Agency's objective is to build a system that is comprehensive (handling many different
types of data -needed by this program) and interactive, with strong statistical analysis
capabilities. RCRIS will go well beyond the depth and scope of HWDMS. For example,
RCRIS will provide information and analytic capability to support programs such as
corrective action, which have not been covered by a national reporting system. Through
RCRIS, the Agency will be able to share data among the States, the Regional Offices, and
EPA Headquarters. It will be -especially useful for providing more accurate oversight
statistics based on current information over a broad spectrum of activities.
During 1987, the Agency in cooperation with the States determined the types of
data and data categories needed and designed methods of data entry suitable for easy State-
Federal interaction. The States will continue to have primary responsibility and control for
entering data, but all Regional Offices, States, and EPA Headquarters will have access to
the data base. Early in 1988 the Agency will begin a 4-month pilot program using RCRIS
with one of the EPA Regional Offices and several of its associated States. This test run
will help identify problem areas and enable the Agency to deliver the system on schedule at
the "beginning of 1989.
3.2.2 Biennial Report Revisions
RCRA 3002(6) requires that generators of hazardous waste report at least biennially
to the States on their hazardous waste management activities. The information gathered is
used by the State and EPA for planning and evaluation of hazardous waste programs, and
for reporting to Congress, State legislatures, and the public on many aspects of the
generation, management, and disposal of hazardous wastes.
The current reporting form used by the Agency and the States for developing the
. biennial reports is quite general, reducing the quality and scope of the data it generates.
The Agency has therefore developed a new form, which it is recommending for use by all
States. The new form has been designed to develop more and better data as efficiently as
48
-------
possible. To develop this form, the Agency worked closely with the National Governors'
Association (NGA). NGA formed an advisory committee composed of State, Region, and
industry representatives, which evaluated the reporting needs of the program and advised
the Agency that five general areas deserved priority attention:
Waste Quantity and Processing Tracking: The biennial report should
develop the best quality data on hazardous wastes generated, as well as on
how they are stored, transported, treated, and ultimately disposed of.
Waste Characterization: The report must also develop data on the physical
form and chemical composition of wastes, as well as any additional
information necessary to assess the health and environmental risks they
pose.
Regulatory Status: The report must generate information on hazardous
waste handlers—who they are and under what category of activity they
should be classified.
Waste Minimization: Reducing and recycling hazardous waste is emerging
as one of the key long-term issues to be addressed under RCRA. The
previous report contained only a general narrative statement on this issue;
the new form will include both detailed checklists to help respondents to
define waste minimization programs in place and additional reporting
requirements to clarify progress made on reducing hazardous wastes sent to
treatment or disposal.
Capacity Assessment: The land disposal restrictions program and new State
capacity assessment requirements under the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) increase the importance of information on the
available supply of treatment, storage, and disposal capacity. The new_form
will gather this information and will require the reporting of changes in the
processing capacity, the adequacy of remaining capacity, and the availability
of additional capacity.
3.2.3 TSDR/Generator Survey
In 1981, the Agency conducted a survey of treatment, storage, disposal, and
recycling facilities (TSDRs) to provide a national overview of the status of hazardous waste
management facilities (the Regulatory Impact Analysis mail survey). The information
gathered is now seriously dated. Two new surveys, one on TSDRs and one on generators,
are therefore under way to update this information. These new data will cover current
waste generation and management practices, thus updating the baseline data originally
49
-------
gathered in 1981 and allowing the Agency to interpret the findings developed through
biennial reports with more accuracy and perspective.
TSDR Survev: The information gathered by this survey will provide support for
tracking the overall progress of RCRA, as well as for developing treatment standards and
setring°effective dates on land disposal restrictions for hazardous wastes. It will also be
used as a basis for evaluating the regulatory impact of regulations, developing tank system
information for possible tank requirement revisions, and assessing individual State
hazardous waste management capacities.
As part of this effort, the Agency sent a pilot questionnaire to 55 facility owners and
operators in January 1987. A full-scale mandatory survey encompassing about 2,300
TSDR facilities was sent out in August 1987. The survey is detailed and complete and is
designed to develop waste code.specific information. Analysis of the results will begin in
December 1987.
This survey will be linked with the generator survey to provide a comprehensive
data base on hazardous waste management capacity. The TSDR survey information will be
kept current with updates from the Biennial Report- Eventually, most of this information
will be integrated into RCRIS.
CrP.nP.mtnr Survev: Like the TSDR survey, a survey of generators is also in
progress to obtain information on current waste generation rates. The Agency believes that
' a significant shift in the generation and management of solid and hazardous wastes has
occurred since the last survey, conducted in 1981. These changes in generation and
management are a result of industry's responding to the implementation of the Subtitle C
regulatory framework and the resulting cost increases in hazardous waste management 'over
the past decade.
The new survey seeks information on the types and volume of hazardous wastes
generated during 1986. In addition, we have expanded the original generator survey to
obtain information that will provide a more accurate picture of waste generation. This
information includes waste minimization practices, the nature and status of solid waste
50
-------
management units (SWMUs), and diagrams depicting all waste management operations at
the facility: The survey will provide data on all wastes generated by a facility, including
wastes considered hazardous under RCRA, wastes considered hazardous by individual
States, and wastes containing PCBs, asbestos, and dioxins.
A pretest was conducted in August 1987. A mandatory survey of 10,000 facilities
was mailed in December of 1987 after suitable modifications and revisions of the survey
were made on the basis of the pretest
3.3 Improving the Definition of RCRA
3.3.1 "Relisrin g" of Hazardous Waste
- In listing wastes, the Agency previously has not set levels for hazardous
constituents below which the waste would no longer be considered hazardous under
Subtitle C of RCRA. Rather, once a waste is listed, it remains subject to control under
Subtitle'C of RCRA even if the waste contains only de minimis levels of the hazardous
constituent. Waste generators may submit a petition to delist a waste; if granted, however,
the petition applies only to that specific waste and location. The Agency considers this to
be a problem for the regulated community, the Agency, and the public. In particular,
limited resources for the management of hazardous wastes are being used to control slightly
toxic or nonhazardous waste; in addition, the Agency's limited resources are being used to
process delisting petitions, with limited environmental benefit. To address this problem,
the Agency is considering redefining the existing listings by setting concentration limits
(either in the waste or the leachate from the waste) below which the waste would not be
defined as hazardous under Subtitle C of RCRA. This activity is known as "relisting." As
part of this "relisting" program, the Agency is clarifying existing hazardous waste listing
where ambiguities exist and is expanding the list of toxicants of concern for listed wastes.
Concentrations for toxicants will be set by'evaluating the risks posed to the "most
exposed individual" if the waste were disposed of outside the requirements of RCRA
Subtitle C. The intent is to model viable disposal options and select the most conservative
as the regulatory levels below which the waste is not considered hazardous.
51
-------
3.3.2 TSCA Section 4 Rule
The Agency does not have toxicity data nor fate and transport data for a number of
chemicals of concern. For some of these chemicals, the Agency is conducting a test
program to develop such data; for others, we have proposed a rule under the authority of
TSCA to require manufacturers to develop the necessary data.
The chemicals subject to this proposed rule are those for which the Agency is
unable to determine the extent of their toxicity or fate in the environment (i.e., the chemicals
have been found by the Agency to have neither subchronic nor chemical fate data). Health
effects testing is required to develop oral subchronic toxicity, while chemical fate testing
includes anaerobic biodegradatipn, soil absorption, and hydrolysis. The proposed human
health and chemical fate testing is based on the authority of Section 4(a)(l)(A) of TSCA.
All of the chemicals subject to this proposed test rule have been identified as toxic
constituents under RCRA and have as their primary hazardous property either acute or
chronic toxicity. Chemicals listed solely because they are flammable, reactive, or corrosive
have not been included in this rule.
3.3.3 Air Toxicitv Characteristic
' Under RCRA, wastes are classified as hazardous if they exhibit one or more
specific hazardous characteristics, one of which is toxicity. The Agency's prescribed tests
for toxicity have, until now, focused primarily on potential exposures through drinking
water. The Agency is also concerned about other potential exposure routes, including air.
Certain constituents found in industrial wastes—most notably, volatile organics—may be
associated with human health effects both directly, through inhalation, and indirectly,
through secondary formation of ozone. To Address this _ problem, the Agency is
considering development of an Air Toxicity Characteristic through which wastes that pose
potential air pollution risks can be properly defined and regulated under RCRA.
Like the other RCRA characteristic tests, the Air Toxicity Characteristic would be
performed by generators, treaters, or other panics managing hazardous wastes. The test
would predict releases of volatile organic compounds from wastes and would be tied to
specific threshold -concentrations that, if exceeded, would render the waste a hazardous
52
-------
waste. The thresholds would take into account considerations of human health effects as
well as the transport and fate of volatile air toxicants.'
3.3.4 Joint EPA/NRC Initiative on the Regulation of Commercial Mixed Waste
The Agency has jurisdiction over the management of solid and hazardous waste
with the exception of those materials specifically excluded by Section 1004(27) of RCRA;
namely, source, special nuclear, and by-product material. These radioactive materials are
subject to and defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (68 Stat. 923),
(AEA).
Commercial low-level radioactive waste (LLW) is regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the authority of the AEA and the Low Level
Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 (LLRWPAA). The LLRWPAA
defines LLW as radioactive material that (1) is not high-level radioactive waste, spent
nuclear fuel, or by-product material as defined in Section. 1 le.(2)_pfjhe_AEA (i;e., uranium
or thorium mill tailings), and (2) is classified by the NRC as LLW consistent with existing
law and in accordance with (1).
In many instances LLW contains constituents that are hazardous because they either
exhibit corrosivity, reactivity, ignitability, or extraction procedure toxicity characteristics or
are listed as hazardous under RCRA. S.uch wastes are now referred to as radioactive mixed
waste. Where mixed wastes are generated, they are subject to both EPA and NRC
regulations.
Over the last fiscal year, the Agency and NRC have undertaken a number of
initiatives to effect joint regulation of radioactive mixed waste. The first joint initiative was
to conduct a review of existing EPA and NRC regulations in an effort to identify areas of
potential inconsistency. If RCRA requirements are inconsistent with AEA requirements,
the latter rules govern, as provided by Section 1006 of RCRA. No inconsistencies were
identified as a result of the EPA/NRC comparison of existing regulations, although
differences in stringency were observed.
53
-------
Subsequently, the Agency and NRC developed a series of guidance documents that
focused on key elements of mixed waste regulation. The first document, entitled Guidance
on the Definition and Identification of Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and
Hazardous Waste and Answers to Anticipated Questions, was endorsed by both agencies
on January 8, 1987. The document was developed to aid commercial generators of LLW
in determining if they were generating a mixed waste.
On March 13, 1987, the Agency and NRC issued a second document, entitled
Combined NRC-EPA Siting Guidelines for Disposal of Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and
Hazardous Waste. This guidance was developed in response to concerns raised by States
and Compacts that the absence of the Agency's final location standards could prove to be
an impediment to their development of siting plans for LLW disposal facilities in
accordance with the 1988 milestone established by the LLRWPAA. The guidance not only
set forth NRC-EPA combined siting guidelines but also provided the regulated community
with Agency contacts to aid them in developing siting plans that would be consistent with'
the Agency's final location standards.
The Agency and NRC issued a third joint guidance on August 3, 1-987. This
document depicted a conceptual design for land disposal facilities that could accept mixed
waste. The impetus for the guidance stemmed, to a large extent, from concerns that the
Agency-approved double liner and leachate collection systems were incompatible with
NRC's requirement that contact of the waste with liquids be minimized. The document
integrated these two requirements for land disposal facilities.
3.4 Small Quantity Generator Exception Reporting Rule
Under the RCRA manifest system, if a copy of the original manifest is not returned
to a generator indicating tiiat the waste has been properly delivered to a treatment, storage,
disposal, or recycling facility, the generator must file an "exception report" to this effect.
This requirement was not included in the Small Quantity Generator (SQG) rules originally
promulgated. As a result, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed suit, calling for
this provision to be included as part of the SQG requirements. EDF argued that wastes
from SQGs shipped off site may at times pose the same risks as that of larger quantity
54
-------
senerators. For instance, SQGs can store wastes of up to 6,000 kilograms before shipping
the wastes offsite, and 'transporters can consolidate wastes from several SQGs before
delivering the wastes to a management facility. In response to the lawsuit by EDF, and
based on the Agency's re-analysis of the issue, the Agency issued a final rule oti-September
17, 1987,' that requires SQGs to send a copy of the unretumed manifest to the Agency.
This rule sets forth a less comprehensive form of exception reporting relative to large
quantity generators, reflecting the Agency's desire to minimize burdens on SQGs while still
ensuring environmental protection.
3.5 Streamlining the Permit Process
3.5.1 Permit Modification Rule
»
If the owner or operator of a permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facility
(TSDF) wishes to change any conditions of the facility's permit, such changes require a
formal permit modification, approved by the Agency or an authorized State. Generally,
these changes must be made through the same procedures as are used for issuing the
permit. That is, the Agency must publish a proposed modification for comment, provide a
45-day comment period, and hold a public hearing, if requested, before modifying the
permit. These procedures require substantial resources and can significandy delay changes
that would actually improve protection of human health and the environment.
Recognizing that the permit modification process was becoming increasingly
unwieldy, the Agency selected the amendment of the permit modification regulations for
regulatory negotiations. After 7 months of negotiations with representatives of industry,
the States, and public interest groups, the Agency proposed a rule on September 23, 1987,
reflecting agreement among all but one of the members of the negotiating group.
The Agency is now evaluating comments on the proposed rule and expects to
promulgate a final rule in the middle of calendar year 1988. As proposed, the rule would
establish three classes of permit modifications. Class 1 would cover routine changes that
do not substantially alter the permit conditions or reduce the capacity of the facility to
55
-------
protect human health and the environment. In general, these would cover reference and
administrative issues and would not require prior Agency approval.
Class 2 modifications would include changes necessary to enable a permittee to
respond to variations in the types and quantities of wastes managed by the facility,
technological advancements, and expected regulatory changes (such as land disposal
restrictions ana listings of new wastes) where such changes can be implemented without
substantially changing the facility design or management practices prescribed by the permit
These generally involve increases of 25 percent or less in the facility's non-land-based
treatment or storage capacity, authorizations to treat or store new wastes that do not require
different regulatory unit design or different management practices, and modifications to
improve the design of regulated units or improve management practices.
The proposed process for class 2 modifications obligates the Agency to make a
decision on the facility's request within 120 days. .If a decision is not made within that time
period, the facility may temporarily engage in the requested activity for up to 180 days.
During the temporary operation the Agency may take action to approve or deny the permit
modification request. If there is no Agency decision within 300 days of the facility's
request, then the facility is authorized to conduct the requested activity for the term of the
permit. The "default" provision will ensure prompt Agency attention and assure the facility
owners that the review of their request will not drag out indefinitely. Furthermore, the
class 2 changes subject to the default provision are the kinds of changes that can be readily
reviewed because they do not represent major deviations in the facility's permitted activities
and the risks are limited. Frequently, these modifications will improve operations at the
facility. In all cases, any facility modification under this provision must comply with the
appropriate RCRA performance standards.
Class 3 modifications would include changes that substantially alter a facility or its
operation, such as increases in land-based treatment or storage capacity; increases of more
than 25 percent in non-land-based treatment or storage capacity; authorization to treat,
store, or dispose of new wastes that require different engineering design or different
management practices; major changes to landfill, surface impoundment, and waste pile liner
56
-------
and leachate collection/detection systems; and major changes to the facility's ground-water
monitoring program.
The proposed permit modification system would improve the ability of facilities to
make routine changes necessary to maintain effective operations. It would also provide
more flexibility for facilities to respond to changing waste streams, to perform corrective
action activities, and to make facility improvements. Public notice and appeal opportunities
would be expanded over the current requirements.
3.5.2 Mobile Treatment Unit Rule
Another effort to streamline the permitting process is the Agency's July 1987
proposal to expedite permit procedures for mobile hazardous waste treatment units
(MTUs). MTUs include mobile treatment tanks and mobile incinerators. The proposed
requirements would make it easier to place mobile units in service and to move the units
from one facility to another to treat wastes at a site. Until the Agency promulgates a final
rule, MTUs will be subject to the same permit procedures as all treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs). Therefore, an MTU must be permitted like a stationary facility
at each site where the unit is intended to be used. These requirements could significantly
delay permitting of MTUs by imposing redundant reviews without increasing protection to
human health and the environment.
The proposed requirements would set up a two-phased permitting process. First,
the unit must obtain a State-wide permit specifying technical conditions, applying
throughout a State, but not by itself allowing operation of the MTU at a specific site.
Before the unit could operate at a specific site, the owner/operator would have to secure a
site-specific RCRA permit incorporating general operating requirements contained in the
State-wide permit, as well as conditions necessary for the particular site, and requiring
public notices and hearings.
Expedited permits for MTUs could play an 'important role in augmenting treatment
capacity. Mobile technologies can be adapted to the full range of treatment processes, from
simple pretreatment to full-scale incineration. They may involve single tank trucks that can
57
-------
be put into operation quickly or may consist of several large modules that can take^a few
weeks to install and may remain at a site from a few weeks to years. Mobile units also
reduce the risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous wastes. The Agency believes
this proposed rule will tend to stimulate the development of new alternatives to land
disposal.
In conjunction with the MTU proposal, the Agency proposed a new approach to
allow delisting of hazardous wastes as part of the permitting process. Before a listed waste
from a particular generating facility can be considered nonhazardous, the Agency must
determine that it does not meet any of the criteria for which it was listed and that other
factors could not cause the waste to be hazardous. The Agency determination can be made
only after extensive data are produced and evaluated, a process that can take 8 months or
more. The June 3, 1987, proposal allows TSDFs the option of petitioning for a delisting
through the RCRA permit process along with the facility's permit application. This
approach would expedite the delisting process by consolidating the procedural aspects of
the delisting and the permit decision making, whereas currently these procedures have to
occur sequentially. The technical criteria for delisting would still have to be complied with
before the waste would be considered nonhazardous. This proposed delisting system
would be applicable to both MTUs and fixed waste treatment units.
3.5.3 Changes in Interim Status Facilities
Currently, a TSDF operating under interim status pursuant to RCRA 3005 may
make changes in its hazardous waste management practices under certain conditions. The
Agency believes that current regulations governing these changes may unduly restrict the
ability of these facilities to make the changes necessary to comply with the new RCRA
requirements, and has therefore proposed a rule that would allow interim status facilities to
respond to the following RCRA program requirements:
« Identification of new wastes;
• Minimum technological requirements;
RCRA 3008(h) corrective action orders;
58
-------
• Closure requirements; and
• .Other changes necessary to comply with Federal, State, and local
requirements.
The proposed rule would increase a facility's flexibility to make these changes
promptly. Without this rule, it may be necessary to issue permits to these facilities before
they can undertake the required activities, thereby delaying the implementation of Federally
prescribed actions.
3.6 Hazardous Waste Combustion
At present, toxic metal emissions from hazardous waste incinerators are controlled
by a paniculate matter limit. Metals and metaLcompounds in hazardous waste are not
destroyed by incineration; they are transformed into other metal species (usually oxides)
and then either are removed as ash or in scrubber water or are" emitted with stack gases as
new metal species. Metals are usually emitted as particulates but can be emitted as metal
vapors if the metal is volatile. Under some conditions, the paniculate sta'ndardTrfay"'n'o't
sufficiently control toxic metals to ensure'adequate protection of human health. In addition,
under existing rules, hydrogen chloride emissions are controlled by a technology-based
standard that may overregulate or underregulate emissions in particular situations. Finally,
under present rules, organic emissions are controlled by a destruction and removal
efficiency (DRE) standard. This standard requires destruction of toxic organic constituents
in the waste but does not directly control products of incomplete combustion.
3.6.1 Revised Incinerator Regulations
To address these potential problems, the Agency is conducting various analyses that
could ultimately lead to amendments to the Agency's existing incinerator regulations. 'One
proposal would be to establish risk-based national emission limits for individual toxic
metals and alternate hydrogen chloride emission limits based on case-by-case, site-specific
risk assessment. Similarly, to address the problem of products of incomplete combustion,
the Agency is considering a rule that would require incinerators to operate at high
combustion efficiency by establishing limits on flue gas carbon monoxide levels. Low
59
-------
carbon monoxide levels would be an indicator that unburnable hydrocarbons are not
present.
• Potential issues involved in proposing any new amendments to the Agency's
incinerator rules include the reliability and extent of data needed to conduct site-specific risk
assessments, the potential cost of developing this information, and the reliability of using
carbon monoxide as a measure of combustion efficiency.
3.7 Monitoring Improvements and Other Technical Amendments
3.7.1 SubpartF
To ensure protection of human health and the environment, RCRA sets strict
requirements for the monitoring of ground-water quality in the vicinity of land disposal
sites. This monitoring is designed to detect any migration of hazardous constituents from
the site exceeding the facility's ground-water protection standard, and to permit rapid and
effective corrective action.
Each facility's permit designates a "compliance point" downgradient of the site
(generally at the downgradient edge of the waste management area) at which the
owner/operator must locate one or more compliance-monitoring wells. The monitoring
plan must include a determination of background quality level of the local ground water. It
must also take local hydrogeology into account and must be adjusted as necessary for any
variations in local ground-water flow. When routine monitoring detects the possible escape
of hazardous constituents from the facility, additional, more demanding monitoring
requirements automatically take effect to fully characterize the release and support corrective
action.
Extensive requirements for ground-water monitoring are contained in Part 264,
Subpart F, and Part 270, Subpart B,pf the RCRA regulations. In June of 1987, the
Agency proposed modifications to these regulations in order to increase their flexibility.and
improve their coverage. Major changes included:
60"
-------
A variance from the requirement for siting monitoring wells at the
compliance, point in situations where it is extremely difficult to gain access
to the down gradient edge of the waste management area;
The establishment of multiple waste management areas for individual units
where it is possible to distinguish between contamination released from two
different units;
• A provision to allow return to less intensive monitoring requirements
whenever a permittee can show that an apparenj, exceedence of the
applicable ground-water protection standard was actually caused by a
release from an unregulated source or by an error in sampling, analysis, or
evaluation; *
The modification of requirements for annual determination of ground-water
flow rates >vhere there is no significant change in the hydraulic gradient
between upgradient and downgradient wells; and
The addition of quality control and quality assurance requirements for_
ground-water well construction, sampling, and analytical methods.
3.7.2 Appendices VTTT and DC
Under RCRA permit requirements, facilities undertake routine "detection
monitoring" of a limited list of pollutants. If this program detects a possible release, the
facility must conduct more intensive monitoring for a longer list of constituents. When the
ground-water monitoring requirements of Subpart F were first promulgated' in 1982, the
constituents contained in Appendix VTH of Part 261 were used as this longer list.
In 1985 it became clear that a number of the constituents listed in Appendix VTH
could not be effectively analyzed in ground water. Some of the Appendix VIH constituents
tend to dissociate in water, others lacked adequate laboratory analytical standards or
screening methods. Many of the Appendix VHI listings were unusual chemicals that are
.not contained in commercial products and hence are virtually never present in hazardous
wastes. Finally, Appendix VTH chemicals were listed in their pure state, not in the forms
they would be expected to take after being disposed of and released into the environment.
While these issues do not present problems for waste identification, they do present serious
problems for performing ground-water screening analyses. .
61
-------
The Agency therefore convened a week-long meeting of analytical chemists in
December 1985, asking the group to create 3 new list of chemicals, based on Appendix
Vm, for which ground-water sample analysis was feasible. Based on the group's work,
the Agency proposed a new monitoring rule in July 1986. Comments received on that rule
were considered in a second meeting of experts, and 'the list was modified slightly. In June
of 1987 the Agency finalized the list as Appendix DC to Part 264 of the regulations.
3.7.3 Revisions to Solid Waste Tasting Manual
' The Agency periodically updates its compendium of testing procedures referred to
as the Solid Waste Testing Manual. The purpose of the manual is to describe suitable
analytical methods for testing, sampling, and analysis of hazardous wastes covered by
RCRA. It is used by industry, State, and Regional Office testing laboratories: Update and
review occur through an annual symposium held to review the latest scientific and analytic
developments in testing methods and to obtain feedback on the performance of the testing
methods in the previous edition of the manual. This year the Agency published the third
edition of this manual.
3.8 RCRA7CERCLA Integration
The HSWA corrective action provisions and the recently passed cleanup provisions
embodied in the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) led the Agency
in this past fiscal year to identify a management strategy that would ensure consistency
wherever possible in decisions related to cleanup of sites. Through the strategy the Agency
is seeking to integrate the RCRA and Superfund programs in order to achieve similar
remedies for similar environmental problems at similar sites.
The strategy will ensure that owner/operators will not find incentives to seek
regulation under one program or another. Furthermore, the strategy will enable the Agency
ttTmate more efficient use of its resources by avoiding duplicate efforts under the two
programs for what amounts to the same type of problem.
The integration of the two programs will^be designed to:
62
-------
Identify problem sites in need of remediation;
• Set priorities for compelling the cleanup of our worst environmental
problems first; and '"' "**'
Target enforcement efforts at these sites using any enforcement authority or
combination of RCRA and Superfund authorities available to achieve the
most expeditious and environmentally protective cleanup.
The Agency will implement this strategy through the Corrective Action rule under
RCRA and the National Contingency Plan rule under Superfund.
'63
-------
4.0 STATE AUTHORIZATION AND REGIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Introduction
'4.1,1 Overview
' By the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1986, the Agency had authorized 42 States to
operate a base RCRA program in lieu of the Federal hazardous waste program. The
Hazardous and Solid-Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), however, expanded the scope
of the hazardous waste program by adding several new requirements and prohibitions
(e.g., land disposal restrictions, corrective action, and waste minimization).
HSWA also significantly altered the implementation of the hazardous waste
program. Prior to the passage of HSWA,.new RCRA regulations promulgated by the
Agency took effect only in nonauthorized States. Regulations equivalent to newly
promulgated RCRA regulations became effective in authorized States solely through State
adoption pursuant to State law. In contrast, the amended RCRA Section 3006(g) provides
that HSWA requirements and prohibitions are effective in all States, including authorized
States. The HSWA provisions will be implemented and enforced by the Agency in each
State until the State is authorized for the HSWA provision.
4.1.2 RCRA Implementation Plan
The Agency annually publishes a guidance document for Regional Offices and
States, written with their assistance, prescribing the most effective strategies for
implementing RCRA's program goals. Called the RCRA' Implementation Plan (RIP), this
document provides a framework in which States and Regions can set program priorities on
an annual basis. State program authorization, grant administration, and information
management requirements also are discussed in the RIP. By modeling their programs and
work plans on the directions and priorities of the RIP, Regional Offices and States are
expected to integrate all of their technical, management, and enforcement resources toward
achieving program progress during the subsequent fiscal year.
64
-------
The framework of the fiscal year 1987 RCRA Implementation Plan stressed the
need for significant accomplishments in program activities at the national and State levels.
The two primary components underlying the fiscal year 1987 REP were (1) a set of high-
priority activities for which maximum progress was anticipated and (2) a scheme for
categorizing other activities into relative priority groups. Five high-priority activities were
targeted for fiscal year 1987:
1. Processing and issuing operating land disposal facility permits to meet the
November 1988 permit deadline;
2. Identifying and enforcing ground-water monitoring requirements for land
disposal facilities seeking an operating permit;
3. Ensuring adequate ground-water monitoring systems, closure plan
implementation, and financial assurance at closing facilities;
4. Expediting the permit process for new and expanded treatment and
incinerator capacity, research development and demonstration (RD&D)
applications, and offsite commercial treatment facilities; and
5. Conducting inspections mandated by HSWA and Agency policy.
Under the scheme, activities beyond these high-priority activities were to be
prioritized based on current knowledge concerning releases and the severity of their
environmental effects.
Besides providing an overall list of priorities for State and Regional Office
implementation of RCRA, the fiscal year 1987 RIP addressed the various elements of the
RCRA program in greater detail. These elements included recommendations for achieving
goals for permitting, closure plan approval and implementation, compliance monitoring and
enforcement, corrective action, State authorization, grant administration, and information
management.
The fiscal year 1988 RCRA Implementation Plan was issued on March 31, 1987.
Like its'predecessor, the document established a framework for determining national and
State priorities and provided guidance on implementing the RCRA Subtitle C program.
65
-------
The highest priority activities for RCRA delineated in the fiscal year 1988
framework were the following:
Make a final determination on operating land disposal facility permits by
November 1988, and process and make final determinations on incinerator
facility permits by November 1989;
1.
2.
3.
4.
Ensure that facilities have adequately assessed ground-water protection
concerns, especially at environmentally significant closures;
Process permits for new and expanding treatment and incineration capacity,
RD&D applications, and offsite commercial treatment facilities, and process
permit modifications; and
Conduct inspections mandated by HSWA, SARA, and Agency policy, and
pursue enforcement against significant violators.
• All of these activities have been designated high priority; thus, EPA Regional
Offices and States must undertake these activities in order to meet statutory and
environmental protection requirements. Regional Offices and States are urged to first
address the most environmentally significant facility closures and recognize that corrective
action measures are integral to the processing of .permits and closure plans. Coordination
with Superfund authorities and resources is underscored, particularly with reference to
RCRA facilities that accept Superfund wastes, closing facilities, and Federal facilities
needing corrective action.
Further, the fiscal year 1988 RIP advises.the Regional Offices to devote resources
to activities related to supporting the land ban, permit modifications, and the call-in of
storage applications, as well as reporting, technical assistance, State authorizations, and
effective oversight of State permitting and enforcement actions. Examples include planning
for post-closure permits and case development inspections. Regional budgeting for
important activities not specified in the RIP, such as special Regional initiatives, also is
encouraged and will be addressed specifically in the fiscal year 1989 RIP.
The fiscal year 1988 RIP includes two new-sections not contained in the previous
RIP—Federal Facilities Issues and Cross-Media and Program Issues. The program
objective of the Agency's RCRA work with Federal facilities is to ensure that they afford
66
-------
the same degree of environmental protection as other hazardous waste handlers.
Specifically, efforts will be directed at (1) applying corrective action rules and policies to
Federal facilities, (2) meeting the fiscal year 1988 deadline for permitting DOD chemical
demilitarization facilities, and (3) integrating DOE-NRC mixed waste facilities into the
RCRA program.
Because environmental problems do not respect media boundaries or program
jurisdictions, RCRA must refrain from shifting risks from one environmental medium to
another. The fiscal year 1988 RIP considers it imperative for RCRA to utilize its resources
• to achieve an overall reduction of environmental risks. Consequently, the RIP emphasizes
both the need to coordinate RCRA activities with the Agency's air and water programs and
the integration of RCRA and Superfund activities.
4.2 Summary Statistics on State Authorization
States are encouraged to apply for authorization for Federal program changes as
soon as practicable. In fiscal year 1987, the Agency approved eight program revision
applications that amended the States' base program authorization. With the exception of
Georgia, these program revision applications reflected primarily RCRA (non-HSWA)
changes. To date, Georgia is the only State that has been authorized for major HSWA
provisions. In fiscal year 1988, the Agency will continue to review and approve program
revision applications for both RCRA and HSWA regulations. In addition, we expect that
several States will receive authorization for the RCRA base program in fiscal year 1988.
67
-------
Table 4-1
State Authorizatiun Status
Progress to Date (9/30/87)'
RCRA Base Only *
No Authorized State
Hazardous Waste Program
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
x
TOTAL
0
0
0
Georgia
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Vermont, Rhode Island.New
Hamoshire, Massachusetts
New York, New Jersey
Dist. of Columbia, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia
Georgia *
Florida, Mississippi,
North Carolina*, Kentucky
South Carolina*, Tennessee*
Ilinois, Indiana*. Minnesota*,
Michigan, Wisconsin
Arkansas, Louisiana, New
Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas"
Kansas, Missouri. Nebraska
Colorado*. Montana, South
Dakota, North Dakota, Utah
Arizona, Nevada, Guam
Washington, Oreaon
42
Maine, Connecticut
Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico
0
Alabama
Ohio
0
Iowa
Wyoming
California, Hawaii
Northern Marianas
American Samoa
Idaho, Alaska
14
* Program Revisions Approved.
I
The Agency undertook a variety of activities over the past five quarters to support
implementation of State programs under RCRA and HSWA. Updating the criteria for
quality State programs is one activity being implemented. Others are discussed below.
68
-------
4.2.1 State Consolidated RCRA Authorization Manual (SCRAM)
As noted earlier, the passage of HSWA in 1984 fundamentally changed the process
for implementing the Federal hazardous waste program in authorized States. The State
Consolidated RCRA Authorization Manual (SCRAM), which will be published shortly,
provides guidance to States in developing applications for authorization. It describes the
requirements for obtaining authorization and lists the necessary elements to be included in
applications for base programs as well as in program revision applications. The manual
also discusses internal Agency procedures for-processing these applications.
4.2.2 National Conference on State Authorization
The Agency held a 2-day "Program Revision Workshop" in Washington in
February 1987. The main purpose of the workshop was to apprise Federal and State
officials of changes in State authorization procedures and other related requirements
resulting from the new requirements of HSWA. It also addressed how these changes will
affect applications for authorization and interactions between State and Federal programs.
Among the specific topics discussed were the elements of a program revision application
(i.e., program descriptions, Memorandum of Agreement, Attorney General's Statement,
and Federal program changes affecting HSWA and non-HSWA requirements that States
are required to meet by specified dates for the phased authorization of States), the role of
mixed waste Federal facilities, and HSWA capability.
4.2.3 Training/Grants
The National Criteria for a Quality Hazardous Waste Management Program Under
RCRA (issued jointly by the Agency and the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management officials) recommends that EPA, Regional Offices, and States identify
specific -training needs in their'annual work plans. Training activities are eligible for
funding under RCRA Section 3011 grants. In fiscal year 1987, States were strongly
encouraged to set aside up to 5 percent of each grant for training activities. Contract funds
may also be used to provide training, whether with Regional Office contract resources or
with reprogrammed State funds.
69
-------
In fiscal year 1987, the Office of Solid Waste also supported State training activities '
through a special grant to the State association. This money is being used to develop a
basic permit writer's course, as well as an entry-level inspector training program for State
personnel.
In fiscal year 1987, several changes were made to grant allotments. The population
data and the numbers of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities were updated in the
formula used to determine each Region's allotment. Allotments weie allocated on a
Regional rather than a State-by-State basis to provide maximum flexibility to Regional
Administrators. Grants to the States continue to require a 25 percent State match. As
before, the fiscal year 1987 grants were performance-based; this approach uses financial
assistance as a management tool to promote effective State RCRA programs and to ensure
accountability.
70
-------
5.0 PERMITTING ACTIVITIES
5.1 Introduction
Priorities for,-permitting activities in fiscal year 1987'focused first on processing
Part B permit applications and issuing operating permits to land disposal facilities in order
to meet the November 1988 permit deadline. The Agency provided guidance to authorized
States to use enforcement actions aggressively to support the permit process, particularly
with respect to obtaining compliance with ground-water monitoring requirements.
High priority was also given to permitting new •commercial incineration facilities, as
well as existing facilities seeking to expand incineration or treatment capacity. The deadline
for permitting incinerators is November 1989. Furthermore, incinerators, along with other
forms of non-land disposal permitting, are of particular importance because of the current
disposal capacity shortage, caused by the large number of facility closures, more stringent
land disposal facility requirements, and the land disposal bans.
For the 1,462 land disposal facilities, the Agency expects the breakouts between
permitting and closure to be as shown in the diagram below.
1
Operating
Permit Track
Only
209
Potential
Land
Disposal
Univ»r»«
1,462
i - --
Permit and
Closure Track
115
i —
Closure
Permit Track
Only
1,071
Status
Undetermined
67
As this diagram indicates, the majority of land disposal facilities are expected to
close. The diagram illustrates the expected course of action for land disposal facilities.
Disposal facilities may be on a permit track only, a closure track only, both permit and
71
-------
closure tracks, or neither closure nor permit tract (status undetermined). Facilities could be
on the neither (status undetermined) track for any of several reasons, including site
abandonment or regulatory .disagreements between facility, Regions, and/or EPA.
The incinerator universe falls into two broad categories—stand-alone incinerators
and incinerators at disposal sites. In contrast to land disposal sites, the breakout for
permitting and closure of incinerators indicates that a majority of incinerators are expected
to be fully permitted. Incinerators on the neither tracks have undetermined RCRA status
for some reason, and, because their expected course of action cannot be determined, they
have not yet been placed on either permit or closure tracks.
Incinerator
Unlv«rM
231
SUnOiKmt
Inonvraton
201
PgmtgTrac*
13?
Both Track*
»
Ctoeuro Trade
36
No finer track
2S
\
!
Permit Trade
60
|
Both Tracks
4
|
Closure Track
20
1
Nertrwr Track |
6 i
Storage and treatment facilities make up the greatest percentage of facilities that
must be permitted. The deadline for permitting these facilities is November 8, 1992. The
status of these facilities is shown below.
72
-------
Part B Under
Review or Final
Determination
" 1,014
PartB or
Closure Plan
Not Submitted
2,155
Closures are also of primary concern; the Agency's strategy is to address facilities
that close on a priority basis, beginning with the most environmentally significant.
Throughout the program, emphasis is placed on ensuring that closing land disposal
facilities have an adequate ground-water monitoring system, and that owners and operators
implement closure plans and provide the required financial assurances. The goals are to
minimize the post-closure release of hazardous constituents into the environment and to
take corrective action to remedy already existing environmental problems.
This chapter discusses guidance issued on the closure procedure for treatment,
storage, disposal, and recycling facilities; on ground-water monitoring for land disposal
and other facilities; on the RCRA facility assessment process; and on incinerator permitting
and trial bums.
5.2 Summary Statistics
Tables 5-1 and 5-2 summarize the progress made in permitting and closures during
the past reporting period.
73
-------
Table 5-1 Final Determinations for Permitting Facilities Fiscal Year 1986
Through Fiscal Year 1987
Land Dlapoul
FicillUcm
Incinerator
Facilities
TSDF»
Total for
Quarter
FY86'
111 Qtr. FY8T-
2nd OU. FY87
3»d Qlr. FYi7
4th Otr. FY«7
Permit Permit
13
10
19
22
54
U
0
8
20
37
27
10
27
42
91
Permit Permit
Issued Denied ! Total
9
2
10
12
14
3
0
0
1
2
12
2
10
13
15
Permit
Issued
79
8
20
29
49
Permit
Denied
7
1
2
6
13
Total
86
9
22
35
62
Issued
101
20
19
63
117
Denied
24
1
10
27
52
Thau data aie total lor all FY86.
• FY 87 numMra a» cumulalrve by quarter.
Table 5-2 Closure Plans Approved for All Facilities
4th Quarter Fiscal .Year 1986 Through Fiscal Year 1987
LDF Incinerator
FY86*
1st Quarter FY87"
2nd Quarter FY87
3rd Quarter FY87
4th Quarter FY87
161
45
111
163
332
9
0
6
9
13
TSDFs
151
18
6
134
223
Total for
Quarter
321
63
123
306
568
• Cumulative total for all FY 86.
" FY 87 numbers are cumulative by quarterl
Over the coming year, the Agency will make determinations regarding land disposal
facilities awaiting permits and expects to meet the November 1988 deadline for completing
I
these permitting activities. ;
74.
-------
5.3 Implementation
5.3.1 Closure Guidance
The process for safe and secure closure of TSDR facilities is complex and therefore
requires detailed guidance for proper implementation. Over the past year, the Agency has
developed several important guidance documents for closure operations.
Land Treatment: Land treatment involves the controlled application of certain types
of hazardous wastes to soil. In the soil, waste constituents may degrade through biological
action of soil organisms, become immobilized within the soil matrix, or be transformed
through chemical and biological processes into nonhazardous materials. Interim guidance
on closure and post-closure of hazardous waste land treatment facilities was issued in April
1987.. .
The guidance provided this year on appropriate methods of closure and post-closure
care includes such technologies as soil removal, cover or cap placement, and ground-water
monitoring. Plans must be site specific. In reviewing closure and post-closure plans, the
Aaency is particularly concerned with the extent of degradation, transformation, and
immobilization of constituents within a defined treatment zone, and with the control of
pathways of migration of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents into the
environment, including ground water, surface water, the atmosphere, and food-chain crops
grown onsite. Information on all of these factors is used to predict potential pathways of
migration of wastes and waste constituents into the environment.
•Plans submitted by the owner or operator must include a method of evaluation of
potential migration of residual wastes into all environmental media, based on laboratory
studies or environmental modeling. The time required for closure is a function of the
method chosen for closure. Performance is based on concentration limits for Appendix
VIII constituents for each potential route of exposure; the concentration limits are set,
where possible, at the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act or at risk levels specified in the guidance.
75
-------
.. Closure: In September 1987, the Agency completed work on its Surface
Impoundment. Clean Closure Manual, written for RCRA facility owners and operators of
surface impoundments and for Regional Office permit writers. The term "clean closure-
refers to the removal of all waste from a facility in order to close it, and is distinct from
closure procedures that seal wastes within the facility to prevent any eventual migration
I
from the site.
I
The manual provides detailed information on the Agency's policy for clean closure
by removal of waste, providing evaluation criteria for setting cleanup target levels and
procedures for ensuring that they are met It describes a comprehensive process to prevent
environmental threats from the facility following closure, since the implication of
completing closure by removal of wastes is that the owner or operator is not subject to any
further regulatory control, including corrective action, and is relieved of any financial
responsibility.
The Agency has issued two documents designed to assist
Regional and State authorities and owners/operators in understanding the closure and post-
closure regulations. The first, tided RCRA Policy Compendium for Subparts G and H
(December 1986), is a reference tool for Regional and State permit writers that identifies
relevant Agency documents and policy memoranda on key provisions in the closure and
post-closure regulations. The second, titled RCRA Guidance Manual for Subpart G
' Closure and Post-Closure Care Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements
(January 1987), is a document for owners/operators who are actually in the process of
preparing closure and post-closure plans. It offers practical information and procedural
methods on plan preparation and review and on economic analysis. Examples illustrating
the types of information that should be included in the plans are provided. In addition, the
manual includes an extensive discussion of site-specific factors and a series of checklists
covering the major items that owners/operators must address in plan preparations. The
guidance manual also leads owners/operators through the cost-estimating process. Each of
its five sections addresses a particular aspect of 'the estimation process, including the basic
rules for preparing costs, cost revisions that | reflect changes in the plans, annual
adjustments for inflation, and the documentation needed to prepare the estimates.
76
-------
5.3.2 ACL Guidance
In July 1987, the Agency published interim final guidance for RCRA facility permit
applicants and permit writers on setting alternative concentration limits (ACLs). ACLs will
be used by facilities in establishing their ground-water protection standard (GWPS).
As discussed in Section 2.6.1 the purpose of an ACL is to provide flexibility in
setting concentration limits that would act as "triggers" for corrective action. An ACL is a
means of demonstrating that hazardous constituents on a site do not pose a threat to human
health or the environment when they meet the site-specific ACL levels. The Agency's new
guidance is based on three basic policy guidelines:
1. Ground-water contaminant plumes should not increase in size or
concentration above allowable health or environmental exposure levels;
2. Increased facility property holdings should not be used to allow a greater
ACL; and
3. ACLs should not be established so as to contaminate offsite ground water
above allowable health or environmental exposure levels.
5.3.3 RCRA Facility Assessments
In October 1986, the Agency issued the RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance.
This guidance describes the process by which the Agency or an authorized State assesses
treatment, storage, and-disposal facilities to determine whether any solid waste management
units at the facilities are likely to be releasing hazardous wastes or constituents. If the
Agency identifies a likely release, it will require a more detailed investigation and, if
necessary, cleanup under a permit or Section 3008(h) order. The RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA) also enables the permit writer to determine whether "interim remedies"
are necessary to control threats to human health and the environment. Interim remedies
might include repacking damaged drums, removing drums from the site, or providing
alternative sources of drinking water where there is ground-water contamination.
Specifically, the guidance outlines the following steps for the RFA:
77
-------
Preliminary Review: The Preliminary Review (PR) is an evaluation of existing
information gathered from the permit application and other sources. It identifies the
location of solid waste management units, the types of waste they have received, and any
available monitoring or other data that provide evidence of a release.
Visual Sire Inspection (VST): This is an onsite visit to ensure that all elements of the
facility have been properly'identified; to fill data gaps identified in the Preliminary Review;
and to detect visible evidence of releases.
Sampling Visit: In many cases, a sampling visit will be necessary to complete an
assessment. For example, an investigator may choose to sample if he or she needs
additional information to support a determination that a release has occurred or may be
occurring to compel an owner/operator to begin a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI).
RFA Renorr. The investigator summarizes the RFA in a report containing all the
evidence gathered during the assessment. The report can make recommendations for (1) no
further action, (2) further investigation with a formal RCRA Facility Investigation,
(3) planning and implementation of interim corrective measures, or (4) referring
information on a detected release to another environmental program for control. Only the
first recommendation completes the corrective action element in the permitting process.
The others require additional activity by either the permit writer or other Agency offices. •
5.3.4 Training Workshop Series on Hazardous Waste Combustion Sampling and
Analysis
The trial burn is the most important part of the permitting process for hazardous
waste incinerators because it determines whether the unit can meet the performance
standards; if the unit does meet the standards, the trial burn provides data enabling the
permit writer to set operating conditions in the permit. Sampling and analysis for
incinerator trial burns and for waste analysis are technically complex.
The purpose of this workshop "series, presented in three cities, was to share the
expertise of EPA research personnel and technical contractors with the permit writers and
industry. The presentations discussed the various sampling and analysis methods used for
78
-------
incinerator testing, as well as quality assurance/quality control measures used in data
collection.
5.3.5 Incinerator Guidance
The Agency is currently expanding the scope of its regulations for hazardous waste
incinerators to include impacts associated with the combustion of wastes containing toxic
heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium. Until these new regulations take effect,
however, permit writers will need interim guidance on defining and applying appropriate
controls for these facilities under existing permitting authority.
The purpose of the interim guidance is to provide this information in a manner that
is consistent with the general policies to be embodied in the forthcoming regulations. The
approach is to base controls on potential worst-case risks associated with the combustion of
waste-containing metals and hydrogen chloride (HC1), which is typically associated with
metals-bearing hazardous waste streams. Such an approach is consistent with HSWA's
goal of protecting human health and the environment.
5.3.6 "Performance Improvement Project" on Hazardous Waste Incineration
Permitting
The Agency tracks the performance of its field operations through a variety of
quantitative administrative indicators and measurements, such as the number of permits
issued in a particular year, the number of inspections completed, and so forth. Over the
past year, the Agency has also established a trial program, called the Performance
Improvement Project, intended to focus on the quality as-well as the quantity of field
operations management. As part of this effort, the Agency used the hazardous waste
incineration permitting process as a pilot evaluation.
The purpose of this project was to improve permitting by providing a common level
of technical knowledge to Federal, State, and local government permit writers and to
owners/operators and applicants in the regulated community. The Agency held five
technical seminars throughout the country during the fall of 1986 and extensively evaluated
the results of these seminars in the following months, using before-and-after questionnaires
79
-------
as well as an analysis of the improvements in the: quality of applications received. The
seminars reached 66 percent of EPA incinerator permit writers and were well received.
80
-------
6.0 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
6.1 Introduction
During fiscal year 1987, compliance monitoring and enforcement activities focused
on:
Abating any release of a hazardous waste or constituents (not addressed by
CERCLA) posing an immediate threat to human health or the environment;
Supporting issuance or denial of all land disposal facility operating permits;
Pursuing a formal enforcement action against RCRA land disposal facilities
with inadequate ground-water monitoring systems;
Under the corrective action program, conducting facility-wide assessments
to determine whether there are releases and whether further investigation or
corrective action is needed;
Enforcing against closing land disposal facilities to require compliance with
approved closure plans;
Enforcing compliance with final orders, decrees, and permit conditions; .
Enforcing major HSWA requirements, including land disposal bans;
Ensuring Federal "facility compliance; and
• Supporting criminal enforcement.
The Agency's general enforcement strategy has been to direct compliance
monitoring and enforcement actions toward those handlers and those violations likely to
pose the greatest threat to human health or the environment. As established in fiscal year
1984 and fiscal year 1985, the general RCRA enforcement strategy, sets the following
priorities: .'',.._
1 Handlers whose releases mav present an immediate threat to human health
nr the environment.
81
-------
2. Ground-water monitoring facilities. Actions are to be>brought against
facilities that are not operating in compliance with their permits or that are
not in compliance with permit application requirements.
3. Corrective action.
i
4. Closing facilities. This includes enforcing ground-water monitoring and
compliance with closure plans and financial assurances for corrective action.
• 5. Federal facilities. Authorized States have the lead in enforcement for
Federal handlers, but a Regional Office must take formal administrative
action if a State declines or is unable to take formal action.
6. Criminal enforcement: This area received increased emphasis in fiscal year
1987 because increased illegal disposal activity, linked to shortages of land
disposal and treatment capacity, is anticipated.
Inspections are an important tool in overseeing and ensuring compliance.
Inspections fall into two categories: (1) mandatory inspections, which fulfill statutory
requirements and Agency policy, and (2) nonmandatory inspections, which are
recommended to meet RCRA requirements. During fiscal year 1987 mandatory inspections
included inspections to provide documentation on high-priority enforcement actions;
inspections of all government, commercial, land disposal, and other TSD facilities; and
inspections of at least 4 percent of generators and transporters. Nonmandatory inspections
include inspections to support the criminal program, inspections of non-notifiers, case
development inspections, inspections of waste oil TSDFs, and additional generator and
transporters inspections, particularly as related to the land bans.
6.2 Summary Statistics
The following table summarizes enforcement activities over the past reporting
period.
82
-------
Table 6-1 Progress on RCRA Enforcement
Formal Administrative Civil Actions
Criminal Referrals
Total for
4th Qtr. FY86*
1 st Qtr. FY87
2nd Qtr. FY87
3rd Qtr. FY87
4th Qtr. FY87"
Total*"
Actions
Regional
Offices States
235
28
75
130
217
685
519"
61
184
326
613
1,703
Regional
Offices States
66
2
9
8
85
25
12
14
29
86
166
Regional
Offices States
20
3
4
5
32
0
0
2 -
5
8
15
Quarter
Regional
Offices States
321
33
88
143
217
802
544
73
200
360
707
1,884
Cumulative data for ail of FY86.
Data will not be available until late October 1987.
Total based on data to September 30, 1987.
6.3 Implementation Activities
6.3.1 Land Disposal Restrictions Enforcement Strategy
In 1987, the Agency developed a strategy for enforcing both solvent and dioxin
regulations and the California List regulations under the land disposal restrictions program.
This strategy identifies the relative universe of facilities that must comply with these
regulations and requires the development of mandatory Regional enforcement strategies.
The Agency evaluated the- effectiveness of Regional strategies and emphasized these
strategies during the enforcement training course.
To date, the numbers of land ban inspections and enforcement actions are estimated
as shown in Table 6-2.
83
-------
Table 6-2 Estimated Number' of Land Ban Inspections
and Enforcement Actions
Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
g
10
Number of
nsoections
53
30
214
400
45
180
55
35
25
Enforcement
action
Region has sent
Section 3007 letters.
8 Administrative Orders
Evaluating inspection results.
1 Administrative Order
96 Notices of Violation
290 Notices of Violation
10 Letters of Warning
1 Administrative Order
10 under case development
170 Notices of Violation
6 Section 3007 Letters
3 Letters of Warning
3 under case development
1 Letter of Warning
1 Notice of Violation (in draft)
26 Notices of Violation to be sent
to Federal facilities
5 Administrative Orders (in draft)
1 Section 3007 Letter
No Actions
6.3.2 Land Disposal Restrictions Inspection Manual and Checklists
In April 1987, the Agency issued its Inspection Manual: RCRA Land Disposal
Restrictions Rule for F001-F005 (Solvent) Wastes. This manual presents all necessary data
for conducting inspections under the rule banning disposal of certain untreated solvent
wastes.
84
-------
The manual discusses the Agency's major concerns with respect to enforcing this
rule, including (1) proper identification of F-solvent wastes by generators and (2) proper
management of F-solvent wastes at treatment, storage, and disposal units. The heart of the
manual is a series of extensive checklists for inspectors. These checklists cover all aspects
of the rule, including proper identification of wastes, correct administrative identification of
each generator's regulatory status in relation to the solvent ban, and a detailed list of
technical review items to ensure that wastes are being managed at each site in accordance
with regulatory requirements.
The Agency has also completed a draft checklist for enforcement of wastes covered
by the California List rule.
6.3.3 Model Order for Corrective Actions at Interim Status Facilities
With the passage of HSWA in 1984, EPA is now authorized to compel
owners/operators of interim status hazardous waste facilities to conduct corrective action on
the basis of information that-there is or has been a release of hazardous wastes: Because of
the complexity of cases involving the investigation and cleanup of hazardous waste
releases, the Agency is in the process of developing a Model Order to be used by the
Regions in drafting Section 3008(h) administrative consent orders.
In February 1987, the Agency sent the draft section 3008(h) Model Consent Order
to the Regions for their use pending the finalization of the Model Order, scheduled to be
released before the end of this year. The Model Order assists the Regions in developing
comprehensive and consistent section 3008(h) consent orders by providing (1) model
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to support the elements of a Section 3008(h)
" cause of action; (2) sample scopes of work, to be tailored by the Region to be site specific;
and (3) model legal provisions, including reservations of rights and provisions relating to
delay in performance, stipulated penalties, termination and satisfaction, and dispute
resolution.
85
-------
6.3.4 Training for States and Regional Offices
Corrective Action Order Training: In fiscal year 1987, the Agency developed and
presented a 2-day'training course for Regional enforcement and permitting personnel to
assist them in the development and oversight of orders and permit conditions requiring •
corrective action. Presented in all ten Regional Offices, the course focused on (1) RCRA
and CERCLA authorities that can be used to compel corrective action; (2) the elements of a
Section 3008 (h) corrective action order; and (3) the1 technical components of all phases of
corrective action—interim measures, the RCRA Facility Investigation, the Corrective
Measures Study, and the Corrective Measures Implementation.
In addition-, the Agency provided a grant to the National Association of Attorneys
General (NAAG) for the development and presentation of a corrective action seminar.
Pursuant to that grant, NAAG sponsored three Regional corrective action seminars in
St. Paul, Minnesota, Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Nashville, Tennessee, which were
attended by representatives of State Attorneys General and State environmental agencies.
Risk and Decision Making Workshop: In 1987, the Agency developed a training
workshop focusing ori the application of risk assessment to a prototypical Regional-State
level hazardous waste problem. The purpose of the two-day "Risk and Decision Making
Workshop" is to explain the concepts of risk assessment, risk management, and risk
communication in the context of a case study centered around a cleanup problem at a
hypothetical hazardous waste management facility. The workshop is intended to help EPA
Regional and Headquarters staff to increase their understanding of the potential uses and
limitations of risk assessment, to develop a common base of knowledge and terminology,
to use risk concepts in formulating site-specific decisions, and to refine skills needed to
communicate these decisions. In December 1986, the Agency held a pilot workshop in
Region 1; participants included Regional Office and State staff, as well as representatives
from industry, academia, and the public. The refined workshop was held in Washington in
the spring of 1987, and similar workshops were held in Regions VII, VIII, and X. The
Administrator has recently required all EPA staff arboth Headquarters and Regional Offices
to participate in this training program.
86
-------
6.3.5 Implementation Strategies and Guidance
Over the course of the past year, the Agency has developed a number of
enforcement strategies and enforcement guidance documents for use under various
elements of the RCRA program.
Ground-Water Protection: The Comprehensive Ground-Water Monitoring
Evaluation Guidance Document was developed to evaluate the adequacy of the design and
operation of ground-water monitoring systems at RCRA facilities. It includes a detailed
explanation of the scope and methods of ground-water monitoring and a checklist for use
by the person conducting the evaluation.
National Corrective Action Strategy: This strategy is described in Section 2.6.1 of
this report.
Loss of Interim Status Strategy Implementation: This'strategy identified three
classes of clear violations that are given high enforcement priority:
1. Land disposal facilities clearly not in compliance with ground-water
monitoring and financial responsibility requirements;
2. Facilities that lose interim status and continue to accept hazardous waste;
and
3. Facilities that are required to submit closure plans but have not done so.
The focus of the program is to bring civil, criminal, and administrative actions
against those land disposal facilities most clearly violating the interim status requirements of
RCRA.
Phase I Waste Oil Guide and Strategy: • This document provides technical guidance
to enforcement officials for planning and conducting inspections and case development
related to standards for used oil and hazardous waste intended for energy recovery.
Compliance and Evaluation Inspection (CEJ] Guidance (Draft}: This is a general
inspection manual for compliance and inspections of RCRA regulated facilities. The
guidance is developed for use by Regional Office, State, and contracted enforcement
87
-------
personnel. It will serve as a training guide for new inspectors and a reference manual for
those with experience. The manual explains proper procedures for conducting the
inspection, as well as pre- and post-inspection procedures.
Hazardous Waste Tank rrlnHnnrP.ir.hc.rklist (Draft}: This document outlines
specific inspection procedures and provides a regulatory checklist for Hazardous Waste
Tanks. This guidance/checklist is developed for use by Regional Office, State, and
contracted enforcement personnel. It serves as an aid to inspectors in interpreting the
Hazardous Waste Tank Rule, which became effective on January 12, 1987. It covers
inspection procedures for secondary containment systems, integrity assessment, leak
detection, and tank system installation procedures. | ,
RCRA Insne.r.tinn Manual (Draft): The revised inspection manual will be a
comprehensive guide to conducting effective RCRA inspections for State and Regional
Office inspectors. It will address inspection preparation, permit review for inspecting
permitted facilities, communicating with owner/operators, post-inspection activities, report
preparation, and keeping up-to-date with RCRA. In addition, the manual will provide
inspection procedures and checklists for both generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal units. This manual should be completed in early 1988.
State Oversight Infection Guidance (Draft): This guidance document includes a
discussion of the purpose and objective of the inspection, preparation techniques,
performance of the inspection, and procedures for reporting the findings of the inspection.
A recommended oversight inspection report is included as part of the document. It is
expected to be issued in its final form in early 1988.
Technical Case Development Guidance (Draft): This guidance will include an
overview of the case development process, a'discussion of the rules of evidence as relevant
to inspections, pre-inspection and onsite procedures, sampling techniques and strategies,
and investigative and administrative procedures (including maintenance of inspection files
and the preparation of reports). The guidance will also address how to collect technical
information suitable for use as evidence at hearings and trials.
88
-------
The guidance will serve as a useful compilation of case development experiences.
It will explain why certain procedures, techniques, and strategies have either succeeded or
failed in the past.
Guidance for Public Involvement in RCRA Section 3008(h) Actions: This
guidance emphasizes that there are minimum public involvement requirements for all
3008(h) orders, whether consent or unilateral. The document also identifies situations in.
which additional public involvement will be necessary.
RCRA Laboratory Inspection Guidance (Draft): The laboratory inspection guidance
is used to determine:
1. Whether the laboratory that the owner/operator is using for ground-water
sample analysis is properly equipped, maintained, and staffed;
2. Whether there are adequate quality assurance and quality control procedures
in force at the laboratory; and
3. . Whether samples are properly logged and tracked throughout-the laboratory.
This inspection does not constitute laboratory certification for the RCRA program,
nor does it guarantee that the analytical data that the laboratory produces are reliable. .The
laboratory inspection guidance will determine whether the laboratory is capable of
producing quality laboratory results.
RCRA Corrective Action,Plan: As discussed in Section 2.6.1 of this report, the
purpose of the RCRA Correction Action Plan (CAP) is to aid Regional Offices and States
in determining and directing the specific work the owner/operator or respondent must
perform as part of a complete corrective action program. It should be used as a technical
framework during the development of Corrective Action Orders and corrective action
permit requirements.
Enforcement Response Policy: The RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (ERP)
*
was revised during fiscal .year 1987. Originally issued in December 1984, the ERP
provides a general framework identifying violations and violators of concern and
.describing timely and appropriate enforcement response to noncompliance. The changes
89
-------
were made to reflect changes in the program and the regulated universe. Since the
development of the original ERP, new program initiatives have developed as provisions of
the 1984 ERP placed priority on enforcement against interim status land disposal facilities
that were out of compliance with ground-water monitoring, closure/post-closure, or
financial responsibility requirements. HSWA and overall development of the RCRA
program have mandated closer scrutiny of other segments of the regulated community and
other types of violations. This expansion of focus required a broadening of programmatic
emphasis. For example, corrective action requirements and land disposal restrictions direct
more attention to hazardous waste treaters, storers, and generators, as well as to land
disposal facilities.
Smdv nf Stare Authorities nnd Procedures: During 1987, the Agency completed a
study of the State's hazardous waste enforcement authorities and procedures. The study
examined the statutory, common law, regulatory, procedural, and institutional features
bearing on the effectiveness of enforcement. To assist the Agency in developing policies
and guidance that recognize and deal with State-specific variation, the study identifies the
factors necessary to evaluate State hazardous waste enforcement programs. An
understanding of State enforcement authorities and procedures is critical to the Agency's
continued oversight of the States and the Agency's evaluation of States for authorization.
Information from this study has proved useful previsions to the Enforcement Response
Policy, which was recently finalized, and for revisions to the State authorization
requirements under development.
Operation and Maintenance Guide: The Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
inspection adds a new perspective and focus to the Agency's efforts to ensure the proper
implementation of the RCRA ground-water monitoring regulations. In general, the O&M
inspection focuses on how owner/operators operate and maintain their ground-water
monitoring systems.
*
The O&M Inspection Guide is designed ito assist the inspector in evaluating the
following conditions:
90
-------
Determine whether the owner/operator is collecting ground-water samples in
accordance with the Part 265 Sampling and Analysis Plan (Interim Status)
or RCRA permit;
Ensure that the owner/operator's sampling devices are working and that
they are maintained properly;
Ensure the individual monitoring wells and piezometers/observation wells
within a ground-water monitoring system have not deteriorated _sp that their
ability to yield representative ground-water samples or their ability to yield
reliable hydrologic data have been compromised;
Identify flagrant violations of O&M programs or trigger a more thorough
scrutiny of the owner/operator's ground-water monitoring program (i.e.,
Case Development Inspection);
Identify issues or concerns that should be assessed in a future
Comprehensive (ground-water) Monitoring Evaluation; and
Collect ground-water evaluation data, determine direction(s) of ground-
water flow, and assess, in a general sense, the viability of past decisions
made by the owner/operator regarding the number and placement of
monitoring wells.
The Environmental Priorities Initiative: The Environmental' Priorities Initiative
(£PI) is an integrated RCRA/CERCLA management system designed to enable the Agency,
and ultimately the States, to identify, evaluate, rank and clean up first those sites that
present or may present the greatest threat to human health and the environment:
Enforcement Strategies fnr Financial Responsibility Requirements: The document,
Enforcement of Financial Responsibility Requirements for RCRA Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities Tfiat Are Closing, describes the process for determining whether closing
RCRA TSDs that did not establish financial assurance may use a more flexible schedule to
meet closure and post-closure costs. It also describes enforcement of liability requirements
for closing TSDs.
The document, Enforcement of Liability Requirements for Operating RCRA
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, describes the financial assurances required of
•operating facilities and discusses enforcement actions that can be taken against facility
owner/operators without insurance.
91
-------
------- |