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

-------

-------