Wednesday
November 18, 1992
Part 3!
Envaronmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Paris 2SO et al.
Hazardous Waste Management; Liquids in
Landfills; Rule
-------
» • , J '
54452 Federal Register / Vol. 5*7, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
•ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 280,264,265, and 271
[FRL-4506-3]
RIN 205Q-AA34
Hazardous Waste Management;
Liquids In Landfills
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Under authority of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) as amended by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), EPA is
promulgating this final rule regarding the
landfill disposal of containerized liquids
mixed with sorbents. This rule satisfies
the statutory requirement that EPA issue
a rule that prohibits the disposals in
hazardous waste landfills of liquids that
have been sorbed in materials that
biodegrade or that release liquids when
compressed as might occur during
routine landfill operations. This rule will
help assure the stability of materials in
hazardous waste landfills.
EFFECTIVE DATE May 18,1993.
ADDRESSES: The public docket for this
final rule is docket reft »?nce code F-92-
CLIF-FFFFF, and the put "c dockets for
the four proposals and supplemental
notices are docket reference codes F-
86-CLIP-FFFFF. F-87-CLLN-FFFFF, F-
91-CLLA-FFFFF, and F-92-CCLA-
FFFFF. These dockets are in room
M2427, U.S, EPA, 401M St. SW,
Washington, DC 20460, and are open
from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through
Friday, excluding holidays. Call 202-
260-9327 for an appointment to. review
docket materials. Up to 100 pages may
be copied free of charge from any one
regulatory docket. Additional copies are
$0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800-
424-9346 (toll free), or 703-920-9810 in
the Washington, DC area. For
information on technical aspects of this
rule, contact Ken Sinister, Office of Solid
Waste (OS-340), U.S. EPA, 401M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460, 202-260-
2214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
A. Regulatory Background
B. Role of Sorbents in Liquid Hazardous
Waste Disposal
III. Summary of Today's Rule
IV. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule
A. Definition of "Sorbents"-
B. Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT) versus
Liquids Release Test (LRT)
C. Biodegradability
D. Spill Cleanups
E. Sorbent Pillows
F. Lab Pack and Other Exemptions
G. Waste Analysis and Recordkeeping
H. Free-Standing Liquids
I. Implementation
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized
States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Economic Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
VII. Supporting Documents
I. Authority
These rules are being issued under
authority of section 3004(c) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 and the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; 42
U.S.C. 6924(c).
II. Background
A. Regulatory Background
Section 3004(c)(2) of HSWA requires
EPA to issue final rules, by February 8,
1986, that "minimize the disposal of
containerized liquid hazardous waste in
landfills," that "minimize the presence
of free liquids in containerized
hazardous waste to be disposed of in
landfills," and that "prohibit the
disposal in landfills of liquids that have
been absorbed in materials that
biodegrade or that release liquids when
compressed as might occur during
routine landfill operations."
On April 30,1985 (50 FR 18370) EPA
issued a final rule requiring the use of
the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT),
Method 9095, to determine the presence
of free liquids in either bulk or
containerized waste. Wastes that fail
the PFT—i.e., that contain free liquids—.
cannot be disposed of in landfills. This
satisfied the requirement that EPA issue
regulations minimizing the disposal of
containerized liquid hazardous waste in
landfills and minimizing the presence of
free liquids in containerized hazardous
waste to be disposed of in landfills.1
1 Section 3004(c)(l) of HSWA prohibits the
placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid
hazardous waste in landfills, and section 3004(c)(3)
prohibits the placement of liquids which are not
hazardous wastes in Subtitle C landfills unless
certain demonstrations are made. The PFT is
required to determine the presence of liquids or free
liquids to comply with these prohibitions, 40 CFR
284.314(c) and 40 CFR 265 J14(d).
On December 24,1986 (51 FR 46824)
EPA proposed a rule that would prohibit
disposal of containerized liquids treated
with sorbents that had more than one
percent total organic carbon or TOG (as
a measure of biodegradability). In the
preamble, EPA recommended that the
modified Mebius procedure (Page, A.L.,
ed., 1982, Methods of Soil Analysis) be
used to determine the organic carbon
content. EPA also proposed a Liquids '
Release Test (LRT), a confined
compression type test, to simulate the
release of liquids from sorbed wastes
when compressed during landfill
operations. The test relied on a device
known as the Zero-Headspace Extractor
(ZHE), which was developed in
conjunction with the new Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure j
(TCLP). Containerized sorbed wastes 3]
that failed these tests could not be
disposed of hi landfills. The proposal
was intended to satisfy the section
3004(c) (2) requirement that EPA
"prohibit the disposal in landfills of
liquids that have been absorbed in
materials that biodegrade or that release
liquids when compressed as might occur
during routine landfill operations."
On June 24,1987 (52 FR 23695) EPA
issued a supplemental proposal
regarding the definition of
biodegradable in response to comments
received on the one percent TOG
requirement and on the'recommended
modified Mebius procedure. In this
notice, EPA recommende.d two
additional tests to determine
biodegradability: ASTM Method G21-70
(1984a)—Standard Practice for
Determining Resistance of Synthetic
Polymer Materials to Fungi, and ASTM
Method G22-76 (1984b)—Standard
Practice for Determining Resistance of
Plastics to Bacteria. The Agency also
propose d to regulate sorbent pillows in
a manner similar to lab packs.
On October 29,1991 (56 FR 55846)
EPA issued another supplemental
notice, seeking comments on single and
multi-laboratory test results on a revised
Liquids Release Test device (also a
confined compression type test). Finally,
in response to further comments, EPA on
May 1,1992 (57 FR 18853) issued a
notice of supplemental information
seeking comment on use of the PFT
versus, the LRT for containerized
sorbents.
In today's rule, EPA is taking final
action on .these proposals and notices of
additional information, and is
completing EPA's regulatory
responsibilities under RCRA section
3004(c)(2).
-------
^Federal Register./ Vol. 57. No. 223 / Wednesday, November la, 1992 / Rides and Regulations 53453
B. Role of Sorbents in Liquid Hazardous
Waste Disposal
Dozens of sorbents are on the market
today. These sorbents are used to sorb
free liquids in wastes before land
disposal, thereby reducing the amount of
leachate likely to be generated after
disposal, or to sorb free liquids from a
spill before they migrate. Some sorbents
are by-products of other production
processes which are typically discarded,
such as fly ash from coal-burning,
xiement kiln dust from cement
production, shredded and ground rubber
from tires, shredded paper and sawdust,
and corn cobs, peanut shells, and rice
hulls from crop harvesting. They tend to
be relatively cheap and are often readily
available. Other sorbents are derived
from mined natural minerals, such as
bentonite or montmorillonite clays,
diatomaceous earth, volcania ash, lime
and limestone, silicates, and vermiculite.
Other common sorbents are synthetic
organic polymers such as polyethylene,
polypropylene, polyurethane, and
polystyrene. Many commercial sorbents
are mixtures of sorbent materials. Often
these materials, especially the natural
minerals, are treated by heat, grinding,
sifting, or use of additives to enhance
their sorptive capacities.
Sorptibn can be viewed in two ways:
First, as the soaking up of liquid or fluid
material so that the material no longer
flows, and second, as the rendering of
hazardous constituents immobile or less
mobile, via attenuation, chemical
reactions or fixation, ion exchange,
.precipitation, neutralization,'or
encapsulation (also referred to as
chemisorpHon). Soma sorbents act in
both ways to one degree or another. The
focus of today's rule is on the first view
of sorbents. Even so, the ultimate
selection of a sorbent is usually based
on both aspects, as well as on a number
of other factors discussed below.
Two very important, interrelated
considerations in the selection of a
sorbent are: (1) Stability (in terms of
both maintaining liquids in an immobile
matrix and immobilizing hazardous
constituents), and (2J ultimate use or
disposal of fee sorbed material. If the
sorbed material is to be disposed of hi a
landfill, the first consideration, long-
term stability, is of-paramount
importance. Thus, nonbiodegradable
sorbents able to hold up under pressure
are desirable. If the sorbed material is to
go to an incinerator, then such factors as
energy content (Btu's), heavy metal
content, and products of combustion are
important; long-term stability is not.
Thus, for incineration, organic sorbents,
whether biodegradable or not, are
generally desirable, depending on
potential by-products of combustion
(e.g., polyvinyl chloride which produces
HCl upon incineration or materials with
heavy metals may be less desirable
despite their .Btu content, but peanut
shells, shredded paper, or corn cobs
may be desirable). Or, if the sorbed
material is to go to a recycling facility
(where it will be squeezed put and the
oil, gasoline, solvent, or other material
recovered), then squeezeability/
releasability, without the sorbent
breaking down, is desirable.
Some sorbents are more effective, i.e.,
have greater capacity and retention
efficiencies and are faster, than others
in soaking up liquids (some soak up
considerably larger amounts of liquids
per volume or weight of sorbent; some
are structurally more stable and retain
more liquids under pressure; and some
actually react chemically with liquids,
sometimes irreversibly, to form a
nonliquid mass that further ensures
stabilization). The effectiveness of a
given sorbent often depends on the
properties of the liquid to be sorbed. '
This liquid is referred to as the.sorbate.
Some sorbents are considerably more
effective with some sorbates than with
others. For example, sorbents that are
both hydrophobic and less dense than
water can be very effective in sorbing
oils on water {oil spills) where they can
be readily skimmed off the surface,
whereas other sorbents would soak up
more water and less oil, and would-sink
where they are not readily recoverable.
Some sorbents substantially raise the
flash points of solvents, decreasing,
flammability concerns. Some sorbents
are ineffective because they are broken
down or dissolved by certain sorbates
(e.g., hydrofluoric acid breaks down
silicates or glass). That is, chemical
degradation of the sorbent can occur as
well as biodegradatjon. Sorbent/sorbate
properties that affect sorbency include:-
pH, porosity, surface area, potential
capillarity and surface tension or -
affinity for a sorbate, polarity, and
viscosity. Thus, there are technical '
factors affecting sorbent selection as
well as economic and.other practical
factors, such as availability (especially
timeliness in the case of a spill or
emergency), cost, sorbent capacity
(sorbate to sorbent ratio or percent, by
volume and by weight, which affects
total volume and weight and therefore -
cost to transport and use or dispose),
and distance to site of use or disposal.
EPA considered these factors in
developing today's rule, which is
designed to facilitate technological
advances and to allow flexibility for the
treaters of liquids to select the most
effective and practical solutions. The
rule sets minimum standards regarding
biodegradation and release of liquids
that containerisied wastes'mixed with
sorbents must meet before they can be
landfilled. EPA did not attempt to •
evaluate the effectiveness of various
sorbents beyond these minimums, nor
did EPA attempi to identify efficient
sorbate/s'brbent combinations. Instead,
today's rule allows the selection of the
most effective sorbent for a specific
situation, as long as it meets the rule's
minimum standards.
in. Summary of Today's Rule
Today's rule adopts the Paint Filter
. Liquids Test, Method 9095, for the
testing of containerized liquids to which
sorbents have been added before land
disposal; lists classes of
nonbiodegradable sorbents, and gives
examples in each class; and identifies
two tests, either of which may be used
to determine the nonbiodegradabflity of
sorbents -not-within a class on the list. It
also requires th« use of
nonbiodegradable sorbents in lab packs.
IV. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule
A. Definition of "Sorbents"
In RCRA section 3Q04(c)(2), Congress
requires EPA to'establish special
standards for "liquids that have been
absorbed in materials that biodegrade or
that release liquids * * *" (emphasis
added). Several commenters onEPA's
proposals stated that Congress misused
the term absorbed, and should have
used the term oa'sorbed, 'or perhaps both
terms. "Adsorbents" are materials that
retain liquids on the surface of their
particles by capillary action and surface
tension. "Absorbents" retain liquids
within the void spaces between
particles and within the inner structure
of (he sorbing material. Discussion of
the issue in the legislative history of
HSWA clearly indicates that Congress
meant ocfeorbents, as defined above, as
well as o&sorbents. To reflect this clear
Congressional intent, EPA uses the
terms "sorbent" and "sorb" in today's
rale, instead of the "terms "absorbent"
and "absorb." These terms are defined
in § 260.10. "Sorbent" means a material
that is used to soak up free liquids by
either adsorption, or both. "Sorb" means
to either adsorb or absorb, or both.
B. Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT) Versus
Liquids Release Test (LRT) .
In its December 24,1986, October 29,
1991, and May 1,1992 Federal Register
notices, EPA proposed and solicited
comment on a Liquids Release Test
(LRT) specifically designed to simulate
the behavior or sorbed materials under
compression that might occur during
-------
routine landfill operations. In December
1986, EPA proposed use of the Zero
Head-Space Extractor (ZHE) device,
which EPA was developing in
conjunction with the new Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP). Because of technical concerns
raised by commenters on the ZHE, EPA
subsequently developed and tested a
different compression type device. In the
October 1991 proposal, EPA published
the results of single and multi-laboratory
tests using the new LRT device at SO psi
to simulate worst-case landfill
pressures. The 50 psi was based on a
100 ft landfill depth and an overlying
material bulk density of 70 Ibs/cu ft. A
survey conducted by EPA before the
December 1986 proposal showed that
most landfill depths were less than 60 ft,
and the maximum depth was 100 ft.
Commenters continued to raise
concerns about the practicality of the
revised LRT noticed in October 1991,
about perceived technical flaws with the
test, and about the test's performance
relative to the Painter Filter Liquids Test
{PFT). In response, EPA published a
supplemental notice in May 1992
soliciting comment on whether the PFT
should be used in lieu of the LRT to
satisfy the statutory requirements of
section 3004(c)(2).
The overwhelming majority of
commenters on EPA's May 1,1992 notice
as well as on earlier notices supported
use of the PFT over the LRT for all
landfilled hazardous wastes, including
containerized sorbed liquid wastes. The
major reasons commenters gave for
preferring the PFT were:
(1) Although the PFT does not involve
compression of the sorbed waste, it
none theless reasonably simulates
whether liquids will be released under
pressure. In fact, EPA's test data show
that in the case of sorbed water-based
wastes the PFT gave results that were
more conservative than the LRT
"pressure" test (i.e., samples failed the
PFT at lower moisture contents than in
samples that failed the LRT at 50 psi).
(2) The LRT does not work well for
testing samples sorbed with Imbiber
Beads * and similar sorbents. Such
materials, which are compressible and
clastic, tend to be extruded through the
small openings in the LRT device,
indicating failure. Such extrusions,
however, are not releases of liquids and
should not be so interpreted. This "false
positive" problem does not exist with
the PFT.
(3) The PFT has been required and
used since June 1985, whereas
commenters raised a number of
technical questions with the LRT (e.g.,
reproducibility, sample size, sample
preparation and placement, pressure"
amount, pressure application rate, test
duration, temperature, and lack of test
data on a number of sorbent/sorbate
combinations).
(4) The PFT is a simpler test, more •
easily conducted, and simpler to clean
up after (the LRT device is especially
difficult and time consuming to clean
after testing materials like Imbiber
Beads ®, whereas the PFT device is not);
it involves a significantly cheaper
testing process (equipment and labor);
its iise eliminates the need for facilities
to stock two types of test apparatus for
similar purposes and to train personnel
in the use of the LRT; and its use avoids
potentially significant delays in safe
disposal of wastes, since the PFT set-up,
test, and clean-up time (10-15 minutes/
sample) is significantly less than the
LRT (25-75 minutes/sample).
(5) Use of the PFT for containerized
sorbed waste would result in consistent
environmental performance testing of all
materials going into a landfill (whether
containerized or not, whether treated
with sorbents or not) in terms of the
potential for releasing liquids.
(6) The major source of liquids in
landfills is precipitation; relative to this,
the environmental significance of any
difference between the PFT and the LRT
is very small (even without
consideration of the additional
protection afforded by the land disposal
restrictions and double liners/leachate
collection requirements for landfills).
Except for the technical questions
raised in point (3) above, EPA agrees
with these comments, concluding that
the PFT is generally a more appropriate
test than the LRT for the statutory
purpose. By comparing the LRT test
results to the PFT test results, E.PA has
been able to use the LRT to show that
the PFT reasonably simulates and
serves as a surrogate for a 50 psi
pressure test for water-based wastes.
Therefore, the additional cost, difficulty,
and time for the LRT are unjustified.
At the same time, EPA disagrees that
the LRT reproducibility/technical issues
raised by the commenters (see 3 above)
pose major problems, since sufficient
test data exist either to justify the
current specification or a modified
specification. Further, in developing test
methods, EPA need not test every
possible matrix at every concentration/
saturation level to demonstrate that the
method, is reproducible and valid. For
the LRT, developmental and validation
tests were performed on a set of
sorbent/sorbate combinations spanning
the array of materials expected to be
subject to the test method. This is
consistent with the approach EPA has
taken in developing and validating other
RCRA hazardous waste test methods.
The only concern with the PFT ia its
performance where oily-based wastes
are the sorbates. Test data on oily-based
sorbates show that the LRT is more
conservative than the PFT for this
category. EPA, however, notes that this
issue is not particular to sorbed wastes.
For all oily wastes—not merely sorbed
oily wastes—there are wastes that may
flow as a liquid but that do not filter
within the 5 minute test and, therefore,
are not defined as "liquids" under the
PFT. Thus, this issue is beyond the
scope of today's rulemaking. EPA
recognizes that testing procedures for
oily waste that can flow in the
environment, whether sorbents have
been added or not, may need to be
improved. EPA is now studying this
issue and is considering possible
revisions of test procedures, which may
be as simple as extending the duration
of the PFT and/or using a pressure plate
in the PFT for oily wastes. At the same
time, EPA recognizes that such
improvements may be unnecessary or of
low priority, given that land disposal of
oily hazardous wastes is or will soon be
strictly controlled by the land disposal
restrictions. •
For these reasons, EPA is today
retaining the PFT, or Method 9095, as the
test to be used to determine if liquids
will be released from containerized
sorbed wastes. This will simplify the
proposed testing requirements since the
PFT is already required for all treated
and nontreated, sorbed and nonsorbed,
containerized and bulk wastes. That is,
no wastes disposed in hazardous waste
landfills can contain free liquids, as
determined by the PFT. This approach
provides equal treatment for all
landfilled wastes. Also, by adopting the
PFT instead of the LRT, the Agency does
not have to address the special situation
of various sorbent materials that cause
problen s in the LRT device (e.g.,
Imbiber Beads®). Since the PFT is
already required, no changes to the
existing regulations are needed for this
requirement.
Chemical Fixation/Stabilization.
Several commenters argued that
chemically stabilized wastes should be
exe.mpted from the LRT, primarily
because the device either is ruined or
does not work well with these materials.
Commenters also argued that chemically
fixed wastes should not be classified as
sorbed wastes, even though some
sorption might take place. Since EPA is
not adopting the LRT, this issue is moot.
C. Biodegradability
Many commenters discussed EPA's
proposals regarding how to define
biodegradable sorbents, and suggested ^
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 223 / Wednesday.- November 18r 1992 / Rules 4md Regulations .54455
that EPA provide a combination of (!)
lists or categories of acceptable and
unacceptable sorbents, (2) tests that can
be used to determine biodegradability,
and (3) other criteria {e.g.,
environmental stability data). •
Commenters argued that a combination
of options is needed because no one test
or definition would be universally
applicable (e.g.,. for inorganic materials
with no carbon, the ASTM tests are not
necessary),, and a list alone would not
be all inclusive. Commenters in
particular discussed what tests and/pr
criteria EPA should establish, which
sorbents EPA should list, when and by
whom the different tests should be
performed, and the number of tests that
would be necessary.
"Biodegradation" is the process by
which bacteria and fungi
(microorganisms) consume (metabolize
or decompose) an organic material.
Generally, materials that do not contain
carbon, and inorganic materials that
contain carbon, such as calcium
carbonate (CaCQj), are considered to be
nonbiodegradable for the purposes of
this rale. Commenters pointed out that
biodegradation potential exists where a-
material contains organic carbon, but
not all organic carbon is readily
available to microorganisms. In fact,
very little biodegradation, if any, occurs,
over periods of many years with some
materials containing organic carbon. For
example, Commenters presented
information demonstrating that high-
molecular weight synthetic organic
polymers such as high density
polyethylene and polypropylene are
nonbiodegradable. In addition, as EPA
noted in its June 24,1987 proposal,
several laboratory tests have been used
successfully to determine whether a
material is biodegradable. '
In response to public comments;
today's rule allows two options, in
§ § 264.314{e) and 265.314{f), for defining
nonbiodegradability. The rule (1)
provides descriptions, of classes of
sorbent materials, and lists of sorbent
materials as examples in each class,
that are nonbiodegradable and therefore
acceptable without further testing; and
(2) provides two tests for sorbents not
listed or not falling within one of the ,
classes listed. A .sorbent that passes
either of these tests is nonbiodegradable
and is therefore acceptable for landfill
disposal in containers (providing, of
course, that the-sorbed waste passes the
PFT).
Lists of Nonbiodegradable Material
In the first option, EPA has listed three
classes of nonbiodegradable. sorbent
materials. '
The first class consists of .three types
of materials: (1) Naturally occurring
inorganic minerals (e.g., clay,
diatomaceou? earth), (2) man-made
inorganic materials, which are often
modified natural minerals (e.g., calcined
montmorillonite, cement kiln dust, Sy
ash), and (3) elemental carbon (e-g.,
activated charcoal).
The second class comprises high
molecular-rweight synthetic organic
polymers (e.g., high density
polyethylene).
The third class is made up of mixtures
of the nonbiodegradable sorbent
materials within the first or second
classes.
EPA has concluded that these
materials are nonbiodegradable because
(1) the inorganic minerals and other
inorganic materials do not contain
carbon, they contain only inorganic or
elemental carbon, or they contain
insignificant .amounts of organic carbon,
and (2) the high-molecular weight
synthetic organic materials (i.e.,
polymers) have proved to be highly
resistant to faiodegradation.
EPA received numerous comments
that synthetic polymeric materials, or
specific polymers, should be excluded
fr6m the definition of biodegradable.
While sorbents derived from natural
polymeric materials such as cellulose
arid starch are generally readily
biodegradable, by comparison, high
molecular weight synthetic organic
polymers generally resist
biodegradation. Biodegradability of
synthetic polymers,decreases as
molecular weight increases. This is
partly because the long chains of high
molecular weight synthetic.polymers
tend to provide relatively few places for
degradation to occur since
microorganisms are generally only able
to effectively attack at the ends of the
chains. That is, the microbial enzymes
are unable to break the backbone
linkage of the long polymer chains into
smaller molecules, attacking, instead,
only the terminal ends and any
amorphous parts of the polymer chains.
Other characteristics of synthetic
polymers thought to cqntribute to their
resistance to biodegradation include:
Many are hydrophobic or water
repellant (microorganisms need Water);
they resist enzymatic attack because of
their density, orientation, degree of
crystallization, and bonding
characteristics; and some contain
antioxidants or biocidal additives.
Whatever the mechanisms, test data
and environmental experience show
these synthetic polymers to be resistant
to biodegradation. Even where there is
evidence that plasticizers and other
additives to polymer products are
degraded, the synthetic polymeric
materials themselves generally are not
degraded. EPA is aware of research ,
efforts to.develop biodegradable
polymers and to enhance
biodegradation of synthetic polymers. In
most cases, this effort has been based
on biopolymers, or materials of
biological origin,, e.g., cellophane. These
materials are explicitly excluded from
the'definition of nonbiodegradable in
today's rule. Also included in the final
rule is a restriction that the synthetic
polymers not be specifically designed to
biodegrade, since plastics can be •
designed to be relatively biodegradable
by adding prooxiidants, biodegradable
additives (e.g., starch), and other
additives that help initiate chemical
degradation whiiih make-the polymers
more susceptible to biological attack.
EPA has also included in today's rule
the stipulation that only "high molecular
weight" polymers be classified
automatically as nonbiodegradable. Low
molecular weight polymers—e.g.. with
average molecular weights of less than a
few thousand—may in certain
circumstances bet biodegradable. While
such materials are generally not suitable
as sorbents because of their physical
. properties, EPA nonetheless believes
that they should Ibe excluded from the
classification in today's rule. At the
same time, EPA does not believe it is
necessary or appropriate to draw a
specific line defining "high" molecular
weight. Effective polymeric sorbents
currently in use today generally have
molecular weights in the Iffs or 100's-of
thousands, or even in the millions.
These are clearly high molecular '
weights. Below these levels, as polymers
approach the low 1000's in molecular
weight, professional judgment must
come into play in assessing a
substance's degradability.
For each category of acceptable
sorbents, EPA has listed specific
examples in the ri4e. The materials
listed as examples in the rule are not
intended to be all-inclusive, but merely
to exemplify and help clarify the classes
of acceptable sorbents. EPA recognizes
that some of the. examples'are generic
(e.g., clays, smectites) that include a
number of materials, some of which are
also listed separately; that some of the
terms are to a certain extent redundant
or overlapping; aad .that some are very
specific chemicals. The materials cited
are types of nonbiodegradable materials
most commonly used as sorbents and
most frequently referred to in the public
comments and literature. This use of
lists, the examples listed, and the
classes described, are consistent with
the legislative history, which states:.
"Examples of absorbents that are likely
to be found to be acceptable (for both
-------
54456 Federal Register / Vol. 57,-No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18. 1992 /:Rules and Regulation^
nonbiodegradation and pressure
stability reasons) are the chemical
reagents discussed above (cement- or
lime-based materials, pozzolanic
materials, and thermoplastic or organic
binders) and fine-grained earthen
materials (e.g., bentonite,
montmorillionite (sic), kaolinite, and
Fuller's earth)" (July 25.1984.
Congressional Record—Senate, S9177).
EPA has not attempted to define or
list biodegradable, or unacceptable,
sorbent materials in the rule. Since the
Agency has defined nonbiodegradable
material, it believes that defining
biodegradable materials would be
redundant. However, EPA notes that
certain materials are well known to be
biodegradable and would not be
acceptable under today's rule. For
example, cellulosic or biosynthesized
materials are clearly biodegradable (e.g.,
sawdust, wood fiber or pulp, shredded
paper, straw, ground corncobs, ground
peanut hulls, municipal waste). These
materials do not fall into any of the
acceptable categories of sorbents, and
they would clearly fail any test of
nonbiodegradability. Consequently, they .
may not be used to sorb liquids in
wastes which are subsequently'disposed
of in a landfill (except as noted below).
This is consistent with the legislative
history of section 3004(c), which listed
sawdust, municipal waste, and shredded
paper as examples of biodegradable
sorbents, and therefore unacceptable
(ibid). These biodegradable sorbents
may, however, be used to sorb liquids in
wastes which are then treated in
accordance with RCRA treatment
standards. In this case, the residual may
be landfilled, provided it meets all •
applicable requirements, e.g., it is no
longer a liquid. For example, wastes
mixed with biodegradable sorbents may
be incinerated and then theresidual or
ash, which is no longer liquid, no longer
sorbed waste, and no longer ,
biodegradable^may be landfilled.
EPA recognizes that some inorganic
materials or elemental carbon could
contain some level of organic carbon.
EPA does not intend that these
materials necessarily be classified as
biodegradable or necessarily be
required to be tested for
biodegradability. At the same time, EPA
wants to make it clear that inorganic
materials are considered to be
biodegradable if they have been mixed
with significant amounts of .
biodegradable materials (e.g., with
sawdust or ground corncobs), or if they
are significantly "contaminated" with
organic soils or materials.
In today's rule, EPA has not attempted
specifically to define the degree of
"contamination" or mixing that would
render an inorganic, carbon, or synthetic
organic polymeric material ineligible.
Commenters, however, provided a
significant amount of information on
total organic carbon content of materials
generally recognized as .
nonbiodegradable. For example, rice
hull ash generally contains 2-6% total
organic carbon; fly ash suitable as a
sorbent or stabilizer may contain 2-8%.
EPA, therefore, concludes that sorbents
otherwise meeting the criteria of today's
rule should not be excluded or require
testing because of organic carbon
content within these ranges. For
mixtures above these ranges (i.e., above
8%), the mixture sorbent would have to
be tested or demonstrated that it is .
nonbiodegradable. .
Tests of Biodegradable Material. In
the second option, if a sorbent is not in a
class listed in the regulations, then a test
must be conducted or a demonstration
made. The tests/demonstrations are: (1)
The sorbent material is shown to be
nonbiodegradable using ASTM Method
G21-70 (1984a)—Standard Practice for
Determining Resistance of Synthetic
Polymer Materials to Fungi; or (2) the -
sorbent material is shown to be •
nonbiodegradable using ASTM Method
G22-76 (1984b)—Standard Practice for
Determining Resistance of Plastics to
Bacteria.
The ASTM tests, identified in EPA's
June 24,1987 proposal, are already •
required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for radioactive wastes to
prove their resistance to biodegradation.
The ASTM tests are 21-day tests, using
specific bacteria and fungi cultures.
After the 21-day incubation period, the
test material is inspected for growth,
which is evidence of biological activity
and an indication of biodegradation.
Although commenters supported use of
these tests, at least one commenter
warned of the possibility of false
positives (i.e., a nonbiodegradable
material might show up in the test as
biodegradation). EPA agrees that this is
possible. In these cases, the additional
ASTM chemical, electrical, and physical
tests regarding structural changes listed
in the bacterial and fungal test methods
can be used to determine whether there
is indeed biodegradation or not; or the
tests can be rerun.
In the December 24,19.86 notice, EPA
proposed to define biodegradability on
the basis of total organic carbon
content, and the Agency suggested that
use of the modified Mebius procedure to
determine that content (Page, A.L., ed.,
1982, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2,
Chemical and Microbial Properties,
Second Edition, No. 9, Part 2, American
Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison).
Commenters were generally opposed to
this approach, in part because EPA's
proposed TOG level (1%) would
eliminate many high-performing
sorbents (e.g., pozzolanic materials and
synthetic polymers), and in part because
of technical issues related to the •
appropriateness of the test (e.g., it does
not distinguish between elemental
carbon and organic carbon). Therefore,
EPA has not included in today's rule a
TOG criterion. Neverthele_ss, EPA notes
that the modified Mebius test might be
used to demonstrate that a material fits
on the list as an inorganic with less than
8% TOG i.e., that it is acceptable as a
sorbent under §§ 264.314(e)(l)(i) and
265.314(f)(l)(i).
Alternative Demonstrations/Tests of
Biodegradability. A number of
commenters encouraged EPA to accept
alternative tests, or engineering
judgment in addition to the identified
tests. EPA agrees that other tests exist,
but has decided to limit the final rule to
those tests EPA proposed since specific
alternatives were not discussed. Also,
some flexibility for engineering
judgment has been provided in the lists
and descriptions in §§ 284.314(e)(l) and
265.314(f)(l). Therefore, EPA has not
gathered and, reviewed data on other
tests and proposed them for inclusion in
today's rule. Instead, EPA decided to
require that such demonstrations be
made under the already established Part
260 petition process.
D. Spill Cleanups
Numerous commenters recommended "
that EPA exempt (from the
biodegradability and liquids release
requirements in the proposed rule)
sorbents used in emergency spill
cleanups.. One commenter, however,
suggested exempting only sorbents used
for true emergency spills, as contrasted
to routine spills at locations where
sorbents are (or. should be) routinely
stockpiled. The basis of this
commenter's suggestions was that
sorbents that meet the proposed LRT
and nonbiodegration criteria are readily
available on this market and therefore
should be used where a spill can be
expected. The commenter, however,
also suggested exempting from the LRT
the hydrophobic sorbents that are used
to clean up oil spills on water, because
sorbents currently available for oil spills
on water do not meet the proposed
criteria.
In today's rule EPA has not provided
an exemption for either routine spills or
emergencies. Most of the commenters
supporting an exemption for
emergencies argued that the LRT
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday. November 18, 1992 / Rules -and Regulations 54457
duration could cause delays and disrupt
proper cleanups. Also, cojnmenters were
concerned that many sorbents
commonly used in-cleanups (e.g.,
Imbiber Beads® and sorbent pillows)
cannot be effectively tested in the LRT,
and might not meet EPA's definition of
nonbiodegradability {as originally
proposed). Today's rule, however,
requires the simpler and faster PFT,
which is already required and should
not cause such delays. Furthermore,
Imbiber Beads* and similar materials
would generally qualify as
nonbiodegradable under today's rule, as
they are made of high-molecular-weight
synthetic polymers. EPA, therefore,
agrees with the commenter that an
exemption should not be provided for
routine spill situations, where sorbents
are stockpiled, since response teams can
stockpile and use nonbiodegradable
sorbents. Furthermore, EPA believes
that a special exemption for
"emergency" spill cleanups is
inappropriate. In the first place, EPA
notes that a wide range of sorbents
acceptable under today's rules—
including most now commonly in use-^-
are available for emergency spill
cleanups. In the second place, it is not
clear that the statute provides EPA the
^authority to exempt certain sorbents
from the requirements of § 3004(c)(2),
and in any case an exemption for
certain (but not all) cleanup situations
would be difficult to implement and
enforce. • ,
EPA, however, emphasizes that
today's rule does not. prohibit the use of
biodegradable sorbents (e.g., sawdust,
corn cobs, etc.) in spill cleanups. In fact,
many commenters pointed out that such
materials have an important role hi
cleanups, particularly where sorbed
wastes will be recycled or incinerated.
The rule, instead, merely prohibits
landfilling of such wastes after the
cleanup; incineration, recycling, or other
treatment, would remain as options. In
fact, direct landfilling of these wastes
would already be prohibited, in most
cases, by the land disposal restrictions.
Therefore, today's rule is unlikely to
have significant effect on cleanups.
One commenter asked EPA to clarify
that contaminated soils cleaned up'
during a spill response would not be
subject to today's rule affecting
sorbents. EPA agrees that contaminated
soils are not subject to today's"rule. The
rule covers sorbents added to liquid
hazardous wastes for the purpose of
solidifying or stabilizing the wastes. For
contaminated soils, the situation is
different. The soils are hot added to •
wastes to eliminate liquids; rather, the
contaminated soil is, in effect, the waste
as it was generated. Thus, the soil is not
a sorbent, and the question of its
biodegradability does not arise.
Landfilling of the soilj however, would
of course remain subject ta the land
disposal restrictions.
E. Sorbent Pillows
Commenters on the December 24,1986
proposal argued that EPA should
exempt sorbent pillows used to control
spills and leaks, primarily so that LRT
testing would not impede such efforts
because of the difficulties in getting
representative-samples and tune delays
to do the testing. In the June 24,1987
supplemental notice, EPA proposed to
exempt sorbent pillows used to control
spills or leaks, including socks, wipes,
and rags, in a manner similar to lab
packs. Under this proposal, the sorbent
pillows would have to be
nonbiodegradable, be surrounded by
enough additional unused
nonbiodegradable sorbent material to
sorb any releases, and be placed hi
certain specified containers of 110 gallon
capacity or less. Further, the sorbent
pillows would still need to pass the PFT
and only sorbent pillows could be
placed in the same container.
Since the PFT rather than the LRT is
required in today's rule, the exemption
for sbrbent pillows from.the LRT is no
longer needed. In fact, the proposed
exemption, imposing the lab pack
requirements in lieu of the LRT, would
not be more restrictive than the
approach in today's rule. Imposing the
lab pack requirements would now treat
sorbent pillows more stringently than
other sorbed. wastes, would complicate
remediations, would add to the waste
volume to be disposed, would be vague
(how much additional sorbent is
enough) and difficult to enforce, and
would be generally unnecessary, given
the land disposal restrictions
requirements. Therefore, the Agency is
not providing an exemption for sorbent
pillows in today's rule.
Commenters also raised questions •
about the status of rags and wipes. After
reviewing the descriptions and
examples given in the legislative history,
EPA has concluded that rags and wipes
are not the types of materials Congress
had in mind and should not be
.considered tolbe sorbents in the context
of today's rule. In discussing sorbent
materials Congress did not include rags
and wipes nor materials that rags or
wipes are made from in the lists of
sorbent materials Congress anticipates
EPA will find to be acceptable and
unacceptable. The legislative history "
lists sawdust, municipal waste, . " ••
shredded paper, .and certain . ,
vermictilites as unaceeptable sorbents; .'• -
and chemical reagents (cement- or lime-
based materials, pozzolariic materials,
and thermoplastic or organic binders)
and fine-grained materials (e.g., •.
bentonite, montmorillonite, kaolinite,
and Fuller's Earth]. All of these '
materials' are used to treat large •
quantities of liquids or to soak up
relatively large quantities of spills. Rags
and wipes on the other hand are used to
clean off soiled or wet surfaces. Thus,
today's rule does riot change the
regulatory treatment under Subtitle C of
rags and wipes used in the traditional
manner; however, if rags and wipes are
used like sorbents, e.g., by putting them •
in a drum to soak up free-standing
liquids, then they need to comply with
the nonbiodegradability requirements.
F, Lab Packs and Other Exemptions
The current rules exempt lab packs,
very small containers such as ampules,
and products that contain liquids for
uses other than storage (e.g., batteries)
from the liquids in landfills prohibition.
These .exemptions are consistent with'
the "minimize liquids in containers"
language in the statute, and they are
supported by the legislative history. Lab
packs are small containers of liquids
(typically of one gallon or less), most
commonly used for laboratory wastes,
that are placed in Et drum and
surrounded by sufficient sorbent
material to sorb the liquids should the
containers fail. EPA agrees with the
commenters who said the rules should
continue to allow the lab pack, ampule,
and product container exemptions, with
the exception that ihe rules should be
revised to require that lab pack sorbents
be nonbiodegradable, for the same
reasons that liquids in containers should
be sorbed with nonbiodegradable .
sorbents. Nonbiod€igradable sorbents
will not degrade, and therefore will not
help to produce subsidence and release
of liquids when the drums fail. Lab '
•packs are planned management
activities in which it is practical to use '
nonbiodegradable siorbents, and a wide
variety of such sorbents are readily
available.
G. Waste Analysis and Recordkeeping
In its December 24,1986 notice, EPA
proposed to amend the waste analysis
section (§ § 264.13(b)(6) and 265.13(b}(6))
and the recordkeepiiig sections '
(§§ 264.73(b)(3) and 265.73(b)(3)) to add
references to the specific paragraphs /
within §§ 264.314 or 265.314 that contain
the PFT and the proposed LRT and TOG
test requirements. EPA^ateo proposed
that a landfill facility's waste-analysis
plan include •procedures that the owner/
operator of an of fsiire lahtifill will asVtcf V •
-------
54458 Fedettd Register / VoL 5?. No. 223 /Wednesday, November 18. 1992 / Rules a^ Regdations
determine whether.a,generatot/added-a J.
biodegradable sorbent to containerized ;
hazardous waste ($§ 264.13(c)(3) and ;
285.13[c)(3)).
EPA received numerous comments on
these requirements, many addressing
the broader issue of who is responsible
for waste analysis. In particular,
commenters expressed concern that
EPA was requiring duplicative testing on
the part of landfill owner/operators, and
that the responsibility for testing should
fall on the generator, the treater, or the
sorbent manufacturer rather than the
landfill owner/operator. A number of
commenters, for example, recommended
that EPA require sorbent manufacturers
to certify that a sorbent is
nonbiodegradable, and that the manifest
should be amended to require that the
certification be attached.
EPA understands the concerns of the
commenters, but it believes that the rule
as proposed is sufficiently flexible to
accommodate them. Therefore, in
today's rule EPA has made only limited
changes to the proposal.
First, EPA has eliminated the ,
proposed language added to
!§ 264.13(b)(6j, 265.13(b)(6), 264.73(b)(3),
and 265.73{b){3) because these already
refer to §§ 264.314 or 265.314. It is not
necessary to identify the specific
paragraphs in these sections that refer ,•
to the PFT and the biodegradau'on
standards.
Second, EPA has retained the
proposed requirements of §§ 264.l3(c)(3)
and 285.13(c)(3) for off-site landfills,
with alight rewording to clarify that off-
site treaters as well as generators may
be adding sorbents. These sections •
ensure that commercial off-site landfill
owner/operators specify in their Waste
Analysis Plans the procedures they plan
. to use to assure compliance*.
In response to the commenters
described above, EPA emphasizes the
flexibility of its approach toward
biodegradability in today's rule. The rule
does not prescribe how a landfill
owner/operator must verify that
sorbents are nonbiodegradable—only
that the Waste Analysis Plan describe
the procedures the landfill owner/
operator will use to determine
compliance. For on-site disposal, this
requirement will be easy to meet For,
off-site disposal, EPA expects that the
landfill operator will generally rely on
information provided by the generator
or treater. For example, a landfill
operator might require generator
notification where sorbents have been
used, and certifications that the specific
sorbent used meets the criteria of
§§ 264.314(eJ or 265J314(f), along with
confirmatory data. EPA generally
believes such an approach would be
appropriate and sufficient. Consistent
with today's'rule, however, EPA
believes that the specific procedures are
best addressed on a site-by-site basis.
Today's rule provides the flexibility for
such an approach.'
H. FreerStanding Liquids
Section 264-314(d) states: "Containers ;
holding free liquids must not be placed
in a landfill unless: (1) All free-standing
liquid: (i) Has been removed by
decanting, or other methods; pi) has
been mixed with absorbent or solidified
so that free-standing liquid is no longer
observed; or (jii) has been otherwise
eliminated" (emphasis added). The same
requirement appears in § 265.314(c).
Sections 264.314(c) and 265.314(d) state
that "To demonstrate the absence or
presence of free liquids in either a
containerized or a bulk waste, the
following '.test must be used: Method
9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test)"
(emphasis added).
In the December 24,1986, proposal,
EPA stated that it saw an inconsistency
between these two requirements—on
the one hand, containerized wastes
containing free liquids-could be placed
in a landfill, if the liquids' were removed
(e.g., decanted, § 264.314(d)), and on the
other hand, containerized wastes
containing free liquids (as defined by
'the Paint Filter Test) were prohibited
from placement in a landfill
(§ 264.314(c)). Consequently, EPA
proposed to delete §§ 264.314(d)(l) and
265.314(c)(l), making it clear that wastes
placed in landfills cannot contain free
liquids, as defined by the PFT.
No comments were received on this
proposal. However, after reexamining
the regulations, EPA has reached the
conclusion that they are not
inconsistent. Instead, the regulations
spell out two different requirements: (1)
That landfilled wastes meet the PFT,
and (2) that free-standing liquids in
containerized wastes be decanted or
otherwise eliminated before land
disposal. Containerized wastes must
meet both requirements. EPA sees ho
reason to modify or eliminate the
independent prohibition on free-
standing liquids, on the grounds that it is
inconsistent or redundant. In fact, EPA
has found the requirement a useful
enforcement tool, and has no evidence
that the regulated community has been
confused fay it Therefore, EPA has
decided not to finalize the proposed
change.
/. Implementation
As discussed in Section V.A. of this
preamble, today's rule is promulgated
under the authority of the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA).
Therefore, it will become effective in
RCRA-authdrized and nonauthorized
States six months from the publication .
of this notice.' •
Interim status facilities will be subject
to today's rule on its effective date.
Therefore, these facilities should modify
their waste analysis plans and
procedures appropriately by that date.
On the other hand, under EPA's
regulations, RCRA permits generally
provide a shield against new regulatory
requirements (§ 270.4). Therefore,
permitted facilities may continue to
operate under their existing permits
(and their waste analysis plans) until
EPA modifies the permit in accordance
with § 270.41 or as part of a 5-year land
disposal permit review, or until the
permit terminates and a new permit is
issued.
V. State Authority
A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA
may authorize qualified States to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. Following
authorization, EPA retains enforcement
authority under sections 3008,3013, and
7003 of RCRA, although authorized
States have primary enforcement
responsibility. The standards and
requirements for authorization are found
in 40 CFR part 271. - . . •
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA's administering
the Federal program in that State. EPA
could not issue permits for any facilities
that the State was authorized to permit.
When new, more stringent Federal
requirements were promulgated, the
State was obliged to enact equivalent
authority within specified time frames.
New Federal requirements did, not take
effect in an authorized State until the
State adopted the requirements as State
law and was authorized for the
requirements.
In contrast, under RCRA section
3006(g), new requirements imposed by
HSWA take effect in authorized States
at the same time that they take effect in
non-authorized States. EPA is directed
to carry out these requirements in
authorized States, including the issuance
of permits, until the State is granted
authorization to do so. While States.
must still adopt HSWA-based
provisions as State law to retain
authorization, the HSWA-based
requirements apply in authorized States
, in the interim;
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, Noveraber_18< 1992 /Rules and Regulations 54459
Today's final rule for containerized
liquids in landfills is issued under RCRA
section 3004(c), which was added by
HSWA. These HSWA-based
requirements are being added to Table 1
in 40 CFR 271.1Q), which identifies the
Federal program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
take effect in all States, regardless of
their authorization status. As noted
above. EPA will implement these
HSWA-based sections in today's rule in
authorized States until the State
programs are modified to adopt these
rules and the modification is approved
by EPA. Because these requirements are
finalized pursuant to HSWA, a State
submitting a program modification may
apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under RCRA section
3008(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the
basis of State requirements that are
equivalent or substantially equivalent to
EPA's. The procedures and schedule for
State program modifications for either
interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CFR 271.21. The
deadline by which the States must
modify their programs to adopt today's
rule is (July 1,1994).
B. Effect on State Authorizations
' Section 40 CFR 271,21(e)(2) requires
States that have final authorization to
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and to submit the
modification to EPA for approval. The
deadline by which the State must
modify its program to adopt this
regulation is determined by the
promulgation date in accordance with 40
CFR 271.21[e). These deadlines can be
extended hi certain cases (40 CFR
271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the
modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
Authorized States are only required to
modify their programs when EPA •
promulgates Federal regulations that are
more stringent or broader in scope than
the existing Federal regulations. For
Federal program changes that are less
stringent or reduce the scope of the
Federal program, States are not required
to modify their programs. This is a result
of RCRA section 3009, which allows
States to impose regulations in addition
to those in the Federal program. EPA
has determined that today's
containerized liquids in landfills rule is
more stringent than the current Federal
regulations. Therefore, authorized States
are required to modify their programs if
needed to adopt .regulations that are
equivalent or substantially equivalent to
today rule.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being finalized today to , ,-..,.
determine whether they meet the tests *'
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is approved.
Of course, States with existing
standards may continue to administer
and enforce their standards as a matter
of State law. In implementing the
Federal program, EPA will work with
States under agreements to minimize
duplication of efforts. In many cases,
EPA will be able to defer to the States in
their efforts to implement their programs
rather than take separate actions under
Federal authority.
States that submit official applications
for final authorization less than 12
months after the effective date of these
regulations are not required to include
standards equivalent to these
regulations in their application. States
that submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months or more after
the effective date of these regulations
must include standards equivalent to
these regulations in their application.
The requirements a State must meet
when submitting its final authorization
application are set forth in 40 CFR 271.3.
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Economic Impact Analysis
Executive Order 12291 (Section 3(b))
requires regulatory agencies to prepare
Regulatory Impact Analyses for all
"major" rules. Today's rule is not a
major rule because it will not result hi:
an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more; a major increase in
costs or prices for consumers, individual
industries, Federal, State, and local
government agencies, or geographic
regions; or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment
productivity, innovation, or
international trade.. Therefore, the
Agency has not prepared a Regulatory
Impact Analysis for today's rule.
EPA did, however, review, costs
associated with this rule in "Economic
Impact Analysis of Liquids hi Landfills
Rule Regarding Containerized
Sorbents." The total additional
annualized costs of implementing this
rule are estimated to be under $1
million. The implementation costs are
minimal because hazardous waste
landfills must already use the Paint
Filter Test (for all wastes, not just
sorbed wastes), and most sorbents"
currently in use need not be tested for
biodegradability because they are
clearly identified as acceptable'on the
nonbiodegradables lists in the rule or as
unacceptable on the biodegradables list
provided as guidance in the preamble.
The restneed be,tested only.qnee per .
sorbent type fornohbiodegradability (it
is the sorbents that are tested for
biodegradation, riot the wastes). For
those sorbents that are currently used
that are unacceptable, there are readily
available sorbenl:s of comparable costs
and efficiencies so that the economic
impact of such substitutions are
minimal.
This rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Managementand Budget in
accordance with Executive Order 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(5 U.S.C. 601 et s«q.) requires Federal
regulatory agencies to prepare a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA)
for all regulations! that have "a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities."
Today's rule, as !!PA's economic
analysis indicates, will involve only a
trivial increase in. costs for regulated
industry. Therefore, EPA certifies that
today's regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a .
substantial number of small entities. As
a result, no Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is needed.
C, Paperwork Reduction Act^
The information collection
requirements hi this rule have been
approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et sea. and
have been assigned control number
2050-0125. '
The public reporting burden for this
collection of infonnation is estimated to
average 3.6 hours per response for the *>
first year and 0.8 hours per response in
subsequent years. This burden includes
time for reviewing the regulations, r
searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the required
data, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any o ther aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch, PM-
223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW, Washington.
DC 20460 and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office- of Management and'.Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Jonathan GledhiH", , '•'••:-':;.
-------
544SO Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
VII. Supporting Documents
:,>...= „.,...i,,.;w.-'-^--.« "-—«^."-j . •
The following document has beerf
prepared in support of this rulemaking
and placed in docket F-92-CLLF-FFFFF.
"Economic Impact Analysis of Liquids
in Landfills Rule Regarding
Containerized Sorbents," EPA, October
23,1992.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous waste.
40 CFR Part 264
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds.
40 CFR Part 265
Air pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Insurance, Packaging and
containers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Surety
bonds, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian
lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water pollution control,
Water supply.
Dated: October 30,1992.
WilBam K. Reilly,
A dtninistralor.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 40 CFR parts 260, 264,265,
and 271 are amended as follows.
PART 260— HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6812(a), 6921-
0927, 0930, 6934, 6935,6937, 6938, 6939. and
0974,
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
adding the definition of "sorbent" hi
alphabetical order, to read as follows:
$260.10 Definitions
* * * * *
Sorbent means a material that is used
to soak up free liquids by either
adsorption or absorption, or both. Sorb
means to either adsorb or absorb, or
both.
• PART 264-:STANDARpS FOR '
QWNERS AND OPERATORS OF "•
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for part 264 .
continues to read as follows: •
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6925.
2. Section 264.13 is amended by
• adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
§ 264.13 General waste analysis.
*****
(c) * * *
. (3) The procedures that the owner or
operator of an off-site landfill receiving
containerized hazardous waste will use
to determine whether a hazardous waste
generator or treater has added a
biodegradable sorbent to the waste in
the container.
*****
3. Section 264.314 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (e) as (f),
revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and
(d)(l)(ii), and adding new paragraph (e)
to read as follows:
§ 264.314 Special requirements for bulk
and containerized liquids.
[a) * * •
(2) Before disposal, thd liquid waste or
waste containing free liquids is treated
or stabilized, chemically or physically
(e.g., by mixing with a sorbent solid], so
that free liquids are no longer present.
(b) Effective May 8,1985, the
placement of bulk or non-containerized
liquid hazardous waste or hazardous
waste containing free liquids (whether
or not sorbents have been added) in any
landfill is prohibited.
*****
(dj * * *
(l) * * *
(ii) has been mixed with sorbent or
solidified so that free-standing liquid is
no longer observed; or
*****
(e) Sorbents used to treat free liquids
to be disposed of in landfills must be
nonbiodegradable. Noribiodegradable '
sorbents are: materials listed or
described in paragraph (e)(l) of this
section; materials that pass one of the
tests iii paragraph (e)(2) of this section;
or materials that are determined by EPA
to be nonbiodegradable through the part
260 petition process.
(1) Nonbiodegradable sorbents. (i)
Inorganic minerals, other inorganic
materials, and elemental carbon (e.g.,
aluminosilicates, clays, smectites,
Fuller's earth, bentonite, calcium
bentonite, montmorillonite, calcined
montmorillOnite, kaolinite, micas (illite),
vermiculites, zeolites; calcium carbonate
(organic free limestone); oxides/
hydroxides, alumina, lime, silica (sand);
diatomaceous earth; perlite (volcanic
glass); expanded volcanic rock; volcanic
ash; cement kiln dust; fly ash; rice hull
ash; activated charcoal/activated
carbon); or
(ii) High molecular weight synthetic
polymers (e.g., polyethylene, high
density polyethylene (HOPE),
polypropylene, polystyrene,
poly'urethane, polyacrylate,
polynorborene, polyisobutylene, ground
synthetic rubber, cross-linked
allylstyrene and tertiary butyl
copolymers). This does not include
polymers derived from biological
material or polymers specifically
designed to be degradable; or
(iii) Mixtures of these
nonbiodegradable materials.
(2) Tests for nonbiodegradable
sorbents. (i) The sorbent material is
determined to be nonbiodegradable
under ASTM Method G21-70 (1984a)—•
Standard Practice for Determining
Resistance of Synthetic Polymer
Materials to Fungi; or
(ii) The sorbent material is determined
to be nonbiodegradable under ASTM
Method G22-76 (1984b)—Standard
Practice for Determining Resistance of
Plastics to Bacteria.
****'*
4. Section 264.316 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read
as follows:
§ 284.316 Disposal of small containers of
hazardous waste In oyerpacked drums (lab
packs). - •
*****
(b) The inside containers must be
overpacked in an open head DOT-
specification metal shipping container
(49 CFR parts 178 and 179) of no more
than 416-liter (110 gallon) capacity and
surrounded by, at a minimum, a
sufficient quantity'of sorbent material,
determined to be nonbiodegradable in
accordance with § 264.314(e), to
completely sorb all of the liquid contents
of the inside containers. The metal outer
container must be full after it has been
packed with inside containers and
sorbent material.
(c) The sorbent material used must riot
be capable of reacting dangerously .with,
being decomposed by, or being ignited
by the contents of the inside containers,
in accordance with § 264.17(b).
-------
federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday. November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54461
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924,
6925, 6935, and 6936.
2. Section 265.13 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as
follows:
§265.13 General waste analysis.
***** :
(c] * * , -
(3) The procedures that the owner or
operator of an oftsite landfill receiving
containerized hazardous waste will use
to determine whether a hazardous waste
generator or treater has added a
biodegradable sorbent to the waste in
the container..
3. Section 265.314 is amended by
redesignating paragraph (f) as (g),
revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b). and
(c)(l)(ii), and adding new paragraph (f)
to read as follows:
§ 265.314 Special requirements for bulk
and containerized liquids.
(a) * * *
(2) Before disposal, the liquid waste or
waste containing free liquids is treated
or stabilized, chemically or physically
(e.g., by mixing with a sorbent solid), so
that free liquids are no longer present.
(b) Effective May 8, 1985, the
placement of bulk or non-containerized
liquid hazardous waste or hazardous
waste containing free liquids (whether
or not sorbehts have been added) in any
landfill is prohibited.
(c) * * *
(ii) has been mixed with sorbent or
solidified so that free-standing liquid is
no longer observed; or
* * * * . *
- (f) Sorbents used to treat frefRqmiJs
to be disposed of in landfills must be
nonbiodegradable. Nonbiodegradable
sorbents are: materials listed or
described in paragraph (f)(l) of this
section; materials that pass one of the
tests in paragraph (f)(2) of this section;
or materials that are determined by EPA
to be nonbiodegradable through the Part
260 petition process.
(!•} Nonbiodegradable sorbents. (i)
Inorganic minerals, other inorganic
materials, and elemental carbon (e.g.,
aluminosilicates, clays, smectites,
Fuller's earth, bentonite, cialcium
bentonite, montmorillonite, calcined
montmorillonite, kaolinite, micas (illite),
vermiculites, zeolites; calcium carbonate
(organic free limestone); oxides/
hydroxides, alumina, lime, silica (sand),
diatomaceous earth; perlite (volcanic
glass); expanded volcanic rock; volcanic
ash; cement kiln dust; fly ash; rice hull
ash; activated charcoal/activated
carbon); or
(ii) High molecular weight synthetic
polymers (e.g., polyethylene, high
density polyethylene (HDPE),
polypropylene, polystyrene,
polyurethane, polyacrylate,
polynorborene, polysobutylene, ground
synthetic rubber, cross-linked
allylstyrene and tertiary butyl
copolymers). This does not include
polymers derived from biological
material or polymers specifically
designed to be degradable; or
(iii) Mixtures of these.
nonbiodegradable materials.
(2) Tests for nonbiodegradable
sorbents. (i) The sorbent material is
determined to be nonbiodegradable
under ASTM Method G21-70 (1984a)—
Standard Practice for Determining
Resistance of Synthetic Polymer
Materials to Fungi; or
(ii) The sorbent material is determined
to be nonbiodegradable under ASTM
Method G22-76 (1984bj—Standard
Practice for Determining Resistance of
Plastics to Bacteria. "
*, * *' * * •
4. Section 2135.316 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read,
as follows:
§ 265.316 Disposal of small containers 'of
hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab
packs).
*****
(b) The inside containers must'be
overpacked in an open head DOT-
specification metal shipping container
(49 CFR parts 178 and 179) of no more
than 416-liter (110 gallon) capacity and
surrounded by, at a minimum, a
sufficient quantity of sorbent material,
determined to be nonbiodegradable in
accordance with § 265.314(f), to
completely sorb all of the liquid contents
of the inside containers. The metal outer
container must be full after it has been
packed with inside containers.and
sorbent material.
(c) The sorbent material used must not
be capable of reacting dangerously with,
being decomposed by, or being ignited
by the contents of the inside container's
in accordance with § 265.17(b).
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for Part 271
continues to read as follows:'
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a) and 6926.
2. Section 271.1{j) is amended by
adding the following entry to Table 1 in
chronological order by date of
publication:
§ 271.1 Purpose and scope.
TABLE 1 .—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Title of regulation
Federal Register reference
Effective date
-18'1992 Containerized Liquids in landfills 57 FR tlnser, Feaera, f^^, page numbers] '____ May 1(J> 19gj,
[FR Doc. 92-27289 Filed 11-17-92; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
------- |