55114
£30-2-^-0
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 227 / Tuesday. November 24, 1992 / Rules and Regulations
includes a revision of Air Quality
Control Regulations 750 (NSPS) and 751
(NESHAP} as adopted by the New
Mexico Environment Improvement
Board. AQCRs 750 and 751 incorporate
the Federal NSPS and NESHAP by
reference through November 15. 1991.
The EPA reviewed the NMED request,
Air Quality Control Regulations 750 and
751 and all other information submitted
by the NMED, including its quest for
implementation of the delegation of
these programs. The EPA has
determined that the State has adequate
authority and effective procedures for
implementing and enforcing the NSPS
and NESHAP programs. Therefore, EPA
is delegating full authority to the State
through November 15, 1991, for NSPS
and for NESHAP, and authority for the
technical and administrative review of
new or amended NSPS and NESHAP
promulgated by the EPA after November
15, 1991, subject to conditions and
limitations of the original delegation
agreement dated March 15, 1985. It is
important to note that no delegation
authority is granted to the State for both
Bernalillo County and Indian lands.
Also, no authority is delegated to the
•State for 40 CFR part 60. subparl AAA.
Standards of Performance for New
Residential Wood Heaters, and for 40
CFR part 61 for the radionuclide
NESHAPs. Specifically the subpar.ts for
which delegation.is excluded are
Subparts B (National Emission Standard
for Radon — 222 Emissions from
Underground Uranium Mines), H
(National Emission Standard for
Radionuclide Emissions from
Department of Energy Facilities), I
(National Emission Standard for
Radionuclide Emissions from Facilities
Licensed by the NRC and Federal .-
Facilities not covered by Subpart
Phosphorus Plants). R (National
Emission Standards for Radon
Emissions from Phosphogypsum Stacks),
T (National Emission Standards for
Radon Emissions from the Disposal of
Uranium Mill Tailings), and W (National
Emission Standard for Radon — 222
Emissions from Licensed Uranium Mill
Tailings).
Today's notice informs the public that
the EPA has delegated full authority to
the State for implementation and
enforcement of the NSPS and NESHAP
promulgated by the EPA through
November 15, 1991, and authority for
technical and administrative review is
delegated for the new and amended
standards after that date. All of the
required information, pursuant to the
Federal NSPS and NESHAP (40 CFR
part 60 and 40 CFR part 61) by sources
located outside the boundaries of
Bernalilio County and in areas outside
of Indian lands, should be submitted
directly to the New Mexico Environment
Department, Harold Runnels Building.
Room So. 2100, St. Francis Drive, Santa
Fe, New Mexico 87503. Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County is exempt due to this
area being granted delegation-authority
under AQCRs 30 NSPS and 31 NESHAP
to the City of Albuquerque's
Environmental Health Department.
Sources located on Indian lands in the
State of New Mexico should submit
required information to the EPA Region
6 office at the address given in this
notice. All of the inquiries and requests
concerning implementation and
enforcement of the excluded standards
under 40 CFR part 60, Subpart AAA and
40 CFR part 61, subparts B. H. I, R, T and
W, in the State of New Mexico should
be directed to the EPA Region 6 Office.
The Office of Management and Budget
has exempted this information notice
from the requirements of Section 3 of
Executive Order 12291.
This delegation is issued under the
authority of section lll(c} and 112{1)(1)
of the Clean Air Act. as amended (42
U.S.C. 7411(C) and 7412(D)).
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 60
Air pollution control. Aluminum.
sulfate plants. Cement industry. Coal, ,
Copper, Electric power plants. Fossil- •
Fuel steam generators. Glass and glass
products. Grain, Iron. Lead. Metals,
Motor vehicles. Nitric acid plants, Paper
and paper industry, Petroleum
phosphate. Fertilizer, Sewage disposal.
Steel. Sulfuric acid plants. Waste
treatment and disposal zinc.
40 CFR Part 61
Air pollution control. Asbestos.
Benzene, Beryllium, Hazardous
materials. Mercury, Vinyl chloride-.
Dated: November 3.1992.
Joe D. Winkle,
Acting Regional Administrator.
|FR Doc. 92-28514 Filed 11-23-92; 8:45 am|
BILLING CODE 6SSO-50-M
40 CFR Parts 261 and 271
IFRL-4536-5]
RIN 2050-AC32
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Waste; Toxicity
Characteristic Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its
hazardous waste regulations under
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
a.nd Recovery Act (RCRA) for testing
conducted to evaluate a solid waste for
the Toxicity Characteristic. Specifically,
this rule removes the quality assurance
(QA) requirement found in Method 1311.
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP), for correcting
measured values for analytical bias
(also referred to within this rule as spike
recovery correction). However, this rule
retains appropriate QA provisions.
including that matrix spike recoveries be
calculated and that the method of
standard additions be employed as the
quantitation method for metallic
contaminants when appropriate as
specified in the method.
EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24,1992.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking (Docket No. F-92-TCLC-
FFFFF) is located at the U.S.
• Environmental Protection Agency, £01 M
Street. SW, Washington, DC 20460
(room M-2427), and is available for
viewing from 9 a:m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. The public must make an
appointment to review docket materials
by calling (202) 260-9327. The public ,
may copy a maximum of 100 pages of
material from any one regulatory docket
at no cost; additional copies cost $0.15
per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information, contact the
RCRA Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (toll
free) or call (703) 920-9810; or. for
hearing impaired, call TDD (800) 553-
7672 or (703) 486-3323. For information
concerning the TCLP, contact Kim
Kirkland, Office of Solid Waste (OS-
331). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington
DC 20460, (202) 260-4761.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
This amendment to the hazardous
waste regulations in 40 CFR parts 261
and 271 is being promulgated under the
authority of sections 1006. 2002, 3001.
3002. and 3006 pf the Solid Waste
Disposal Act of 1976. as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended [42 U.S.C. 6905.
6912(a). 6921. 6922, and 6926).
II. Background
On February 8,1990 (55 FR 4440). the
Agencypublished a notice of data
availability that reopened the comment
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 227 /Tuesday. November 24. 1992 ^Rul^jmdjtegula^s 55115
period for a January 23,1989 notice (54
FR 3212). which proposed to update
SW-846 and to designate specific
quality control procedures as mandatory
For all testing conducted pursuant to
subtitle C of RCRA. including the TCLP.
The February, 1990 notice issued for
comment a revised Chapter One of SW-
846 entitled "Report on Minimum
Criteria to Assure Data Quality" which
included spike recovery correction as
one of the QA requirements for RCRA
subtitle C analyses. In that notice, the
Agency stated that it believed that it
was appropriate to correct a measured
concentration for recovery and set out
its intent to require that reported values
be corrected for spike recovery. The
purpose of this requirement was to
provide more accurate data in those
situations where there was a significant
analytical bias in the data due to low
recoveries of the analytes of interest.
On March 29.1990. (55 FR 11796), EPA.
promulgated a rule to revise the then
existing Toxicity Characteristic, which
Tte used to identify those wastes that are
hazardous and thus subject to regulation
, under subtitle C of RCRA. The rule
broadened and refined the scope of the
hazardous waste regulatory program
and fulfilled specific statutory mandates
under the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The
regulatory language of the March 29,
1990 rule replaced the Extraction
Procedure (EP) toxicity test with the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP was
promulgated in appendix II to 40 CFR
part 261 and was designated as EPA
Method 1311. to be incorporated in "Test
Methods of Evaluating Solid Waste
(Chemical/Physical Methods)". SW-846.
The March 29.1990. rule required that
matrix spike recoveries be calculated
and that the method of standard
additions be employed as the
quantitation method for metallic
contaminants when appropriate as
specified in the method.
On June 29.1990 (55 FR 26986), the
Agency promulgated a final rule which
made technical corrections to the March
29,1990 final rule, including the
regulatory language in 40 CFR part 261,
appendix II (Method 1311. the TCLP).
These corrections reorganized the TCLP
in 40 CFR part 261. appendix II, to
correspond to the current version of
SW-846. In addition, the quality
assurance section of the TCLP was
clarified by adding a requirement for the
spike recovery correction. The spike
recovery correction requirement was
added to assure consistency with SW-
840 Chapter One requirements which
were proposed in the February 8.1990
notice. Since the objectives to be
achieved through the method of
standard additions were being .
addressed through spike recovery
correction, that method no longer was
referenced separately in the QA
provisions of the TCLP.
At the time that the TCLP was
promulgated in its current form on June
29,1990. the Agency expected to
promulgate Chapter One of SW-846. as
proposed on February 8,1990, with the
spike recovery correction requirement
The Agency expected that the
promulgation of Chapter One would
occur prior to the effective date of the
TC final rule. However, the Agency has
not yet promulgated a rule finalizing
Chapter One, as proposed on February
8,1990, but based upon comments
received on that chapter, the Agency
has reassessed its position respecting
the matrix spike correction requirement.
III. Response to Comments Regarding
Spike Recovery Correction and Basis for
Amendment to 40 CFR Part 261.
Appendix II
Many of the commenters to the
February 8.1990 notice indicated that
the requirement for spike recovery
correction should not be mandatory.' In
particular, a number of commenters
raised questions relative to the practical
aspects of implementation of the
requirement (e.g.. how to add the spike.
how many compounds must be spiked,
how many samples must be spiked) as
well as the burdensome nature of
implementation for wastes with matrix
interference problems. Wastes with
matrix interferences often require
dilution in an attempt to reduce or
eliminate the interferences. As a result.
detection limits could be elevated and
one might not be able to determine if a
compound of interest is present below
the regulatory threshold. In addition.
interferences may not equally affect the
sample and the spike. Commertters also
expressed concern about .bias correction
when applied to a constituent that is
poorly recovered from a sample matrix.
In the case of zero percent recovery, one
may not be sure that the laboratory
could have detected the presence of the
analyte if it were present.
The Agency recognizes that spike
recovery correction is a complex issue
and now believes that there is a need for
further evaluation and more detailed
guidance on the specific implementation
procedures. Therefore, in response to
public comment received oh the
February 8,1990, Federal Register
1 Other comments, together with the Agency's
response thereto, have been placed in the official
record for this rulemaking. . '
notice, the Agency has decided not to
proceed with the proposed spike
recovery correction requirements in its
subtitle C analytical procedures, and is
withdrawing the requirement for bias
correction of analytical spiked samples
from the TCLP.
As a result, it is also necessary to
amend Appendix II of 40 CFR part 261
and remove all text in the existing TCLP
which imposes a requirement for
correcting measured values for
analytical bias. Specifically, in today's
finaf rule, § 8.2 is revised whereby the
following sentence is deleted: "The bias
determined from the matrix spike
determination shall be used to correct
the measured values. (See §§ 8.2.4 and
8.2.5.)" In addition, § 8.2.5 is deleted,
which provided a formula for spike
recovery correction.
Today's rule withdraws the spike
recovery correction requirement from
the TCLP and, except for technical and
format changes made in the June 29,
1990, rule revising the TCLP (55 FR
26986). returns the QA provisions of the
TCLP to those promulgated on March 29,
1990 (55 FR 11796). As a result, matrix
spike recoveries must be calculated (as
set forth in revised § 8.2 of the TCLP)
and the method of standard additions
must be employed as the quantitation
method for metallic contaminants when
appropriate as specified in the method
(as set forth in revised § 8.4 of the
TCLP). In addition, the Agency has
made a technical correction to the
regulatory language in § 8.4 to specify
the use of initial calibration quantitation
methods for metallic contaminants. The
Agency feels this technical correction is
appropriate because, at present the
method of standard additions is
inapplicable to organic contaminants.
Wastes identified as hazardous through
TCLP testing utilizing matrix spike
recovery correction must be managed as
hazardous wastes, unless and until such
wastes are reevaluated using
recalculations of existing data or the
TCLP test procedure as described in
today's rule or otherwise reevaluated
and found to be non-hazardous.
. IV. 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. (See 40 CFR
part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization. EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008.7003 and 3013 of RGRA. although
-------
55116 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 227 / Tuesday. November 24. 1992 / Rules and Regulations
authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility. •
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in the State that the State was
authorized to permit. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, 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.
In contrast, under section 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized States. EPA is
directed to carry out those requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt .
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization, HSWA
requirements are implemented by EPA
in authorized States in the interim.
Today's rule is being promulgated
pursuant to RCRA section 3001(g), a
provision added by HSWA, and amends
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) in appendix II of 40
CFR part 261. Therefore, the Agency is
adding today's rule to Table 1 in 40 CFR
271.1(j), which identifies the Federal
program requirements that are
promulgated pursuant to HSWA and
that take effect in all States, regardless
of their authorization status. States may
apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions
identified in Table 1, as discussed in the
following section of this preamble.
B. Effect on State Authorizations
Pursuant to sections 3001(g) of RCRA,
a provision added by HSWA, EPA is
revising the TCLP (40 CFR part 261,
appendix II). Thus, the revisions to the
TCLP will take effect in unauthorized
states (i.e., states not authorized to
implement any portion of the RCRA
program) and all States which have not
been authorized for the Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) on the effective date.
Today's rule deletes the requirements
imposed in the revised final TCLP
method (see 55 FR 26986, June 29,1990)
for spike recovery correction of
analytical data. The Toxicity
Characteristic was promulgated
pursuant to a HSWA provision and must
be adopted by States that intend to
retain final authorization. However,
today's rule provides for a standard that
is less restrictive than was imposed in
the final TC as promulgated on June 29,
1990, for hazardous waste
determinations based on spike recovery
adjusted data. Although States must
modify their programs to incorporate the
Toxicity Characteristic, they no longer
are required to include spike recovery
correction in those modifications.
Section 3009 of RCRA provides that
States may impose requirements that
are broader in scope or more stringent
than those imposed under Federal
regulation. For states that have received
final authorization for programs
requiring spike recovery correction as
part of the TCLP, those states have the
option of modifying their programs to
delete this requirement.
V. Effective Date
HSWA amended section 3010 of
RCRA to allow rules to become effective
in less than six months when the
regulated community does not need the
six-month period to come into
compliance. Section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedures Act requires
publication of a substantive rule not less
than 30 days before its effective date
unless the rule relieves a restriction or
. for other good cause. This rule is
effective November 24,1992 because the
regulated community does not need six
months to come into compliance
therewith, and it relieves a regulatory
restriction. Those reasons also
constitute good cause for not delaying
the effective date of today's rule. This
amendment removes the spike recovery
correction requirement from the TCLP
and thus provides greater flexibility to ,
the regulated community in testing solid
waste for the Toxicity Characteristic.
VI. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must determine whether a regulation is
"major" and, therefore, subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This rule removes the spike
recovery correction requirement found
in the TCLP and thus, reduces the
overall costs and economic impact of
EPA's hazardous waste regulations-and
provides greater flexibility to the
regulated community in testing and
monitoring solid waste. There is no
additional economic impact, therefore,
due to today's rule. This rule is not a "
major regulation; thus, no Regulatory
Impact Analysis is required.:
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. section 601-612, Public
Law 96-354,.September 19,1980),
whenever an agency publishes a
General Notice of Rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis (RFA)
that describes the impact of the rule on
small entities (i.e., small businesses,
small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions). No
regulatory flexibility analysis is
required, however, if the head of the
Agency certifies that the rule will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities
This rule will not have an adverse
economic impact on small entities since
its effect will be to reduce the overall
costs of EPA's hazardous waste
regulations and provide greater-
flexibility to the regulated community,
including small entities. Therefore, in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. section 605(b),
I hereby certify that this rule will not.
have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities (as
defined by the Regulatory Flexibility
Act). Thus, the regulation does not
require an RFA.
c. Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no additional reporting,
notification, or recordkeeping provisions
in this rule. Such provisions, were they
included, would be submitted for
approval to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 261
Hazardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 271
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste,
Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements. Water
•pollution control, Water supply.
Dated: November 13,1992.
William K. Reilly,
, Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as set forth
below.
-------
Federal Register /.Vol. 57. No. 227 / Tuesday. November 24. 1992 /Rules and Regulations 55117
PART 261—IDENTIFICATION AND
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as Follows:
Authority. 42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a). 6921.
0922, and 6938.
2. Part 261. appendix II is amended by
revising the test of § 8.0 preceding
table I to read as follows:
Appendix II—Method 1311 Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP)
• • • • »
0.0 Quality Assurance
8,1 A minimum of one blank (using the
same extraction fluid as used for the
samples) must be analyzed for every 20
extractions that have been conducted in an
extraction vessel.
8.2 A matrix apike shall be performed for
each waste type (e.g,, wastewater treatment
sludge, contaminated soil, etc.) unless the
result exceeds the regulatory level and the
data are being used solely to demonstrate
that the waste property exceeds the
regulatory level A minimum of one matrix
spike must be analyzed for each analytical
batch. As a minimum, follow the matrix spike
addition guidance provided in each analytical
method.
£2,1 Matrix spikes are to be added after
filtration of the TCLP extract and before
preservation. Matrix spikes should not be
added prior to TCLP extraction of the sample.
£2.2 In most cases, matrix spikes should
be added at a concentration equivalent to the
corresponding regulatory level. If the analyte
concentration is less than one half the
regulatory level the spike concentration may
be as low as one half of the analyte
concentration, but may not be less than Rye
times the method detection limit In order to
avoid differences in matrix effects, the matrix
spikes must be added to the same nominal
volume of TCLP extract as that which was
analyzed for the unspiked sample.
8,2.3 The purpose of the matrix spike is to
monitor the performance of the analytical
methods used, and to determine whether
matrix Interferences exist. Use of other
internal calibration methods, modification of
the analytical methods, or use of alternate
analytical methods may be needed to
accurately measure the analyte concentration
of the TCLP extract when the recovery of the
matrix spike is below the expected analytical
method performance.
8.2.4 Matrix spike recoveries are
calculated by,the following formula:
%R (% Recovery) = 100 (X. - X»)/K
where:, .
X, = measured value for the spiked sample,
Xu = measured value for the unspiked
sample, and
K = known value of the spike in the sample.
8.3 All quality control measures described
in the appropriate analytical methods shall
be followed.
8.4 The use of internal calibration
quantitation methods shall be employed'for a
metallic contaminant if: (1) Recovery of the
contaminant from the TCLP extract is not at
least 50% and the concentration does not
exceed the regulatory level, and [2) The
concentration of the contaminant measured
in the extract is within 20% of the appropriate
regulatory level.
8.4.1 The method of standard additions
shall be employed as the internal calibration
quantitation method for each metallic
contaminant
8.4.2 The method of standard additions
requires preparing calibration standards in
the sample matrix rather than reagent water
or blank solution. It requires taking four
identical aliquots of the solution and adding
known amounts of standard to three of these
aliquots. The fourth aliquot is the unknown.
Preferably, the first addition should be
prepared so that the resulting concentration
is approximately 50% of the expected
concentration of the sample. The second and
third additions should be prepared so that the
concentrations are approximately 100% and
150% of the expected concentration of the
sample. All four aliquots are maintained at
the same final volume by adding reagent
water or a blank solution, and may need
dilution adjustment to maintain the signals in
the linear range of the instrumental
technique. All four aliquots are analyzed.
a4.3 Prepare a plot, or subject data to
linear regression, of instrumental signals or
external-calibration-derived concentrations
as the dependent variable (y-axis) versus
concentrations of the additions of standard
as the independent variable (x-axis). Solve
for the intercept of the abscissa (the
independent variable, x-axis) which is the
concentration in the unknown.
84.4.4 Alternately, subtract the
instrumental signal or external-calibration-
derived concentration of the unknown
(unspiked) sample from the instrumental
signals or external-calibration-derived
concentrations of the standard additions. Plot
' or subject data to linear regression of the
corrected instrumental signals or external-
calibration-derived concentrations as the
dependent variable versus the independent
variable. Derive concentrations for unknowns
using the internal calibration curve as if it
were an external^calibration curve.
. 8,5 Samples must undergo TCLP
extraction within the following time periods:
SAMPLE MAXIMUM HOLDING TIMES (DAYS)
Volatiles
Semi-
volatiles...
Mercury
Metals,
except
mercury...
From:
field
collec-
tion to:
TCtP
extrac-
14
14
28
180
From:
TCLPex-
traction
to:
prepara-
tive
extrac-
tion
NA
7
NA
NA
From:
pre-
parafave
extrac-
tion to:
determi-
native
analysis
14
40
28
180
Total
elapsed
time
28
61
56
360
NA=Notapp8cab*9.
If sample holding times are exceeded,
the values obtained will be considered
minimal concentrations. Exceeding the
holding time is not acceptable in
establishing that a waste does not
exceed the regulatory level. Exceeding
the holding time will not invalidate
characterization if the waste exceeds
the regulatory level.
PART 271—REQUIREMENTS FOR
AUTHORIZATION OF STATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS
3. The authority citation for part 271
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), and 6926.
4. In § 271.1, paragraph fj), Table 1 is
amended by adding the following entry
in chronological order by promulgation
date:
§271.1 Purpose and scope.
*****
(j) * * *
TABLE 1.—REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984
Promulgation date
Titte of regulation
Federal Register reference
Effective date
November 24,1992.
. Toxicity Characteristic Revision ,
57 FR 55117 publication citation...... November 24.1992.
[FR Doc. 92-28320 Filed 11-23-92:8:45 am]
BHJ.IHO CODE eseo-so-M
-------
Thursday
December 24, 1992
Part VII
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 261
Suspension of Toxicity Characteristics
Rule for Non-UST Petroleum Product-
Contaminated Media and Debris;
Proposed Rule
-------
Federal Register,/. Vot. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 261
IFRL-4548-6]
Suspension of the Toxlclry
Characteristics Rule for Non-UST
Petroleum Product-Contaminated
Media and Debris
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION; Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agoncy Is proposing to suspend the
Toxicity Characteristics (TC) rule
(Hazardous Waste Codes D018 through
D043 only) for three years for
environmental media and debris ,
contaminated by petroleum products
released from sources other than RCRA
subtitle I-regulated underground storage
tanks (hereafter, these releases and
sources of release will be referred to as
"non-UST"). During the three year
suspension, the Agency would collect
additional data, perform additional
analyses, and explore other
administrative and legal mechanisms to
hotter tailor RCRA regulatory
requirements to the unique issues
associated with remediation of
petroleum releases. The suspension
would be applicable only in states that
certify that they have in place effective
authorities and programs to compel
cleanup of non-UST petroleum product
spills and control the disposition of
wastes generated from such cleanup
actions. The suspension would apply
only to wastes generated from state
supervised or approved cleanup sites,
and sites being remediated under .
Federal authorities.
DATES: Written comments on this
proposed rule should be submitted on
or before February 8,1993.
ADDRESSES: Written comments on
today's proposal should be addressed to
the docket clerk at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agonny, RCRA Docket (OS-305), 401 M
Street. SW., Washington, DC 20460. One
original and two copies should be sent
ana identified by regulatory docket
reference number F-92-STPP-FFFFF.
The docket is open from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. Docket materials may
be reviewed by appointment by calling
(202) 260-9327. Copies of docket
materials may be made at no cost, with
a maximum of 100 pages of material
from any one regulatory docket.
Additional copies are $0.15 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
General questions about the regulatory
requirements under RCRA should be
directed to the RCRA/Superfund
Hotline, Office of Solid Waste, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC 20460, (80O) 424-9346
(toll-free) or (202) 260-3000 (local). For
the hearing impaired, the number is .
(800) 553-7672 (toll-free), or (202) 260-
9652 (local).
Specific questions about the issues
discussed in this proposed rule'should
be directed to David M. Pagan/Office of
Solid Waste (OS-341), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
(202)260-4740.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
' These regulations are issued under
the authority of sections 2002 and 3001
et seq. of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
as amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, as
amended by the Hazardous and Solid •
Waste Amendments of 1984. 42 U.S.C.
6912 and 6921 et seq.
I!. Background ,
A. Toxicity Characteristics JRu/e
1. General
Under current regulations, EPA uses
two procedures to define wastes as
hazardous: Usting and hazardous
characteristics; The listing procedure
involves identifying industries or
processes that produce wastes that pose
hazards to human health and the
environment. The second procedure
involves identifying properties or
"characteristics" that, if exhibited by
any waste, indicate a potential hazard if
the waste is not properly managed.
Toxicity is one of four characteristics
that must be considered when
identifying a waste as hazardous.-The
others are ignitability, reactivity, and
corrosivity.
The Toxicity Characteristics (TC) Rule
was promulgated on March 29,1990, 55
FR 11798 (March 29,1990), was
amended on June 29,1990, and became
effective on September 25,1990. The TC
rule has three main features. First, it
replaced the Extraction Procedure (EP)
leach test with the Toxicity .:•'.
Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP). Second, it added 25 organic
chemicals to the list of toxic. .'.. "
constituents of concern and-established
regulatory levels for these organic
chemicals. These levels were based on
heahh-based concentration thresholds
and a dilution/attenuation factor (DAF)
that was developed using a subsurface
fate and.transport model. (A
concentration threshold indicates how
much of a chemical adversely affects
human health, while the dilution/
attenuation factor indicates the extent to
which the concentration of a chemical
is expected to be reduced during
transport to and through ground water.
The levels set in the TC rule were
determined by multiplying the health-
based number by a dilution/attenuation
factor of 100.
The overall effect of the TC rule was
to subject additional wastes to
• regulatory control under subtitle C of
RCRA. A waste may be a "TC waste" if
any of the chemicals listed in the rule,
such as benzene, are present in waste
sample extract (i.e. leachate) resulting
from application of the TCLP to that
waste. If chemicals are present at or
above the specified regulatory levels,
the waste is a "TC waste," and is subject
to all RCRA hazardous waste
requirements. Among these wastes are
petroleum contaminated media and
debris that fail the TC.
2. Deferral of the Application of the TC
Rule to Petroleum Contaminated Media
and Debris From Subtitle I—Regulated
Underground Storage Tanks
Also on March 29,1990, the Agency
made a decision to defer a final
determination regarding the application
of the TC to media and debris
contaminated with petroleum from
underground storage tanks (USTs) •
subject to the part 280 (i.e. RCRA
Subtitle I corrective action)
requirements. 55 FR 11836. The UST
regulations governing cleanups at these
sites were deemed adequate to protect
human health and the environment in
the interim.
At that time the Agency had
insufficient information concerning the
full impact of the TC rule on UST
cleanups, particularly regarding the
amount of contaminated media that
would become hazardous waste and the
type of management feasible and
appropriate for such waste (e.g. on-site
treatment, off-site disposal). However,
available information suggested that the
impact might be very severe in terms of
the administrative feasibility for both
the subtitle C and subtitle I programs. In
addition, a preliminary assessment
indicated that the number of UST
cleanup sites and the amount of media .
and debris at each site that would
exhibit the toxicity characteristic could
be extremely high, with EPA expecting
hundreds of thousands of UST releases
to be uncovered in the next few years.
EPA believed that subjecting each of
these sites to subtitle C requirements
could overwhelm the hazardous waste
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 248 / Thursday; December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules 61543
permitting program and the capacity of
existing hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
Moreover, EPA believed that the
imposition of these requirements could
delay cleanups significantly, require an
enormous commitment of federal
resources, and undermine the State and
local focus of the UST program.
The application of the TC rule to UST
cleanups was deferred to allow cleanups
under the UST program to proceed
while the Agency evaluated the extent
and nature of the impacts of Subtitle C
on the UST program. Specifically, the
Agency is currently Studying the
characteristics of UST sites (i.e. number
of UST sites by media type, volumes of
media and debris typically removed,
fraction of these media and debris that
exhibit the TC, if any, etc.), current
practices and requirements for
management of these media and debris,
and how contaminated media and
debris from these sites are managed
under the Subtitle I state programs. The
Agency is also evaluating the impact
that Subtitle C management of
petroleum-contaminated media and
debris from USTs would have on the
Agency's and States'hazardous waste
management programs. In addition, the
inclusion of these media and debris in
the Subtitle C management system is
being evaluated in comparison to the
available capacity for commercial
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal. EPA is also studying whether
the Agency can make regulatory changes
to the subtitle C program which will
better tailor the current hazardous waste
rules to these particular current
hazardous waste rules to these
particular types of wastes and the
context in which they are managed. (See
57 FR 21450, May 20,1992.) The
Agency plans to complete these studies
later in 1992 and make its final
determination early in 1993.
B. State Petitions for Ituiemaking
Since the Agency announced its
decision to defer the TC for UST
petroleum contaminated media and
debris, a number of States and other
affected parties have requested that EPA
. consider expanding the deferral to.
include other petroleum contaminated
media and debris. In particular.
rulemaking petitions were received from
the States of New York, Nevada, South
Dakota, North Dakota, Maryland, and
Maine, requesting that the current UST
deferral be expanded to media
contaminated from surface and
subsurface discharges of petroleum ,
products (from non-rUST sources) that
are currently being adequately
addressed fay existing State programs. In
addition, the Agency has received
letters from several other States which
support th^requests, concerns^ and
ideas expressed in the abibve-mentioned
petitions.
The States believe that the numbers
and volumes of petroleum releases from
non-UST sources almost certainly
exceed those from USTS. They argue
that there is no technical basis for
distinguishing between contaminated
media and debris generated from UST
cleanups (which is not subject to RCRA
subtitle C), and that generated from
other cleanups (which potentially is
subject). In addition, this distinction
presents substantial difficulties for the
regulated community, which must
determine whether a specific spill
derives from an UST or from other ,
sources, and it severely complicates
enforcement. .
these States further state that they
have active and effective response
programs for cleanup of spills and other
releases of petroleum into the
environment. For example, New.York
has an extensive petroleum cleanup
program that, in its judgment, places a
stringent set of requirements on
petroleum-contaminated media. In New
York, any soil left on site must be
treated to the point where the extract
from a TCLP test meets the New York "
State groundwater standard for benzene
of 5ppb.,
According to the petitioning States,
the toxicity characteristics rule has
seriously impacted the operations and
effectiveness of their programs. For
example, in North Dakota the adyent of
the TC rule placed several existing
environmental control rules and
programs in conflict with each other.
Reclassifying certain petroleum releases
as hazardous waste that were previously
handled outside of the hazardous waste
program by the state above-ground
storage tanks program, potentially
places an extreme burden on that State's
Hazardous Waste Program. In general, :
States argue that application of the
toxicity characteristic tp petroleum
contaminated media and debris will
place extraordinary demands on the
RCRA permit program, which in turn
could severely affect States' efforts to
permit other RCRA facilities that are of
higher environmental priority.
Finally, some states have pointed out
that the toxicity characteristic has
created a disincentive for private party
cleanup initiatives by imposing RCRA
permit requirements on many of those
actions. In addition, some have
suggested that the TC rule has created
an incentive to simply dilute.
contaminated media (or delay testing in
order to allow certain TC constituents to
volatilize) so that the contaminated
media no longer exhibit the.toxicity
characteristic.
C. Public Meetings
In September and December, 1991,
EPA met with various affected parties
(including representatives from the
States, Congressional staff/
environmental groups, and the waste-
treatment and generating industries) to
discuss issues related to the cleanup of
petroleum contamination and the
potential, impacts of the TC rule on this
cleanup. During these meetings, the
Agency listened to various opinions and
views concerning the impact of the TC
rule and the potential impacts of a
possible Agency decision to expand the
UST deferral to all petroleum
contaminated media and debris,
EPA was struck by the unanimity of
opinion among the thirteen states
present concerning the detrimental
impacts of the TC rule on their ability
to achieve timely and effective cleanup
of spilled petroleum product. EPA was
also struck by the concern being
expressed by State environmental
regulators about the adverse
environmental impacts resulting from
the application of the TC rule to
petroleum releases from above-ground
sources. The State representatives
indicated that subtitle G regulation of
petroleum contaminated media and
debris would significantly increase the
cost of cleanup of these releases,
substantially delay cleanup, and in
some cases (by delaying cleanup)
negatively impact human health and the
environment.
A number of States have funds that
provide for some reimbursement of
cleanup costs for above ground (as well.
as underground) petroleum spills. Many
cleanup contractors provide cleanup
services to responsible parties (RPs) "on
credit," knowing that they will be paid
by the RPs shortly after the work is
completed. According to these States, if
petroleum cleanup wastes are regulated
under RCRA subtitle C, the resulting
dramatic increase in costs of waste
management would significantly impair
the ability of the State to reimburse
future cleanups; If there is no guarantee
that payment will be forthcoming,
several States believe that remediation
contractors will be much less willing to
respond promptly to spills. Further, it is
unlikely that States will substantially
increase these funds for the foreseeable
future. The net result, according to these
States, will be that fewer sites will be
remediated. With fewer sites being
addressed, spilled material will migrate
further and potentially expose more
-------
61544 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
pooplo, fish, and wildlife to
contamination.
Unremediated spills of petroleum .
product onto soil can result in
petroleum product reaching
groundwater through infiltration, and,
surface water through run-off. Benzene,
a common constituent of many typ_es of
petroleum products, is carcinogenic and
moderately toxic to aquatic organisms.
In the view of many States, the delays
ossodaled with RCRA subtitle C .
management would allow for the
volatilization and migration of certain
TC constituents such as benzene to the'
extent that the media may no longer fail
the TC. These States point to RCRA
testing and permitting as significant
sources of delay. In addition, States
cautioned EPA to recognize that,
because of the high costs associated
with subtitle C management and the
high volatility of certain TC constituents
of petroleum, there is a significant
disincentive to promptly report and ,
remediate petroleum spills.
Groups representing the generating
industries (e.g., petroleum and
petrochemical industries) at the
meetings generally agreed with the
views being expressed by the States,
. although several stated that the problem
was not unique to petroleum-
contaminated media, but rather should
be extended to other types of TC
hazardous contaminated media.
Environmental interest group
representatives were sensitive to the
importance of the issues being raised "by
the States, but saw the States' position
as similar to other claims that
regulations deter effective actions. The
environmental representatives agreed on
the merits of streamlining the
administrative procedures and
processes (e.g., RCRA subtitle C
permitting) for petroleum spill response
actions, but felt that regulatory control
was necessary to ensure environmental
safety. They were also concerned about
the extent to which State regulatory
programs for non-UST spill cleanups are
in fact adequately protective of human .
health and the environment, and the
extent to which States place sufficient
emphasis on spill prevention. The
environmental group representatives
also argued that certain features of a
RCRA permit which they believe are
important—particularly, public
involvement and facility-wide
corrective action—would be lost if EPA
adopted the approach suggested in the
States' petitions.
Certain representatives of the
hazardous waste treatment industry
expressed strong concerns with the
Agency pursuing a suspension of the TC
rule as the mechanism for solving the
implementation problems posed by
Subtitle C regulation of petroleum
Contaminated media and debris.
According to these representatives, EPA
should consider streamlining the RCRA
permitting process for the cleanup and
disposal of petroleum contaminated
media and debris. They specifically
suggested that EPA consider issuing
permits-by-rule for petroleum
contaminated media and debris, as well
as for other cleanup wastes. They also
expressed concern that the States*
approach would effectively exempt
petroleum-contaminated media from
RCRA technical standards, in particular
the land disposal restrictions. Other
representatives of the treatment
industry, however, supported the States'
approach and favored expanding it to
other cleanup wastes. --
m. Basis for the Proposed Suspension
A. Purpose of the Suspension
The purpose of today's notice is to
propose a suspension of the 1990
Toxicitv Characteristics (TC) rule as it
applies'to non-UST petroleum product-
contaminated media and debris for a^
. period of three years.1 As discussed in
more detail below, the Agency believes
that the States have raised sufficient
concerns about the environmental
impacts of applying the TC rule to
petroleum contaminated media and
debris to warrant study of this issue in
the same manner in which the Agency
is currently conducting analysis for
petroleum contaminated media and
debris from USTs. EPA believes, in
addition, that the TC should be
suspended in the interim while the
Agency fully studies this issue and
prepares any regulatory adjustments
necessary and appropriate for the
regulation of this material under the
RCRA subtitle C program. Thus, the
purpose of this suspension is to give the
Agency three years in which to collect
additional information on the nature,
.scope, and environmental impacts of
regulating non-UST petroleum product-
contaminated media and debris under
RCRA Subtitle C and determine whether
and how such regulation should be
established.
This suspension does not constitute a
final decision by the Agency on how to
integrate the TC with existing State
petroleum cleanup programs. Rather,
EPA bases the suspension on the
significant issues raised by the States
'Since the scope of today's proposal includes
groundwater contaminated with petroleum product,
this proposal, if finalized, would supersede (he-
exclusion for injected groundwater from
hydrocarbon recovery operations, which was due to
expire on"January 25,1993. See 40 CFR
261.4(bXll).an<£ 56 Fad. Rag. 13406 (April 2,1991).
and a racognition that iccreased human
and environmental exposures to
petroleum product would likely occur
without a period for EPA to undertake
additional data gathering and analyses.
EPA will make a final decision and
implement any regulatory adjustments
at the end of the three year suspension.
During the three year suspension,
EPA believes that existing State laws
and programs will adequately protect
human health and the environment. To
ensure such protection, EPA is
proposing that the suspension would
apply only where media or debris is
cleaned up under State oversight
through enforcement orders or other
explicit written State approval. States
would have to certify to the EPA
Regional Administrator that they have
legal authorities and programs in place
to administer and enforce those
authorities, that can compel cleanup of
non-UST petroleum product-
contaminated media and debris, and
control the treatment, storage and
disposal of such waste when cleaned
up.
B. Available Information on Scope of
the Problem and Impacts of Subtitle C
1. Nature and Frequency of Petroleum
Product Contamination
Petroleum product releases occur
daily throughout the United States in
the course of the transport and storage
of the billions of gallons of petroleum
product used in this country each year.
The majority of spills are under 1,000
gallons and occur from transmission
pipelines, gathering lines, pump
stations, storage tanks, and transport
vehicles. According to a recent
American Petroleum Institute survey of
42 States, over 36,000 above ground
petroleum product spills occurred in the
United States in 1990 alone. The API
survey also indicated that over
23,000,000 gallons of product were
released in 24 States in 1990.
Information from the States of New York
and Texas indicate that the majority of
petroleum product spills occur to land.
Based on these data and data submitted
by the State of New York, EPA estimates
that over 3.5 million tons of petroleum
'contaminated environmental media
(mostly soil) and debris were created in
1990 alone as a result of these spills.
Regulating the disposal of these
contaminated media and debris under
Subtitle C of RCRA potentially means:
(1) Characterization forTC (which may
often involve testing) at as many as
36,000 locations per year, (2)
manifesting from many thousands of
points of generation (when
contaminated media and debris are
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules 61545
disposed of off-site) per year, and {3)
treating, storing, and/or disposing of a
substantial portion of the 3.5 million
tons per year of petroleum contaminated
soil in RCRA permitted hazardous waste
facilities. If on-site RCRA treatment,
storage, or disposal were to be the
chosen alternative at even one-half of
these 36,000 sites each year, the number
of new RCRA hazardous waste permits
needed to address petroleum product
cleanup would vastly surpass the 4,500
facilities which make up the current
RCRA TSDF universe.
In addition to spills which occur as a
result of the day-to-day use of petroleum
product, EPA expects that there will be
many potentially large, complex
petroleum product contaminated sites
which require remediation as well. One
example is the Oil City site in Syracuse,
New. York, where there has been a great
deal of interest on the part of the local
government and private parties in
converting this 800 acre former
petroleum tank terminal property to
residential and commercial use. The
regulation of petroleum product
contamination under RCRA subtitle Cat
this and other similar sites creates a
significant disincentive to private
parties to conduct any cleanup
activities. Such cleanups can generate
hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of
contaminated media and cost tens to
hundreds of millions of dollars to
cleanup. Since few private uses of this
land would create economic benefits of
this magnitude, the Oil City site and
similar sites may not be cleaned up for
the foreseeable future.
The nature of petroleum as an
environmental contaminant was another
factor in the Agency's decision to
propose the TC Suspension for
petroleum contaminated media. EPA
believes that there are significant
differences between the investigation
and remediation requirements for media
known to be contaminated with
petroleum (from UST or non-UST
sources) and other types of
contamination often found at RCRA
facilities and other contaminated sites.
For sites contaminated with petroleum .
products, the source(s) of the
contamination (e.g., transportation
spills, pipeline leaks, aboveground tank
spills) can often easily be identified, the
substance (petroleum) is known> and
therefore the properties and exposure
pathways of the contamination, and
potential remedial approaches, can also .
be identified without extensive
investigations. In contrast, at other
contaminated sites, identifying the
sources of contamination, their
properties and potential risks, and
remedial options will often require
extensive and protracted investigations
andanalysiss--——'^^^'-~;±=i^ v-i-
Thus, the Agency believes that for
many, sites contaminated with :r\ ~.T
petroleum, investigation and r ;.~ ;'~~1~
remediation can be relatively*' : ,^~,
straightforward. As sueh,;EPA believes
'
permitting approach, or som^Qthef type
of simplified administrative.rriecnanisrn,
could be appropriate for dealing with
petroleum contaminated sites [see
discussion of alternative approaches in
Section in. D. of this preamble).
2. Impacts of Subtitle C Regulation on
Pace of Cleanup •
Information providedby the States
suggests that subtitle C regulation of
petroleum -contaminated media; and
debris may have profound impacts on
the ability of States with existing spill
response programs to promptly initiate
cleanup. Information from State case
studies suggests that at many sites, the
initiation of cleanup could be delayed
between three and,-18 months. The
sources of the delay include: sampling
and testing requirements associated
with the TCLP, the need to register as
a hazardous waste generator and obtain
a generator identification number, and
the increased complexity of evaluating
and implementing remedial measures
that comply with subtitle C.: One
example of the increased complexity of
implementing remedial-measures is the
need to specifically evaluate on-site
versus of&site options-for the-
management of hazardous waste.,This
would include identifying RCRA
permitted TSDFs that would accent the
waste and balancing transportation and
off-site disposal costs, risks,; and
benefits with the costs, risks and
benefits of on-site management.
On-site treatment will .frequently be
the preferred option for sites, involving
large amounts of-contamination. In
cases where, such treatment would
require^ RGRA permitting, the permitting
process would require an additional one
to three years. These delays would
likely allow volatilization of certain TC
constituents such as benzene, and result
in further vertical migration,of
contaminants into the soil and
groundwater. This^would increase the
volume of contaminated soil and the
probability that ground water would be
impacted by a spill. .-•''-
It is difficult to quantify at this time
the precise, differences nationally in the
pace of petroleum cleanups with, and
without-subtitle, C regulation. The pace
of cleanup itta State is highlyp "-. '
dependent on the specific provisions of
the State program, the available State
resources for responding to. spills, and
inereasg the time required to
and controls on the disposal of cleanup
wastes, EPA believes this delay would
result in increased risk to human health
and the environment. •& •••• «-.«ber IJiw
It is clear that Subtitle C regulation of
petroleum contaminated soil and debris
can substantially increase the cost of
remediation .A primary source of the
increase is the relative expense of a -
Subtitle € soil treatment technologies
States with spill response programs.
Depending upon the treatment ,--., .....
technology selected, per site cleanup ,
costs for soil treatment would likely
increase by as much as 300 tcH9.00 - . ; >
percent overjexistingjEosts.2 .;-.
For example, unit costs for thermal
treatmentthatisbeingused in one state
UST program averages :$55.0Q, ;per.fcubic
yard of petroleum contaminated soil,
compared to treatment costs of $1,060
per cubic- yard of soil for subtitle G . , ;
incineration, and disposal costs of
$510.00 for subtitle G; landfills..3 Thus,
for every 100 cubic jmrdsi o£TGr I
hazardous soil, the increase in treatment
costs would:be/between;$A5;5QOiand
$100^00: per site. , «
ft is unclear whether the increased:
costs of subtitle C treatment!p£
petroleum product-contaminated soil
can be justified on the basis of a
study on the impacts of removing sthe;
TCLP deferral for petroleum- :,,-•'.
contaminated media at UST sites, it was
concludedthat one component :of risk,
residual risk, will likely not! decrease L
with subtitle C management, .since
Subtitle I cleanup standards are
generallymore stringent than those ;
implied rby;the:TGJJ^ regulatory: •-•-
standard for benzene.* Also-, ambiguous
is the effect of subtitle C management on
.
Report: The Impacts:oCRemovii?g theTClP Deferral
for Petroleum-Contaminated Mediaai Underground
StorageTtoifc Sitiss;"it
Minnesota Case Study, p. 27.
Report: The Impacts of Removing the TCLP'Deferral
for Petroleum-Contaminated Media at Underground
Storage Tank Sites," (April i992);-pr3^2: — --
-------
faazoqotfl \ SQQI ,
.IoV \
laiabal
2 *'
guiaoqsiB TovDiia^gi3iO33
significanp volumes'x
product $omd be fel
VWibiy.WrnWnblJ^'&airwSuTdJffKelye pro.duct ifeifid be i
SeiUaW^MmfiJl «S§e1S!ff£iHe%MJmafe 2Wn\^fo1ifn1Sti'EPA!
i,n'i^- :.v,^«_cfifj'!jsi:~i;?ii;
S§fcsWtiMi«a imT^ortM^yefrtlie
iraG^ --: C.DejtoitionfrfHtvafd0u8Waste . „
SfSpilK^ .---s ' it-U:4 .'ai,i.".:*y.i > j j J-]uB to BJpsqml .S
the4 Agency's .intention to apply Subtitle
programs. For example, the petroleum
fundlftg IfaufSS: WBeii'{he*fe fs^ff ~-^
'-
iffdrSSSiPct/irsm rfftctbT-ofiaiKUhless '-I1 '&*}"*
N*«P#fell{«»aaeMtf«eaf&ftf3: E: •-» Co*^r
T fi^ogrtffti-fdr-tiie; cor^reBi^iisf
6f JiazarSou¥ wasfef Sept
, waste'matTnay'"*^ * '
ootolei tra,n,sP°;te(i-di
triana"
, EPA i_ _„._,„
,.,. ..,
disincentives to
cte^pTorpeYr
rosponslblir.partWsl SH
.
haza.rdouSw^stes:-1 '^K-W 10 atBeaa
•l
deterrfiMWwnto'eT^fi&Titl
rffq£r te w«Se-o3f an- inTi&eWgr^eWWH
SfflSlSt JaZfera8ufe^e,W^eFfBift^p;
88S , infoMMBnlipflabl^
info ilrTcf i!^nrinTnawr»n« .»^fiftl
* hmK«*ii, waste^fe'artM-irVasteBxm
LlS^6 'p^feyfa^iftalBWteB
If regulated parties believed that they
baM afyuistf : ' loD-nuiskniaH lo
- . . 5,-t.u. (see t IhejA) " »H
<*»/
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules 61547
C permit requirements to address the
problems posed by .thousands of
petroleum product contaminated sites.
However, other modifications to RCRA
requirements may be much less
problematic. The Agency will continue
to examine these types of options, and
others, as alternatives to or as additions
to today's proposed TC suspension. The
Agency invites comment as to how such
options may fulfill the general objective
of removing unnecessary procedural
and substantive subtitle C requirements '
for petroleum release response, white
ensuring that petroleum contaminated
media ere managed in a manner
protective of human health and the
environment Specifically, comment is
solicited on the following options:
* Expanding the permit exemption in
§270.1(c)(2)(i) for tess than 90-day
treatment and storage of on-site
generated hazardous wastes. This
exemption could be extended for some..
longer time period specifically for on-
site petroleum response .actions {e,g.,
ISOdays).
• Providing permits by rule or class
permits specifically for remediation of
petroleum contaminated media (see • .
preceding discussion).
• Changing the existing emergency
permit requirements (§270.61) to
provide for such permits for short term
cleanup actions for petroleum releases
that may not actually pose "imminent
and substantial threats" to human
health and the environment.
* Creating a new type of unit subject
to the less than 90-day storage and
treatment permit exemptions, thai
would otherwise be regulated as waste
piles, and thus not eligible for this
exemption (such units, employing
flexible membrane liners and vapor
recovery are currently in use, and can
remediate relatively large volumes of
contaminated soils).
• Developing differential regulatory
controls based on the size-of the
petroleum release (e.g., 10,000 gallons of
released product). Under this system,
larger spills requiring large scale, long
term remediation might be subject to
full Subtitle C controls, while smaller
releases could be eligible for more
streamlined procedural requirements
and/or less stringent substantive
standards. •
In regard to these alternatives,
comment is requested particularly in
regard to their legal feasibility in light
of existing RCRA statutory
requirements.
characteristics codifies the statutory
definition of hazardous, waste and thus
provides EPA with the same flexibility
accorded by the statute to consider
actual management practices in
determining whether a waste is
hazardous. Where mismanagement of
the waste is likely to be implausible or
has been adequately addressed by other
programs, EPA need not identify the
waste as hazardous under the regulatory
criteria. •'.•--..
As a result, EPA believes that the
Agency should tailor its hazardous
waste identification program, (see 57 FR
21450. May 20,1992). to ensure that the
stringent Subtitle C program for
hazardous waste regulation applies only
to waste which is truly hazardous in the
'context of the way in which the waste
is actually, or reasonably likely to be,
managed. EPA believes, based on a
decade of experience with hazardous
waste management, that waste
containing hazardous constituents at
levels below concern from a human •
health and environment perspective .
should not be subject to full Subtitle C
management EPA has proposed
concentration-based levels for comment
in 57 FR 2i45Q (May 20,1992).
EPA has already promulgated several
modifications of the 1990 toxicity
characteristics rule in several respects
based, at least in part, on the manner in
which the particular waste is actually
managed. 56 FR 13406 (April 2,1991);
55 FR 11836 (March 29,1990). Today's
proposal is consistent with, and
furthers, this approach to identifying
hazardous waste characteristics.
Because EPA believes that it can be
confident that remedial waste managed
'subject to State oversight and .the
conditions set forth in this proposal
would not be "mismanaged," -the waste
may not be "hazardous" under RCRA
section 1004(5) and "should" hot be
regulated as hazardous under RCRA
section 3O01(u).
D. Alternative Approaches
EPA recognizes that not all groups
consider the approach it is taking in
today's proposal is the most ~- .
appropriate. The Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council, for example,
suggests that EPA address the TC issues
that have been raised by the States
though some means of simplifying the
permitting of petroleum cleanups, rather
than by suspending the applicability of
the TC. The Treatment Council
specifically suggested the use of permits
by. rule as a mechanism which could
alleviate the administrative impacts of
addressing petroleum contaminated
media under RCRA subtitle C, while
maintaining the controls and standards
(including the land disposal
restrictions) provided under subtitle C.
In the context of other previous
rulemakings, the Agency has explored
the concept of alternative, and more
streamlined, types of RCRA permits that
could be used to expedite cleanup-type
situations. One example is the proposed
rulemaking for mobile treatment units
(see 52 FR 20914, June 3.1987). The
primary legal impediments to this type
of permit are the need to provide for site
specific public participation (as
required under RCRA section 7004). and
the requirement to address facility-wide
corrective action (under section
3004(u)). Given that these permits
would have to address these statutory
requirements, and that doing so would
require a considerable time and resource
commitment on the part of the issuing
government agency(s), as well as. the
permittee, it may be that creating some
such type of permit for petroleum
cleanup situations would actually have
little "streamlining" effect.-
Some have also suggested the use of
emergency permits as another
alternative to RCRA subtitle C
permitting. Emergency permits could be
used in some situations involving
petroleum releases, albeit not 'to
extended cleanup operations, nor
currently to sites where cleanup is not
being conducted in response to an
actual "emergency" situation. However,
one option, upon which we are seeking
comment, concerns modifying the
emergency permit provisions to
accommodate petroleum spill
remediation.. •
Even if the administrative problems
associated with issuing permits for .
petroleum release cleanup activities
could be resolved, we recognize that
several of the problems cited by the
States in this regard may remain. For
example, several States point to the .
need for persons conducting cleanups to
register as a hazardous waste generator
and obtain a generator identification
number as a source of delay in being
able to legally allow transport of
contaminated media and debris from the
spill site to subtitle C disposal. The
volumes of such materials requiring
RCRA Subtitle C management could
also potentially create serious capacity
problems for the hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal system.
EPA is specifically soliciting comment
and data on the volume of contaminated
media and debris associated with
petroleum product spill cleanup and the
impact of this on the capacity of the
existing hazardous waste system.
As discussed above, EPA believes that
the existing legal framework in RCRA
creates impediments to adapting subtitle
E. Relationship of This Proposal to
Contaminated Media Cluster
It should be noted that the Agency ha*
underway a broader consideration of
-------
61548 Federal Register / Vol. .57. No. 248 7 Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
contaminated media issues related to
• the issues addressed in this proposal. To
improve the overall quality of its
regulatory dodsionmaking and to
develop more integrated approaches to
environmental problems, the Agency
has begun to look at groups or clusters
of regulations. One of these regulatory
clusters, the "contaminated media
cluster," is charged with developing a
more integrated approach among
Agency policies and regulations dealing
•with waste remediation.
The contaminated media cluster
project is gathering information to
develop a comprehensive view of the
quantities and types of waste needing
remediation, the types-of risks they
represent, the current regulatory and
statutory framework, elements of an
effective cleanup process, and die costs
and benefits of cleanups. The
culmination of that work will be a
regulatory strategy that will include a
set of objectives and operating
principles for the Agency's remediation
programs. Although the cluster effort is
not yet complete, this proposed TC
suspension rule for petroleum
contaminated media and debris has
been closely coordinated with the
regulatory cluster on contaminated
media.
F. Relationship of This Proposal to the'
Ground Water Protection Principles
This proposed rule is consistent with
the Ground Water Protection Principles.
One of the Principles states that "With
respect to Federal, State, and local
responsibilities, the primary
responsibility for developing and
implementing comprehensive ground-
water protection programs continues to
and should be vested with the States."
Thus, today's proposed TC Suspension
and the Ground Water Protection
Strategy both reflect the general
objective of giving States the lead role
in implementing these types of
environmental programs.
IV. Explanation of Today's Proposal
A. Scope
1. Wastes Subject to the Proposed
Suspension
The proposed suspension of the TC .
rule (for D018-D043) will be limited to
environmental media (groundwater,
surface water, soils, and sediments) and
debris (see definition in 57 FR1015,
January 9,1992) that are contaminated
by releases of petroleum product from
sources other than Subtitle I regulated
underground storage tanks (e.g.
aboveground storage tanks, pipelines,
transportation vehicles). Note that the
proposal would suspend the TC rule for
the 25 organic constituents only :
(hazardous waste codes D018-D043),
and not for the original EP toxic
constituents (metals', insecticides, and
herbicides; hazardous waste codes
D001-DQ17). EPA believes that
suspending the TC rule for the 25 •
organic constituents will have the effect
of suspending RCRA Subtitle C
regulation of the treatment, storage, and
• disposal of petroleum product
contaminated media and debris. This is
EPA's clear intent. If EPA finds through
comments on this proposal pr new data
that additional EP toxic constituents
occur in media resulting from petroleum
product contamination, EPA intends to
expand the list of constituents subject to
the petroleum product'suspension in
the final rule to include such additional
EP constituents. EPA solicits comments
on its intention to expand the list of
constituents if comments or new data
show that this js needed in order to '
fully suspend the TC regulation for this
material.
For die purpose, of today's proposal,
petroleum product is defined as: (1)
Crude petroleum oil or any fraction
thereof that is liquid at standard
conditions of temperature and pressure
(60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds
per square inch absolute); and (2)
petroleum-based substances composed
of a complex blend of hydrocarbons
derived from crude oil through ' .' -
processes'of separation, conversion,
upgrading, and finishing, such as motor
fuels, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils,
residual fuel oils, and lubricants. This
definition is a modified version of that
in the Subtitle I regulations, as it does
not include petroleum solvents and
used oils.
Today's proposed exclusion would
not affect the regulatory status of media
or debris contaminated with petroleum- •
derived listed hazardous wastes (e.g., •
F037, F038), Although some have
suggested that EPA extend the proposed
suspension to media and debris
contaminated with petroleunvderived
wastes (e.g., sludges, landfill leachates,
and tank .bottoms), in addition to
petroleum products* EPA is not at this
time proposing to suspend the TC rule .
for these wastes. These wastes generally
contain contaminants of concern at
higher concentrations than do
petroleum products, can contain
hazardous constituents other than those
found in petroleum products, and are
generally not covered by existing stated
petroleum product spill response
programs.
EPA is also not extending the
application of the TC suspension to
used oil, or used-oil processing
residuals:7 Used oil can be
contaminated with hazardous
constituents other than those found in '••
petroleum product, and these'' /
constituents may be present in , )
significant concentrations. Further, state
rulemaking petitions submitted to EPA
do riot specifically request a suspension
of the TC rule for media and debris
contaminated by used oil. Therefore,
this proposed rule does not affect the
UST deferral for petroleum
contaminated media..
The Agency is soliciting comment on
an alternative approach in which the TC
suspension for environmental media
and debris contaminated by petroleum
product would be limited to a subset of
the 25 organic constituents. The
alternative approach would provide a
TC suspension only for those
contaminants identified in 40 CFR
261.24 (hazardous waste codes D018-
D043) which are known to be
indigenous to petroleum product. The
Agency is considering the following
three contaminants in this regard—
benzene, cresols, and methyl ethyl
ketone. These contaminants have been
identified as indigenous to petroleum .
product, based on data derived from the
delisting program. (See 40 CFR 260.22.)
The Agency requests comment on this
particular list, as well as ort other TC
contaminants identified by hazardous
waste codes D018-D043 which may also
be indigenous to petroleum product.
The Agency is considering this
approach because it is concerned about.
the improper application of this
suspension to media and debris
contaminated by other D018-D043
constituents. In this scenario, the actual
source of contamination could be non-
petroleum product constituents, or a
mixture of such constituents with those
common to petroleum product, but the
responsible party may argue that the
source was petroleum product. On the
other hand, petroleum products are ,
complex mixes of chemicals, and
adequately characterizing them by a
limited subset of codes D018-D043
constituents could prove difficult, as
well as require expensive testing, with
no commensurate benefit. The Agency
requests comment on this alternative
approach.
The Agency also considered an
alternative that would broaden the
scope of die suspension beyond
7 As defined in 40 CFR 266.40(b). used oil is any
oil refined from crude oil, used, and as a result of
such use, is contaminated by physical or chemical
impurities. A new definition in 40 CFR 279.1, when
it becomes effective, is as follows: "Used oil means
any oil defined from crude oil, or any synthetic oil,
that has been used and as a result of such use is
contaminated by physical or chemical impurities."
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules 61549
petroleum product, to include media
and debris contaminated by any TC
constituent. At this time, the Agency is
not proposing to expand the suspension
beyond petroleum contaminated media
and debris. The Agency believes Jhat
there are compelling human health and
environmental reasons for proposing the
suspension of the TC rule for petroleum
contaminated media and debris, and
that it should act as quickly as possible
to remedy the current situation.
Including other TC contaminated media
and debris in this proposal would
require substantial further analysis,
which could delay EPA in addressing
the petroleum issue. Moreover, while
many States may have adequate
petroleum spill response programs,
these states may not have programs to
adequately manage other TC
contaminated media and debris, which
could result in these materials being
unregulated. '
Nevertheless, the Agency notes that
similar concerns have been raised by
many in the regulated community and
States about the disincentives to
cleanup associated with RCRA subtitle
C regulation of media and debris
contaminated by any TC constituent,
and that EPA is concerned about these
impacts. The Agency requests comment
•on expanding the scope of the
suspension beyond petroleum product
to include media and debris
contaminated by other TC constituents,
The Agency also considered the •
particular issue raised by coal tar
contaminated media and debris ,
generated from the remediation of
historic manufactured gas plant (MGP)
sites. For many decades, manufactured
coal gas was the primary source of gas
for many American cities. There are in
excess of 1500 old MGP sites in the
United States, all thought to be similar
in the nature and extent of coal tar-
related contamination. According to
electric utility industry sources, a
substantial number of these sites will
undergo assessment and possibly
cleanup in the near future, and many
companies planning such remediation
activities were hoping to use their own
high efficiency utility boilers to burn
coal tar remediation-related wastes. The
utility industry has expressed to the
Agency its concern that the advent of
the TC rule has created a disincentive to
.conduct these cleanups because these
wastes may no longer be able to be
burned as fuel in their boilers.
EPA is currently exploring various
• options to encourage responsible parties
to undertake the assessment and any
.necessary remediation of historic MGP
sites within the framework of the
existing RCRA program. One option
under consideration is to include coal
tar wastes within the scope of this
proposal to suspend the TC rule for
petroleum product. However, EPA is not
including coal tar wastes in this
proposed suspension at this time. First,
the primary intent of this suspension is
to respond to the requests made by
States in their rulemaking petitions to
EPA; that is, to suspend the TC rule for
media and debris contaminated by
petroleum products. Second, although
EPA believes that there may be
important environmental reasons for
including coal tar wastes within the
scope of this suspension, EPA lacks
information on whether coal tar
remediation and waste disposal in
utility boilers is effectively regulated
outside the RCRA Program by state and .
local governments. .
Should information submitted in
response to this proposed rule support
a determination that the cleanup and
burning of coal tar contaminated media
and wastes in high efficiency boilers is
effectively regulated by States, EPA may
extend the suspension in the final rule
to include coal tar contaminated media.
The suspension would, however, only
apply in States that certify that they
have in place adequate authorities and
programs to compel MGP site cleanup .
and controlthe burning of wastes
generated from such cleanup actions.
The Agency requests comment on an
option that would include coal tar
wastes within the scope of this
suspension. The Agency also requests
comment on the following: The extent
to which coal tar cleanup operations are
currently being adequately regulated by
state and/or local authorities; the cost of
remediation of coal tar contaminated
media under Subtitle C and under
alternative approaches; the'risk posed to
human health and the environment by
not regulating coal tar wastes under
Subtitle C but under alternative
approaches; and, the most effective
approaches to remediating old coal
gasification sites.
2. Size of Release
EPA is proposing that the suspension
of the TC rule apply to any non-UST
petroleum product release, regardless of
the volume of spilled material or
amount of contaminated media or
debris. Some have suggested, however,
that the Agency narrow the suspension
to contaminated media and debris
resulting from spills of less than 10,000
gallons (this volume is the National
Contingency Plan definition of a major
discharge of oil to inland waters and an
established point of reference for
defining a large spill). These parties
have suggested this harrowing because
there may be unique issues posed by,
larger releases, and in some States,
petroleum spill response programs may
not be well suited to address these ;
unique issues. EPA requests comment
on the extent to which State spill
response programs address the unique
issues posed by larger releases.
• Recent experiences hi EPA's Regional.
Vin office with large petroleum spills :
(i.e., spills-greater than 10,000 gallons)
indicate that larger spills tend to have
multi-media environmental impacts and
require long term oversight. It is not
unusual for a particularly large spill to
contaminate surface water, sediment,
air, soil, and ground water and require
years to remediate. It has been suggested
that States may not always have the
necessary expertise or resources to.
oversee remediation of these types of
spills.
On the other hand, the State that first
approached the Agency on the issue of :
a TC deferral—New York—did so
because of the difficulties that the TC
was presenting at,a large cleanup site,
involving many thousands cubic yards
of contaminated soil. In this case, the
State hoped to conduct on-site treatment
under its State cleanup program;
securing a Federal permit (the State is
not yet authorized for the TC) would
significantly delay the project. In fact,
the problem presented by Subtitle^
regulation may be greater at these large
sites, because smaller sites often can be
handled expeditiously within the
existing permitting, system as emergency
responses, wastewater treatment units,
or 90-day treatment units, oy will not
involve 6n-site treatment. Furthermore,
it may be difficult to determine in all
cases the volume of material released
after, the fact, particularly where the
release is not a surface spill but rather
has occurred as leakage over an :
extended period of time. ,
EPA is soliciting comment on whether
a limit should be placed on the volume
of spills covered under the deferral. In
particular, comments should address
the extent to which States with ,
petroleum response programs do or do
not have the regulatory authority,
technical expertise, and/or capability to
properly oversee the long term cleanup
of large, multi-media/spills or other
releases of petroleum product. However,
as discussed in Section C below, the ,
Agency is not proposing an extensive.;
review of State programs. Any revieW of
this type would be overly prescriptive
and deny States the flexibility to tailor
response programs to specific spills or
site conditions. To the extent that
comments and data submitted jh
response to this proposal support a ••'...
determination that State petroleum spill
-------
61550 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
response programs are generally not
adequate to respond to large petroleum
spills, EPA could limit the suspension
in the final rule to contaminated media
and debris generated as a result of spills
of less than 10,000 gallons of petroleum
product, Alternatively, if data suggest
that certain States have the ability to
adequately respond to larger spills, EPA
could, in the final rule), suspend the TC
rule for all volumes of spills in states
with this capability and limit the
suspension to smaller volumes in States
that lack the capability. ,
B. Timing
EPA is proposing that this suspension -
of applicability of the TC to nonrUST
petroleum contaminated media and
debris he no longer than threa years
from the effective date of the final rule.
Although EPA believes that available
data on the negative impacts of Subtitle „
C regulation of petroleum contaminated
media are sufficient to support a 3 year
suspension, EPA recognizes that ,
additional data and analyses may
suggest the need for a refinement of the
basic approach taken in this proposal to
better ensure that human health and the
environment are being adequately •
protected. During the three-year period,
EPA will conduct studies similar to
those now underway pursuant to the
UST deferral, including:
• A comprehensive study of the
characteristics of sites and wastes
affected by application of the TC to
contaminated media and debris
resulting from noiAJST spills of
petroleum product, including an
analysis of potential cross-media
impacts.
• A national survey of state
petroleum spill response programs.
• A comprehensive evaluation of the
potential economic and environmental
impacts of subtitle C regulation of these
materials on the Agency's and States'
hazardous waste management programs,
and an evaluation of the available
capacity of commercial hazardous waste
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities.
* A comprehensive evaluation of
whether some alternative regulatory
structure would be more appropriate
(such as streamlining or otherwise
revising subtitle C requirements for
these wastes) then the currently
available, alternatives of a complete
suspension of the TC rule or full subtitle
C regulations.
EPA considered proposing to suspend
the TC rule fora shorter time frame,
such as two years or one year. However,
given the scope and complexity of the
issues involved and the studies to be
performed during the suspension, EPA
believes that it may need a full three
years in order to fully address the issues
and develop a generally acceptable
permanent solution. EPA is, however,
soliciting comment on whether the three
year time frame is reasonable and
necessary. Comment is solicited
regarding alternative time frames for the
proposed suspension.
C. Limiting Suspension to States With
Effective Programs •
EPA is proposing that this suspension
be limited to states that certify to the
EPA Regional Administrator that they
have effective programs in place to
response to and remedial non-UST ,
petroleum releases and control. .
remediation-related contaminated
media and debris.8 This is similar to the
standard for delegation to State
petroleum cleanup programs under '
section 9003(h)(7) of RCRA (LJCJ.S.T.
Trust Fund and cleanup authorities).
EPA believes that limiting the
suspension in this manner will, provide
adequate protection of human health
and the environment from the potential,
impacts associated with the remediation
of petroleum product, while at the same
time allowing remediations to proceed •
expeditiously. <.
EPA considered not limiting the
suspension to states with effective
petroleum response programs in place.
In other words, the TC could be
suspended completely as it would apply
to petroleum product contaminated
media and debris, on a national basis.
Such a suspension would be based on
the assumption that such contaminated
materials inherently do not merit
Subtitle C regulation, and that specific
state controls are not needed to ensure
protection of human health and the
environment..EPA decided not to
propose this option, since the Agency
believes that petroleum product
contaminated media and debris can
pose potential threats if mismanaged. A
"blanket" suspension of the TC in this
context would likely leave non-UST
petroleum spills largely unregulated in
some States, with the resulting potential
for mismanagement of what may be
large volumes of contaminated media
and debris. Further, limiting the
suspension to states with effective
petroleum spill response programs may
provide an incentive for states without
such programs to establish them.
EPA-also considered an alternative for
this proposed rule that would have
granted the suspension only to states
"The proposed suspension would also apply to
petroleum product contaminated media and debris'
that are generated and managed pursuant to Federal
remedial authorities, as explained in 'the following
section (E) of this preamble.
that could demonstrate that their .
petroleum response programs complied
with a comprehensive, Federally
defined set of criteria; Under this
approach, EPA could develop a very
detailed set of requirements explicitly
defining the types of legal authorities
that states must have, requirements for'
how releases must be investigated,
standards for management of cleanup
wastes, cleanup levels to be achieved,
and program administration •.
requirements (e.g., staffing levels,
qualifications of personnel, etc.). EPA
believes that this type of approach
would be overly prescriptive, and
would not allow states flexibility to
tailor response programs to specific
responses, or to reflect different
conditions across states. For example,
cleanup of petroleum releases in a State
like Alaska, where much of the State
can be reached only by air, might of
necessity be approached differently than
in a more populated state. Furthermore,
this approach would take undue time to
put into effect. Not only would cleanups
be significantly delayed, but EPA's
experience with State authorization
under Subtitle C suggests that few if any
States would be able to complete the
authorization process before the
termination of the three-year
suspension.
/Today's proposal, in specifying
requirements for adequate state
programs for purposes of obtaining the
, TC suspension, outlines a set of criteria
that the Agency believes.will allow •
flexibility for States, while ensuring
effective and protective responses to
petroleum product releases in States in
which the.suspension would apply.
As proposed today, the primary
standard for determining adequacy of
State programs would be whether a
State has both legal authorities
(including enforcement authorities), and
an administrative program structure
sufficient to require cleanup of non-UST
petroleum product releases, and to
control the management of petroleum
contaminated media and debris that 'are
generated from cleanup activities.
Specific remedial requirements that may
be applied to a particular release
situation will continue to be determined
by the State, according to applicable
State regulations, and guidelines.
Although States will have to be able to
impose appropriate controls on
management and disposal of petroleum
contaminated media and debris, such
. controls would be determined by the •
State.
Similarly, although today's proposal
requires that States must, to obtain the
TC suspension, have programs in place
to effectively administer and enforce the
-------
zelufi. baaoqoil \
,IoV
Israfeal
mi J803 laitasJadua e
„
requijgaietifgjofli letsw fcnumg .
debris i&':thatJStataJ\or.oifry.lthafcwhiHli
would also be resource-intensive for
3fTSi»f8%!
petroleum contanj|tfeta9)!mediaJafa4jei
ironmentany protective responses; to
petroleum spills in .their states. Gixen
^ f-.-- ^.-^ -. —, "gggy
certification
to co
in
the suspension into effect i{^
Underthis proposed appro
e "
of subtitle. C resoonse
^ Statelcsjich
has
would apply to those. cleanup w
cerbbcgbpgg
of sections 3004(u), 3004(v>fi36flBB(h)ad
and 7003, and the Oil Pollution Act
degree of control over rejagdj^A £00t
-_....^__^.t. ..,., ,
In eveopng t
soliciting comment.'however, on
whether the final rule should include
rfaua to noc>Btioq?.fi8TJ 10
9 This procedure applies to States that are not , . .
authorized for the TC. See discussion in Section VI granting the proposed Suspension for
of this preamble. • State cleanups apply equally to Federal-
-------
61552 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 t Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
lead remedial!on—potential impacts on
-subtitle C treatment and disposal
capacity, the substantial cost impacts of
subtills C management of those
materials with little associated benefits,
and the need to obtain RCRA permits for
potentially large numbers of units in
which petroleum contaminated media
and debris will be managed.
EPA solicits comment on extending
today's proposed TC suspension to
Federally supervised, cleanup actions.
particularly in regard to whether
cleanups'supervised by Federal agencies
under authorities other than RCRA and
OPA should also be eligible for this
suspension.
V. Relationship to (Khar Programs
A. Deferral of the Application of the TC
Bute to Petroleum Contaminated Media
and Debris From Subtitle I—Regulated
USTs
This action would not affect the UST
deferral from the TC rule, since it
applies only to non-UST petroleum
product contaminated media and debris.
As explained previously, the Agency is
currently evaluating the extent and
nature of the potential impact of the TC
rule on UST cleanups, as well as the
impact that Subtitle C management of
petroleum contaminated media and
debris from USTs would have on the
Agency's and States' hazardous waste
management programs. The Agency
plans to make its final determination on
the UST deferral in early 1993.
The Agency believes it is appropriate
to examine the application of the TC
rule to petroleum contaminated media
and debris from USTs and non-UST
sources separately. Programs that
regulate USTs and non-UST sources or
petroleum contaminated media and
debris cab bo distinct, with their own
regulatory and administrative
structuresr. Hence, the impacts of the TC
rule on UST and non-UST'cleanups can
differ. For this reason, the ultimate
determinations as to how to regulate
UST and non-UST petroleum
contaminated media and debris could
bo different.
JB. Enforcement
Effect of Today'aProposal on Section
7003 Authority ••
'The proposed suspension does not
affect the Agency's ability to use RCRA
section 7003 to compel clean-up of a
petroleum release in cases when the
Agency has determined that an
imminent and substantial endangerment
may be present. Product which has been
spilled or otherwise placed into or on,
any land or water ana not promptly
recovered fs a waste material (see 4O
GER 260.10 and40 CFR 261;2(b)(I}).
This include* epilled petroleum
product. (Set Zandsv^ Nelsonr 779 F.
Supp, 1254 ($D.Cal.l991)). RCRA
Section 7003 applies to solid waste or .
hazardous waste. Therefore, spilled
petroleum is potentially subject to this
statutory authority, regardless of
whether or net it may meet the
definition of« characteristic hazardous
waste, e.g., TO for benzene.
If the proposed suspension goes into
effect, materials other than petroleum
that.are listed in subpart D of 40 CFR
part 261 or that exhibit a characteristic
of hazardous waste as defined in
subpart C of 40 CFR part 261, will
continue to be considered hazardous
wastes when iipilled or dumped.
Handlers misrepresenting such material
as non-hazardous waste are in violation
of RCRA subtitle C and subject to
enforcement
Effect of Today's Proposal on RCRA
Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h)
Authorities
Today's proposal has no effect on the
scope of 3004l!w) and 30O8(h)
authorities, iiace those authorities are
•not limited toitazardous waste, but
apply also to hazardous constituents. .
Since petroleum product contains
hazardous constituents, sections 30O4(u)
and 3008{h)«iithorifies can still be used
by the Agency to compel cleanup of
petroleum relUEses at facilities regulated
under RCRA flubtitleC.
C. Corrective Action
Effect of Today's Proposal on Corrective
Actions Underway
As explained in the previous section
of this preamble, the proposed
suspension of the TC is not expected to
have significant impacts on the
Agency's ability to require cleanup of
facilities under the corrective action
authorities of JRCRA. Section 7003,
3004(u} or 3008(h). Such authorities are
not limited to cleanup of hazardous
wastes. This is the case of facilities and
sites that are potentially subject to
corrective action under these
authorities, as well as facilities where
the corrective action process is already
underway. Id addition, the suspension
would not ba expected to affect States'
abilities to require cleanup under State
response authorities.
In the casa of cleanup operations '•
already underway that involve
management cf TC hazardous
contaminated media, today's proposed
suspension ootald have an effect on the
specific requimnents that would be
applicable t» like treatment, storage.
disposal or transportation of such
hazardous media. For example, a
remedial action may be underway
which involves excavation: of petroleum
contaminated soils, and; storage of those
hazardous soils in a pile at the facility.
"The pile would be subject to the
applicable RCRA. subpart L standards
for piles, including requirements for
liners, ground water monitoring,
closure, and other standards. If the
proposed TC suspension were to
become effective during this cleanup
action, the: subpart L pile standards
would no longer apply, since the
contaminated soils would no longer be
hazardous. However, the waste
management requirements specified in
existing orders or permits would remain
in effect, despite the suspension, unless
the requirements were modified by the
regulatory authority.
Effect of Today's Proposal on RCRA
'Permitting Requirements
There may be a situation in which the
Agency has required a RCRA permit for
the remedial action at a site solely due
to petroleum'product contamination of
environmental media and debris. Under
today's proposal, the permit in this case
would no longer be required, since the
petroleum product contaminated media
and debris would not be considered
hazardous waste. The Agency is not
aware of any such facility, therefore thp
impact of today's proposal on
, permitting is assumed to Be minimal.
VI. State Authorization Considerations
A. Applicability afRules^ 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 (KSWA), a
State with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program in lieu of EPA administering
the Federal program in that State. The
Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized! State, and EPA could
not issue permits for any facilities that
the State was authorized to permit.
When new. more stringent Federal
requirements weire promulgated or
enacted, the State was obliged to enact
equivalent authority within specified
time frames, ftteve Federal requirements
did nor take effect in: ah authorized State
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 24& /Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules 61553
Until the State adapted the requirements
as. State law.
. In contrast, under RCRA section'
3006(g) (42 U.S.C.6926(g}), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
States at the. sam» time that they take
'effect m nonaulhorized States. EPA is
directed to- carry out these requirements
and prohibitions in authorized States,
including the issuance of permits, until
the State is granted authorization to do
so. White Stales must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as State law to retain
final authorization, HSWA applies in
the authorized State in the interim,
B. Effect of Today's Proposal an Stete
Authorization
Today's proposal provides, for a
limited period of time, a less stringent
standard for petroleum product
contaminated media than is imposed in
the Toxicity Characteristics regulation.
In .order to prom^e environmentally
beneficial petroleum product clean-up
operations, today's proposed rule
provides that wastes generated from
such cleanup operation a would not be
hazardous wastes, under Federal
regulations until 3 years after the,
promulgation of today's rule in those
states that certify to EPA that they have
in, place effective petroleum product
spifl response programs. For states that
have adopted the TC regulation,, today's
proposal is less strfngenU therefore.
states are not required to adopt it. For
states that have not adopted the TC
regulation, EPA implements the TC
regulation and would implement this
suspension of the TC regulation:, if
finalized, for wastes from petroleum
product spills.
However, the relationship of state
certification for the proposed
suspension to- tfte- state's authorization
status needs clarification. For states that
are-not authorized for the base RCRA
program, as weU as for those states that
are RCRA-authorized but not TC-
•authorized, state certification- raises no
special state authorization issues. These
states coaM simply certify that they
have-both legal authorities and an
administrative program structure
sufficient to require cleanup-of.non-UST
petroleum- product releases, and to
control the* management of petroleum
contaminated media and debris that are
generated from- cleanup activities; to
this manner, these states wouM qualify
for the Federal suspension of the TC
regulation, without raising amy stats'.
authorization issties.
States that ara bath RCRA-and TC-
authorized, however, would have-to
make a decision- about whether to adopt
a similar suspension, and, if they choose
to adopt suck a procedure, they would
also have to make a decision at the state
level an the need to change! their state
regulations. Some states may choose mot
to change their regulations, but rather to
use-a state waiver authority to lift the
TC requirements- in these cleanup
situations. Use ofsaefe waiver authority
would have- to be in a manner na less
stringent than the Federal TC
suspension. .
In cases wherS a state chooses to
certify and chooses to change its
regulations, the new state regulations
must be no less; stringent than the
Federal suspension. If State TC
regulations are changed in a manner
that is less stringent than this proposed
suspension {e.g., the State suspension is
longer than three years or addresses
more than just petroleum product), EPA
will not authorize the change and will
enforce the more stringent Federally-
authorized State TCrule provisions
pursuant to Section 3009 of RCRA.
. EPA also considered an alternative
approach, feu States that ase both RCRA-
and TC-authorized. Under this
approach, EPA would require
authorization of the new State
regulations before the suspension could
become effective, in order to guarantee
that the new State regulations- would be
no less stringent than the Federal
program. The Agency rejected this
option because of the need to move
cleanups more promptly. Furthermore,
the Agency does not believe this would
be a workable approach since the three-
year suspension would Mkaly run out by
the time a State made the necessary
changes to its regulations suspending
the TC rule, and thea applied for and
received authorization for these .
changes.
Finally,, fee States' that have adopted .
the-TO rule but are not yet authorized
for it, if these States wish to pursue the
suspension:, EPA will acee.pt their
certifteatieHi for the- purposes, of th» .
Federal TC suspension. The State may
also- need to take other aeMoBSi tfegv use
of waivers] to satisfy State law
requirements.
VII. Risk Assessment/Screening.
Analysis-
EPA performed a. screening risk
analysis, m order to investigate the
discussion set forth in the- state
petitions, which argue that tlje state '
programs wotild be- at least as protective
as. subtitle C management of petroleum
contaminated soils. States, argue that
state program clean-tups would address
sites, more quickly than clean-ups under
the Subtitle C program, and therefore
more promptly and more effectively
• reduce risk to human health and tbe
environment. .-- • -•
Any delays under the- subtitle C
program would increase the ineremeatal
risk of subtitle Celean-ap veisiisTC-
suspensioa state management practices
if 1\ state programs control risks from
the spill more quickly than efforts under
the subtitle C pro-am and do not
experience similar delays and 2) stats
management practices are as (or almost
as) protective as subtitle C manageraent
practices;
EPA conducted a screening risk
apaijrsfe to identify; potential increased
risks to human health due to delays in
clean-up. The screening analysis is
based on modeling tbe fata and
transport of benzene from, petroleum
from the soil surface, through the
unsatarated zoae and into the
groundwater. Because this analysis is a
screening analysis, the models use
simplified amdl conservative
assumptions, and represent worst cas&
scenarios.
For this screening analysis, EPA
modeled the fate of gasoline spilled onto
three types of soil: GEayel, sand and
clay. Depending on. the soil type, the
estimated time for a leaehate exhibiting
the TC for benzene to reach a depth of
3 meters.ranges from 1—25 months, and
twice that time to reach a depth, of 6
meters. In addition, the screening
analysis revealed that groundwater may
be potentially contaminated above, the
MCL standard for benzene (5 ppb) in
eertaia locations. Field studies have,
demonstrated that under some '
conditions, such as fractured
environments, petroleum has beea
repeated: to travel moire quickly and: to
reach grotindwatfli In a matter of hoars.
Another effect of the, penetration of
petcoleum products thscaigh the soil is.
an increase- in the- volume of
contaminated soil over time and
therefore, in most instances,, an increase
in the amount of TC hazardous waste
which would need to- be cleaned-up*
This results in both, aa increase in clean-
up costs and a potential increase in.
exposure. EPA will study this effect of .
delays in clean-ups and is requesting
comments on the areal extent of
contamination resulting from various
size sjpills of various types of petroleum
products.
In summary „ the results of this
screening, analysis, indicate that gasoline
spill clean-up delays of a few months.
could result in (1) increased areal extent
of contamination, which increases the
volume of soil requiring excavation OF
retsediation and thereby increasing
potential for exposure- and £2} , - .
contamination of gsouodwat&r, thereby
adding to- cleanup costs and potentially
-------
61554 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 248 /Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
posing health risks if groundwator is
used for drinking water. The Agency
will continue to assess potential risks of
petroleum spills. Towards this end, the
Agency is requesting comments and
information regarding spill size,
resulting contamination over time, and
exposures over time for recent
petroleum spills which may he-useful in
preparation fof the final rule.
In order to analyze any change in risk
between the TC Suspension and subtitle
C management, the Agency will
consider the environmental fate of the
remediated\vaste. While the Agency has
some information on the residual risks
of waste management and disposal
under subtitle C, the Agency has less
information on State management and
disposal requirements for these
petroleum wastes. The Agency has
limited data on the quantities of
material that would be managed in this
manner, and on the actual impacts on
exposure pathways, and so solicits
comment on this issue.
The risk screening analysis used
simplified and conservative
assumptions, and the results are
therefore very preliminary. However, it
is clear that in many instances
immediate remediation of petroleum
spills will reduce risk to human health
and the environment in comparison
with lengthy delays in clean-up. More
information on thlsr analysis is included
in the Technical Background Document
for Screening Risk Analysis of the TC
Suspension for Petroleum-Contaminated
Media, RCRA docket number F-92-
STPP-FFFFF.
In addition, because of the volatile
nature of many petroleum constituents,
such as benzene, delayed clean-ups of
petroleum contaminated soil may also
pose a potential risk to human health
through the air pathway. EPA requests
comments on the potential exposure
rates and risks from the air pathway,
both due to delayed clean-ups and due
to uncontrolled remediation activities.
EPA is particularly interested ip
laboratory studies, field observations,.
modeling results or other information
about the length of time over which, and
the rate at which, benzene.(or other
constituents) in petroleum products
volatilize after a spill or release into the
environment, and the effects of
competing processes such as percolation
through the soil (speed and depth) and
biodegradation on the rate of
volatilization.
VHI. Cost Saving!} Analysis
EPA has identified several possible
sources of cost savings under a TC
suspension for petroleum contaminated
media. Cost savings result from the •
difference between waste.management
costs under state petroleum response
programs and posts under Subtitle C
programs.
Below is a discussion of sample cost
estimates provided by states and'other.
sources. An EPA memo, "Cost '".
Discussion References for Management .
and Disposal of Petroleum Product .
Contaminated Media and Debris," is
available in the docket. . '
Based on limited information '
available from the states, qn-site .
management technologies of petroleum
contaminated media could be similar
under state prbgrams and under subtitle.
C programs. Thus the cost difference
between the two pn-site remediation
regulatory scenarios—state programs
and subtitle C programs—maybe .
primarily associated with the difference
in administrative costs. EPA solicits
comments on subtitle C administrative
costs as compared to state program
administrative costs, including
information on whether new subtitle C
permits are likely to be obtained at
petroleum spill sites. No information is
available on owner/operator
administrative costs under state
programs, but under Subtitle C .
programs total TSD permit cost
estimates provided by states (Minnesota
and Vermont) range between $21,000
and $80,000. Because of this high cost
of a subtitle C TSD permit, which would'
be required for many on-site
remediations of hazardous waste,
petroleum contaminated soil.
management and disposal is more likely
, to be conducted off-site under the
subtitle C regulatory scenario.
•However, subtitle C off-site
remediation unit costs would still be
greater than state program remediation
unit costs, both (1) due to fees charged
by treatment, storage and disposal
facilities and (2) due to transportation'
cos.ts to the disposal site.
In additibnj some states have asserted
that clean-ups under Subtitle C would
take longer than state prbgrams,
allowing contamination to spread and
resulting in a much larger volume of soil
and/or groundwater to be remediated.
In summary, unit costs for subtitle C
waste management of petroleum
contaminated soil tend to be higher than
for state program management of soil.
The reason for this cost difference
depends on whether the soil is managed
on- or off-site.
Subtitle C
management
On-slte
Off-site
Off-site
State pro-
gram man-
agement
(TC suspen-
sion)
Off-site
On-slte
Off-site
Source of cost sav-
ings for TC suspen-
sion
Avoided Subtitle C ad-
ministrative costs.
Avoided transportation
costs; difference be-
tween Subtitle C
disposal fees and
on-slte remediation
costs.
Lower transportation
costs; lower dis-
posal fees.
Subtitle C •
management
On-site :..
State pro-
gram man-
agement
(TC suspen-
sion)
On-site' :.
Source of cost sav-
ings for TC suspen-
sion
Avoided Subtitle C ad-
ministrative costs.
Estimates of actual unit cost savings
vary, depending on location (i.e.
distance from a subtitle C disposal
facility) and on remediation method
chosen. State estimates of transportation
costs to a Subtitle C facility range from
$30/ton (Texas) to $300/ton
(Minnesota).
[Note: One cubic yard of contaminated soil
is assumed to weigh one ton.]
Subtitle C land'fill cost estimates
provided by states range from $140/ton
(Minnesota) to $2,000/ton (New York)
and incineration costs estimates
. provided by states range from $420/ton
to $l,700/ton (Minnesota).
Conversely, potential waste
management costs using methods that
state programs might choose under a TC
suspension are substantially lower. '
State estimates of transportation costs to
subtitle D landfills range from $5/ton
(Texas) .to $20/ton (Vermont). Subtitle D
landfill cost estimates provided by
states range from $30 (Minnesota,
including transport) to $300/ton (New
York, not including transport).. On-site
remediation techniques, such as thermal
treatment or.bioremediatiori, are .
generally less expensive than off-site
techniques [states provided ranges from
$30/ton (Minnesota, thermal treatment)
to $120/ton (Minnesota,
bioremediation)] but are reported to be
as high as $l,000/ton (Texas, for
bioremediation). These cost ranges are
•based on studies of five different states
(Minnesota, Florida, New York,
Vermont and Texas); other states' costs
may vary widely.
Information on the total amount soil
or other media affected by a TC
suspension is not readily available. The
American Petroleum Institute (API)
estimates in January 1992 that 23.5
million gallons of petroleum is spilled
in 24 states annually. Of this 23.5
million gallons of petroleum spilled in
24 states, only.a portion will
contaminate soil or other media in states
. affected by the TC suspension (i.e. states
with adequate programs to address
petroleum contamination).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, Deceiaber 24, 1992 / Proposed Rates 61555
.' (Note: The Texas Railroad Commission'
estimates, that I barret of oil C4Z gallons)
contaminates 2.1 cubic yards of soifl.
Of the contaminated soil in affected
states, 01% a portion will actually fail
theTC. Although these portions axe
unknown, the amount of TC petroleunv
contaminated soil affected annually by
the suspension appears to' be on the
order of hundreds of thousands of cubic
yards. Depending on the actual unit cost
savings, the total national cost savings
due to- the TC suspension- for petroleum-
contaminated media may be m the- tens
or hundreds of rnilKons of dollars per
year for the duration, of the three year
suspension.
EX. Regulatory Requirements
A, Regulatory Impact Analysis Pursuant
to Executive Order No. 12291
Executive Order No. 12291 requires
that regulatory agencies determine
whether a new regulation constitutes a
major rulemaking and, if so, it requires
that the agency conduct a Regulatory
Impact Analysis (RIA). An RIA consists
of the quantification of the potential
benefits, costs, and economic impacts of
a major rule. A major rule is defined in
Executive Order No. 12291 as a
regulation likely to result in:
« An annual effect to the economy of
$100 million or more; or
• A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individuals, industries,
Federal, State, and local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
• Significant adverse.effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States based
enterprises to compete with foreign
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets.
The Agency has estimated that today's
proposed rule will result in significant
cost savings to the economy (see VIII.
Cost Savings Analysis, above). Also, the
Agency does not believe the rule will
significantly effect consumers,
individuals, industries, Federal, State
and local government agencies, or
geographic regions, or have significant
adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, innovation, or
international trade. Therefore, the
Agency has determined that today's
proposed rule is not a major rule.
Because today's proposed rule is riot
a major rule, the Agency has performed
a Cost Savings Analysis (see section VIE
above), rather than an RIA, focusing its
analyses on the cost savings of the rule
only. The Agency has not assessed the
economic impacts and benefits
attributable to today's proposed rule.
B. Begulatary Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-12; whenever an
agency, is required to publish a general
notice of ralemaking for any; proposed -
or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a
regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of fee rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions).
This proposal will generally provide
regydatory relief to business facing
petroleum-related cleanups and
* businesses conducting the cleanups. For
this reason, the Administrator has
certified that this rule will not have a
significant negative impact on small
entities—in fact, it is likely to have a
significant positive impact. Therefore, a
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act . '
The information collection
.requirements in today's proposed.rule
have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (IGR)
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1623.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Fanner,
Information Policy Branch, EPA, 401M
Street, SW. (PM-223Y), Washington, DC
20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
Public reporting burden for this .
collection of information is estimated to
average 26 hours per response,
including time for reviewing
instructions, 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 other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden, to
Chief, Information Policy Branch> PM-
223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460; and to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503, marked
"Attention: Desk Officer for EPA:" The
final rule will respond to any OMB or
public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in
this proposal.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261
Harzardous waste, Recycling,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated4 December 15, 1892.
Administrator.
For the reasons set oat in the
preamble, chapter I of title 40 of the
Code: of Federal Regulations is amended
as foHowst .
PART 261— IDENTIFICATION AND -
LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
1. The authority citation for part 261
continues to read as follows:.
Aultorily; 42 OS£. 6095, 6912fe), 6321.
and 6822.
2. Section 261.4 is amended by •
revising paragraph (bHllJ to read as
follows: '
§261.4 Exclusions.
* * * .*• * . -
(b) * - *
(11) Environmental media and debris
contaminated solely by releases of.
petroleum product that fail the test for
the Toxicity Characteristic (Hazardous
Waste Codes D018 through D043 only),
and that are not subject to the corrective
action regulations under part 280 of this
chapter (i.e. RCRA Subtitle I-regulated
underground storage tanks). This
exclusion is applicable only as provided
under paragraphs (b)(ll)(i) through (vii)
of this section!, as follows:
(i) This exclusion shall 'be effective
until [three years after date of
publication of final rule in Federal
Register].
(Ti) For the purposes of this exclusion
only, petroleum product is defined as:
(A) Crude petroleum oil or any ..
fraction thereof that is liquid at standard
conditions of temperature and pressure
(60 degrees Fahrenheit and 14.7 pounds
per square inch absolute); and
(Bj Petroleum-based substances
composed of a complex blend of
hydrocarbons derived from crude oil
through processes of separation,
conversion, upgrading, and finishing,
such as motor fuels, jet fuels, distillate
fuel, oils, residual fuel oils, and
lubricants, , • ' . •
(iii) Except as provided in
§ 261.4(b)(ll)(vii), the exclusion shall
apply only to petroleum product-
contaminated media or debris that are
Being managed pursuant to a remedial
action for which State oversight is being
provided under a site-specific-
enforcement order, or other written
approval from the State.
fiv) The exclusion shall apply only in
a State that certifies in writing to the
EPA Regional Administrator that the
State:
(A) Has response authorities to:
(1) Require cleanup of media and
debris contaminated by petroleum-
-------
r
61556
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 248 / Thursday, December 24, 1992 / Proposed Rules
product that is released from sources
other than those subject to 40 CFR part
280, subpart F, to levels of protection
defined as adequate by the State; and
(2) Control the transportation,
treatment, storage, and disposal of
petroleum product-contaminated media
and debris generated from those
response actions; and
(B) Has programs in place to
effectively administer and enforce such
authorities.
(v) The certification submitted by the
State must be signed by the State waste
management program director and the
State Attorney General, and must
contain;
(A) A description of the existing State
laws and regulations which constitute
the response authorities specified in
paragraph (b)(ll){iv)(A) of this section;
and
(B) A description of the State
programs as specified in paragraph
(b)(llKiv)(B) of this section. Such
description must include:
(1) A description of types and
numbers of releases which are
responded to by the State programs and
authorities and the types and numbers
of response actions conducted under the
State program; and
(2) A description of the standards that
are used by the State to establish
cleanup goals for media and debris
contaminated by petroleum product
releases not subject to RCRA Subtitle I.
If specific cleanup standards have not
been adopted by the State, a description
of the process used by the State to
determine cleanup goals for such
contaminated media and debris shall be
provided.
(vi) The Regional Administrator shall
review the certification to determine if
it is complete within 90 days of receipt.
When a certification is determined to be
complete, EPA shall publish a notice in
the Federal Register to suspend the TC
in that State at sites meeting the
conditions of paragraph (b)(il)(iii) of
this section. The suspension shall be
effective immediately upon publication
of the Federal Register'notice.
(vii) The exclusion shall also apply to
petroleum product-contaminated media
and debris that are managed pursuant to
remedial actions under RCRA 7003,
3004{u), 3004(v), and 3008(h), and
under the Oil Pollution Act.
*****
[FR Doc. 92-31300 Filed 12-23-92; 8:45 am!
BILUNG CODE OSGO-30-M
------- |