Thursday
March 19, 1987
Part III
"5.
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270
Proposed Amendments for Landfill,
Surface Impoundment, and Waste Pile
Closures; Proposed Amendment to Rule
-------
8712
Federal Register / Vol. 52. N'o. 53 / Thursday. March 19, 1087 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 264, 265, and 270
ISW-FRL-3C92-21
Proposed Amendments for Landfill,
Surface Impoundment, and Waste Pile
Closures; Proposed Rule
AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION; Proposed Amendment to rule.
SUMMARY: The Agency is proposing to
supplement the currently authorized
options found in 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265 for closing and providing post-
closure care for landfills, surface
impoundments, and waste piles that are
used to treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes. Under the
supplemental option proposed today, the
Agency and authorized States may
establish appropriate closure and post-
closure requirements on a site-specific
basis. The requirements would be
established by analyzing detailed data
concerning the waste and site
characteristics, and assessing all
potential pathways by which hazardous
constituents may migrate and pose
threats to human health and the
environment. The public will be
provided an opportunity to comment
fully in permit hearings on the
appropriateness of the site-specific
closure and post-closure requirements
for individual facilities before they are
made final.
The purpose of this proposed
regulatory amendment is to allow
increased technical flexibility for
situations not adequately addressed by
the broad nationwide closure standards
now in effect. However, as with the
existing standards, any alternative
requirements established under the
proposed regulatory amendments must
be designed to protect human health and
the environment.
DATE: Written comments should be
submitted on or before May 18.1987. An
original and two copies of yfluf"—
comments on this proposal should be
mailed to the Docket Clerk, Office of
Solid Waste (WH-562). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401M
Street. SW.. Washington. DC 20460 and
should be identified as follows: F-87-
ACP-FFFFF.
ADDRESS: The official docket for this
regulation including comments received
by the Agency is located in Room
MLG100, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 401M Street. SW.. Washington.
DC 20480. and is available for viewing
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.. Monday
through Friday, excluding holidays. Call
Mia Zmud at 475-9327 or Kate Blow at
382-4675 for appointments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT!
RCRA Hotline at 800-424-9346 (in
Washington. DC, call 382-3000) or for
technical information contact Ossi
Meyn. Office of Solid Waste (WH-
565E), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington. DC 20460,
telephone (202) 382-4654.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
These regulations are issued under the
authority of sections 1006. 2002(a), 3004.
3005, and 3007 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended by
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). as
amended (42 U.S.C. 6905. 6912(a). 6924.
and 6925).
II. Background
Subtitle C of RCRA creates a "cradle-
to-grave" management system intended
to ensure that hazardous waste is safely
treated, stored, or disposed. First,
Subtitle C requires the Agency to
identify hazardous waste. Second, it
creates a manifest system designed to
track the movement of hazardous waste,
and requires hazardous waste
generators and transporters to employ
appropriate management practices as
well as procedures to ensure the
effective operation of the manifest
system. Third, owners and operators of
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must comply with standards
that "may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment" that
are established by the Agency under
section 3004 of RCRA. Ultimately, these
standards will be implemented through
permits that are issued by authorized
States or the Agency to owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. Until
these permits are issued, existing
facilities are controlled under the
interim status regulations of 40 CFR Part
265 that were largely promulgated on
May 19,1980. Interim status waste
facilities are waste management
facilities in existence on November 19,
1980 (or on the effective date of
statutory or regulatory changes under
the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984).
In regulations promulgated on July 26,
1982 [47 FR 32274], the Agency
established permitting standards in 40
CFR Part 264 covering the treatment
storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes in surface impoundments, waste
piles, land treatment units, and landfills.
Owners and operators of such facilities
must meet these standards to receive a
RCRA permit.
III. Discussion of Today's Amendments
At present, the regulations afford one.
and, for some units, two options for
closing landfills, surface impoundments.
and waste piles. In the case of surface
impound and landfill units, one may
close by placing a highly impermeable
cap over the unit (and in the case of a
surface impoundment, the unit must be
dewatered and the wastes stabilized)
and conducting a 30-year (or other
appropriate period) post-closure
program of monitoring and maintaining
the cap; monitoring, maintaining,
collecting and removing liquids in the
leachate collection system if present;
and monitoring the ground water. Where
monitoring data indicates ground-water
contamination, corrective action may be
required pursuant to Part 264 Subpart F
(for permitted facilities) or section
3008(h) of HSWA (for interim status
facilities). This option is available to
waste piles only after all wastes have
been removed or decontaminated and it
is not practical to remove contaminated
subsoils.
A second option, available to surface
impoundments and waste piles, is to
remove or decontaminate all waste
residues, contaminated design and
operating system components (e.g.
liners, leachate collection systems, and
dikes), contaminated subsoils, and
structures contaminated with waste and
leachate. If this is successfully
accomplished, no post-closure
monitoring or other post-closure care is
required. This type of closure is more
fully discussed in the final amendments
to § 265.228 published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.
These two closure options evolve out
of the Agency's approach for minimizing
the post-closure release of hazardous
constituents into the environment. The
first option, leaving waste in place but
installing a low permeability cap,
derives from the Agency's overall
liquids management strategy for land
disposal units. As described in the
preamble to the minimum technology
regulations (47 FR 32274, July 26,1982
and 51 FR 10706, March 28.1986), the
Agency's general strategy for such units
is to impose design and operational
requirements to minimize leachate
generation (e.g.. caps and prohibition on
liquids in landfills) and then to require
removal of the leachate before liquids
can migrate into the environment.
Consistent with this control strategy, the
"disposal" closure option requires very '
low permeability caps at closure in
order to minimize post-closure
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 53. Xo. 53 / Thursday-March 19. 1987 /
Rules
infiltration of liquid through the unit and
the need for post-closure monitoring and
corrective action.
The second closure option, closure by
removal, eliminates the potential for
leachate production after closure by
removing the source of contamination.
The goal at closure is to remove or
decontaminate all materials on site that
could potentially contribute to future
contamination problems.
While each closure option adopts a
different strategy to achieve protection
of human health and the environment,
the goal of both closure as a disposal
unit and closure by removal is to
minimize or eliminate potential threats
to human health and the environment
and the need for future corrective action
at the site.
The Agency now has several years of
experience in reviewing and approving
closure plans under RCRA. Moreover.
the Agency has gained considerable
experience in effecting remedial actions
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) that are in
many ways analogous to RCRA
closures. Based on this experience, EPA
believes that in many circumstances a
"hybrid" approach that combines the
strategies of closure by removal and
closure as a disposal unit may be
equally or more effective than either the
pure "disposal" or "removal" closure
option. Rather than designing all caps to
minimize infiltration and allowing the
waste to remain in place, this "hybrid"
approach would consist of the removal
of the majority of contaminated
materials and would allow covers and
post-closure monitoring to be designed
based on the exposure pathway of
concern. For example, if the constituents
remaining in the soil were highly
immobile and would not migrate to the
ground water, the cover could be
designed to prevent direct contact and
inhalation of constituents (the pathways
of concern), rather than to minimize
infiltration. This allows the method of
closure to be tailored to the specific
circumstances under which the unit is
being closed. It also creates an incentive
to remove waste from the unit rather
than leaving waste in place and relying
on control strategies such as capping to
minimize migration of constituents.
A few examples may help to explain
how closure requirements may be
altered to suit the site-specific
conditions of the unit undergoing
c osure. Generally, situations in which
alternate closure requirements may be
appropriate are when: (l) Substantial
removal of waste and waste residues
will occur (but some minimal residual
contamination is left in the unit); (2)
871
residual contamination has low mobility
and toxicity; (3) pathways of potential
exposures to contaminants are limited;
and. (4) long-term monitoring/care will
Mprovided, The following examples
should not be-interpreted as scenarios
that will in all cases qualify for the
alternate closure requirements nor the
only possible* scenarios. However, these
examples illustrate the point that site-
specific conditions may in some cases
call for site-specific closure
requirements.
The following is an example of a
closing unit, located in an arid region
where infiltration is very low and
evapotranspiration significantly exceeds
precipitation, for which site-specific
requirements are appropriate. The unit
contains residual levels of relatively
immobile contaminants; conservative
estimates of attenuation of residual
contaminants in the unsaturated zone
show that the waste constituents will
never migrate to the ground water.
which is 100 feet below the unit. The
owner or operator is able to show,
based on waste and site conditions, that
the residual wastes pose no surface
water or atmospheric threat, and that
direct contact with the waste is the only
potential exposure pathway of concern.
In this situation, a cover designed to
prevent infiltration would be
unnecessary, but a cover designed to
protect against the direct contact threat
would be required to fully protect
human health and the environment at
this site.
Indeed, the Agency has already
acknowledged through rulemaking that
a unit existing in such an environment
may warrant reduced requirements.
Such a unit is eligible for an exemption
under $ 264.90(b)(4) and 5 264.221(b)
from the ground-water monitoring
requirements and single-liner
requirements for surface impoundments
if an owner or operator can demonstrate
that no potential migration of liquid
from the unit into ground water is
possible during the active life and post-
closure care period. The minimum
technology requirements in the 1984
amendments to the Solid Waste
Disposal Act allow for a similar waiver
in section 3004{o)(2J from the statutory
requirements. A unit in a low
precipitation, high evapotranspiration
environment with a deep water table
may well be able to make such a
demonstration of no migration.
Another situation that may warrant
specific consideration is where an
owner or operator may have removed
all wastes and liner systems from a unit
but residual waste constituents still
remain in the unsaturated soil. If the
waste constituents in the unsaturated
soil exceed Agency established health
and environmental effect levels, then tu
unit may not meet the closure by
removal test in §§ 264.228 and 265.228.
(See the discussion of the "remove or
decontaminate" standard in the
preamble to | 265.228 elsewhere in
today's Federal Register). However,
when these residual concentrations are
sufficiently low. fate and transport
calculations based on waste constituent
characteristics and site hydrogeologrc
and locational conditions may show tha
the waste residuals in the unsaturated
soils wUl never produce ground-water
contamination above an Agency
established exposure level (see
discussion below for explanation of
Agency-established exposure levels).
Since in this example the ground water
will remain potable, the cap design for
the unit does not have to prevent
infiltration. Furthermore, if the owner or
operator can show that the waste
residuals pose no atmospheric, surface
water, direct contact, or ingestion threat.
men capping the unit may not be
necessary to protect human health and
the environment from the residual
contamination. However, ground-water.
vadose zone or soil monitoring is
generally necessary to confirm or verify
the fate and transport predictions.
Today's proposal specifies a set of
factor* that the Regional Administrator
(or State) must consider when
establishing alternate closure
requirements under 55 264.310fc) and
285.310(c). The Agency expects to limit
the use of the alternate closure option to
situations where residual hazardous
constituents are present in low
concentrations, are of low toxicity, and
have low mobilities, where migration of
the waste residuals to any medium is
unlikely, and where long-term
monitoring is guaranteed. The factors
used in the Regional Administrator's
analysis are designed to ensure that
wastes and waste residues will not pose
a threat to human health and the
environment through any potential
exposure pathway. These potential
pathways include exposure to the waste
constituents through direct contact.
ground water, surface water, and
atmospheric routes. Basically, the
following topics must be examined: (1)
The potential for the waste or waste
constituents to migrate from the closing
unit. (2) the toxicity of the waste or
waste constituents that migrate from the
unit, (3) the health and environmental
effects associated with potential
exposure to the waste or waste
constituents that migrate from the unit.
and (4) the uncertainty in each of the
above analyses.
-------
8714
Federal Register / Vol. 52. Xo. 53 / Thursday. Mflrr.h IQ io.» / Proposed Rules
The factors the Regional
Administrator would consider when
establishing alternative closure
requirements under §§ 264.310(c) and
265.310{c) are similar in many ways to
factors the Regional Administrator
considers when setting alternate
concentration limits (ACLs) under
§ 264.94. The basic test of both of these
alternate programs is the same: The
alternate requirements must protect
human health and the environment. The
factors related to ground-water and
surface-water impacts are the same for
the alternate closure requirements as for
the setting of ACLs. The main difference
between the two procedures is that in
the proposed closure demonstration the
Regional Administrator may take into
account attenuation in the unsaturated
zone and may require different types of
monitoring. In addition, where ACLs
address only ground-water
contamination, the proposed closure
analysis would also address surface
water and the potential exposure
pathways of direct contact and
atmospheric releases.
The closure demonstration submitted
by facility owners and operators should
rely on Agency-recommended exposure
limits that have undergone peer review
by the Agency. These include water
quality standards and criteria (Ambient
Water Quality Criteria: 45 FR 79318,
November 28,1980.49 FR 5831. February
15.1984; 50 FR 30784. July 29.1985),
health-based limits based on verified
reference doses (RfDs) developed by the
Agency's Risk Assessment Forum
(Verified Reference Doses of USEPA,
EACO-CIN-475. January 1986) and
Carcinogenic Potency Factors (CPF)
developed by the Agency's Carcinogen
Assessment Group (Table-11, Health
Assessment Document for
Tetrachloroethylene(Perchloroethylene)
USEPA. OHEA/6008-82/005F. July 1985),
or site-specific Agency-reviewed public
health evaluations, issued by the
Agency for Toxic Substance and
Disease Registry of the Center for
Disease Control, Department of Health
and Human Services.
The Agency is currently compiling
toxicity information on many of the
hazardous constituents contained in
Appendix VIII of 40 CFR Part 261. The
facility owners and operators should
check with the Office of Solid Waste,
Characterization and Assessment
Division. Technical Assessment Branch
(202) 382-4761 for the latest toxicity
information. If no Agency-recommended
exposure limits exist for a hazardous
constituent then the facility owner or
operator must either remove the
constituent down to background levels,
submit data of sufficient quality for the
Agency to determine the environmental
and health effects of the constituent, or
follow landfill closure and post-closure
requirements. All data submitted by the
owner or operator on environmental and
health effects of a constituent should.
when possible, follow the toxicity
testing guidelines of 40 CFR Parts 797
and 798 (50 FR 39252. September 27.
1985). The Agency does not believe
there are many situations where
exposure limits will be developed by
owners or operators, since testing
required by 40 CFR Parts 797 and 798 to
produce reliable toxicity estimates is an
expensive and time-consuming effort.
For purposes of fate and transport
modeling, it is necessary to identify
points of exposure. In calculations that
may be used to estimate the potential
impacts of releases of hazardous
constituents from closing units, points of
exposure would be assumed as below.
The points of exposure were chosen
because the Agency believes that they
are realistic and conservative estimates
of where either environmental or human
receptors would likely be exposed to the
contaminants released from the unit.
Furthermore, the Agency feels that they
are conservative enough to be protective
of human health and the environment in
all situations that would be encountered
during the alternate closure scenario.
For closure under the proposed alternate
requirements of §5 284.310(c) and
265.310(c), the potential point of
exposure for analysis of the direct
contact and atmospheric routes is at or
within the unit boundary. The potential
point of exposure for surface water is at
the edge of the closest on-site surface
water runoff pathway (including ditches
and intermittent streams) or actual
surface water body that is affected by
the unit The potential point of exposure
for ground water is the first aquifer
found at the unit boundary. Generally
the ground-water protection standard
should be met in this first saturated zone
at the unit boundary, if a cap and long-
term management will be required. The
ground-water protection standard
should also be met at the first aquifer
directly beneath the unit if no cap or
long-term management will be required.
The Agency is soliciting comments on
the concept of allowing the defined
points of exposure to be moved beyond
the unit boundary. For example in some
situations, effective measurement of
leakage may be better determined away
from the unit. In such case, it may be
equally protective to assume a point of
exposure away from the unit boundary.
Comments are requested on the
following points:
(1) Under what conditions may the
points of exposure be extended, and
(2) What criteria must be met in
specifying the extended points of
exposure.
If any adjustments are made to the
points of exposure, then long-term
monitoring will be necessary to verify
that no unacceptable levels of
contaminants are migrating to or past
the points of exposure.
The regulations require an owner or
operator requesting approval of
alternate site-specific closure
requirements to submit site-specific
supporting data. The data and data
analysis submitted by the owner or
operator must be of sufficient quality for
me Regional Administrator to assess the
factors for each of the exposure
pathways listed in 55 264.310(c) and
265.310(c). In addition, the following
information must be submitted by the
owner or operator: (1) A description of
closure activities designed to meet the
closure performance standard. (2) any
data, models, and assumptions used to
support fate and transport predictions,
(3) design and operating plans of any
proposed monitoring system used Ur
verify fate and transport predictions,
and (4) a plan which identifies '..
subsequent contingency closure ;
activities that may be needed if the
alternate requirements are not
successful and shows how these closure
activities will be conducted. The specific
information requirements are codified at
55 265.310(c)(2) and 270.21(e)(2).
Any unit undergoing closure under the
alternate requirements will need
verification monitoring systems to
confirm fate and transport predictions of
hazardous constituents through any of
the exposure pathways. Because of the
uncertainties inherent in any form of
modeling, the Agency plans to rely on
monitoring to ensure that actual
migration rates and concentrations of
hazardous constituents are consistent
with those projected as the basis of any
alternate closure option. The verification
monitoring may include, but is not
limited to the following: (1) Leachate
collection and analysis, (2) unsaturated
zone monitoring. (3) air monitoring. (4)
surface water runoff analysis, and (5)
ground-water monitoring. For example.
if the migration of hazardous
constituents through the unsaturated
zone is expected to be attenuated, then
soil pore monitoring should be
performed to verify this projection.
The Agency is asking for comments
on whether to provide flexibility in
specifying ground-water well locations
(point of exposure for the ground-water
pathway) for units that have
-------
in.stitulion.il or physical obstacles (o.g.
buried pipelines, natural geologic
features) which prevent the installation
"f downgnulient monitoring wells
iliroclly ;it the unit boundary. Comments
an; requested on the criteria by which
•iiljusimonls can be made to the
pliicermint of ground-water monitoring
wells. The Agency believes that the
distance the ground-water monitoring
wells c;m be moved in order to avoid
physical or institutional obstacles
should be limited (perhaps to less than
50 feet) so that early detection of
leakage from the unit could be detected.
The verification monitoring program
for ground water may vary from the
ground-water monitoring programs in
§§ 264.97 and 264.100 in terms of well
placement, sampling protocols, and
duration (Note: § 264.117 already grants
the Regional Administrator authority to
modify the length of time that ground-
water monitoring must be performed
based on site-specific factors). The
program, however, must be sufficient to
verify the accuracy of fate and transport
predictions and ensure that the alternate
closure requirements are indeed meeting
the closure performance standard. The
Agency may, for example, require
monitoring between the unit and the
potential point of exposure to ensure
that actual concentrations of
constituents in air or water never
exceed Agency approved levels or so
that actual travel times of constituents
can be compared with those predicted
by the model. If observed constituent
concentrations or migration rates differ
from expected values, the Regional
Administrator may invoke
§ 264.310(c)(3) or § 265.310(c)(3) to
require further model validation.
additional closure activities or ground-
water corrective action to ensure
compliance with the requirements of
§S 264.111 and 265.111.
Alternate closure requirements will
not be established under § 265.310(c) on
the basis that adverse effects on human
health and the environment will simply
be delayed for some period of time.
Thus, the owner or operator-would not
be allowed to meet alternate closure
requirements by arguing that a ground-
water plume of contamination would not
reach potential ground-water users (e.g.,
not migrate beyond the area of the unit
or property boundary) for some period
of time. The same concept applies for all
the potential pathways for exposure:
temporary prevention of adverse
impacts is not grounds for alternate
closure requirements under §§ 264.310(c)
and 265.310(c).
The Agency believes that the
alternative proposed in §§ 264.310(c)
iind 2GS.310(c) generally will not be
applicable to landfill and surface
impoundment units closing with
significant quantities of waste remaining
iff'pil'yce. Under-fhose circumstances, the
possibility of a successful alternate
closure is minimal since the potential for
harm to human health and the
environment posed by high
concentrations of hazardous waste will
be demonstrated by most valid fate and
transport modeling processes. Likewise,
facilities with units located in areas
vulnerable to flooding and/or seismic
activity will most likely be unable to
make successful demonstrations for
alternate closure requirements.
The Agency is soliciting comments on
whether all wastes that were placed in
the unit should be removed before an
owner or operator can close under
55 264.310(c) and 26S.310(c). Could some
wastes be allowed to remain in the unit
if they are stabilized, have been treated,
or if there are engineering controls (e.g.
slurry walls)? Should geological
characteristics, such as fractured
bedrock or Karst topography be
considered? In addition what location
factors besides flooding and/or seismic
activity should be assessed before
allowing closure under the alternate
approach?
The Agency is also requesting
comments on how ground-water use
should be considered in alternate
closure considerations. The Agency is
proposing to consider ground-water use
when deciding on exposure assumptions
for alternative closures
(§§ 264.3IO(c)(i)(G) and 265.310(c)(i)(G)).
For this purpose, ground water that is
potentially potable, e.g. has less than
10.000 parts per million Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS), will be considered to be a
potential drinking water resource and
drinking water exposure to possible
contaminants will be considered. If the
ground water is nonpotable (greater
than 10.000 parts per million TDS). then
drinking water exposure is unlikely and
ground-water concerns may be
secondary to other environmental
exposures (direct contact, surface water,
or atmospheric exposures).
The Agency is proposing to require
closure approaches under 55 264.310(c)
and 265.310{c) to meet specific
performance standards. The general
closure performance standards of
§§ 254.111 and 265.111 require the owner
or operator to close the facility in a
manner that: (l) Minimizes the need for
further maintenance, and (2) controls,
minimizes or eliminates, (to the extent
necessary to prevent threats to human
health and the environment), post-
closure escape of hazardous waste.
hazardous waste constituents, leachate.
contaminated rainfall, or waste
decomposition products to the ground or
surface waters or to the atmosphere.
Today's proposed regulation includes
more specific performance requirements
for closure under §§ 264.310(c) and
265.310(c) to ensure that the site-specific
closure requirements will be as effective
in protecting human health and the
environment as the final cover required
by the closure option under
§§ 264.310(b) and 265.310(b).
The owner or operator should submit
a request for permit modification for an
alternate closure at least one year
before the expected closure date. He
must then modify the closure and
postclosure plan, filed with the permit
application, to conform to the alternate
set of closure and post-closure
requirements, established by the
Regional Administrator.
While the proposed rule allows an
owner or operator to apply for approval
of alternative closure one year before
the expected closure date, the Agency is
asking for comments on whether or not
EPA should allow the owner "or operator
to request such a closure "approach
during the initial permit application
stage. Because it may be difficult for an
owner or operator to anticipate all of the
waste and site factors that would be
crucial in completing closure under the
alternative approach, the Agency has
chosen to require the approval of one of
the two standard closure options (i.e..
landfill closure or "clean closure") to
assure that the intended closure is
protective and supported by adequate
financial responsibility. A modified
closure plan, incorporating alternative
closure could be submitted for Agency
approval at the end of the operating
period of the unit, when more definite
information on waste and site factors
would be available to the unit's owner
or operator. The Agency is requesting
comments on approval of alternative
closure during the permitting process or
prior to one year before the expected
closure date. Commenters should
address the Agency's concerns with
respect to the uncertainties regarding
alternative closure.
A final and very important area where
the Agency seeks public comment is the
issue of whether a unit should be
allowed to close under the proposed
alternative if hazardous constituents
have already migrated to ground water
above Agency approved levels. The
Agency is presently considering four
options for defining closure alternatives
for units with existing ground-water
contamination.
-------
8716
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 53 / Thursday, March 19. 1987 / Proposed Rules
Option I: Units with ground-water
contamination above Agency-approved levels
would be considered ineligible for the
alternate closure option and must instead
close as a landfill.
Option It: Units where levels of
constituents in ground water are above
Agency approved levels would be considered
eligible to close under § 264.3lO(c) or
§ 2G5,310(c) only if owners or operators
undertake ground-water remediation during
the closure period in order to meet Agency-
approved levels.
Option III: Units with ground-water
contamination would be allowed to close
under § 264.310(c) or 5 265.310(c) without
immediately addressing ground-water
contamination originating from that unit, but
the facility would not be allowed to certify
final facility closure until all ground-water
contamination had been addressed.
Option IV: Units with ground-water
contamination would be allowed to close
under § 264.310(c) or 5 265.310(c) but must
conduct corrective action during the post-
closure period.
The following paragraphs discuss
each of these options.
Option I: No Contamination
The alternate closure option would
only be available to units without
ground-water contamination at the time
of closure. Availability for the alternate
closure under this option would be
essentially the same as for "clean"
closures under the existing regulations.
However, in contrast to "clean" closures
which require levels of constituents in
the unsaturated zone to be below
Agency-approved levels, Option I of the
alternate closure rule would allow
modeling through the unsaturated zone
to show that levels of constituents
unacceptable in the leachate would be
attenuated to safe levels before reaching
the ground water. As described
elsewhere In today's Federal Register,
the current regulations normally force
units with ground-water contamination
into the landfill option because
contaminated ground water and soils
cannot be completely excavated during
the limited time allowed for closure.
A drawback to taking thii approach is
that there may be situations where
capping an old unit (i.e.. closing as~T™
landfill) may provide no incremental
environmental benefit even though there
is an existing ground-water problem. For
example, the mobile and toxic fractions
of a waste .may have already migrated
away from the unit at the time of
closure, or the owner or operator may be
able to remove a sufficient volume of
waste so that he can demonstrate that
the level of contamination remaining in
the soil will not contribute further to the
existing ground-water problem. In such
situations, the installation of an
impervious cap may serve no useful
purpose in preventing further ground-
water degradation and will not help
clean up the existing problem. In fact, a
cap may complicate or prohibit certain
corrective actions by adding additional
material that must be excavated or by
interfering with a pump and treatment
program that relies on "flushing"
contaminants through the aquitfer.
Recognizing this, the Agency is also
considering options II, HI and IV below.
Option II: Clean up Ground Water To
Meet Ground-Water Protection
Standard
Under this option, units with ground-
water contamination would have to
meet Agency-approved health-based
levels in the ground water before
certifying closure under the alternate
closure option [§§ 264.310(c) or
265.310(c)]. However, owners or
operators would be allowed to
undertake corrective action as a closure
activity in order to meet the ground-
water protection standard of $ 264.92 in
the ground water.
To make this option available, the
Agency would have to amend Subpart G
§§ 284.113(b) and 265.113(c) to authorize
the Regional Administrator to extend
the closure period in certain limited
circumstances, including the need to
incorporate long-term corrective action
into the closure process. The drawback
of this approach is that if corrective
action were incorporated into the
closure process, final closure
certifications would be delayed
(possibly for many years) because
owners or operators would not be
allowed to certify unit closure until any
contamination emanating from that unit
had been cleaned up. The benefit of this
approach is assurance that ground-
water problems are addressed without
imposing costly requirements (such as
impervious caps) in situations where
they arguably provide no environmental
benefit and may, in fact, impede
corrective action.
Option III: Facility Closure Contingent
on Ground-Water Clean-up.
In option III units with existing
ground-water contamination would be
allowed to close under the alternate
closure option without necessarily
addressing the plume originating from
that unit, but final facility closure would
be dependent on addressing all ground-
water problems at that site. In effect,
this option would disassociate an owner
or operator's responsibility to address
soil contamination at a particular unit
from his obligation to clean up ground
water at his facility. Capping decisions
for individual units would be based on
direct contact and inhalation concerns
and the need to prevent additional
contamination of ground water. If
existing ground-water contamination
warrants immediate attention.
corrective action could be compelled
through a section 3008(h) order, a post-
closure permit, or appropriate State
Authority. If, however, the
contamination from the closing unit
commingles with ground-watei
contamination from other units (and the
plume is not posing an immediate
threat), it may make more sense to
address the ground-water problem as a
whole rather than trying to address the
individual contribution from each unit
through separate actions. As with the
landfill option, the owner or operator
closing a unit under $ 264.310(c) and
3 265.310(c) would know that although
the unit has been closed, they still have
outstanding corrective action
requirements. The owner or operator
would remain subject to a facility-wide
responsibility for future ground-water
clean-up, not just responsibility for
addressing the contribution from the
individual closing unit
Option IV: Clean up Ground Water '
During the Post-Closure Care Period
This option would allow a unit to be
closed under 3 264.310(c) or $ 28£310(c).
although ground-water contamination
was evident at the time of certification
of closure. The owner or operator of the
closed unit would be responsible for
performing corrective action during the
post-closure period to meet the ground-
water protection standard of § 264.92.
The post-closure permit would include
provisions for performing corrective
action, including indentification of
remedial methods, chemical
constituents, target concentrations
levels and ground-water monitoring. The
owner or operator would continue to be
responsible for meeting the
requirements of § 264.117 or § 265.117.
The advantage of the option would be to
allow completion of all other closure
activities (e.g., installation of a cover
system), to begin all other post-closure-
care activities (e.g., monitoring and
maintaining the leachate collection, leak
detection, and cover system), and
complete all corrective action, which
may involve a much longer period of
time than was envisioned for routine
closure activities. The rule as proposed
today does not reflect any of the four
options. Based on public comment, the
Agency will select an approach and
make modifications to the rule as
proposed to make clear the Agency's
position on how existing ground-water
contamination will affect the specific
closure options.
-------
IV. Slate Authority
A. Applicability of Rules 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, the Agency
retains enforcement authority under
sections 3008, 7003 and 3013 of RCRA.
although 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 which 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.42U.S.C.6926(g).new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by the HSWA 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, the HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
B. Effect on State Authorizations'
Today's rule proposes standards that
would not be effective in authorized
States since the requirements would not
be imposed pursuant to the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendmerrts-of 1984.
Thus, the requirements will be
applicable only in those States that do
not have interim or final authorization.
In authorized States, the requirements
will not be applicable until the States
revises its program to adopt equivalent
requirements under State law
40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that
states that have final authorization must
modify their programs to reflect Federal
program changes and must subsequently
submit the modifications to EPA for
approval. [For proposals: The deadline
by which the State must modify its
program to adopt this proposed
regulation will be determined by the
date of promulgation of the final rule in
accordance vyi.thj 271.21 (e). (Note to
regulation wtyteWSee attached chart to
determine the appropriate date)]. These
deadlines can be extended in certain
cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)J. Once EPA
approves the modification, the State
requirements become Subtitle C RCRA
requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed against the Federal
regulations being proposed today to
determine whether they meet the tests
for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to carry out these
requirements in lieu of EPA until the
State program modification is submitted
to EPA and approved. Of course. States
with existing standards may continue to
administer and enforce their standards
as a matter of State law.
States that submit their official
application for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards are not required to
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. However.
the State must modify its program by the
deadlines set forth in § 271.21(e). States
that submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of those standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. 40 CFR
271.3 sets forth the requirements a State
must meet when submitting its final
authorization application.
V. Regulatory Impact
Under Executive Order 12291. the
Agency must determine whether a
regulation is "major" and, therefore.
subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. The
Agency does not believe that these
changes will result in an annual effect
on the economy of $100 millicr „» ir.ori.;
a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal. State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, innovation, or in domestic
or export markets. In addition, the
proposed changes allow another closure
option which, in many cases, will be less
expensive to implement than the
existing standard. Therefore, the Agency
believes that today's rule is not a major
rule under Executive Order 12291.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(o U.S.C. 601, et seq.J. the Agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis
for all regulations that may have a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The Agency
conducted such an analysis on the land
disposal regulations and published a
summary of the results in the Federal
Register, Vol. 48. No. 15, on January 21.
1983. The additional burdens imposed
by this regulation are not significant. In
fact, this regulation will likely reduce
economic burden by allowing for
another closure option.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980.44 U.S.C. 3501 et sea.
Submit comments on these requirements
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office^f
Management and Budget (0MB), 728
Jackson Place. NW., 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.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 264
Hazardous waste. Insurance,
Packaging and containers. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Security measures. Surety bonds.
40 CFR Part 265
Hazardous waste. Insurance,
Packaging and containers, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Security measures, Surety bonds. Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedure. Confidential business
information. Hazardous materials
transportation. Hazardous waste,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Water pollution control.
Water supply.
Dated: March 8.1987.
Lee M. Thorn**,
Administrator.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR
Chapter I be amended as follows:
-------
8718
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 53 / Thursday. March 19. 1987 / Proposed Rules
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 264
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3004. and
JIX15 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
.imnndud by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905.
0913(a). 6924. and 6925).
2. In § 264.90 by adding paragraph
(c)(4).
§2«4.90 AppttcabWty.
*****
(c) * ' *
(4) May be modified or replaced by an
alternate monitoring program.
incorporated in an approved closure
plan, designed to verify the adequacy of
a closure undertaken pursuant to
§ 264.310{c).
3. In § 264.228 by removing paragraph
(b) and redesignating paragraph (c) aa
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph
(a)(2) to read as follows:
§ 264.221 Closure and port-closure cant.
(a) * * *
(2)(i) Eliminate free liquids by
removing liquid wastes and solidifying
the remaining wastes and waste
residues;
(ii) Stabilize remaining waste to a
bearing capacity sufficient to support
final coven and
(Hi) Comply with the requirements of
§ 264.310.
4. In § 264.310 by revising it to read as
follows:
§284.310 Closure and poet-closur* car*.
(a) At final closure of the landfill and
upon closure of any cell, the owner or
operator must perform closure and
postclosure care in accordance with the
requirements of either paragraph (b) or
(c) of this section.
(b)(l) The owner or operator must
cover the landfill or cell with a final
cover designed and constructed to: .
(!) Provide long-term minimization of
migration of liquids through the closed
landfill:
(ii) Function with minimum
maintenar.ee;
(!!!) Prorrrote drainage and minimize
erosion or abrasion of the coven
(iv) Accommodate settling and
subsidence so that the cover's integrity
is maintained: and
(v) Have a permeability less than or
equal to the permeability of any bottom
liner system or natural subsoils present.
(2) After final closure, the owner or
operator must comply with all post-
closure requirements contained in
§§ 264.117 through 264.120. including
maintenance and monitoring throughout
the post-closure care period (specified in
the permit under § 264.117). The owner
or operator must:
(i) Maintain the integrity and
effectiveness of the final cover,
including making repairs to the cap as
necessary to correct the effects of
settling, subsidence, erosion, or other
events.
(ii) Continue to operate the leachate
collection and removal system until
leachate is no longer detected;
(iii) Maintain and monitor the ground-
water monitoring system and comply
with all other applicable requirements of
Subpart F of this part
(iv) Prevent run-on and run-off from
eroding and otherwise damaging the
final coven and
(v) Protect and maintain surveyed
benchmarks used in complying with
§ 264.309. or
(c) The owner or operator must
comply with an alternate set of closure
and post-closure requirements that are
established by the Regional
Administrator by modifying the permit
at the time of closure and that are
specific to the unit being closed.
The Regional Administrator shall
authorize alternate requirements under
this paragraph only if he or she finds.
based upon consideration of the factors
set forth in paragraph (c)(l) of this
section and the data submitted by the
owner or operator under paragraph(c)(2)
of this section, that the requirements
will assure the achievement of the
closure performance standard in
S 264.111 and will be at least au effective
in protecting human health and the
environment as the final cover required
under paragraph (b) of this section.
These requirements shall include, an
appropriate closure/post-closture
verification monitoring program for
exposure pathways of concern at the
site. This monitoring program must be
sufficient to verify the accuracy of any
fate and transport calculations used in
the design of the closure system being
proposed.
(1) In determining whether to
authorize alternate closure requirements
under this paragraph the Regional
Administrator will consider the
following factors:
(i) Potential adverse effects on
ground-water quality, considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste in the unit(s)
to be closed, including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The hydrogeological
characteristics of the facility and
surrounding land:
(C) The characteristics of the
unsaturated zone that may affect the
fate and transport of waste constituents
from the unit(s) to be closed:
(D) The direction and rate of ground-
water flow:
(E) The proximity and withdrawal
rates of ground-water users:
(F) The current and future uses of
ground water in the area;
(G) The existing quality of ground
water, including other sources of
contamination and their cumulative
impact on the ground-water quality;
(H) The potential for health risks
caused by human exposure to waste
constituents;
(I) The potential damage to wildlife,
crops, vegetation, and physical
structures caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(I) The persistence and permanence of
the potential adverse effects; and
(ii) Potential adverse effects on
surface water quality, considering:
(A) The physical and chemical •
characteristics of the waste and waste
constituents in the unit(s) to be doeecfe
including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The topographic characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land.
including run-off and run-on patterns:
(C) The quality of ground-water and
the direction of ground-water flow;
(D) The patterns of precipitation and
evapotranspiration of the region:
(E) The proximity of the unit(s) to be
closed to surface waters;
(F) The current and future uses of
surface waters in the area and any
water quality standards established for
those surface waters;
(G) The existing quality of surface
water, including other sources of
contamination and the cumulative
impact on surface water quality;
(H) The potential for health risks
caused by human exposure to waste
constituents;
(I) The potential damage to wildlife,
crops, vegetation, and physical
structures caused by exposure to waste
constituents; and
(I) The persistence and permanence of
the potential adverse effects, and
(iii) Potential adverse effects caused
by direct contact to the waste and waste
constituents considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste and waste
constituents in the unit(s) to be closed:
including its toxicity and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 53 / Thursday, March 19. 1987. / Prnn^ p...,.
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The current and future uses of the
area;
(C) The potential for human exposure
to waste constituents;
(D) The potential for health risks
caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(E) The potential damage to wildlife.
crop vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(F) The persistence and permanence
of the potential adverse effects; and
(iv) Potential adverse effects caused
by release to the atmosphere of waste or
waste constituents considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste and waste
constituents in the unit(s) to be closed;
including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The current and future uses of the
area;
(C) The potential for human exposure
to waste constituents;
(D) The potential for health risks
caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(E) The potential damage to wildlife.
crop vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste
constituents:
(F) The persistence and permanenc*^--"
of the potential adverse effects.
(v) The engineered characteristics of
the unit(s) to be closed that affect
ground-water, surface water, direct
contact or atmospheric exposure
pathways.
(2) An owner or operator submitting
closure and post-closure plans, to
conduct closure and post-closure care
under this paragraph must submit data
that is of sufficient quality for the
Regional Administrator to assess the
factors listed in subparagraph (1) of this
paragraph. At a minimum, the
information required by J 270.21(e)(2)
must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
(3) If. at any time during the post-
closure care period, the Regional
Administrator determines that any of
the assumptions underlying fate and
transport calculations used to justify the
closure systems are incorrect or that the
alternate requirements have not ensured
compliance with § 264.111. the Regional
Administrator may impose such
additional requirements, including those
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.
as may be necessary to ensure
compliance with § 264.111.
PART 265-lNTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT,£TORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for Part 255
continues to read as follows;
Authority: Sees. 1008. 2002(a), 3004 3005
and 3015, Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act at amended (42 U.S.C 6905.
6912(a), 6924. 6925. and 6935).
6. In § 265.90 by adding paragraph
§265.90 Applicability.
(c) * * '
(3) May be modified or replaced by an
alternate ground-water monitoring
program, incorporated in an approved
closure plan, designed to verify the
adequacy of a closure undertaken
pursuant to § 265.310(c).
* • • * * .
7. In f 265.228 by removing paragraph
(b) and designating paragraph (c) a*
paragraph (b) and revising paragraph*
(a)(2) to read as follows:
{285-22* Cteaure and part cteeur*.
(2)(t) Eliminate free liquids by
receiving liquids wastes or solidifying
the remaining wastes and waste
residue*;
- fiij Stabilize remaining waste to a r *s
bearing capacity sufficient to support
final cover, and
{iiif comply with requirements of
§ 265.310.
• • • • *
8. In 1285.310 by revising it to read as
follows:
§265.310 Closure and po*t-elo*uc* care.
(a) At final closure of the landfill or
upon closure of any cell, the owner or
operator must perform closure and post-
closure care in accordance with the
requirements or either paragraphs (b) or
(c) of this section.
(b)(l) The owner or operator must
cover the landfill or cell with a final
cover designed and constructed to:
(i) Provide long-term minimization of
migration of liquids through the closed
landfill;
(ii) Function with minimum
maintenance:
(iii) Promote drainage and minimize
erosion or abrasion of the cover:
(iv) Accommodate settling and
subsidence so that the cover's integrity
is maintained: and
(v) Have a permeability less than or
equal to the permeability of any bottom
liner system or natural subsoils present.
(2) After final closure, the owner or
operator must comply with all post-
closure requirements contained in
§§ 265.117 through 265.120. including
maintenance and monitoring throughout
the post-closure care period. The owner
or operator must:
(i) Maintain the integrity and
effectiveness of the final cover.
including making repairs to the cap as
necessary to correct the effects of
settling, subsidence, erosion, or other
events.
(ii) Maintain and monitor the ground-
water monitoring system and comply
with all other applicable requirements of
Subpart F of this part;
(iii) Prevent run-on and run-off from
eroding or otherwise damaging the final
coven and
(iv) Protect and maintain surveyed
benchmarks used in complying with
§ 265.309. or
(c) The owner or operator must
comply with an alternate set of closure
and post-closure requirements that are
established by the Regional
Administrator at the time of closure and
that are specific to the unit being closed.
The Regional Administrator shall
authorize alternate requirements under
this paragraph only if he pr she finds.
based upon considerations of factors set
forth in paragraph (c)(l) of this section
and the data submitted by the owner or
operator under paragraph (c)(2) of this
se«tioa» that th* requirements will
assure the achievement of the closure
performance standard in $ 265.111 and
will beat least as effective in protecting
human health and the environment as
the final cover required under paragraph
(b) of this section. These requirements
shall include, an appropriate closure/
postclosure verification monitoring
program for exposure pathways of
concern at the site. This monitoring
program must be sufficient to verify the
accuracy of any fate and transport
calculations used in the design of the
closure system being proposed.
(1) In determining whether to
authorize alternate closure requirements
under this paragraph the K^iorthi
Administrator will consider the
following factors:
(i) Potential adverse effects on
ground-water quality, considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste in the unit(s)
to be closed, including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The hydrogeological
characteristics of the facility and
surrounding land;
(C) The characteristics of the
unsaturated zone that may affect the
-------
87T.O
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 53 / Thursday. Mjrr.h 19. 1987 / Proposed Rules
fate and transport of waste constituents
from the unit(s) to be closed.
(D) The direction and rate of ground-
water flow:
(F.) The proximity and withdrawal
ratrs of ground-water users:
(F) The current and future uses of
ground water in the area;
(G) The existing quality of ground
water, including other sources of
contamination and their cumulative
imp.ict on the ground-water quality:
(H) The potential for health risks
(Mused by human exposure to waste
constituents:
(I) The potential damage to wildlife.
crops, vegetation, and physical
•structures caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(}) The persistence and permanence of
the potential adverse effects; and
(ii) Potential adverse effects on
surface water quality, considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste and waste
constituents in the unit(s) to be closed:
including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The topographic characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land.
including runoff and runon patterns; •
(C) The quality of ground-water and
the direction of ground-water flow;
(D) The patterns of precipitation and
pvapotranspiration of the region:
(E) The proximity of the unit(s) to be
closed to surface waters;
(F) The current and future uses of
surface waters in the area and any
water quality standards established for
those surface waters;
(G) The existing quality of surface
water, including other sources of
contamination and the cumulative
impact on surface water quality;
(H) The potential for health risks
caused by human exposure to waste
constituents;
(I) The potential damage to wildlife.
crops, vegetation, and physical
structures caused by exposure to waste
constituents: and
(J) The persistence and permanence of
the potential adverse effects, and
(iii) Potential adverse effects caused
by direct contact to the waste and waste
constituents considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste and waste
constituents in the unit(s) to be closed;
including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(BJ The current and future uses of the
area:
(C) The potential for human exposure
to waste constituents;
(D) The potential for health risks
caused by exposure to waste
constituents:
(E) The potential damage to wildlife.
crop vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste
constituents:
(F) The persistence and permanence
of the potential adverse effects: and
(iv) Potential adverse effects caused
by release to the atmosphere of waste or
waste constituents considering:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste and waste
constituents in the unit(s) to be closed:
including its toxicity and
bioaccumulation potential and its
mobility and persistence.
(B) The current and future uses of the
area;
(C) The potential for human exposure
to waste constituents:
(D) The potential for health risks
caused by exposure to waste
constituents;
(E) The potential damage to wildlife,
crop vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste
constituents.
(F) The persistence and permanence
of the potential adverse effectu.
(v) The engineered characteristics of
the unit(s) to be closed that affect
ground water, surface water, direct
contact or atmospheric exposure
pathways.
(2) An owner or operator submitting
closure and post-closure plans to
conduct closure and post-closure care
under this paragraph must submit data
that is of sufficient quality for the
Regional Administrator to assess the
factors listed in paragraph (c)(:t) of this
section. At a minimum, the following
information must be submitted to the
Regional Administrator
(i) A description of all closure
activities proposed to meet the closure
performance standard of § 265.111
including:
(A) Detailed design and construction
plans for any proposed coven
(B) Methods for any proposed
removal, treatment, or immobilization of
waste, waste residues, surrounding and
underlying contaminated soil and/or
ground water necessary to meet the
closure performance standard in
! 265.111;
(C) Sampling methods to verify the
levels of constituents remaining in
waste residue, soil, and/or ground water
after any proposed removal and a
schedule for submitting these data to the
Administrator and
(D) Design plans for any proposed
engineered barriers.
(ii) A proposed modeling approach,
where required, for predicting the fate
and concentration of hazardous
constituents or waste degradation
products at the point(s) of exposure. The
model(s) used must be appropriate for
simulating the environmental conditions
at the site. Data and documentation to
support any fate and transport
predictions must include but not be
limited to:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste or waste
residue including the maximum
concentration and characteristics of
each Appendix VIII constituent that
could reasonably be derived from the
original waste(s) placed in the unit(s):
(B) The concentration of Appendix
VIII constituents that could be expected
in leachate produced by the remaining
waste, waste residue, and/or
contaminated soil;
(C) Estimated quantity of waste
residue and contaminated soil expected
to remain on site;
(D) Hydrogeologic properties of the
saturated and unsaturated zone that
may affect the fate and transport of
hazardous constituents;
(E) A method and justification foe any
proposed grouping of constituents for
the purpose of fate and transport
analysis; «
(F) An evaluation of the performance
of any engineered components of the
unit or any proposed closure activities
and an explanation of how these control
strategies figure into fate and transport
predictions;
(G) The capabilities, assumptions, and
limitations of any proposed model(s)
including rationales for selected input
criteria, methods and QA/QC for
obtaining necessary data, and a
comparison of the model's assumptions
to actual site characteristics; and
(H) The concentration in ground water
of all Appendix VIII constituents that
could reasonably be derived from the
waste.
(iii) Design and operatinq plans for a
proposed monitoring system to verify
tne accuracy of any fate and transport
predictions, including:
(A) A proposed period of operation;
and
(B) Levels in each medium of concern
that will prompt notifications of the
Regional Administrator.
(iv) A topographic map showing a
distance of 1000 feet around the facility
at scale of 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) equal
to not more than 61.0 meters (200 feet).
Contours must be shown on the map.
The contour interval must be sufficient
to clearly show the pattern of surface
water flow in the vicinity of and from
each operational unit of the facility (for
example, contours with an interval of 1.5
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 53 / Thursday. March 19. 1987 /
Rules
meters (5 feet), if relief is greater than
6.1 meters (20 feet), or an interval of 0 6
meters (2 feet), if relief is less than 6.1
meters (20 feet)}. Owners and operators
of HWM facilities located in
mountainous areas should use large
contour intervals to adequately show
topographic profiles of facilities. The
map shall clearly show the following:
(A) Map scale and date;
(B) 100-year floodplain area:
(C) Surface waters including
intermittent streams:
(D) Surrounding land uses (residential,
commercial, agricultural, recreational);
(E) A wind rose (i.e., prevailing
windspeed and direction);
(F) Orientation of the map (north
arrow);
(G) Legal boundaries of the HWM
facility site;
(H) Access control (fences, gates);
(I) Injection and withdrawal wells
both on-site and off-site:
(J) Buildings; treatment, storage, or
disposal operations; or other structure
(recreation areas, runoff control
systems, access and internal roads,
storm, sanitary, and process sewerage
systems, loading and unloading areas
fire control facilities, etc.);
(K) Barriers for drainage or flood
control; •
(L) Location of operational and closed
units within the HWM facility site,
where hazardous waste is or was
treated, stored, or disposed (include
equipment cleanup areas); and
(M) Location of faults and other
geologic seismic zones.
(3) If. at any time during the post-
closure care period, the Regional
Administrator determines that any of
the assumptions underlying fate and
transport calculations used to justify the
closure systems are incorrect or the
alternate requirements have not ensured
compliance with § 265.111. the Reqionai
Administrator may impose such
additional requirements including those
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section
as may be necessary to ensure
compliance with § 265.111.
PART 270-EPA-AOMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE "
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
9. The authority citation for Part 270 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002. 3004, 3005.3007
3019. and 7004. Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C
690S. 6912, 6924. 6925. 6927, 6939. and 6974).
10. § 270.17 is amended by revising
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§270.17 Specific Part B information
requirement* for surface impoundments.
• ...»
(g) A description of how hazardous
waste residues and contaminated
ma.te,rials,will.be removed from the unit
at closure, as-required under
§ 264r228(a)(l). For any wastes not to be
removed from the unit upon closure, the
owner or operator must submit detailed
plans and an engineering report
describing compliance with § 264.310(b).
This information should be included in
the closure plan and, where applicable.
the post-closure plan submitted under
§ 270.14(b)(13). The owner or operator
may apply at the time of closure for
alternate closure requirements under
§ 264.310(c) by requesting a permit
modification and submitting the
information required in § 270.21(e)(2).
• • • * ,
11. S 270.18 is amended by revising
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§270.18 Specific Part 8 Information
requirements for waste piles.
(h) A description of how hazardous
waste residues and contaminated
materials will be removed from the
waste pile at closure, as required under
§ 264.258(a). For any waste not to be
removed from the waste pile upon
closure, the owner or operator must
submit detailed plans and an
engineering report describing
compliance with § 264.310(b). This
information should be included in the
closure plan and, where applicable, the
post-closure plan submitted under
§ 270.14(b)(13). The owner or operator
may apply at the time of closure for
alternate closure requirements under
§ 264.310(c) by requesting a permit
modification and submitting the
information required in § 270.21(e)(2).
12. In § 270.21 by revising paragraph
(e) to read as follows:
§ 270.21 Specific Part B Information
requirements for landfills.
* • • * .
(e)(l) Detailed plans and an
engineering report describing the final
cover which will be applied to each
landfill or landfill cell at closure in
accordance with § 264.310(b)(l). and a
description of how each landfill will be
maintained and monitored after closure
in accordance with § 264.310(b)(2). This
information should be included in the
closure and post-closure plans
submitted under § 270.14(b){13).
(2) For owners and operators
requesting permit modifications at the
time of closure to perform closure and
post-closure care under § 264.310(c), the
following additional information:
(i? A description of ali closure
activities proposed to'meet the closure
performance standard of § 264.111
including:
(A) Detailed design and construction
plans for any proposed coven
(B) Methods for any proposed
removal, treatment, or immobilization of
waste, waste residues, surrounding and
underlying contaminated soil and/or
ground water necessary to meet the
closure performance sUndard in
§ 264.111;
(C) Sampling methods to verify the
levels of constituents remaining in
waste residue, soil, and/or ground-water
after any proposed removal and a
schedule for submitting these data to the
Administrator; and
(D) Design plans for any proposed
engineered barriers.
(ii) A proposed modeling approach for
predicting the fate and concentration of
hazardous constituents or waste
degradation products at the point(s) of
exposure. The model(s) used must be
appropriate for simulating the
environmental conditions at the site.
Data and documentation to support any
fate and transport predictions must
include but not be limited to:
(A) The physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste or waste
residue including the maximum
concentration and characteristics of
each Appendix VIII constituent that
could reasonably be derived from the
original waste(s) placed in the unit(s):
(B) The concentration of Appendix
VIII constituents that could be expected
in leachate produced by the remaining
waste, waste residue, and/or
contaminated soil;
(C) Estimated quantity of waste
residue and contaminated soil expected
to remain on site;
(D) Hydrogeologic properties of the
saturated and unsaturated zone that
may affect the fate and transport of
hazardous constituents:
(E) A method and justification for any
proposed grouping of constituents for
the purpose of fate and transport
analysis:
(F) An evaluation of the performance
of any engineered components of the
unit or any proposed closure activities
and an explanation of how these control
strategies figure into fate and transport
predictions;
(G) The capabilities, assumptions, and
limitations of any proposed model(s)
including rationales for selected input
criteria, methods and QA/QC for
obtaining necessary data, and a
comparison of the model's assumptions
to actual site characteristics: and
-------
8722
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 53 / ThursJdy, -Vfjrch 13. 1987 / Proposed Rules
(H) The concentration in ground-
w,iter of all Appendix VIII constituents
that could reasonably be derived from
trm waste.
(111) Design and operating plans for a
proposed monitoring system to verify
th»! accuracy of any fate and transport
predictions, including:
(A) A proposed period of operation:
iind
(B) Contaminent levels in each
medium of concern that will prompt
notification of the Regional
Administrator.
Note.—The following information, relevant
to evaluating closure demonstrations under
§ 264.310(c), is required elsewhere in Part 270:
General facility location and design
information as required in | 270 14(b)(n) and
3 270.14(b)(19):
Description of any plume of contamination
including the maximum concentration of all
Appendix VIII constituents.
• • * * •
13. In § 270.41 by revising paragraph
(a)(5)(i) to read as follows:
§ 270.41 Major modification or revocation
and reftstunc* of permits.
(a) ' ' *
(5) * * ' . . -
(i) When modification of a closure
plan is required under § 264.112(b) or
§ 264.118(b), or when an owner or
operator requests authorization to
perform closure and post-closure care
under § 264.310(c).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 87-5576 Filed 3-18-87; 8:45 am|
aiLUNQ COOt I5«0-SO-*I
------- |