Thursday
February 5, 1981
Part
lo¥iro;mne;rital
Protection
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Standards Applicable .to Owners and
Operators of Treatmerst, Storage, and
Disposal Faeilitiesrand Permit Program
-------
11128
Federal Register /
'.February 5,1981 / Proposed Rules
'.,; .... i, .^--1.1.. .vmmmiumiiiammmaaiamimfaBtmm
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122,260 and 264
{SWH-FRL 1724-81
Hazardous Waste Management
System; Standards Applicable to
Owners and Operators of Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facilities and EPA
Administered Permit Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Reproposal of Proposed Rule
and Proposed Amendments to Rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is required by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) to issue standards
applicable to owners and operators of
hazardous waste management facilities.
These standards are to be used in
Issuing permits for facilities used to
store, treat, or dispose of hazardous
waste. EPA has issued many of its
permitting standards, but has not yet
promulgated permitting standards for
land disposal facilities. It has proposed
such standards and has subsequently
published a supplemental notice of
proposed rulemaking. Based on its own
analysis and review of public comments
received on these previous rulemaking
proposals, EPA has reached a
conclusion about the type and form of
land disposal facility permitting
standards that are necessary but
believes these standards need to be
rcproposed. ,
Therefore, EPA Is today reproposmg
permitting standards applicable to
owners and operators of hazardous
waste land disposal facilities, and is
proposing companion informational and
procedural requirements for permit
applications and other related rules.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
(180 days after publication). Four public
hearings, one in Washington, D.C. and
one In each of three other major cities,
will be held during June 1981. A notice
giving the date, time, place and other
particulars will be published in the
Federal Register 90 days prior to the First
of these hearings.
Comments are also due on certain
related draft Technical Resource
Documents on or before, [90 days after •
publication] In accordance with the
announced availability of these
documents in 45 FR 82964-82985,
December 17, I960,
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Deborah Villari, Docket
Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW., Washington, D.C.
20460, Telephone (202) 755-9173.
Comments on today's proposed rule
should identify the regulatory docket as
follows: "Section 3004 Permitting
Standards for Land Disposal Facilities."
Comments on the Technical Resource
Documents should be submitted
separately and should identify the
document title.
The public docket for this rulemaking
is available at Room 2711B, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20460 and
is available for reviewing from 9:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. ,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert B. Taylor, Acting Branch Chief,
Land Disposal Branch, Office of Solid
Waste [WH-564], U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, Telephone (202)
755-9120. . .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Authority
These regulations are issued under the
authority of Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001
through 3007, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901
et seq., sections 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and
6925; and, with respect to "well
injection," under the authority of
Sections 1421,1422,1423, and 1424 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended
by the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1977, 42 U.S.C. 300f et
seq. sections 300h, 300h-l, 300h-2 and
300h-3. '
II. Introduction
Under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). as amended, EPA is required to
issue regulations setting forth a
complete "cradle-to-grave" system for
the management of hazardous waste.
These regulations must include (1) a
regulation to identify hazardous wastes
that are to be regulated, (2) standards
applicable to generators and
transporters of hazardous waste, (3)
standards applicable to. owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment,
. storage and disposal facilities, (4)
regulations governing the issuance of
permits to owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities, and (5) guidelines j,
governing the authorizing of States to
implement and enforce a State
hazardous waste management program
in lieu of the Federal program. Because
of the enormity and complexity of this
task, EPA has elected to issue these
regulations in phases (see 45 FR 33086
and 45 FR 33156, May 19,1980). On
February 26,1980, EPA promulgated
standards for generators and
transporters of hazardous wastes in 40
CFR Parts 262 and 263. These standards
were re-published with technical
amendments on May 19,1980 (see 45 FR
33140-33152). On May 19,1980, EPA
promulgated several regulations: a
general regulation relating to the several
regulations herein discussed (40 CFR
Part 260), a regulation identifying
hazardous waste (40 CFR Part 261);,
regulations governing the issuance of
permits and the authorization of States -
to implement a hazardous waste
program (40 CFR Parts 122 through 124);
interim status standards applicable to
owners and operators of "existing"
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (40 CFR Part 265); and
administrative, non-technical standards
that are to be used in issuing permits to
owners and operators of treatment,
•storage and disposal facilities (40 CFR
Part 264)—see 45 FR 33066-33588.
Together with the February 26, I960,
regulations, these regulations
constituted "Phase I" of EPA's phased
development of RCRA Subtitle C
regulations. Several proposed
amendments .were also published on
May 19,1980 and a number of final,
interim final and proposed amendments
to the above cited regulations have been
promulgated or published since May 19,
1980. '
The Phase I regulations promulgated
on February 26 and May 19,1980
became effective on November 19,1980
and put into operation major elements of
the hazardous waste management
system authorized and mandated by
Subtitle C of RCRA. Among other things,
on and since November 19,1980,
generators have been required to'
identify the hazardous wastes that they
produce and to comply with specified
requirements, particularly with respect
to hazardous wastes that they ship off-
site for treatment, storage or disposal;
transporters have been required to meet
specified requirements pertaining to the
off-site shipment of hazardous wastes;
and owners and operators of "existing"
hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities have been required to
comply with the interim status.
standards of Part 265. In addition, the
process of authorizing States to
implement Phase I hazardous waste
programs—-programs covering those
activities governed by the February 26
and May 19 regulations—has been
initiated and has already resulted in
; several interim authorizations and
substantial progress toward many more-.
-------
Federal Register / .Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11127
The principal standards missing in the
May 19,1980 regulations were the
technical standards in Part 264 to be - •
used in issuing permits to .hazardous
waste management facilities.and the
companion requirements in Part 12,2 :
pertaining to Part B permit applications.
In the preamble to the Part 264 and 265
standards promulgated on May 19,1980
, (see 45 ER 33156), the Agency indicated
that; these "Phase II" standards would
be promulgated by the end of 1980.
Toward this commitment, EPA "
promulgated a portion of these Phase II
standards on January 12,1981 {see 46 PR
2802-2892). That promulgation included
additional general facility standards
(principally location standards) in
Subpart B of Part 264; closure and post-
closure standards in SubpartG;
financial responsibility standards in
. Subpart H; permitting standards for
storing hazardous wastes in containers
in Subpart I; and permitting standards
for storing or treating hazardous wastes '
in tanks, surface impoundments, and
waste piles in SubpartsJ, K and L-In
. addition, conforming changes to Part
122, principally the related information
requirements for-Part B perjnit
applications, were promulgated at that
publication. EPA Has also promulgated .
permitting standards for incinerators in
Subpart O of Part 264 and related Part B
permit application requirements in Part
122 (it also has proposed additional
rules for incinerators). ' ' ••-•••
The effect of issuing these two sets of
permitting standards is to supply jnajor
elements missing from the May 19,1980
' regulations and to enable EPA to begin
processing permits for facilities or
portions-of facilities that store
hazardous wastes in containers; teeat or
store hazardous wastes in tanks, surface
impoundments or piles or treat
hazardous wastes in incinerators. This
leaves standards for land disposal
facilities—surface impoundments and
"waste piles which dispose of hazardous
wastes in lieu .of .or in .addition to storing
or treating of such wastes {Subparis K
and L), land treatment facilities (Subpart
M), landfills (Subpart N), underground '
injection facilities {Subpart R), and
underground seepage facilities {Subpart
S)—toge.ther with ground "water
monitoring standards for land disposal
facilities (Subpart F) and related land --',-"
disposal standards in Sufoparts B and T
as the principal parts of Part 264 that
remain to be promulgated,5 As
'Also, permUlingstandardsfer .chemical,.: -
physical.and tbiokjgicallreatmeni and for thermal
treatment (other than incineration}.need to be
promulgated, but Issuance oTpemrits to these
facilities -.
the promulgation >of standards on and . .
since January 12, .1981, EPA will be able
to proceed with €he issuance of permits
for storage, incineration and other
treatment fsicilities or portions thereof).
Moreover, because EPA's Part 122 ''.-'"
regulations prohibit construction arid
operation of new hazardous waste land
disposal facilities -without a permit, fliis
would prevent M&W hazardous waste
land disposal facilities from being built
for at leastifl months.3 To deal with .this
problem, EPA will soon promulgate
temporary permitting standards for new
land disposal facilities which essentially
will allow permitting of such f aeilities to
proceed until permanent standards can
be promulgated and can take effect,.".";' ."
With jespect to existing land disposal •
facilities, EPA will have to await final or
interim finalfiuies to proceed with
permitting. However, the mterim status
standards of Part 265 will apply to ;these
facilities and, in many .cases, more
stringent State .standards; including
standards -for issuing State permits, will
apply. Additionally, where any existing
facility is causing an imminent and
substantial hazard, the Agency will foe"
able to take iippropriate .enforcement or
clean-np action under other authorities
including Section.7003 of RGRA and Qie>.
.recently enacted "Superfund" statute,
HI. The Problem Being Addressed
Land disposal of hazardous waste -
constitutes placement of hazardous
2 A recent anKsndmeni to fiart 122 relaxed the '
prohibition of ihe construction, without a permit, or
new hazardous waiste management facilities oflier
than land disposal facilities—see 46 Hi 2344,
January 9,. 1981 j :;. '., : ; ,,
-------
11128
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday, February 5. 1981 / Proposed
constituents in or on the land where
they are Intended to remain forever.8 As
atteh, hazardous waste land disposal
constitutes deliberate and direct
placement of hazardous waste in the
environment (e.g.. in a landfill, a surface
Impoundment or a land treatment
facility), albeit in a confined segment of
the environment. This presents two
problems: [1) The waste and its
hazardous constituents may remain
hazardous for a long period of time (up
to hundreds of years) and, in some
cases, forever {e.g., toxic heavy metal
constituents) and (2) the waste or its
constituents and byproducts may
migrate from the confines of the land
disposal facility Into the broader
environment.
Many hazardous wastes placed in
lund disposal facilities will not degrade
to a point whore they are no longer
hsssnrdous. or will do so only very
slowly. Toxic heavy metals, for
example, will not degrade; although, in
certain cases, their ionic state may be
altered to make them more or less toxic
(e,g., converting the hexavalent form of
chromium to the trivalent). Toxic
organic constituents may degrade in the
anaerobic condition of a landfill, but this
degradation is usually slow (taking
anywhere from a few years to 100 years
or more) and may not be complete,
leaving toxic degradation products.
Moreover, current scientific knowledge
about the degradation of hazardous
wastes placed In land disposal facilities
fs Imperfect. For these two reasons, it is
necessary to assume, at this time at
least, thai hazardous wastes and
htturdoiMi constituents placed in a land
disposal facility wiU remain hazardous
for very long periods of time and
therefore will remain a potential hazard
to human health and the environment
for very long periods of time.
Thtre is good theoretical and
empirical evidence that the hazardous
constituents which are placed in land
disposal facilities very likely will
migrate from the facility into the broader
environment. This may occur several
years, even many decades, after
placement of the waste in the facility,
but data and scientific prediction
indicate that, in most cases, even with
the application of best available land
disposal technology, it will occur
eventually.
Natural water, from precipitation or
from other sources to.g., groundwater)
will Inevitably infiltrate into the facility
unless a water-Ught containment system
'PlMMmurt of wdi w«»le Into or on Use land for
it ftallt podod with talent to remove it for
subsequent storage, treatment or disposal would be
emttdttod and wgal«tod «« hazardous waste
(e.g., landfill cover) is constructed and
perpetually maintained to prevent such
intrusion. In addition, there inevitably
will be liquids within the wastes placed
in the facility (this is particularly true for
surface impoundments but also will be
true for landfill even with the
prohibition of disposal of bulk and
containerized liquid wastes). Once in
the facility, such water or liquid
generates leachate, principally by
solubilizing hazardous constituents in
the waste. Such leachate inevitably
leaks out of the facility and migrates
into the underlying soils and
groundwater, unless a containment
system (e.g., a landfill or surface
impoundment liner and/or leachate
collection system) is constructed arid
perpetually maintained. This process of
natural water infiltration or liquid
inclusion, leachate generation and
leachate migration into the environment
results in the discharge of hazardous
constituents into the broader
environment. • . *
Although it is technically possible to
design and construct a land disposal
containment system consisting of an
impermeable liner and cover and a
leachate collection system to interrupt
this process; EPA seriously questioned
whether such systems can be
maintained and made to operate
effectively and efficiently for long
periods of time,-or perpetually where
this is required. Natural materials such
as very low permeability clay soils that
might be used for liners or covers are
not impermeable. They possess some
degree of premeability that allows
infiltrating water or exfiltrating leachate
to slowly but inevitably migrate through
the material, Manmade impermeable
materials that might be used for liners or
covers (e.g., membrane liners or other
materials) are subject to eventual
deterioration, and although this might
not occur for 10, 20 or more years, it
eventually occurs and, when it does,
leachate will migrate out of the facility.
Additionally, these manmade
impervious materials are subject to
physical rupture during both placement
and operation. When ruptured, they
obviously allow leakage of leachate.
Finally, leachate collection systems
have some collection efficiency less
than 100 percent even when newly .
constructed and, over time, may lose
efficiency by plugging and deterioration.
More important, however, to be
effective, they must be maintained and
operated and the leachate collected
must be treated or otherwise managed
as a hazardous waste. If leachate is
produced for a long period of time,' then
the leachate collection and management
system must be operated ior a long
period of time. Therefore, where
leachate collection is an essential part
of a land disposal containment system,
then long-term maintenance and
operation of the' collection system and
long-term management pf the leachate
collected is imperative.
As discussed, man's ability to prevent
generation and containment of leachate
has technical limitations. However,
perhaps the more important limitations
are institutional limitations. Given that
hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents may not degrade or may
only degrade slowly—an.assumption
that must be made in most cases—their
potential to generate hazardous leachate
continues for very long periods of time.
Given further that the technical
wherewithal to prevent leachate •
generation and contain and treat any
leachate that is generated depends more
on maintenance and operation of
containment and treatment systems
than on the satisfeictory design and
construction of such systems,, the
institutional arrangements for long-term
maintenance and operation of such
systems become extremely important.
There is considerable doubt about
whether the owners and operators of
land disposal facilities can provide the
long-term maintenance and operation of
containment systems required to control
leachate generation and migration and
confine hazardous wastes and
hazardous constituents to the confines
of the land disposal facility. The
requirements of Subparts G in both
Parts 264 and 265, require post-closure
care and maintenance of land disposal
facilities for at least 30 years. Although,
. the regulations allow EPA to require
post-closure care and maintenance
required for periods greater than 30
years where necessary to protect human
health and the environment, there will
clearly be some finite limit to the
extended time periods that can
reasonably and practicably be required
and complied with. If 30 years or some
longer required time'period is not
sufficiently long to exceed the potential
for leachate generation and migration,
then only two options are available:
providing for some public body or other
institutional mechanism to assume
responsibility for continuing post-
closure care and maintenance; or
predicting and expecting control of
leachate generation and containment for
only a finite period and basing the
issuance of land disposal permits on the
eventual cessation of post-closure care
and maintenance and the inevitable
migration of leachate from the facility ^
into the broader environment. At the
-------
•.-
.5. Ig8l /Proposed .Rules
1112S
present time, Jew, if any, institutional
mechanisms exist for public assumption
of post closure care. Thus, EPA believes
that the problem of inevitable leachate
generation and migration and
concommitant finite ability to -
technically and institutionally prevent
or control such leachate generation and ,
migration should be squarely faced and
• de,alt with in ihe development of land
disposalstandards. -•' •
The potential for leachate generation ,
' and migration into the broader
environment is not sthe only long-term
problem associated with the land
disposal of hazardous wastes. Migration
of volatile hazardous constituents out of
the land disposal facility and into, the
atmosphere .also is possible in many
cases (e.g.', the migration of volatile
carcinogenic constituents into the,
basements.of homes in the Love Canal.
area). Generation and migration of toxic
or explosive gases fe.g:; methane from
the anaerobic bipdegradation of organic
wastes) over a long period of time also
can be a problem. Land disposal 'of
ignitable or reactive wastes which have
not-been pretreated can present a long-
term fire or'explosion potential, unless
or until such wastes degrade into non-
ignitable or non-reactive forms or are .
otherwise .rendered Jion-ignitable or '.
non-reactive iby leadiing or other
actions. Finally, fhe mere existence .of
hazardous wastes and Hazardous
constituents in or on the land can pose a
long-term hazard in the event that future
land-use activities serve to expose these
hazardous wastes where human? can
come into direct and harmful contact
with them (as occurred also at Love
Canal) or where they are even more •
readily transported into the "broader
environment. As with leachale-
generation and migration, man's ability
to technically and institutionally
manage and. control these long-term
problems is limited. ••'.-.
As discussed, the essence of the -',.-,
problems faced in the regulation of the
land disposal of hazardous waste, is the
inevitable Icing-term potential for the
wastes or their hazardous constilutents
to leak out of flie facility.If it were
technically and institutionally possible
to contain wastes and their constituents '
in land disposal facilities forever or until
degradation mechanisms rendered them
non-hazardous,, then the problem of
regulating such land disposal would be
comparatively simple and straight
forward. It would entail development of
reasonably specific (but flexible) design
and operating standards or,
alternatively, containment performance
standards specifying total containment
of hazardous wastes and their
constituentswithin the land.disposal
facility forever or until.degradatiQn '.
mechanisms rendered themnon-' •''.-.. .
hazardous, as the case may be.
Unfortunately, at the present,time, it is'
not technologically and institutionally.
possible to contain wastes and
constituents forever or for Ae long time
periods that may be necessary to allow
adequate degradation to be achievedj .
Moreover, if degradation of the
hazardousness of waste, does,,in fact,
occur, ciirrent state-oi-icnpwledge does
not know what the degradation periods
are for most, if not all, hazardous wastes
and, therefore, does not 3cnow what
containment time periods to specify.
Consequently, the regulation of
•hazardous waste land disposal must
proceed from fee assumption that
" migration of hazardous wastes and their
constituents and by-products from a
land disposal facility will inevitably ,
occur.
IV. Alternative Standards Considered
As discussed in the October 8i 1980,
Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (see 45 FR 66816-668233,
EPA considered Sour fundamentally
different alternative land disposal
standards: p.) Facility design and •.
operating standards, {2j) containment
standards, £3) specific {numerical] health
and environmental 'performance ,. '
standards, and J4J non-specific Jnon-
numerical) health •and'envirorimental .,.
performance standards. These same four
alternative standards,, together with the
public comments jeceivad on them [as
invited by the October 1980 notice) were
considered in developing today's :
proposed itde. Also considered were the
proposed land disposal standards of
December 18,1978, and the public
.comments received on those proposed
standards.
A. Facility Design and'Operating :
Standards
The land disposal standards proposed
on December 18,1978 ,(see §§ 250.45-2,"
250.45-3 and 250.45-5 at 43 FR 59006-
59014) were basically design and
operating standards (however,
§ § 250.42-1, 250.42-2 and 250.42--3 of the
proposed rule, which provided
overriding standards to.be used where
they were deemed necessary by the
permit writer, were basically inon-,
specific health and environmental
performance standards). By specifying,
for example, detailed requirements for
liners, leacnate -collection systems and
final covers for landfills, these design
and operating standards implicitly
specified a containment system capable
of minimizing leachate generation and
containing any leachate generated for a
finite ,ti!rili2.period.As.pointed,out in-the
Pctober.l98p notice, a major advantage '
of these standards or ones like themis
that they give the regulated community
and the regulating agencies a clear idea
of what isLrequired of Hazardous waste
land disposal facilities. This advantage,
however, carries with it a major
drawback:^ such standards tend to be
rigid and^inflexible making it difficult to
construct facilities to mee.t site-specific,
waste-specific conditions. They also
tend to. inljiibit application of emerging
technology or more efficient but equally
effective designs or operating
proceduMis. This inflexibility was
criticized iby many of the commenters on
the December 1978 proposed rule.
However, the more important negative
;,feature of design and operating -.--
standards, which are based on
containment,- such as those proposed, is
that they jbnly guarantee human "health
•and environmental protection for a finite
time period. Whereas this may be -
sufficient for someihazardous wastes, it
may not be sufficient for many others
and may only serve to defer the day
when contaminated, leachate migrates
from the facilities or when any of the
other environmental consequences of
land disposal occur. In light of the
discussion presented in Section HI,
above, EPA believes fliat, as basic
standards,, design and operating'
standards (cannot assure health and
environmental protection In perpfituity,
Consequejifly., the Agency is not today
proposing 01 jeproposiag design and
operaMiig iStandards as the basic
standards for land disposal facilities. 3t ..
is, however, proposing certain design
and, partitsularly, certain operating .
standards in Subparts P, '|C, L, M, N, R, $
an4 T of P.ar,t 264. Hiese standards,
whidh are discussed later hi this
preamble, are those Ihat .the. Agency
believes are .necessary under any set
-------
11130
FederalRegister Vol.46. No.
utltmite effect to the proposed design
and operating standards—both would
require containment for a finite period of
time—theso containment standards
were different in that they would have
specified the ultimate performance to be
achieved rather than specific facility
designs and operating procedures. Thus,
the permit applicant would have had the
flexibility of selecting and tailoring the
design of his facility and his operating
methods of site-specific and waste-
apedfic conditions and, therefore, would
not be lied to rigid design and operating
standards.
As explained in the October 1980
notice, two types of containment
standards were considered [see 45 FR
60817-60818). The essential element of
both types of standards, however, was
that they were based on achieving
containment of hazardous wastes and
hazardous constituents within a
confined area for a finite time. Like
design and operating standards they
provided human health and
environmental protection for a finite
time period but did not guarantee
protection beyond that time period. The
Agency found this lack of protection
beyond a specified containment period
to be a serious problem with
containment standards and, therefore, is
not today re-proposing such standards.
C Smcific Health and Environmental
Pfofoaaattci Standards
The Agency considered the very
different alternative, as compared to
those described above, of specific health
and environmental standards. As
described in the October 1980 notice,
this approach involved establishing
specific, often numerical ambient quality
standards for ground and surface waters
and eventually for other parts of the
environment (e.g., air and soils) which
could not be exceeded as a result of
hazardous waste or hazardous
constitutents which migrate out of the
land disposal facility. Such standards
would apply at points of current or
potential environmental use (e.g.,
currant or potential points of ground
water withdrawal for various uses).
These standards would allow the permit
applicant wide flexibility in designing
and operating a land disposal facility,
provided only that he could meet the
ambient standards specified.
These standards would protect human
health and the environment by clearly
and specifically defining what ambient
quality levels constitute health and
environmental protection. Application of
these standards would require a
considerable amount of site study and
prediction by the permit applicant to
demonstrate that the migration of
hazardous waste and hazardous
constituents into the environment would
never cause" the establishment ambient
standards to be exceeded. This would,
for example, require the permit
applicant to assess and predict the
amount and quality of leachate
generated in the land disposal facility,
the migration, dispersion and
attenuation of the leachate after it
leaves the facility and moves into and
through the environment; and the
concentrations and types of
contaminants that would occur at actual
and potential points of use of ground
waters and hydraulically-connected
surface waters. This study would be far
more detailed and extensive than than
that necessary to show compliance with
design and operating standards or
containment standards, but the results
would be much more valuable and
positive from an environmental
protection standpoint because they
would show, within the accuracy of
prediction, what are the future health
and environmental effects of the facility
and whether or not they are effects that
can be accepted (i.e., whether or not the
ambient standards will be met).
Although this specificity makes this
alternative very attractive, ambient
quality standards have not yet been
established for most of the hazardous
constituents regulated by EPA's
hazardous waste management
regulations (see Appendix VIII of Part
261 at 45 FR 33132-33133 and
amendments thereto at 45 FR 47834, 45
FR 74889 and 45 FR 78544 for the current
list of these constituents). Consequently,
the Agency is not able, at this time, to
exclusively use this approach to assure
adequate health and environmental
protection. However, it is possible to
employ this approach where ambient
standards or criteria are available and,
therefore, today's proposed standards
(see those standards proposed for
Subpart B of Part 264) incorporate
specific health and environmental
performance standards with respect to
hazardous constituents for which the
Agency has or can establish ambient
quality standards. With respect to other
hazardous constituents, non-specific
health and environmental performance
standards are being proposed.
D. Non-Specific Health and
Environmental Performance Standards
The fourth and final alternative
standards considered were non-specific
health and environmental performance
standards. As described in the October
1980 notice, these standards set forth
both (1) the type of assessments and
predictions that a permit applicant
would have to perform to show the
environmental effects of his land
disposal facility and (2) the broad
environmental objectives that would be
used in the permit issuance process to
judge the acceptability of these effects."
With respect to the assessments,
predictions and demonstrations that the
permit applicant would have to perform,
these standards are not different from
the specific health and environmental
standards discussed above. They do
differ, however, in that broad narrative
environmental objectives (e.g., the '
concentration of contaminants will not
adversely effect human health or the
environment) substitute for ambient -
quality levels as the bases for judging
the acceptability of the environmental
effects caused by a land disposal
facility. ,
V. Consideration of Comments and
Development of Today's Proposed^Rule
A. Consideration of Comments
Commenters on the December 1978
proposed design and operating
standards for land disposal facilities (as
well as other types of facilities)
criticized the rigidity and inflexibility of
these standards. They argued that such
requirements were incapable of
accommodating the wide variety of site-
specific and waste-specific conditions
that would be .encountered in the real
world and, therefore, would serve to
both over-regulate and under-regulate
land disposal facilities. They further
argued that such standards could inhibit
the use of more efficient, less costly but
equally protective designs and operating
procedures. Finally, they'contended that,
such standards would stifle
technological innovations. These same
concerns were expressed by many
commenters on the October 1980 notice.
By-in-large, these commenters did not
object to design and operating standards
as basic standards but objected to the
rigidity with which they were stated' and
the lack of variance provisions attached
to them. Many of these commenters
therefore suggested that a performance
standard be incorporated within each
design and operating standard to
• indicate the performance objective being
sought and to provide the basis for
varying the design and operating
standard to meet the peculiarities of
site-specific or waste-specific conditions
encountered at a particular facility or to
accommodate more efficient or
innovative designs and operating
procedures.
EPA agrees that greater flexibility in
design and operating standards is
desirable in cases where the Agency can
describe its desired goals in terms of
specific performance objectives.'
-------
JFederal Register / ' Vol; 46. °- 2 /
February 5, 1981 '/- Proposed' Rules
11131
Accordingly, today's proposed
standards in Subparts F, K, L,M, N, R, S
and T attempt to achieve this purpose.
Comments received on the October
1980 Supplemental Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking were quite varied in their/'
. preference for and criticism of the four
alternative types of standards presented
in that notice. Generally, the comments
found attributes and deficiencies hi each
of the four approaches. When taken
altogether,: however, no clear concensus
was expressed on which approach was
best. Many commenters felt that the
fourth alternative—non-specific health
arid environmental performance
standards—and,-to some extent the
third alternative—specific health and
environmental performance standards—
required studies, demonstrations and
burdens of proof of permit applicants
that were too costly and otherwise too .
great" to bear. These commenters tended
to express a preference for design and
operating or containment standards or
some combination thereof, particularly
in the short term until the States
developed ground water use
* - designations and until EPA established
ground wa,ter quality criteria and more
reliable methodologies for performing
the studies and demonstrations required -
by the third and fourth alternatives.
Even so, several commenters found
merit in the third and fourth alternatives
or in some of the elements of these "
alternatives, particularly in -the sense
that these-alternatives provided
considerable flexibility in the design
and operation of facilities. In summary,
the'Agency received many useful and
helpful comments on the October 1980
notice, but these comments did not
, decidedly point toward any one of the
four alternative standards as the
standards that EPA should develop and
promulgate for land disposal facilities.
One area where there was concensus
among the commenters on the October
1989 notice was that the notice was '
insufficient for proposed rulemaking
leading to a final or interim final rule.
They argued (1) that the notice
presented some very different
approaches to regulating land disposal,
facilities than were proposed in
December 1978, (2) specific regulatory
requirements were not presented in the
notice and {3} the 30 day public
, comment period was too short to
provide reasonable opportunity for,
meaningful public comment. The Agency
agrees with these arguments and,
therefore, as previously, stated, is today
re-proposing its permitting standards
and related permit application' t
requirements for land disposal facilities.
Many of the commenters on the •
October 1980 notice recognized that the
third and fourth alternative standards
depend on determining the uses of
ground water and hydraulically- ,
connected surfarce water to be protected.
In the third alternative, these uses (and
points of use) need to be determined so
that specific ambient quality standards
established in EPA's regulation could be
applied and used to judge the
acceptability of the land disposal
facility from the standpoint of the
"plume" of contaminants migrating from
the facility and reaching the points of
water use. In the fourth alternative, the
same process would apply except tiiat
acceptability of the facility would be
based on broad narrative environmental
objectives rather than specific ambient
quality standards applied to the,
designated uses. The commenters
argued that the State and local
governments rather than the Federal
government, were the proper authorities
to designate uses of ground and surface .
waters. EPA does not disagree with
these comments and, in fact, has
proposed such an approach in its
Proposed Ground Water Protection
Strategy, for which an executive
summary and notice of public hearings
was published in 45 FR-77514 on
November 24,1980.
Several commenters further
contended, however, that the Agency
should not proceed with either its third
. or fourth approaches until State or local
jurisdictions have designated uses for
their ground and surface waters. They
argued that, to do otherwise', would
place an unreasonable burden on land
disposal permit applicants to determine
and predict present and potential water
uses and demonstrate the, correctness of
their determinations. EPA disagrees ."
with this recommendation. The Agency
believes that State or local designations
of water uses should be used by permit
applicants as and when they are •
adopted. It recognizes, however, that
designation of water use by these public
bodies may take several years to
accomplish. It does not.believe that
proper regulation of land disposal
facilities should be sacrificed, or :delayed,
until such designations are made. Unless
or until State or local'water use
designations are adopted, it believes
that permit applicants and the RCRA
permit process, with input from State ;
and local government agencies, must
proceed with the best determination of
actual and potential uses of affected
ground and surface waters that can be
made and that permits should be • • •. •
fashioned aiid issued to protect the :
water use's so determined,' . ....-.-
Many commenters expressed concern
about the "presumption against any
.degradation" delineated in the October
. 1980 notice. These concerns ranged from
confusion 'about what this concept
would meian in terms of its' real-world
, application to arguments contending
that this presumption is not authorized
byRCRA.:
Put very simply, EPA proposed in the
October 1980 notice and is proposing .
today that the environment should not
be degraded at any existing or potential
point of us e unless or until the degree of
degradation is determined or predicted;
evaluated and found to be acceptable.
To do otherwise, would be to blindly
allow degradation without knowing its
-consequences. In practical application,
with respeqt to ground and surface
waters, this concept would mean that
hazardous^: contaminants migrating" from
a land disposal facility would not be
allowed to/reach and degrade such
waters at points of current or potential
use unless the effects of these
contaminants on the use of the water
are determined, assessed and deemed
acceptable in the permit issuance
process. Giiven that not all points within
ground and surface waters are used or
potentially used, degradation of these
points (i.e., portions of ground and
surface waters) would not be precluded.
In this respect, the concept is not an
absolute non-degradation concept.
Further, given that different ground and
surface, water uses require different
water quality and therefore, permit
different degrees of degradation, this
concept can allow degradation even at
points of usie—provided, however, that
such degradation does not interfere with
the use and! is found acceptable. In this
sense, as well, the concept also is not an
absolute non-degradation concept. The
Agency recognizes that many ground
water and surface water bodies or
portions thereof are used at so many
closely located poults that degradation
of non-use points would be greatly
limited. It further recognizes that many
ground and surface water bodies, are
used for purposes requiring very high
quality (e.g., drinking water uses) so that
acceptable degradation is quite limited. -
For these water bodies, the concept :
approaches an absolute non- : '
degradation policy and properly so. EPA
contends, how.ever, that other water
bodies or portions thereof are hot so
.highly \ised or used for.high-quality- .
demanding purpose's and therefore can
accommodate reasonable levels of
degradation.. • , •
Clearly, the Agency has shied away'
from the position of prohibiting any and
all degradation of the environment by
-------
11132 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed_Rules_
land disposal facilities. It does not
believe that this is possible or
reasonable. Even in cases where all
feasible treatment of hazardous wastes
is accomplished, there likely will be
hazardous residuals (principally toxic
heavy metals] that inevitably will have
to be disposed of in or on the land and,
as discussed in Section III, inevitably
will migrate Into and degrade the
environment. The Agency, however, has
not shied away from prohibiting
unacceptable degradation or prohibiting
degradation before there is the
opportunity to judge its acceptability.
Several commenters argued for design
and operating standards [including
perfbrjnance standards as discussed
above). They suggested that fhese
standards bo based on a "containment"
objective: containment of hazardous
wastes and hazardous constituents
within the land disposal facility during
Iho operating life of the facility (e.g., 20
years) and containment of hazardous
constituents within a broader area (e.g.,
the area underlying the property on
which the facility is located) for a longer
period (e.g., the 30 or more years of the
post-closure care and maintenance
period). One commenter suggested this
as an interim or short-term approach
until State or local ground and surface
water use designations, ambient ground
water quality criteria and more
extensive methods for making
hydrogeological and other studies could
be developed to more readily implement
either or both of the third or fourth
alternative standards. In all cases,
however, these comments were based
on the assumption that, if groundwater
contamination was discovered or
predicted to occur before or after the
containment period, remedial measures,
such as interceptor wells or trenches,
would then be required. For several
reasons, EPA is reluctant to accept these
recommendations (except perhaps as
interim, transitional requirements
applicable to existing facilities as
discussed in Section VI). First, as
discussed in Section III, EPA is
reasonably certain that hazardous
constituents and by-products will
migrate out of most facilities and
migrate beyond either of the suggested
containment areas at some time after
the containment periods. Second, EPA is
not certain that, once these hazardous
contaminants migrate out of the facility,
they can be readily and effectively
Intercepted and removed so that th.ey do
not migrate to points of water use.
Finally, EPA doubts whether it can
assure that the facility owner or
operator will implement effective
remedial measures whenever releases
occur, particularly for an extended
' period of time or after the originally-
established and funded post-closure
period. In short, EPA believes that
relying on containment during the
operating and post-closure-care periods
and on application of remedial measures
thereafter will, in many cases, fail to
provide long-term human health and ,
environmental protection.
With respect to EPA's Intended
Approach in the October 1980 notice
and the delineation of the information
and demonstrations that would be
' required of permit applicants under this
approach, commenters expressed
several concerns. First, they contended
that the required information and
demonstrations were extensive,
extremely costly and beyond the
reasonable capacity of most permit
applicants to provide. Secondly, they
felt that not all of the information and
demonstrations delineated were needed
in many cases (e.g., land disposal
facilities underlain by deep, tight clay
soils and located over deep, non-usable
ground water aquifers). Thirdly, they
claimed that some of the demonstrations
(e.g., prediction of the human health
risks posed by contaminants that
migrate to points of water use) were far
beyond the capabilities of permit •
applicants if not the state-of-the-art.
Finally, they argued that some of the
requirements (e.g., health and risk
assessments) placed burdens on the
permit applicants that projperly should
rest with EPA or-other government
agencies.
EPA agrees thai the information and*'
demonstrations requirements may be
quite costly and burdensome for some
permit applicants and, for others, will
not be insignificant. Given the long-term
hazard potential of land disposal of
hazardous wastes described in Section
III, however, it believes that such
requirements are essential to making
sound environmental judgments about
these disposal activities. The costs and
efforts of meeting these requirements
are justified.costs of doing business—of
having the privilege of depositing
hazardous constituents in or oh the land
where they might adversely affect
people's health and welfare-for many
decades.
Furthermore, EPA believes that proper
siting of land disposal facilities, proper
pre-treatment of certain hazardous
wastes and tailored design of facilities
for different types of wastes will reduce
the information and demonstration
requirements and, thereby, will alleviate
their costs and burdens. For example,
locating facilities in areas underlain
with deep ground waters or non-usable
ground waters or underlain with deep
formations of low permeability clay
soils will enable the permit applicant to
readily demonstrate that contaminants
will not migrate to points of water use,
thus lessening the requirements that
otherwise would apply. Pre-treating
hazardous wastes so that they do not
contain the more toxic or carcinogenic
hazardous constituents also will lessen
these requirements. Likewise, tailoring
the disposal facility to the types of ,
wastes disposed of so that, for example,
solubilization of hazardous constituents
is reduced will lessen, the requirements.
The Agency has tried to provide, in the
standards proposed today, provisions
that require more or less information
and demonstration based on site-
specific, waste-specific conditions.
For those pejnnit applicants that insist
on locating a land disposal facility over
a shallow, high quality, highly used
ground water aquifer or insist on placing
highly toxic wastes in a land disposal
facility without pre-treatment or insist
on otherwise locating, designing and
operating a system that is capable of
discharging contaminants that will
migrate to and affect water uses, it will
be both difficult and expensive to,
assemble the information and provide
the demonstrations required for*
permitting decisions. However, in EPA's
view, these costs arid burdens are
necessary to assure that the facility will
not cause unacceptable environmental
degradation.
Other comments were received on the
detailed elements of the October 1980
notice. These are addressed in the
appropriate parts of this preamble
which follows.
B. Development of Today's Proposed
Rule
EPA is today proposing permitting
standards for land disposal facilities
(see amendments to Subparts A and B of
Part 264 and to Part 122 in today's
proposed rules) that are drawn from the
" third and fourth alternative standards—
specific and non-specific health and
environmental performance standards—
presented hi the October 1980 notice. -
These proposed standards are
supplemented with certain proposed
design and operating standards (see
Subparts F, K, L, M, N, R, S and T of
today's proposed rules) where the
Agency deems that these more specific
standards can be fashioned.
The Subparts A and B standards
proposed in this action essentially
require a thorough and deliberate
assessment of the longrterm health and
environmental impact of land disposal
facilities. The Agency recognizes that
these assessments will require permit
-------
Register / Vol 46 No.24 A Thursday. February. 571981 /Proposed Rules - 11133
applicants to gather and submit
considerable detailed information and
perform difficult and complex
demonstrations. It also recognizes that
the required information and
demonstrations will be difficult and time
consuming to review by EPA and State
permitting officials and very likely will
require more time in processing and
issuing permits than might otherwise.be
required if design and operating
standards or containment standards
. were employed. However, EPA
concludes that these consequences must
be accepted in order to provide for full
consideration of the serious implications
that the facility might have for the
public's health and welfare for decades
to come.
The Agency also realizes that the
extensive information and
demonstration requirements of today's
proposed rule will be sufficiently great
to deter land disposal permit
applications for many locations, for
some wastes and from some persons. As
such, today's proposed rule, if '
promulgated, will probably reduce the
number of land disposal facilities,
significantly limit the location of these
facilities, limit the types of hazardous
wastes placed in these facilities,
promote the use of alternative methods
of managing hazardous wastes (e.g.,
incineration, treatment, recycling) and
preclude potential permit applicants
who lack the resources or the technical
capability to meet the information and'
demonstration requirements. In the ;
Agency's view, these are not
undesirable results. Because it
frequently poses long-term hazards to
human health and the environment, EPA
views land disposal as the least
desirable method of hazardous waste
management and believes it should be
used only in those situations where,
because of the location of the site,
nature of the waste and adequacy of the
management technologies and operating
practices used, it can be carried out in a
manner which will assure'long-term
protection of human health and the
, environment. Clearly, today's proposed
standards and permit application
requirements will create economic and
feasibility constraints that will limit -
land disposal practices. The Agency,
however, does not believe these
standards and requirements will
preclude land disposal as a necessary
hazardous waste management practice. *
It contends that there are suitable land
disposal sites, adequate land disposal
facility designs and practices and
competent persons and firms to operate
land disposal facilities necessary to
manage hazardous waste's than cannot
be handled by other alternatives.
Finally, the Agency recognizes that
the techniques for making the
hydrogeological investigations and other
studies necessary to meet the
information and demonstration
requirements of today's proposed rule
are not fully developed and need to be-
improved and extended. It also
recognizes that the technical expertise -
of undertaking these investigations and
studies is limited. It believes, however,
that the techniques and expertise exist
to perform, in some degree, each of
investigatory tasks that Would be
required of today's proposed rule.
Certainly, advancements in the state-of-
the-art and capabilities, which will
result from the implementation of
today's proposed requirements, will
improve performance in the future. EPA
believes that the requirement proposed
today will encourage such
advancements. -• • " —
EPA does not intend to underestimate
any of the several consequences of
taday's proposed rule delineated above.
It may be that these consequences are
more severe than the Agency now
estimates. Therefore, EPA invites
comments on this matter and seriously
solicits facts and data about the above
consequences. Certainly, the public
interest or the RCRA Subtitle C
objectives are npt well served by rules
that do not work or produce unintended '
results. Consequently, EPA is anxious to
know how and where and why today's
proposed rules are sufficiently deficient
in this regard to warrant a different
approach. . _ , .'
As indicated above, EPA has rejected
design and operating standards and
containment standards as the basic
standards to be used for permitting
hazardous waste land disposal
facilities—at least new facilities. It fully
recognizes the virtues of these types of
standards: Their specificity and
certainty and their easier . , v . .
implementability. As discussed above,
however, the Agency is concerned that
they only guarantee health and '
environmental protection for a finite
period. This is not to say that the
Agency believes that these standards do
not have a place in its -land disposal
regulations. As mentioned previously,
today's proposal includes certain design
and operating standards for hazardous
waste land disposal facilities in
Subparts F, K, L, M, N, R, S and T. Also,
as discussed in Section VI which
follows, EPA is considering and inviting
comments on applying these types of
standards as interim permit standards
(not to be confused with interim status
standards) to be used in certain
situations in issuing interim permits to
"existing" land disposal facilities.
Beyond this, 'the Agency intends to look
" for opportunities where these standards
might be used to improve the
implemen1:ability of the program.
Concephmlly, the Agency believes there
may be situations where sufficient
information is known about a particular
. hazardous; waste, its characteristics of
persistence and degradation in a land
. disposal facility and its potential to
retain hazardous constituents from
release and migration, and where
sufficient information is known about
the hydrogeological features of sites
where these wastes may be disposed of
to enable the Agency to develop a
specialized design and operating
standard. Where these situations are
found, EPA would consider developing
such standards. In this respect and in
possible other respects, EPA is open to
suggestions and solicits comments about
where it might effectively incorporate
design and operating or containment
standards iin the rule proposed today or
subsequent amendments thereto.
i. . -
VI. Application of Proposed Rule to
New and Existing Facilities
EPA is proposing that today's
proposed standards and permit
application requirements be applicable
to both new and existing hazardous
waste land disposal facilities (see .
definition of these facilities in § § 260.10
and 122.3). It feels quite certain about
the appropriateness of these standards
for new facilities, believing that it is
essential that a thorough and deliberate
evaluation of new facilities should be
made before they are allowed to come
into existemce. With respect to existing
facilities, it also believes that it is
essential that such an evaluation be
made before allowing these facilities to
continue op eration, under a full RCRA
permit. However, the Agency has some
concerns about the consequences of
applying the proposed rules to existing
facilities. -.
First, the Agency recognizes that it
will take five or more years for it and
authorized States to issue permits to all
existing haz;arddus waste management
facilities, including land disposal
facilities. During this time,; existing
facilities 4 will only have to meet the "
interim status standards of Part 265. For
land disposal facilities, the interim •
status standards do not contain many of
the requirements necessary to assure
environmental protection from the long-
term hazards discussed in Section III.
"For the purposes of this discussion, existing"
facilities that have interim status.
-------
11134 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday, February 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
Consequently, for the next one to five
years or more, many existing land'
disposal facilities will not be required
by EPA's hazardous waste regulations
to meet permit conditions that today's
proposed rules would otherwise
eventually impose. This is a concern to
the Agency because most of the existing
land disposal facilities are capable of
presenting the potential environmental
hazards described in Section II.
Secondly, and perhaps more
importantly, the application of today's
proposed standards and permit
requirements to existing land disposal
facilities will take time, once the permit
issuance process is initiated (i.e., once
submission of the Part B permit
application is requested). Section 122.22
allows the permit applicant six months
lo prepare and submit a Part B permit
application, but because of the extent
and complexity of the Information and
demonstrations that would be required
under these proposed rules, additional
time may have to be allowed.5 After
submission of the Part B, the review and
processing necessary to issue or deny a
permit will take additional time. Again,
because of the complexity of the
Information and demonstrations that
would be required, the review of the
Part B may weU take several months
and may also lead to time consuming
hearings, if they are requested. In
summary, it is quite likely that as many
as 24 months or more could elapse
between initiation and conclusion of the
permitting proceeding. During this time,
the existing land disposal facility would
continue under interim status to receive
and dispose of hazardous wastes
without full permit controls. This is of
concern to the Agency for the same
reason stated above.
Where the issuance or denial of full
permits for existing land disposal '•
facilities are going to be unavoidably
delayed, EPA believes there is need and
justification for some type of interim
requirements that are more extensive
than the current interim status
standards of Part 265. However, such
requirements would have to be
expeditiously applied if they are to
serve their interim purpose.
To address this need. EPA is
considering employing an interim permit
process and using a combination of
design and operating standards and
containment performance standards as
Interim permit standards. The purpose
of these standards would be to require
full containment for a finite time for
those hazardous wastes that are
*Tod»y"» propoicd amendments to Part 122
would give tins permitting official authority to
extend Iho lime period.
received and disposed of in a facility
during the, interim permit period
preceding the issuance or denial of a full
RCRA permit. Although, as discussed
above, the Agency does not believe that
containment-type standards are
necessarily satisfactory for long-term
control of hazardous waste land
disposal facilities, it believes they do
have merit as standards for interim
application. In this application, they
would serve almost as storage
standards, requiring the confinement of
wastes received by the facility in "new
cells" designed to contain for a specified
finite period. If the review for issuing a
full permit for the facility reveals that
such confinement is grossly inadequate
(e.g., hazardous waste constituents from
the new calls very likely will eventually '
migrate to points of ground water use
and produce unacceptable degradation
at those points of use) then the full
permitting of the facility can require
exhuming and proper re-disposal of the
wastes or other appropriate remedial
measures. This could readily and safely
be accomplished because the wastes
would be contained in the new cells,
catalogued as to where they were
placed in these cells, and segregated to
keep incompatible wastes apart. If, on
the other hand, the results of applying
today's proposed standards hi the
issuance of a full permit reveal that the
interim permit standards are sufficiently
protective or even more protective of the
environment than the terms of the full
permit would otherwise have required,
then a head start on adequately
managing the wastes received by the
facility during the interim permit period
will have been achieved.
For this approach to work effectively,.
the interim permit standards would have
to be quite specific and readily applied
through an issuance of an interim
permit—a process that could be initiated
and completed within a few months.
EPA believes that a combination of
design and operating standards (with
built in performance standards as
recommended by commenters) and
containment standards would provide
such specificity and implementability.
When submission of a Part B
application for an existing facility is
requested, the applicant would be asked
to supply information necessary to
consider issuance of an interim permit
as well as information and
demonstrations necessary to consider
issuance of a full permit. The
information requested for the interim
permit would have to be submitted in
six months. Basically, this information
would consist of a description of the
design and operation of the facility and
a showing that the containment
performance standard and the design
and operating standards will be met.
The information and demonstrations for
the full permit (as delineated in this
proposed rule) also would be required to
be submitted within six months but
could be extended for good cause. EPA
or the State (where the State is
authorized) would first consider and
issue or deny an interim permit,
hopefully within a few months of
receiving the Part B application. It then
would consider the issuance or denial of
the full permit (actually, review of the
permit application for an interim and
full permit would proceed concurrently
but preference would be given to
processing the interim permit first, -
leaving better opportunity to thorougly
and carefully processing the full permit).
It is anticipated that most applications
for permits for existing land disposal
facilities would result in the issuance of
an interim permit under which the
facility would operate until a full permit
is issued or denied. However, where the .
permitting official has good cause (e.g.,
the facility is already contaminating
ground water and the operation of a
successful containment system for
continuing disposal of hazardous wastes
is doubtful), the official could deny an
interim permit. This would preclude
continued operation of the facility until
a full permit is issued. The Agency
believes that interim permits would only
be denied for a relatively few facilities
where allowing continuance of disposal
•activities until a full and thorough
review of the facility could be made
would present a substantial risk to
human health or the environment.
The foregoing approach would only
apply to existing landfills where it is
possible to implement a containment
system for the new cells that could and
would be used to receive wastes during
the pendency of the interim permit. This
approach simply cannot work for
existing surface impoundments which
are continuing to operate and cannot be
readily retrofitted without severe
disruption and expense to provide
containment for wastes received during
the pendency of processing of a full
permit. For these facilities, the Agency
and the States will have to depend on
expeditious review and processing of
full permit applications to minimize the
possible environmental insults that
could occur during the full permit
* process. For .similar reasons, this
approach does not work well for and
would not be applicable to land
treatment facilities.
The Agency did consider application
of the above concept of containing
-------
5> 1981 / Proposed Rules
11135
wastes during permit processing through
requirements that would be imposed
through its interim status standards.
Such requirements would need to be
promulgated as amendments to Part 265.
It has tentatively rejected this approach
(although still holds it open for
consideration) because it believes that
the specific terms of these requirements'
may require some degree of case-by-"
case determination and variance which
could only be effectively accomplished
through a permit-issuance process. '
. The Agency has not been able to
develop and include in today's proposal
the specific regulatory language that
would be needed to implement the
interim permit approach herein
discussed. However, the elements of
that approach are few and
comparatively simple. The Agency
would establish interim permit ,
standards in Part 264 which would be
used in issuing interim permits to
landfills. These standards would be
flexible containment performance
standards requiring the landfill to have
a liner, leachate collection system and
final cover designed and operated so as
to contain the hazardous wastes and its
hazardous constituents for a period of 50
years. The purpose of these standards
would be to achieve in-the-land storage
of wastes until a thorough review of the
facility can be accomplished in the
processing of the full permit. This is the
reason for the requirement for a liner,
leachate collection system and final,
cover. The basis for the containment. :
period of 50 years is simply to provide
some reasonable tune period during
which environmental protection is
assured and within which remedial
measures, if necessary, could definitely
be accomplished. The Agency would be
proposing a shorter time period if it,
could be assured that, in all cases, a full
permit, requiring any necessary
.remedial measures (in addition to full
permit requirements) would be issued
(and not denied) and any required
remedial measures could be
, accomplished during the operating life
of the facility. EPA is concerned that.
this may not be the case in all situations
and that it may have less leverage in
causing the owner or operator to provide-
remedial measures if (i) .the full permit
is denied and the facility must therefore
cease operation or (2) the facility is -
closed prior to culmination of the full
permit process. In these situations, it
may take time to arrange for remedial
measures and the 50 year containment
period would provide an ample time
span within which to make such
arrangements.
In addition to the containment
performance standards discussed above,
the finarand interim final standards
design and operating in § § 264^11
through 264.17 and Subparts C, D, E, G
and H of Part 264 would apply and be
used in issuing interim permits. Also, the
design and operating standards in
Subparts F and N of today's proposed
amendments to Part 264 would apply. •
The Agency would also establish
special provisions for interim permits in
Part 122. These would include (1)
discretionary authority for the permit
official to initiate an interim permit
process when requesting a Part B permit
application, (2) authority to issue or
deny interim permits, (3) a specification
that the term for an interim permit
• would be no more than five years or that
time period culminated by the issuance
of a full permit, whichever is less and (4)
specification of the additional Part B
permit application information
requirements to support consideration of
an interim permit. The procedures for
issuing an interim permit would be the
same as those for issuing a full permit
(these are now established in Parts 122
and 124).
EPA invites comments on this interim
permit approach and its specific
elements described above. In particular,
the Agency would like comments on the
proposed containment performance
standard and its 50 year containment
, requirement. Also, it would like ~—
comment on whether this approach is
workable and, if not, why riot. If
commenters believe other approaches
are more workable, the Agency would
like to learn of them and would like
commenters to describe them in
sufficient detail so that EPA can
evaluate them.
VII. Detailed Discussion of Proposals
•A.SiibpartA—General -
The major amendment to Subpart A is
the addition of the "Non-numerical
health and environmental standard"
which-is the basis of today's
promulgation of criteria and'standards
for the permitting of land disposal *
facilities. This .amendment is discussed
below under the title "Ground-water
protection standard". That title is-used
since the Agency may in the future
promulgate additional health and
environmental standards. The
substantive standard being issued today
is related primarily to the health and
environmental effects of discharges into
or on the land which migrate to and with
the ground water. " - :
1. Purpose, scope and applicability—
§ 264.1. This Section is. being amended to
conform the .applicability of the
regulations! to exclude only those
"injection wells" which, by definition,
can fully comply with the criteria and
standards l?eing issued today for land
disposal facilities. Because of the
Agency's decision to propose the Non-
numerical health and environmental
standard, it! can not cpntinue the
complete delegation of the authority to
permit land disposal by well injection to
the jurisdic tion of the Underground
Injection Control Program of the Safe
Drinking,Water Act (SDWA) as it had
previously intended. For a more
complete discussion of the issues see the
preamble to the. Proposed Hazardous
Waste Management: Interim Status
Requirements for Underground Injection
(45 FR 33280) and the preamble to the
Water Programs; Consolidated Permit
Regulations and Technical Criteria and
.Standards; Underground Injection1
Control Program (45 FR 42472).
The basic decision of the Agency to
resolve the problems of which criteria
and standards apply when a facility,
subject to both theRGRA and the
SDWA, is to be permitted is that both
apply. The Authority section of this
preamble therefore cites both Acts with
respect to "well injection", and the
standards herein apply. This should be
understood to be air administrative
resolution of the problem-which reduces -
the issues to those of exclusive
jurisdiction.,. ,•>• . ..•-.":
At both the federal and th'e state
. levels of government, .the management
and protection of ground water is not
exclusively associated with either broad
health and environmental effects or with
the use of ground water for drinking"
water. As EPA has been, state agencies
are often also charged by their own
legislative bodies to consolidate
resources in'the management of any
resource. Part of the intent of the
decision referenced above is to follow
. management flexibility in charging
individuals to be responsible for either
the RCRA or thw,SDWA program's, or
both. The scope of the exclusive
jurisdiction is discussed later in this
preamble with reference to the RCRA •
permit by rule in § 122.26.
2. Ground-water protection
standard—§ 264,2.' One of the most
critical goals of the regulations being .
proposed today is the protection of
-ground water from potential adverse
effects in the land disposal of hazardous
wastes. In the December 18,1978
proposed regulations (43 FR 58982), the
Agency expressed its intention to '
protect ground water by relying on
"design,and operating standards subject
to an overriding human health and
environmental standard. The overriding
-------
11136
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
standard would apply when design and
operating standards alone would not
achieve the objective of the Act. In the
design and operating standards included
in the December 18.1978 proposed
regulations, the Agency sought to
protect ground water by requiring
containment of hazardous wastes.
Based on comments and its own
analysis, the Agency now recognizes
that containment of wastes disposed of
into or on the land is achievable for only
some limited period of time. Moreover,
in many cases containment does not
represent the most efficient, protective,
and effective control achievable.
Ultimately, containment designs act
only as a control on the initiation of
release of wastes to the environment or
as a control on the rate of release. To
fulfill the statutory mandate of RCRA—
the protection of human health and the
environment—a temporary solution such
as containment simply is not adequate.
As a result, the Agency published on
October 8, 1980, a Supplemental Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, outlining the
regulatory approach embodied in these
proposed regulations. This approach
will be implemented by a combination
of design, operating, and locational
standards. Primary reliance is place on
maintaining a physical separation of the
ground water affected by dispoal or
discharge and any subsequent use of or
exposure to the affected ground water.
Separation, and the control of
subsequent use, are both possible
because not all ground water is used,
usable, or needed for any use and
because ground water returns to the
surface environment in a definable way.
The basic goal embodied in these
regulations for the protection of Kuman
health and the environment is to
rigorously protect all ground water
which is now or will in the future be
used for any purpose from the harmful
effects which can result from hazardous
waste disposal. Further, these
regulations will ensure that the natural
re-entry of affected ground water into
the surface environment does not cause
unacceptable effects.
A variance may be authorized where
an absolute separation from ground
water use can not be achieved, however,
the permit applicant carries a heavy
burden of proof to show that the effects
which will result from his disposal or
discharge activities will not adversely
affect human health or the environment.
The comments received in response to
the October 8,1980 Federal Register
Notice displayed a wide diversity of
views as to the preferred regulatory
approach. The comments ranged from
those who supported the total flexibility
of a general performance standards, to
those who felt the technical design
requirements are needed to supplement
a non-numerical health and
environmental standard, to those
commenters who supported total
reliance on specific performance
standards, design standards, or a
combination of the two. •
The Agency recognizes the
advantages and disadvantages to each
of these approaches. Facility design
standards have the'advantage of being
specific, leaving no question to the
permit applicant or the permit issuing
authority as to what is required. Such an
approach would clearly simplify the
permitting process by removing any
discretion from the permitting authority.
However, design standards are also
very rigid and it is impossible under
such an approach to consider the almost
infinite variety of site specific factors
which may occur. Likewise, the rigidity
of this approach discourages the
development of innovative technologies
for the protection of ground water. Most
importantly, it is simply not feasible at
this time for EPA to develop the full
range of technical design standards
which would be required to fully protect
ground water from all adverse health
and environmental effects.
Specific ambient health and
environmental performance standards
also share the advantage of being
straightforward in terms of notifying the
permittee as to what he must achieve.
The major drawback of this approach is
that a full range of specific performance
standards has not yet.been established
to cover all of the possible adverse
effects of hazardous waste disposal.
A non-numerical health and
environmental standard has the
advantage of being flexible—allowing
for and even encouraging the
development of new technologies aimed
at the protection of ground water. This
approach also enables the Agency and/
or the permit issuing authority to ,
respond to new information generated
from a variety of sources including the
permitting process, monitoring data and
scientific research. The use of a non-
numerical performance standard will
also assure immediate fulfillment of the'
statutory mandate of RCRA without the
long delay that would be required to
promulgate adequate specific
performance or design standards.
Concerns were expressed by
commenters on several aspects of a
regulatory approach based on a non-
numerical performance standard. Many
commenters felt that such an approach
does not give adequate guidance to the
permittee or the permit issuing authority
as to what is necessary to achieve the
standard and qualify for a permit. The
Agency believes that the regulations
being proposed today will clarify to a
large extent those areas that
commenters felt were vague in the
October 8,1980 Notice. These proposed
regulations specify in greater detail the
requirements for permit issuance and
the showing required for a variance.
' Others felt that the proposed approach
will complicate and lengthen the
permitting process. In the opinion of the
Agency, in many cases the data required
of permit applicants will be readily
available and the permitting process
will be able to proceed without delay.
Where this is not the case, the Agency
believes that the impact on the
permitting process is justified in light of
the potential impact of hazardous-waste .
disposal, the magnitude of the potential
harm, and public concern over
protection from the risks of disposal of
hazardous, wastes.
B. SubpartB—General Facility
Standards
1. Location—§ 264.10. Section 264.10 is
being amended in these regulations to
ensure the applicability of the location
standards in § 264.18(b) to land disposal
facilities. Locational considerations
other than those to be considered in
§ 264.18(b) are contained elsewhere in
the regulations. Such other locational
'considerations are specifically
applicable to land disposal facilities and
the characteristic which distinguishes
such facilities from other types of
opertional units, i.e., discharge into the
land and ground water.
2. Land disposal facilities— § 264.19.
Section 264.19(a) lists the types of
facilities that are landtlisposal facilities
and therefore subject to the
informational and demonstration
requirements necessary to establish
compliance with the ground water
protection standard.
Section 264.19(b) limits land disposal
„ facilities eligible for permitting to the
types of facilities defined in § 264.19(a),
subject to exceptions granted through
the petition process described in
1 260.23. This petition process is
intended to protect the owner or
operator of a successful treatment,
storage or disposal facilitity from the
potential oversight of the Agency in
promulgating minimum, requirements.
The Agency does not intend to
invalidate successful facilities by its ,
regulations or to limit future faciltities to
the types with which it is presently
familiar and for which it has prescribed
technical requirements.
Section 264.19(c) sets forth five
classes of land disposal facilities. These
classes are established by the present or
future use of ground waters into which a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Prciposed Rules 11137
facility does or will'discharge. The-
purpose of categorizing facilities by
class is to facilitate descriptions of the
varying amounts of information and
levels of demonstration required to
pursue a permit.
Many customers felt that the ground
water protection approach outlined in
the October 8,1980 Federal Register
notice failed to consider the concept of
multiple uses of ground water and failed
to take into account existing
contamination or uses of ground water.
The facility classification scheme
provides a mechanism by which these
factors are given relevance in the
permitting process. For example, ground
water whicn is currently contaminated
at a level which precludes its present or
future use for drinking purposes, if that
is recognized and acknowledged as a,
fact, will be subject to reduced
informational and demonstration
requirements.
a. Types of facilities—§ 264.19(a).
Section 264.19(a) lists six major types of
'land disposal facilities: (1) Surface
impoundments; (2) waste piles; (3) land
treatment facilities; (4) landfills; (5)
seepage facilities; and [6) injection
wells. Type (S)-seepage facilities can be
further subdivided info atleast four
categories; (A) seepage lagoons; (B)
drying beds; (C) seepage pits; and (D)
seepage beds. The types of facilities
may be-described as follows:
(1) Surface impoundments, as the
name implies, are facilities at which
liquid wastes or other liquids are
impounded or held. In § 260.10 a surface
- impoundment is defined as an earthen -•-
structure designed to hold an
accumulation of liquids .or wastes
containing free liquids. Wastes placed in
surface impoundments are usually in a
liquid or semi-liquid state. The purpose
of a surface impoundment as described
in the applicability section of Subpart K
is for storage or treatment rather than
disposal. Discharge to the ground water,
when it occurs constitutes disposal
however, and disposal often occurs as
leachate from facilities which are
commonly called surface '
impoundments. When such disposal
occurs, i.e., when a surface '
impoundment is not designed to prevent
virtually all discharge, or is to be closed
with waste left in place, it is considered
a disposal facility. A surface :
impoundment can be designed to
achieve the objective of no discharge, in
which case it is referred to in this
section as being used "solely for storage
or storage and treatment". Such a
surface impoundment is not considered
a land disposal facility in Part 264. The
term seepage facility is used in these
regulations to describe a facility which
is designed with the objective of ;
discharging (i.e.., disposing of) liquids
into the land. Surface impoundments are
often used as part of a flow through
treatment system that disposes of
treated liquids through a piped
discharge to surface waters. Discharge
to the atmopshere rioVmally occurs as
diffuse :gaseous emissions. Wastes are
usually removed at closure, -but may be
left in place. ' '~ '•'-•'
(2) Waste piles are facilities at which
wastes, usually in a solid state, are
placed on the land for the-purpose of
storage or treatment. Discharge to the
ground water normally occurs as
leachate. Discharge to the surface
waters normally occurs both by erosion
and as leachate mixed with ground
water. Discharge to the atmosphere
normally can occur through wind
erosion or as diffuse gaseous emissions.
Wastes are usually removed at closure, •
but may be left in place. A waste pile
can also be designed to prevent virtually
all discharge into the land in which case
they are also referred to as being used
"solely for storage or storage and
treatment" and are not considered land
disposal facilities provided the wastes
are removed at closure.
(3) Land treatment facilities are '
facilities at which waste; usually in a
solid, semi-solid, semi-liquid, or liquid
state; are spread on the surface of the
ground for the purpose of treatment.
Discharge ,tb the ground water normally
occurs as leachate. Discharge to the
surface waters normally occurs both by
erosion and as leachate mixed with ,
ground water. Discharge to the •
atmosphere normally occurs as diffuse '
gaseous emissions. Wastes are nearly
always left in place at closure.
(4) Landfills are facilities at which
wastes, usually in a solid or semi-solid
state, are placed into or on the land for ;
the purpose of permanent disposal.
Discharge from the facility to the ground
water normally occurs as leachate.
Discharge to the surface waters can
occur by erosion, but normally occurs as
leachate mixed with ground water.
discharge to the atmosphere normally
occurs as diffuse gaseous emissions.
Wastes are nearly always left in plaqe
at closure. *
(5) Seepage facilities are facilities at
which wastes; usually in a liquid, semi-
liquid, or semi-solid state; are placed "
into or on the land for the purposes of
storage, treatment, or disposal. Four
types of seepage facilities are described
in this -section, all of which are defined
as injection wells in Part 146 (the UIC
Program) when the depth is greater than-
the largest surface dimension.
(A) Seepiage lagoons are facilities at
which wastes; usually in a liquid,; semi-
liquid, or semi-solid state; are placed
into the land for the purpose of •
treatment,,storage, and disposal.The
essential difference between a seepage
lagoon (which normally has a free liquid
surface) arid a surface impoundment is,
as mentioned above, is the objective of
the design. Impoundments which are
designed wdth the objective of seepage
(i.e., discharge into the land) are seepage
lagoons. Discharge to the ground water
- normally occurs as leachate. Discharge
to the surface waters normally occurs as
leachate mixed with ground wateri
Discharge to the atmosphere normally
occurs as diffuse gaseous emissions.
Wastes are usually removed at closure,
but may be'left in place.
(B) Drying .beds are facilities at which
wastes, usually in a semi-Solid state, are
placed on the land for the purpose of
treatment (drying) and storage.
Discharge to the ground water normally
occurs as leachate. Discharge to the
"surface waters normally occurs as
leachate mixed with ground water
unless leacliate is.collected in which
case it may be directed through a piped
- outlet. Discharge to the atmosphere
normally occurs as diffuse gaseous
• emissions. Wastes are usually removed
at closure, but may be left In place.
- (C) Seepage pits are facilities at which •
\ wastes, usually in a liquid state, are
placed into the land for the purpose .of
disposal. Discharge to the ground water
is by direct jseepage of the wastes, also
termed leachate for the-purpose of .this
regulation. Discharge to the surface
waters normally occurs as leachate
mixed with ground water. Discharge to
• the atmosphere may be by direct
venting, or by diffuse emissions. If solid
residuals remain after closure, they are '
usually left in place but they may be
removed. ; '
(D) Seepage beds are facilities at
which wastes, usually in a liquid state,
are placed into the land for the purpose
of disposal. Discharge to the ground
water is by direct seepage of leachate.
Discharge to the surface waters • ' '"
normally occurs as leachate mixed with
ground wateir. Discharge to the ' / .
atmosphere may be by direct venting, if
the seepage bed is covered, or by diffuse
emissions. If solid residuals remain after
closure, they are usually left in place but
they may be removed.
(6) Injection wells are facilities at
which wastes in a fluid (usually liquid)
State, are injected into the land under a
pressure head greater than the pressure
head of the ground water into or above
which they sire injected for the purpose
of disposal. Discharge to the ground
water is either direct or by direct . ,-
-------
11138
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday^ ^ebmary 5, 1981 /
seepage of leachate from the well outlet.
Discharge to the surface waters
normally occurs as leachate mixed with
ground water. Discharge to the
atmosphere may be by direct venting up
the well, or by diffuse emissions through
and from the soil. Wastes are always
left in place after closure.
b. Classes of land disposal facilities—
$2S4.1S{c). Five classes of facilities
(designated by capital letters) are
established in this section. With respect
to present or future uses of ground
water, three distinctions are drawn:
ground waler which is not and will not
in the future be a source of water supply
for any use; ground water which is or
may in the future be a source of water
supply for uses other than drinking; and
ground water which is or may in the
future be a source of drinking water
supply. A further distinction is drawn
between facilities which do or will
discharge into ground water which is or
mny be used as a source of drinking
water, depending upon whether the
facility affects a public or private water
supply. Greater protection is afforded to
private drinking water sources because
often those dependent on private
supplies have no alternative source of
drinking water or do not have a feasible
option of treating water to make it
suitable for drinking. The distinction
between Class A, which is related to
entire aquifers, and Class B, which,is
related to portions of aquifers, is
primarily administrative. Both entire
aquifers and portidhs thereof are
commonly described in reference
literature (e.g., USGS reports].
3, Minimum standards applicable to a
variance from the grodnd-water
protection standard for ground water
used for drinking—% 284.20. The
numerical criteria established in § 264.20
are minimum requirements for
permitting land disposal facilities which
require a variance because they
discharge to ground water which is or
may In the future be used for drinking.
The criteria should ensure that
subsequent use of ground water effected
by discharge will be acceptable as
drinking water with respect to its listed
contaminants (hazardous constituents
and decomposition and reaction
byproducts). The requirements are
based on the National Drinking Water
Standards but are established as
percentages of those standards to
maintain "optimum" water quality for
drinking rather than allowing
degradation to the maximum acceptable,
contaminant levels for use represented
by the National Standards. The
percentages applied are based on the
background document to the National
Secondary Drinking Water Standards.
The particular contaminants listed in
§ 264.20{a) are included in the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
and are health related. The 80% factor is
simply a margin for error intended to
avoid "brinksmanship" in the permitting
process with respect to the standard for
judging water unacceptable for drinking.
Comment is requested as to the
reasonableness of using such a factor
rather than the standard itself.
The numerical standards of the
Primary Drinking Water Regulations are
established at maximum concentration
levels of: metals and inorganics
indigenous to ground water, several
pesticides and bacteria, above which
water is considered not properly usable
for drinking. Also of significance are the
contaminants which are not listed in the
Primary Drinking Water Standards, but
are likely to be found in discharges of
liquid hazardous wastes and leachate.
Many of these contaminants (especially
hazardous constituents) if present in a
discharge, would make the water
unusable for drinking. Some of these
potential contaminants are covered in
§264.20(b).
The contaminants listed in § 264.20(b),
which include the pesticides hi the
Interim Primary Drinking Water
Regulations, cannot be safely ,
discharged into drinking water. They are
generally known or suspected
carcinogens, highly toxic, or are
produced and marketed as systemic
poisons. Use and spillage account for
the primary human and environmental
exposure. The criteria, which are
minimum standards, do not preclude
discharge of these substances to the
ground water but do restrict the
intentional disposal of such substances
to ground water used or not precluded
from use as human drinking water.
4. Performance standards and
associated demonstrations of
performance—% 264.21. Sectipn 264.21
establishes both performance standards
and demonstrations of performance
required in the permitting process. The
demonstration requirements include the
showing which must be made by permit
applicants seeking a variance as
described in § 264.2(a)(2). Some of the
requirements of this section vary
according to the class of disposal
facility (see § 264.19(c)) for which permit
authorization is sought. These
distinctions recognize that not all
ground water requires the same high
level of protection as ground water
which is now or will in the future be
used for drinking purposes.
Section 264.21 forms the basis for
determinations of acceptability (i.e.
permit approval or denial). The manner
of consideration in the permit process is
also described in this section.
Section 264.21(a) requires that surface
water quality standards not be violated.
Many people do not perceive the ground
water and surface water systems to be
part of the same flow system and
thereby fail to recognize their
interdependence. This provision will
force a coordinated analysis based on ,
the fact that these systems are not'
distinct. In most areas of the country,
the low flows to which surface water
quality standards apply are supported
entirely by the discharge of ground
water.
. Section 264.21(a)(2)(iv) requires
owners or bperators of land disposal
facilities requiring a variance (see
§ 264.2(a)(2)) to demonstrate the social
and economic need for the facility and
that no practical options for waste
reduction exist. The Agency believes
that these issues are implicit in the
permitting process and that they will be
of particular relevance in the public
participation aspects of that process.
This requirement ensures that these
issues will be addressed by owners and
operators in 'a manner that allows
adequate scrutiny by the public and the •
permit issuing authority.
The factors which must be considered
when a variance is required are
enumerated in § 261.21(a)(2)(v) for
surface waters and 264.21(d) for ground
waters. It is from the analysis of these
factors that conclusions can be drawn to
determine whether or not a permit
should be issued. For many
contaminants, the Agency has data
which can serve as a basis lor drawing
conclusions/but for others, data is
unavailable or limited. The data base for
formulated and decomposition
inorganics is sufficiently documented
and referenced. However, with respect
to natural and synthetic organics, the
data base is less precise. This is due, in
part, to the fact that the technology - .
required to identify, measure, and
correlate, these compounds with
observed health and environmental
effects has only recently been
developed. In the past, most discussion
of the effects of organic? in water were
merely categorized as "taste and odor"
problems. Most of the factors are
physical or chemical factors which are
available or determinate. Other factors,
especially those associated with the risk
of exposure to complex organic
chemicals, are associated with data
from which differing conclusions may be
drawn by reasonable people and
represent the frontiers of knowledge.
The Agency does not underestimate the
-------
Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Exposed Rules,
1113S
difficulty Vi/hich might be involved in
making a successful demonstration in
adverse locational circumstances, but
nonetheless feels that permitting
decisions that allow exposure to
hazardous .waste cannot be justified
because of a lack of knowledge.
Technical discussions of those factors
are included in the Background
Document,
It cannot be too strongly stressed that
locations which do not expose the
public to human risks are of paramount
importance in hazardous waste land
disposal. The need for good sites is even
more acute for hazardous wastes which
have only a very limited data base. The
primary means of ensuring that
exposure does not occur through ground
water are the requirements of
§264.21(b3.
Several commenlers expressed
concern that the ground water
protection strategy set forth.in the
October 8,1980 Federal Register notice
failed to give proper deference to State
or local designation of ground water
uses. Section 264.21[b](lJ provides that If
a government entity has the authority to
control ground water'exposure by
resMctiEg""activities that might result in
exposure, and such entity exercises that
authority in favor of the type of activity'
proposed to be carried on or being
- carried on by the owner of operator land
disposal facility, then the permit process
can recognize those determinations.
In many States, individual ownership
of ground water Is not possible; raflier
the State maintains ownership and
control. The rights of individuals to the
ground water are limited to reasonable
use, provided that such use does not
interfere with the similar rights of
others. Rights to use are usually
ancillary to land ownership but may
otherwise be acquired through the
purchase of rights of others, or granted
or withheld through fee legislative
process. Rights may also be held by
.other levels, of government. For example,
in the West, the Federal government has
not surrendered it rights to materials
beneath the ground surface, including
ground water, to State ownership;
although some rights may have been
surrendered to individuals. ;
Municipalities or counties may also hold
rights to ground water; especially
jurisdictions that have been awarded
the power of eminent domain.
Section 264.21{b){23 provides that if a
permit applicant can, by virtue of his
vested rights, control exposure to effects
caused {or to be caused} by the disposal
of the waste into or on the land by
restricting activities that could result in
exposure, the permitting process can
recognize those rights. Rights to land or
ground water are only recognized; not
granted by the permitting process. With
respect to ground water, the manne.r in
which such rights are held varies
markedly in different areas of the
. country according to applicable law, By
recognizing the lights that are held and
exercised fay individuals 'or government
entities in the regulation, the permitting
obligation of the Agency does not
interfere with existing and variable
federal, state, local, or private control
over ground water.
A permit applicant who cannot realize
control over the vested interests his
activities wiH affect, or when thai
control Is not provided by a duly
authorized government entity, is not
precludedfrom pursuing a permit
application. Such an application may be
granted if it is established mat the
effects resulting from the land disposal
activity are acceptable with respect to
the remainder of the performance
standards. This includes the opportunity
to show that affected ground waters
cannot reasonably be used as provided
in § 264.21{dj[3). Specific-criteria are
established for such a showing under
the UIC program as referenced in
§ 264.21{d](4], The limitation on the
"exempt aquifer" criteria expressed in -
the paragraph is due to the character of
the exemption associated with those
particular criteria. Tfyey are criteria
associated with the use of the land and
ground water for purposes which are not
consistent with the maintenance of high
quality drinking water. They are not-
appropriate for application to allow
hazardous waste disposal. It should be
noted that this paragraph also limits the
practice of dispbsing'of hazardous waste
by "well injection" directly into an
"underground source of drinking water".
The Agency has initiated a ban of such
practices under the authority of the
SDWA." If a showing that ground water
use is not possible can be made in any
given location, it would be appropriate
that the vested rights to such affected
ground waters be assigned or acquired
and then dedicated.
There are currently a limited number
of state planning documents which
could, because they are required under
federal law and subject to the approval
of the Administrator, be recognized by
the Agency in its administration of the'
permit program under Subtitle C of the
RGRA, Those with the greatest potential
relevance are the State Solid' Waste
Management Plans—section 40G7{aj of
the RGRA; Statewide Waste Treatment
Management Plans—section 303{a) of
the CWA; and Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Plans—section
208 of the CWA. Compliance with
statewide or areawide planning is.
required by § 264.21{a]{2]{Aj. Further, it
has beeri suggested by some that Slate-
Federal Water Quality Standards could
be^adopifid by states for ground water,
approved by the Administrator, and
they receive similar status as those
established for surface waters—sections
303(c) and 303(dJ of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). '[he Proposed Ground Water
Protection Strategy, discussed below
represents the most significant effort to
achieve a State'Federal relationship for
the protection of ground water.
5. Groiind Water Protection Strategy,
On November 18,1980, EPA published
the-Proposed Ground Water Protection
Strategy. This Strategy, when
promulgated in final form, will serve as
EPA's policy framework in the area of
ground water protection. Public input on
the issue 'of ground water protection was
solicited at recent National Ground
Water, Strategy meetings -sponsored by
EPA, with participants from State and
>: local government and business,
environmental, academic and public
Interest groups. The consensus of the
workshop participants, as .reflected in
the proposed Strategy, was a recognition
that the ground water system should be
segmented with respect to all its
legitimate uses, while continuing to
' recognize the priority of its use for
drinking and irrigation to support life.
The proposed Strategy contemplates
that the major .responsibility forground
water protection, evaluation .and
segmentation will be at the State and
local level The approach outlined in the
Strategy involves the development "by'
the States, of Slate ground water
protection strategies to be implemented
through a classification scheme. This
classification scheme would prioritize
ground water areas for high levels of
protection and identify those areas most
suited for potentially polluting activities,
such as the future siting of waste
disposal facilities. The federal xole
under the proposed Strategy includes
assisting the States in their ground-
water moidtqring efforts, in the
'development of State ground-water
protection^strategies, and through ••--.-•
.. research and technical assistance.
Additionally, the federal government is
to develoji nnnimum national
requirements for high priority problems
through established vehicles such as
hazardous waste regulations under
RCRA, *.
Several commenters suggested that
promulgation of ground-water protection
standards under Subtitle C of RCRA is
premature prior- to the finalization of the
National Ground Waler.Protection
Strategy. The Strategy as proposed,
-------
11MO Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
- .,,1--,„* -_. _i...i..m....-..mii-.- ^^—-MBA-jmrn, - — r-...,.,^J.^™iJMMnn.Mi»iaill 'III "I II il It I Ill I i IIIIPilli I l»l • I »I i TjT-«»-gamM^
IT
however, directs the Agency to continue
wlih tha implementation of federal
regulatory programs which affect ground
water. Moreover, the permitting process
established by these regulations
provides a functional parallel to the
approach set forth in the proposed
strategy. Classification schemes
established by the States can be
recognized by the federally
administered permit program. However,
as stated in the proposed Strategy, until
a classification scheme is adopted, EPA
Will maintain a policy that where ground
water is currently of drinking water
quality or better, it will be provided
protection to ensure that its utility for
this use is not impaired.
C. Subpart F—Ground-water and Air
Emission Monitoring
The proposed requirements of this
Subpart apply to owners and operators
of landdSspoal facilities used to treat,
store and dispose of hazardous waste
which have received a permit to operate,
These requirements are intended to
provide information on the impact of the
facility on ambient air and ground-water
quality.
In the case of ground-water
moattoring, the regulations proposed on
December 18,1978 included ground-
water monitoring requirements for
landfills, surface impoundments and
land treatment facilities; and the
requirements for interim status facilities
promulgated on May 19,1980 included
ground-water monitoring requirements.
Also on May 19,1980 ground-water
monitoring requirements were proposed
for certain underground injection
facilities.
In the case of air quality monitoring,
no such requirements for hazardous
wasto facilities have been previously
proposed or promulgated under RCRA.
This proposal to implement an air
monitoring requirement for land
disposal facilities is discussed in detail
starting with item 6.—Air Emission
Monitoring, of this section of the
preamble.
1. Applicability—§ 264.90. The ground-
water monitoring requirements proposed
today apply to all hazardous waste
management facilities where the
storage, treatment, or disposal of
hazardous waste could cause discharge
to the ground water, as did both the
originally proposed requirements and
those promulgated for interim status
facilities (Part 285). The Part 265 ground-
water monitoring requirements involve
monitoring of indicator parameters to
detect discharges to ground water and
subsequent assessment of ground water
quality following detection of a
discharge. These proposed regulations
are similar. New facilities and facilities
which had operated under interim status
but had not detected a discharge to
ground water are required to monitor
indicatot parameters until a discharge is
detected. Following detection of a
discharge to ground water these
facilities and those facilities which had
previously detected a discharge to
ground water during interim status are
required in these proposed regulations
to monitor the quality of the
contaminated ground water as it-
migrates from the facility. The results of
this ground:water quality monitoring are
then to be compared with the ground-
water quality provisions of the facility
permit. Although the Part 265
requirements include a waiver
provision, no similar provision is
i included in these proposed
requirements. The specific aspects of the
facility ground-water monitoring system
will be defined in the facility permit.
2. Ground-wafer monitoring system—
§ 264.91. As hi the Part 265 regulations
the minimum indicator monitoring
system is specified as at least one .
monitoring well located upgradient of
the waste management area and at least
three wells located at the downgradient
limit of the waste management area. The
proposed requirements also specify that
if the described system is inappropriate
at a given facility then a different
system for detecting discharges to
ground water must be installed and will
be specified in the facility permit.
Facilities monitoring the quality of the
ground water following detection of a
discharge to ground water are required
to install ground water following
monitoring wells at the downgradient
limit of the waste management area to
"provide samples of contaminated ground
water at that point and additional
monitoring wells further downgradient.
By requiring two downgradient groups
of monitoring wells, facility owners and
operators can measure changes in
ground-water quality over distance and
time. The facility permit will contain
prediction of the quality of ground water
and the information obtained from these
wells will be compared against those
predictions. •
3. Sampling and analysis—§ 264.92.
The Agency has published a
"Procedures Manual for Ground-Water
Monitoring At Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities," EPA-530/SW-611, August
1977 and a manual on "Method for
Chemical Analysis of Water and '
Wastes," EPA-600/4-78-020, March
1979. These manuals discuss sampling
and analysis procedures and are
applicable to the requirements of this
section.
Similar to the Part 265 requirements
the proposal requirements identify the
preferred four indicator parameters: pH,
specific conductance, total organic •
carbon and total organic halogen. If
other suitable indicator parameters are
to be used they will be specified in the
facility permit. Unlike the Part 265
requirements, the ground water need not
be analyzed for NPDW standards nor
selected ground-water quality
parameters. This type of ground-water
quality information will be available
from previous monitoring or the facility
permit application. As in Part 265,
background indicator parameter •
concentrations are to be established for
one year and used for future
comparisons. Also different from the
Part 265 requirements, ground-water
monitoring is to be performed on a well
by well basis since the indicator
monitoring will only be performed at
new (uncontaminated) facilities or
interim status facilities which have not
detected discharges to ground water.
Sampling and analysis requirements for
ground-water quality assessments and
predictions will be specified in the
permit for the particular facility.
Ground-water elevation determinations
are required at,all facilities to maintain
a check on the water table gradient and
direction.
4. Preparation, evaluation, and
response—% 264.93. These proposed
regulations require that owners and,
operators evaluate the indicator
monitoring data to detect discharges
utilizing the techniques included in the
Part 265 requirements, the student's
t-statistic is recommended but other
suitable techniques are acceptable.
Once a discharge to ground water has
been detected and confirmed an owner
or operator must implement a ground-
water contamination assessment
program. Under this program the extent,
rate, and predicted migration of ground-
water'contamination must be
determined and compared to the
predicted allowable ground-water
contamination specified in the .facility
permit. Once the ground-water
contamination program has been
implemented at a facility, annual
comparisons between predicted and
measured ground-water quality must be
performed. On a tri-annual basis the
anticipated impact of the facility on
downgradient ground-water quality
must be repredicted and reported to the .
Regional Administrator. The report on
the reprediction of the impact on
downgradient ground-water quality may
cause the Regional Administrator to
review the facility permit.
-------
VoJ' 46' N°' 24
y, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11141
5. Recordkeepiitg and reporting—
,§ 264.94, As in the Part 265 regulations,
records of ground-water monitoring
must be maintained throughout the
operating period and the post-closure
period. In addition to the report of
ground-water monitoring included in the
annual report, reports of evaluations are
to be submitted in accordance with
specific requirements of these proposed
regulations. "
6. A Jr emission monitoring. Oa
December 18,1978, the Agency proposed
air emission standards for treatment and
• disposal of hazardous wastes {43 FR
59008). Based on a number of comments
and the Agency's own analysis, the
Agency expressed concern about the
proposal which included definition of
volatile waste solely in terms of its
vapor pressure and use of the OSHA
levels for allowing variances. The
Agency discussed some aspects of the
comments and the seasons for such
concern in the Preamble to the Interim
Status Standards for volatile waste on
May 19,1980 (45 FR, 33186). The Agency
is continuing its investigations of .
. alternatives to the problem of hazardous
air emissions from land disposal
facilities.
The Agency recognizes that 1he
• potential of hazardous air emissions at a
land disposal iaeility should foe
evaluated prior to the issuance of
, permits. The evaluation will ebnsist of
long-term and short-term effects upon
human health and the environment
based on the ambient air analysis.
Information .relating to the quantity of
hazardous air quality air emissions, and ~
the toxlcity of volatile compounds, .and
consideration of control measures will
be required. Ambient air monitoring
• data which will provide the basis for
evaluating the impact of hazardous air
emissions from- a land disposal facility
to the downwind public will also be
required. The Agency believes that a
mechanism should be established to '
confirm and update the evaluation
which is performed based on the state of
the art methodology, and that the
ambient air.monitoring data can be
sufficiently used for tills purpose, .
Within this framework, the'Agency
proposes to require the owner or
operator of a land disposal facility to
monitor .the upwind and downwind
ambient air quality at or beyond the
waste management area, and to
evaluate the potential of hazardous air
emissions at Ms fadliiy.The proposed
requirements will provide a flexibility
for making a case-by-case determination
of the facility impact based on the best
engineering judgement of the permitting
official. This will render a higher degree
of control in the area of high background
concentrations, and vice versa. • V
The cost of the ambient air monitoring
will vary depending upon frequency of
monitoring,and the number of specific :
constituents to fee analyzed. The owner
or operator may select the monitoring Ll
technique and procedure {including the
type of contaminants to be analyzed]
suitable to his applications, subject to
review by the Regional Administrator. A
summary description of, and support for,
.the recommended evaluation procedure
for assessing the downwind impact can
be found in "Land Disposal Toxic Air
Emissions Evaluation Guideline."
The waste management area will be
defined in the permit Migration of
hazardous waste constituents and
byproducts from this area may violate
the requirements of the permit and
necessitate the reevaluation of the
original assessment of the risk to. human
health and the environment from air
emissions. The owner or operator will
develop a plan to detect the location of
a gaseous release migrated from the
waste management area. The Regional
Administrator will review the adequacy
of the plan during the permitting
process. If monitoring detects the
release of total hydrocarbons or
halogenated compounds (which are used
as an indicator for toxic chemicalsl
further analysis for each constituent of
the hazardous air emissions at the
location will fee required.
y. Applicability—§ 264.30. Improperly
designed and operated facilities treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous waste
could result in significant emissions of
hazardous waste constituents «or
decomposition byproducts into the
atmosphere. The general approach in the
proposed regulation is to require die
owner or operator of a facility from
which hazardous waste constituents or
decomposition byproducts are emitted
into the atmosphere to establish an air
monitoring system to measure the effect
of'the facility on ambient air quality.
Gaseous releases may occur where the
waste is placed or could be released by
leachate from another location based on
leachate migration and volatilization,
leachate decomposition byproducts, or
dissolved gases in the leachate. Gases
may also migrate in the unsaturated
zone or via ground water in the
saturated zone. Ground water
monitoring will effectively indicate ,
leachate migration and the possibility of
gaseous emissions and migration via
leachate and ground water. Maintaining
the unsaturated zone asjequired in the
air emissions section will detect gas
migration from ihe waste. Both
saturated and unsatnrated zone
migration1 of gaseous emissions can •"•--•
result in releases to the atmosphere or
confined spaces (e.g., basements/
sewers!) posing a potential threat to . :
human health and the environment: :
8. Air emission'monitoring system-^- "
§ 264.95. This;sectibn contains ' ! • •;'
requirements fora system to monitor" ''
ambient air quality and gaseous
emissio'ns. The ambient air monitoring
' system will consist, of ambient air
samplers at upwind and downwind
locations, iind instruments to gather
meteorological data. The ambient air
monitors must be installed at or beyond
the limit of the waste management area-
as specified m the facility permit
Sinultaneous monitoring of the
upwind and downwind ambient air
quality, taldng wind direction and speed
into consideration, will yield
information on the site-specific
• background and downwind
concentrations, to enable evaluation of
the net impact of the facility on the
atmospher«. Two monitors at the \'""'.-•
upwind and downwind locations would
constitute fee tare minimuin number.
The installation may be permanent,
portable, or a combination of these. The
number and location of the monitors will
be dependent upon the size of a facility,
meteorological conditions, prevalent
winds, and the surrounding population
density and distribution. Since the
ambient monitoring data will ultimately
' play a majcir role in assessing the impact
of the facfiiiy emissions of the '
downwind public, it is important to have
a sufficient number, of monitors in the
direction of She population. ;"
Meteorological data are needed to
facilitate the interpretation of the
ambient monitoring data. The major part
of this interpretation should include the
background concentration, validation of
•prediction, and the assessment of
ambient air quality impacting public
health and 1he environment. For most of
facilities or a reasonable size, one wind
direction and speed indicator would
; provide data sufficient for indication of
wind direction and speed. Such
meteorological data are also available
from the National Climatic.Center in
Asheville, rjtorth Carolina, Other
meteorological information such as
stability claiss necessary in the
evaluation may fee monitored or
.collected to'indrease the accuracy of the
meteorological parameters.
When a niumber of facilities are
located in the same waste management
area, the facilities affected by the
proposed regulation may "be monitored
individually or as a whole. In "either case
the number land location of monitoring
sites must provide the kind of data .that
can be used for subsequent analyses -
-------
1M12 Federal Register / Vol 46, No. 24 / T^f.^-Jf^f^!7 ,5'J198^!
and evaluations. It is important that the
background concentration be
established for each upwind monitoring
site to derive a net effect of a facility.
The apparatus used for ambient air
sampling of hazardous waste
constituents and byproducts is available
commercially and can be purchased as a
package unit. If the owner or operator
owns or operates some other kind of
ambient air sampler, he should
investigate the possibility of using the
unit by adapting a sample collection
device for collection of hazardous waste
constituents. Although the analysis for
the purpose of this regulation will be
primarily directed towards individual
constituents, indicators such as total
hydrocarbons may have to be purchased
for on-slte usage, or the samples may
have to be analyzed by an analytical
contractor.
The portable hydrocarbon analyzers
for use in detection of the location of the
migrated air missions as required by
paragraph (c) of this section are also
commercially available. Depending upon
the particular requirements, the owner.
operator may utilize the detector for
total hydrocarbons or total halogenated
compounds. The former apparatus
operates on the principles of analyzing
carbon compounds, the later operates on
the principles of photoionization of
halogenated compounds.
9. Air emission sampling and
analysis—1864.33, This section
addresses requirements for developing a
plan to monitor ambient air quality. The
plan shall include procedures and
techniques for sample collection, sample
preservation and shipment, analytical
procedures, typo of contaminants or
hwtrdous constituents to be analyzed,
meteorological data, and the chain of
custody control The description of the
apparatus and the type of adsorbent if
used shall also be contained In the plan.
The analytical procedures shall not
only address the methods of analysis,
but also the subject of quality control
and assurance to increase its accuracy
and precision. Although the ambient air
sampler wiU bs able to collect most or
all of hazurdous waste constituents or
decomposition byproducts tat the waste,
It may ba unreasonable to analyze for s
nil of th® collected hazardous
components. The owner or operator will
consider the quantity of a constituent in
the waste, its volatility, and toxicity in
arriving at the type and number of
constituents to be monitored. The type
and number of hazardous components
analyzed may require periodic
adjustment depending upon the change
of operational modes at a later date. In
addition to monitoring of specific
constituents, monitoring of indicators
may be necessary to quantify the
emissions and ambient air quality
relating to other adverse health effects.
Paragraph [b)(2) of this section
requires, as a minimum, four sets of
ambient data to be obtained during a
period of three months.'Since the
samples at the upwind and downwind
locations will be taken simultaneously,
this corresponds to a sampling
frequency equivalent of four times a
quarter. The length of each sampling
will be of such duration that the
concentration can be accurately
measured at the detection limit of the
instrument. The importance of sampling
at theoretical upwind and downwind
conditions is to simplify the subsequent
analysis and to alleviate any inaccuracy
in ascribing the net contribution. The
wind condition will invariably be a
factor hi the alignment of the monitors.
The measurements should preferably be
performed on an equal interval during a
quarter period. This contrasts to an
extreme situation where all
measurements can be completed in a
matter of a day, for instance. The
measurements need not be done at the
time of a maximum emission rate but it
should reasonably reflect a
representative case of emissions, and
should not result in ambiguity in
ascribing the net air quality effect of a
facility.
If the owner or operator wishes, he
may institute ambient air monitoring at
• a frequency greater than that required in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section. The
- advantage would be improvement in the
statistical significance of the results,
since the sample sizes are increased.
The substance of paragraph (c) of this
section has been discussed previously.
The requirement includes detection of
the location of migrated gaseous
emissions using portable detectors, but
does not include additional
quantification of ambient air samples.
This aspect of quantification is
addressed in a later section. Because the
response signaling such detection would
be dependent upon the wind condition,
the wind condition must be monitored
any time the monitoring for the
detection is carried out. The owner or
operator may develop a strategy for the
monitoring that will make it
unnecessary to walk through the vast
area on the outskirt of the waste
management area. The hydraulic and
geologic consideration in leachate
migration and groundwater transport
may provide a basis for deriving a
scheme of investigation. The.
investigation of migration by hazardous
gas itself may require consideration of
pressure gradient in the soil. In cases
such as capped facilities, it may be
necessary to walk through the general
area on the outskirt of the waste
management area. ^
The frequency of the monitoring for
detection of gaseous release is twice a
year, generally one person will carry
the sniffer for detection and another
person will accompany him to record
the area of investigation, the
background reading, identification of the
location and object, and responses
indicating'such detection. The length of
monitoring will depend upon the area of
investigation and the efficiency of
performing the planned strategies but it „
should not require more than a week
period for each monitoring effort.
10. Air emission evaluation and
response—§ 264.97. Under the
requirement of paragraph (a) of this
section, the owner or operator of a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility
must evaluate the extent of emissions of
hazardous waste, its constituents or
decomposition byproducts, and predict
the ambient air concentrations at the
downwind monitoring sites based on the
rate of emissions from the facility and
the background ambient air
concentration. The guidance manual
explains the recommended methods for
estimating the emission rates from
surface impoundments, landfills, and
land treatment facilities, and for
predicting the ambient air concentration.
impinging on the monitoring receptor.
The estimated rate of hazardous air
emissions can be further verified
experimentally, but it is not required for
the purpose of prediction. The screening
technique described in the manual is
considered sufficient for such prediction.
More sophisticated dispersion models
are available. Reference to a
computerized model can be found in the
guidance manual.
The data obtained from the ambient
air monitoring system in accordance-
with the previous sections can be used
in several ways. Since the predicted
value on ambient air quality at the
monitoring site should be compared
with the ambient air monitoring data,
the values of the parameters used in, the
prediction should be consistent with the
conditions prevailing at the time when
the ambient air sampling was
performed. The comparison between the
* predicted and monitored values shall be
included in the annual report. If there is
a significant difference between the two
values, the evaluation should be
reviewed as to its correctness especially
with respect to the estimated emission
rates used in the prediction. The manual
describes the quantitative relationship
of the emission rates and other
-------
Federal Register'/ 'Vol- .46,- No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 /Proposed Rules
111®
parameters with the downwind ambient
air concentration. •
The requirement for estimating the
impact of a facility on public health and
the environment is addressed in -._'...
paragraphic] of this section. The :
comparison to be made in accordance
with paragraph{b] of this seciionis
tantamount to a scheme to calibrate the
predictive models and to take corrective
measures if necessary. Such models will
be used to predict the anticipated effect
on the downwind public. The prediction
shall be repeated annually aridjnaust
include at a minimum, the -worst • •
condition, quarterly, and annual effects.
The recommended procedure for the
prediction is described In the guidance
manual.
Corrective action to reduce the rate or,
quantity of hazardous air emissions
should be required to the extent -'..'
necessary to protect human health and
the environment based on the ambient
air quality monitoring and analysis. In
addition to carcinogenic evidence, other
• health effects of hazardous constituents,
including acute toxicity, mutaganicity,
terategeiuGiry, bioaccumulaMveness,
persistency, and formation of
photochemical oxidants must be
considered in the impact assessment In
the area where the ambient air quality
of photochemical smog is not presently
acceptable, the air quality evaluation
should also address the need for control
of total hydrocarbons to ihe extent
possible to prevent further deterioration
of ihe oxidant level. ' •
The consideration of these factors will
lead to an allowable ambient air
concentration impacting the downwind
public and environment/The guidance
manual explains the method of
evaluation and the factors to be
considered. The allowable ambient air
concentration specified in the facility
permit will be compared with the
anticipated effect Such comparison will
be made available to the Regional
Administrator in the annual report as
required in paragraph {d] of this section.
If the comparison shows a non-
compliance of the predicted impact on
the ambient air quality with permit
provisions, the owner qr operator must;
determine whether the hazardous air
emissions can be reduced and include in
the annual report the proposed
modifications to the'facility to bring it
into compliance with allowable ambient
air concentrations.
Paragraph {fj of this section addresses
requirements for a plan to institute a
detection system in accordance with
§ 264.97{cJ and § 264.98(c], and capable
of assessing the effect on ambient, air
quality when the detection of migration
occurs. Once such a location is detected;
the indicators can no longer be 'used for
quantification of hazardous waste .
constituents. The plan must include
techniques and procedures for sample
collection, frequency of sampling, ; - • :
sample preservation and shipment,
analytical procedures, quality, control :
and assurance measures, and chain of
custody controLThe plan must also
address the remedial measures to
respond to short-term or long-term -;
.contamination and health effects. The
anticipated effect of migrated emissions
on the nearby population must be fully
assessed when detection occurs.
The air and area contamination
'assessment programs is in essence a
collection of the plans which will be
used for the implementation of the
detections system, and which will fully
assess the air and area contamination if
and when gaseous migration from tie
waste management area occurs. If a
gaseous release is detected the
assessment plan must be implemented,
as required in paragraph {g] of this
section. The owner or operator jnust
pursue further evaluation of the
contamination regarding quantification
waste 'constituents and prediction of its
impact. The results of the assessment
along with the comparison with the
provisions of the facility permit must be
provided to the Regional Administrator.
' U. Air emission record-keeping and
reporting— § 264&S. This Section
addresses requirements for keeping
records and reporting the results of the .
ambient air monitoring, the system for
detection of migrated -emissions, and the
evaluations. Such requirements are
addressed in discussing each applicable
section. This section represents a
summary of the requirements.
D. Subpart K — Surf ace Impoundments •
Today's publication of regulations for
.surface impoundments under Subp'art'K
of Part 264 is applicable to all facilities
which are defined as surface
impoundments in §' 260.10. These
facilities may be categorized as follows:
(1) Those surface impoundments
which are used solely to treat or store
hazardous waste and which ase a
double liner containment system
designed and operated in accordance
•with |§ 264.221(f],264.222(c} and 264.223
{2} Those surface impoundments
which treat or store hazardous waste
and use.a single liner system; and
(3) Those surface impoundments
which treat or store hazardous waste
and then dispose by not removing all
hazardousjwaste or hazardous waste " ,
residue or by leaving the waste in place
at closure.
These ;laciliiies are designed to
prevent discharge into the land and
ground water, and to surface waters
(except discharges authorized by an
NPDES permit). Facilities which are,
designed to discharge into the land are
'defined a;s seepage facilities and are. ,
subject tc> the proposed SubpartR . ".'
regulations: •
Owners! and operators of, new surface
impoandiiftenis that are not designed to
prevent discharge intoJhe land to
comply with this Subpart will'not be •
permitted as a surface impoundment, .
: and existing surface impoundments that
are not brought into compliance-with
these regulations must be permitted as a
seepage facility under Subpart R, remain
on interim status subject to Subpart K of
Part 265, or close. ;
Surface impoundments {also known
as pits, pciridSj of lagoons] are designed
to hold liquid wastes and wastes :
containing free liquids. Leakage to
ground water generally poses the most
serious threat to human health and the
environment from impoundments, but
air emissions from volatile wastes
(today being addressed in/§ 264.90] and
surface water contamination as a result
of overiopiping Ihe impoundment or dike.
failure can also be serious problems.
The Agency promulgated regulations
'for a limited subset of facilities called "
surface impoundments on January 12,
1981, (48 ¥R ,2868-2370} addressing ' •
ground water and surface water
concerns^ the general approach was to
require primary containment and
inspection..
Surface water concerns were
addressed by standards which prohibit
overtopping the impoundment, require
maintenance of a specified freeboard,
require that the structural integrity of
dikes be certified by a qualified engineer
and preserved by protection from
perennial woody plants and burrowing
mammals and by protective cover, and
require insipeenoris at specified . •-
frequencies. In addition, the regulations'
required a device or method to shut off
waste flow into ihe impoundment, and .'
the. diversion of run-on away from
impoundments. Above ground
secondary containment was not
required and inspection is used to
ensure that actual or potential discharge
is readily identified and corrected..
Ground'water concerns were
addressed by standards which required
a primary liner system in contact with
the .waste designed to prevent discharge
from the impoundment during the life
(i.e., active! life and closure period] of.
the facility, to meet certain performance
requirements, and appropriate
inspection and testing was required
during construction and installation. A
-------
11144 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 /Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules.,
Itaehate de-lection, collection, and,
removal system beneath the primary
liner system waa also required to detect
failure of the primary liner system and
to prevent discharge into the land. This
system wait to be inspected at least once
each operating day and operated to
remove any liquids which accumulate in
It, A containment system evaluation and
repair plan, to be Implemented in the
event of a Hner failure or evidence of a
possible liner failure, must also be
prepared. ""
Today's regulation provides
additional regulatory guidance for single
Hner surface impoundments including
those which dispose of hazardous
wastes by leaving wastes or waste
residues in place at closure. A single
Hner surface impoundment, including
those which are designed to be closed
without removing the waste or waste
residues, is a land disposal facility as
defined In SI 200.10 and 284.19. A
surface impoundment which is a land
disposal facility must be analyzed in
accordance with the generic land
disposal facility requirements (See
51284,2,264.20, and 284,21)
i. Applicability—§ 264.220. The
regulations in this subpart apply to
owners and operators of facilities that
use surface impoundments to treat or
sto» hazardous waste and are an
expansion of the regulations (46 FR
286&-2870) which applied only to surface
Impoundments which are used solely for
storage or treatment. Although disposal
may occur at some of the facilities
which could be permitted under this
Subpart, these regulations do not apply
to facilities which are designed to
discharge wastes into the land. Facilities
which are designed to discharge into the
land during their active life are defined
as seepage facilities and are subject to
the proposed Part 204, Subpart R
regulations.
2, General design requirements—
I SS4£21. Changes to the regulatory
language include a specific exemption
from the requirements of Subpart F for
thoie storage or treatment and storage
impoundments which comply with
§ 284.223(1)). These facilities by virtue of
their double liner containment system
provide internal monitoring of any
escaping leachate. Furthermore,
facilities which comply with § 264.223(b)
and which are used solely to treat or
store hazardous waste are not used for
disposal and therefore do not require the
analyses specified for land disposal
facilities.
3. Closure—§ 284.228. Closure of a
surface impoundment which will be
used solely to treat or store hazardous
waste includes removal of all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residues.Tf
the surface impoundment is to be
designed to close with hazardous waste
residues remaining, authorization must
be obtained in the facility permit. As
stated before, a single liner surface
impoundment, including those which are
designed to be closed without removing
the waste residues, is a land disposal
facility and must be analyzed in
accordance with the generic regulations.
The authorization to close with waste
residues remaining comes from the
analysis required by and compliance
with the generic land disposal facility
regulations.
K Subpart L—Waste Piles
Today's publication of regulation for
waste piles under Subpart L of Part 264
is applicable to all facilities which are
defined as waste piles in § 260.10.
The Agency promulgated regulations
for a limited sub-set of facilities called
waste piles on January 12,1981, (46 FR
28^0-2872) addressing ground water and
surface water concerns. The general
approach was to require primary
containment and inspection.
These regulations have been generally
adopted for today's publication. Several
revisions were, however, made to
principally address situations where
closure with wastes or waste residues
remaining is anticipated. A brief review
of these changes follows.
1, General design requirements—
§ 264.251. Paragraph (b) of § 264.251 has
been revised to ,delet§ mention of
ground water. The generic regulations
will, after comprehensive analysis and
documentation, allow discharge to
ground water where human health and
the environment are not threatened.
Direct discharge to surface water will
still be prohibited without an NPDES
permit.
Paragraph (c) of § 264.251 has been
added to clarify the distinction between
waste pill which are used for storage or
for treatment and storage, and those
which will allow discharges to ground
water and/or surface water (disposal).
Those which will be used solely for
storage or storage and treatment "must
have a containment system complying
with § 264.253. This includes a leachate
and run-off collection and control
system; and either an impermeable liner
capable of containing the waste and
associated leachate, and any equipment
to which the liner may be exposed; or if
the liner is not of sufficient strength to
prevent failure due to physical damage
from equipment used in pile operation, a
leachate detection, collection and
removal system to remove any
discharge.
Changes to the regulatory language
also include a specific exemption from
the requirements of Subpart F or those
storage and treatment waste piles which
comply with § 264.253. Monitoring of
escaping hazardous waste or hazardous
waste residues is achieved by either a
double lined containment system with
leachate detection, collection, and
removal or periodic removal of the
waste pile and testing of the underlying
base to ensure that it.hasjiot
deteriorated to the point where it is no
longer capable of containment, is
v already leaking or is otherwise is
disrepair (see § 264.254(b) and (c)).
2. General operating requirements—
§ 264.252. Certain waste piles will be
permitted to discharge to surface and
ground water during the life of the pile.
Permission to discharge, or rather not
requiring that discharge be absolutely
prevented, will be based on the
information required in the owner or
operator's application. Section 264.252(c)
has been revised to emphasize that
leachate and run-off must be collected
and controlled unless authorized by the
permit for the facility.
3. Inspection and testing—§ 264.254. '
To ensure that hazardous wastes or
hazardous waste residues are riot
escaping from the waste pile, periodic
inspection of wind dispersal, run-on and
other waste containment sytems must
be effected. As previously stated,
inspection of the waste pile base may be
omitted if the pile has a leachate
detection collection and removal system
as specified in ? 264.253(a)(3) (see also
preamble discussion of General Design
Requirements).
_4. Closure and post-closure—
§ 264.258. Closure of a waste pile which
will be used to treat or store hazardous
waste will require removal of all
hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues. If the waste pile should be
designed to close with hazardous waste
residues remaining, authorization must
be obtained in the facility permit. Those
which are designed to be closed without
removing waste residues are land
disposal facilities and must be analyzed
* in accordance with the generic
regulations. The authorization to close a
waste pile with hazardous waste
residues remaining is determined from
the analysis required-by and compliance
with the generic regulations.
F. Subpart M—Land Treatment
Land treatment implies that the land
or soil is used as a medium to treat .
hazardous waste. The regulations reflect
EPA's philosophy that applying
hazardous waste to the soil is a waste
management practice reserved for those
waste streams that can be successfully
treated in a soil system.
-------
Vol.46, No. 24 '/ Thursday, '
5,' 1981 ,/Prpposed Rules:
11145
The Agency does hot consider land
treatment to be an experimental
disposal practice. There are certain risks
and uncertainties associated with land
treatment just as there are with other.
hazardous waste management practices.
It would be inappropriate to interpret
the comprehensive monitoring
requirements for land treatment
facilities as being a measure of the
uncertainty associated with the practice.
Rather the monitoring requirements are
comprehensive because land treament
facilities rely on dynamic physical,
chemical, and biological processes
occurring in the soil to degrade and
immobilize waste constituents. " ',.
Monitoring to the degree required by
this regulation, provides the data
necessary to evaluate the performance
and hence determine environmental
protection. The Agency considered
many of these'same monitoring
requirements for landfills and surface
impoundments, but decided against;
them because1 of the difficulty of their
employment in those situations.
The Agency believes that land ,
treatment is a viable waste management
practice for selected solid and
hazardous wastes and can be a more
effective disposal option than landfilling
or incineration.
1. Applicability—§264.270. These
requirements "apply to all facilities used
for the land treatment of hazardous
waste. A land treatment facility'is.a
facility at which hazardous waste is
applied onto or incorporated into the
soil surface. ;
2. General operating requirements-r-
§ 264,272, The General Operating
Requirements for control of run-on and
run-off remain unchanged from the
interim status version published on May
19,1980. The rationale for these
requirements is discussed in the May 19,
1980 land treatment preamble (45 FR
33205 etseq.}. - ^
Si Waste analysis—§ 264.273
(Reserved). The requirements forWaste
Analysis have been deleted because this
section was thought to be redundant;
with the requirements order § 26413,
General waste analysis, and the
information requirements of § 264.21. An
owner or operator is required under
§ 264.13 to analyze the waste to the '
extent" necessary to land treat the waste,
and under § 264.21 to define the
hazardous waste(s) that will be land
treated and predict the mass rate of
-hazardous waste and decomposition by
products that are expected to leach or
otherwise escape from the site. :
Given these requirements and the
comprehensive waste.analyses needed,
to comply with them, the Agency felt the
waste analysis requirements pf § 264.273
were unnecessary. :
4. Food-chain crops—§ 264:276. Under
Part 265,278' of the Interim Status
Standards, published in the Federal
Register as Interim Final May 19,1980,
the Agency permitted the growing of
food-chain crops on active portions
(treated areas) of hazardous waste land
treatment facilities provided that certain
requirements are met. This was a
change from the proposed Interim Status
Standards which prohibited growing
food-chain crops.
Commenters objected to this ban,
suggesting that some crops on active
portions of hazardous waste land
treatment facilities could be grown on
treated soil without endangering human
health. Instead of a ban, commenters
suggested_alternatives such as
specifying "safe" application rates to the
soil, and monitoring crops for their.
uptake of hazardous constitutuents. The .
Agency also received comments
suggesting that the ban was inconsistent
with the regulatory approach taken to
protectfood-chain crops under Subtitle '
D of RCRA. Those regulations were
finalized as the "Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices" (The Criteria,
40 CFR Part 257), on September 13,1979.
The Criteria prescribed annual
application rates and limits on
cumulative loadings for cadmium based
on the specific, health risk, and
treatment requirements for wastes
containing PCB or pathogens.
Commenters argued that the application
of some hazardous wastes to food-chain
crops present no greater risk than such
practice with some non-hazardous • .
waste. - ''.-:-.
The decision to permit food-chain
crops to be grown on treated areas
during the interim status period is based
on the premise that where there is
convincing evidence that such crop
growth-is safe, it would be unjustified to
prohibit it. Such would be the case
where it is demonstrated that hazardous
constituents in a particular waste may
not be taken up by certain food-chain
crops, or after a period of treatment the
constitutents may degrade into products
non-hazardous to humans. However, the
Agency still maintains that there is little
real need to grow food-chain crops at
land treatment facilities. The small
amount of land used for land treatment
represents a negligible portion of the
total productive land available for crop '
growth in this country. Furthermore,
there are other productive uses pf the
land, such as for ornamental horticulture
and growth of fiber crops or other non- '
foodcrops. ; ••;••. '> •-,-'••.••• ,-'
Since the1 Agency decided that ; "'•'••
prohibiting food-chain_crop growth on
treated areas of land treatment facilities
could not be justified, it was necessary
for the Agency to' adopt an approach ;. '
that would.perrriit food-chain crops to be
grown and at the same time assure, that
public health would be protected. The
Agency carefully examined the
suggestion made by commenters of
specifying "safe" application rates.
However, this approach was rejected by
the Agency, because the existing data
base on rates of crop uptake of'
hazardous substances were not
comprehensive enough to permit the
Agency to specify safe application rates.
Also, regulation by corp monitoring was
. considered limited by the fact that safe
levels of most hazardous substances in
crops had not been determined by the
Food and E'rug Administrationi the
Department of Agriculture, or the
Environmental:Protection Agency.
These inadequacies which have been
pointed out-with"the "safe" application
rates approach still exist today.
While 'the' Agency did not yet have a
clear specif ication of the "safe" level of
contaiants in food crops, it assumed that
the level of such contaminants present
in food crops not grown on waste
amended soils is acceptable. Based on
this assumption, the Agency devised a
two-part test to determine whether food-
chain crop jjrowth on land treatment
facilities was acceptable. Prior to
growing a crop for market.on soils thai
have received hazardous waste, the
owner or operator must document that
hazardous waste constituents in the
waste, as w;ell as arsenic, lead, and
mercury, would not (1) be transferred to
the edible portion of the crop by plant
uptake or that'll would not (2) Occur in
greater concentation in the crop than in
crops grown in the same region on
similar soils: which have not, had wastes
applied. • '\
Also, the owner or operator must use
actual field studies or "the crop for
comparative purposes. The conditions
under which the comparable crops are
grown must-be similar to the conditions ,
found at the facility. For example, soil
type, soil moisture, soil pH, and soil
nutrients, must be similar at both the :
. facility and the control sites. The owner
or operator must also document the
sample selection criteria, sample size
determination, analytical methods, and -
statistical procedures used to make the
'demonstration. In order to determirie ;•.
compliance prior to waste application
the owner or operator must pre-test a .,'
sample crop, using the type of waste and -,;
application .rate that wjll be used at,the
facility.
-------
11148 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
The Agency also examined the
approach used in the "Criteria for the
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
FaclliUes and Practices" and concluded
that the limits developed in these
regulations for cadmium should be
Incorporated into the Interim Status
regulations.
The Criteria include two approaches
for the land application of wastes .
containing cadmium. Control of the pH
of the waste and soil mixture; animal
cadmium application limits that are
reduced over timet cumulative cadmium
application limits based on soil cation
exchange capacity (CEC); and a
restriction of the cadmium concentration
in waste applied to facilities where
tobacco, leafy vegetables and root crops
are grown.
The second approaceh allows
unlimited application of cadmium
provided four specific control measures
are taken. First, the crop grown can only
be used as animal feed. Second, the pH
of the soil must be maintained at 6.5 or ,
above for as long as food-chain crops
ore grown. Third, a facility operating
plan must describe how the animal
owners are provided notice [through
provisions in land records or property
deed) that there are high levels of
cadmium in the soil and food-chain
crops should not be grown.
The Agency does not believe,
however, that the Criteria sufficiently -
address the broad range of constituents
present in hazardous waste. Therefore,
the Agency decided to set additional
requirements that relate-to hazardous
constituents in waste applied as well as
other substances of concern (i.e.,
arsenic, lead, and mercury) because of
their effect on food-chain crops. These
additional substances were identified
because of their relatively high toxicity
to humans and evidence that they can
be taken up by crops.
The Agency believes that the Interim
Status Standards adequately protect
public health, and therefore has adopted
a similar approach for the proposed
regulations under this section. However,
one section of the Interim Status
Standards has been modified for the
purpose of this section. The modification
is the deletion of the "phasing"
approach for the annual application of
cadmium. Uhder.thSs approach the
annual application of cadmium is
reduced over a set period of time. The
time schedule starts from the present to
June 30,1984 and allows 2.0 kg/ha of
cadmium to be applied. From July 1,1984
to December 31,1988 the amount is
reduced to 1.25 kg/ha, and further
reduced to 0.5 beginning January 1,1987.
The cadmium limits promulgated
under Subtitle D of RCRA are primarily
aimed at controlling wastewater
treatment sludges containing high levels
of cadmium from beign placed on
agricultural lands. The phased time
period for the reduction of cadmium
applied to agricultural lands is used in
order to correspond with the
pretreatment schedule that wastewater
treatment facilities (POTW's) must .
meet, in accordance with the Clean
Water Act, to reduce the amount of
cadmium in their sludges. The Agency
believes that by using the same time
schedules, implementation of the
regulation can be carried out without
causing an undue hardship on operators
of wastewater treatment facilities, and
at the same time be assured that public
health will be protected.
Because the phased schedule for
controlling the annual application of
cadmium is oriented primarily towards
wastewater treatment sludges, the
Agency has decided not to incorporate it
into the regulations under this section.
Instead the 1987 annual cadmium
application rate of 0.5 kg/ha is used. The
Agency feels that it is more appropriate
to use the 1987 cadmium limits since
most wastewater treatment sludges
probably will not be classified as
hazardous wastes, and to apply the
phased time period to waste other than
wastewater treatment sludge .would be
contrary to its original purpose."
However, in the nature, the phased
schedule for annual cadmigm
application rate may be incorporated
into the regulations under this section if
the Agency finds that large quantities of
wastewater treatment sludge are falling
within the hazardous category- Also, it
should be noted that the Agency is
currently developing regulations under
section 405 of the Clean Water Act that
will address cadmium limits applied to
food-chain crop lands. These
regulations, when promulgated, may
make it necessary for the Agency to
modify existing cadmium limits in order
to have consistency in its approach to
. control the application of cadmium to
food-chain crop lands.
5. Unsaturated zone (zone of aeration)
monitoring—§ 264.278. The unsaturated
zone monitoring requirements are
essentially the same as the interim
status requirements published on May
19,1980. Some changes have been made
to make the standards more clear and to
be consistent with the requirements of
§§264.21 and 264.96.
In response to a possible
misunderstanding concerning the May
19,1980 regulations, the Agency has
clarified when soil-core and soil-pure
water sampling is to be initiated. The
proposed standards require that soil-
core sampling be initiated prior to waste
application, and that soil-pure water
sampling devices be installed prior to
waste application. The first samples
must be taken from the soil-pure water
sampling devices when sufficient "soil-
pure water is collected.
These new requirements apply only to
new facilities since existing facilities
will already have initiated unsaturated
zone monitoring as required under
interim status.
Changes made to the proposed
standards to make them consistent with-
the objectives of § 264.21 and 264.96
provide the owner or operator with a
more tangile unsaturated zone
monitoring design objective. Essentially
the owner or operator is required to
design and implement an unsaturated
zone monitoring plan which will
characterize the leachate that is
expected to leave the zone of
incorporation. In addition the monitoring
results must be able to substantiate the
predictions made under § § 264.21 and
264.96. These requirements are
admittedly onerous but the Agency
strongly feels that the owner or operator
must completely as possible understand
the effect his waste is having on the
unsaturated zone. This information will
be needed to both predict what effects
land treatment will have on the
groundwater, and determine what
variables need to be manipulated in
order to optimize the performance of the
site.
Comments to the May 19,' 1980 interim
status unsaturated zone monitoring
requirements indicated a perferencefor
performance standards versus design
standards.
This complaint is directed toward the
standard requiring the use of lysimeters.
Commentors felt that lysimeters hinder
the operation of heavy equipment and
they feel that soil core and groundwater
monitoring negate the need for soil-pure
water monitoring.
EPA agrees that the operation of
heavy equipment at land treatment
facilities may be hindered by the
placement of lysimeters. However, the
information gained from the use of
lysimeters greatly outweighs any minor
loss in land utilization of productivity.
The information obtained form the
analysis of soil-pore water, i.e., a
measure of the amount of hazardous
constituents passing through the system,
cannot be determined from soil cores or
groundwater monitoring. Lysimeters are
one way to measure this contaminant
transport phenomenon, lined test cells
are another.
Unsaturated zone monitoring is more
readily accomplished than ground-water
monitoring. Lysimeters or lined test cells
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11147
are shallow and do not require a
significant knowledge of the water table
and ground water flow characteristics
that is required for ground-water
monitoring.
Q. Recordkeeping— § '264.279. The "
requirements for recordkeeping have
remained unchanged from the interim '•.
status standards published on May 19,
1980. The reader is referred to the
preamble discussion of 45 FR 33206 et
seq. - .
7. Closure and post-closure—
§264.280. The closure and post-closure
requirements have^been changed to
allow the use of a qualied soil scientist
to verify that the facility has been
closed in accordance with the
specification's in the approved closure
plan.
One commenter requested the above.
change and the Agency agreed with the
validity of the comment. A soil scientist
will have an appreciation for the factors
likely to influence the establishment of a
vegetative coyer and the mobility of
hazardous constituents in the soil. An
engineer was not ruled out because of
the possibility of a shortage of qualified ,
soil scientists in any particular region.
Some minor changes in wording were
made to the closure and post-closure
standards in order to make them
consistent with the objectives of
§ 264.21. These changes, similar to those
made to the unsaturated zone
monitoring requirements, require that
the owner or operator give major.
consideration to characterizing the
leachate leaving the zone of
incorporation. The method by which a
site is closed and the length of post-
closure are dependent upon knowing the
nature and extent of leachate leaving
the zone of incorporation and the effects
the leachate will have upon the
groundwater. • -
8. Special requirements for ignitable
or reactive waste—§ 264.281. Comments
to the May 19,1980 interim status
standards indicated that it was ,
inappropriate to include § 264.281
because land treatment of these types of
waste is common practice and should be
continued until promulgation of general
facility standards which would allow
case-by-case determinations.
Handling ignitable and reactive
wastes involves danger to personnel at
the land treatment facility. These wastes
present great danger of fire,
spontaneous chemical reactions, and
explosion. Even so, the regulation
allows these materials to be land
treated if these dangers can be , ' • ,
eliminated by incorporation into the soil.
Furthermore, a'dausehas been added
to the regulation in response to
comments allowing management of
these wastes if they are protected from
conditions leading to ignition or
reaction. The Agency is unaware,
however, how such ignition or especially
reaction could be prevented in the open
area of a land treatment facility unless
the wastes were rendered non-ignitable
or non-reactive.
9. Special requirements for ignitable
waste—% 264.282. The requirement that
_ incompatible wastes may hot be placed
in the same land treatment area unless
the land process complies with
§ 264.17(b) has been retained and no
wording changes have been made.
No comments were received on this
section of the regulations.
10. Special requirements for classes of
facilities—§ 264.283. The standard
requires that a land treatment facility
have a minimum of two meters between
the incorporated waste and the aquifer
being or to be used, (i.e., the historical
high water table for water table -
aquifers, or the bottom of the confining
soils for artesian aquifers].
Land treatment facilities which .
discharge to an aquifer which in its
entirety, is not and will not in the future
be a source of water supply for any use
(Class A Facility) are exempt. Land
treatment facilities which discharge into"
a portion of an acjuifer which is not or
willnot be used in the future (ClassB
facility) are also exempt.
The two meter separation requirement
applies only to those facilities located
over groundwater that is or will be of
future use. This requirement, which was
not proposed as interim final on May 19,
1980, is considered necessary because of
the nature,of land .treatment facilities,
i.e., the reliance on attenuation of
contaminants in the unsaturated zone.
Although a land treatment facility might
operate successfully over a space of less
than two meters from groundwater the
Agency feels the risk is too great given
the potential consequences."
G. Subpart N—Landfills
Proper landfilling of hazardous waste
is more than the act of simple burial.
Hazardous waste landfills must be
carefully engineered to provide long-
term protection of ground water, surface
water, air, and human health. The state
of the. art of landfill technology is
developing and changing. However,
there are techniques currently available
for effectively reducing the adverse
health and environmental effects from
landfills. Furthermore, the Agency
expects that these regulations, in
prohibiting certain improper practices,
will accelerate the development of good
techniques for landfilling, pretreatment
of wastes to be landfilled, and waste
reduction. > ; •
1. Applicability—§ 264.300. These •
requirements apply to .all landfills used ,
for the disposal of hazardous waste. ,
2. General design requirements—
§ 264.301. A leachate monitoring system
is the only structure specifically
required in this section. The monitoring
results from this system-will provide an
efficient method for the permit writer to
evaluate the predictions required for
compliance with § 264.21. Leachate
quality is one of the first unknowns '
• which nius't be estimated before
contaminant release rates and their
effects on groundwater can be
predicted. Therefore, a close agreement
between actual and predicted leachate
quality pro'jades at least "some'assurance
that the facility is operating according to
plan. Gross disagreement between
actual and predicted leachate quality
may cause the Administrator to require
a reassessment or recalibration of the
predictive tools used by an owner or
operator. These reassessments could, in
some cases, uncover potential problem
areas early enough to avoid more costly
clean-up operations.
Only new landfills and landfill cells
are affected by this requirement. The
Agency believes that attempts to retrofit
many .existing facilities with a leachate
monitoring system would create an
unacceptable hazard to human health
and to the environment. -
EPA specifically requests comment on
§ 264.301(a). Of particular interest are
(1) sampling methods capable of
collecting representative samples of
leachate in a landfill not equipped with
a liner,, and (2) the nature and extent of
activities necessary to comply with this
section. i- ,
Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section
provide the minimum acceptable
controls for the construction of liner -••
systems^ and leachate collection and
removal systems. These regulations do
not require Ihe construction of a finer for
-all landfills but EPA recognizes that
many landfills will be constructed using
liners to.coiri.tain the hazardous wastes.
These standards are a departure from
the detailed design standards contained
in~the December 18,1978 proposed
regulation (43 FR 59Q09-59011). The
changes are due to the comments '
received on the proposed regulations
and advancements in the state of the
art. Much more information is now
available which can be used in the
design of effective liner systems, EPA
has developed two technical reports to
assist in the design: "Lining of Waste
Impoundment and Disposal Facilities"
(SW/870), September, 1980 and "LandfilJ
and Surface Impoundment Performance
Evaluation" (SW /869), September, 1980.'
-------
11148
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
The requirements stated in. § 264.301
indicate EPA's concern for both the
structural integrity of the system and the
chemical resistance of the liner
materials. For a liner system to be
successful much care and attention must
be given to these aspects of the design.
3. General operating requirements—
§ 284,302, Control of precipitation on and
near the active disposal area(s) and
control of wind blown materials are the
major concerns during operation. These
are the same requirements which were
given in Part 285.
4, Inspection and testing—§ 284.306,
These requirements reinforce EPA's
concern of the need to control surface
water runoff due to rainfall and to
carefully inspect any liner system which
is installed at a disposal facility. The
appurtcnccs used to control the run-on
and run-off at a landfill must be
inspected each week and after major
atoms to ensure that they are
functioning properly.
There are specific requirements which
are'applicable to an inspection and
testing program to be implemented
during the construction or installation of
a liner system. These are minimum
requirements which will provide data to
evaluate the effectiveness of the liner
system.
5, Surveying and recordkeeping—
§ 264.309. These are the same
requirements which have been used in
Part 2SS.
8. Closure and post-closure—
§ 284.310. The overall objectives of
closure and post-closure are to minimize
Iho need for further maintenance of the
facility and to restrict the escape of
hazardous materials, A final cover over,
completed portions of a landfill is an
Important first step in meeting these
objectives. The design of the final cover
must be consistent with the permit for •
the facility and therefore with the
predictions made in comnpliance with
i 122,25(d) because the accuracy of
these predictions are vitally contingent
on precise cover designs'and
maintenance procedures. EPA has
developed two technical reports to
assist in designing landfill covers:
"Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and
Hazardous Waste, (SW/867),
September, 19QO and "Landfill and .
Surface Impoundment Performance
Evaluation" (SW/889), September, 1980.
Similarity, any other equipment or
maintenance routine which is necessary
to abide by the permit must be
continued into the post-closure care
period.
7. Special requirements for ignitable
or reactive waste— § 264.312. Ignitable
or reactive wastes may not be placed in
a landfill unless the waste is treated so
that the waste does not meet the
definition of ignitable (§ 261.21) or
reactive (§ 261.23) prior to or
immediately after placement in the
landfill. EPA assumes that the most
common method used to comply with
this regulation will be to mix the waste
with soil or "some other relatively inert
material before the waste is landfilled.
This requirement is the same as the
, requirement hi Part 265.
8. Special requirements for
incompatible wastes—§ 264.313. This
requirement, which is identical to Part
265, states that incompatible wastes
must not be placed in the s.ame landfill
cell.
9. Special requirements for liquid
waste—§ 264.314. This requirement does
not allow bulk liquids to be placed in a
landfill unless the owner or operator can
prove that the added liquid will enhance
stabilization of the landfill. Such a
landfill must be lined with a material
which is'chemically and physically
resistant to the added liquid and the
leachate control system must be capable
of removing all leachate produced. The
intent of this requirement is to exercise
needed control over the disposal of
hazardous waste liquids. Earlier
regulations have allowed the placement
of liquids in landfills without the
requirement to prove that stabilization is
enhanced. EPA believes that the
potential damage from allowing
uncontrolled disposal of liquids in
landfills greatly outweighs the benefits
from allowing the practice. Allowing
liquids in landfills increases the
hydraulic head within the fill and
hydraulic head is the primary driving
force which cause pollutant migration
from landfills.
EPA does recognize that the
decomposition and subsequent ,
stabilization of some materials can be
enhanced by the addition-of liquids. For
this reason, EPA will allow liquid
addition when it can be demonstrated
that stabilization is enhanced.
This does not alter the basic EPA
belief that landfills should be kept dry.
By minimizing liquids in landfills the
transport mechanism to move pollutants
beyond the landfill is minimized.
The requirement which does not allow
containers holding liquids or waste
containing free liquids is the same as the
requirement in Part 265.
10. Special requirements for
containers—§ 264.315. This requirement
is that empty containers must be
crushed during disposal so that void
space is minimized. This requirement
has been included because empty
" containers can degrade, collapse, and
disrupt the final coyer of the landfill
which is the same effect created by
containers filled with liquids. Reducing
the volume of the empty containers will
minimize this effect.
The overall intent of the requirement
is to eliminate all significant voids
including partially empty containers.
EPA is providing definitions for "full or
filled containers" and "partially empty
container" for comment. Comments are
requested in the following areas: (1)
Alternative criteria which may be used
to define full or filled containers, and (2)
the nature and extent of activities which,
will be necessary to comply with this
regulation.
• 11. Spec/a/ requirements for classes of
facilities—§ '264.316. The requirement is
that all classes of facilities must have a
minimum of two meters between the
lowest level of construction for the
landfill and the highest portion of the
water table.
The purpose of the requirement is to
maintain a positive separation between
the landfill and any ground water which
. might infiltrate the waste. This
requirement is consistent with EPA's
theory of maintaining landfills as dry as
, possible.
H. 'Subpart R—Underground Injection
On May 19,1980, § 265.430,
Applicability was promulgated as an
interim final regulation. In so doing the
Agency enabled wells disposing of
hazardous waste by underground
injection (also regulated under the
Underground Injection Control (UIC)
progranvauthorized by the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA)) to acquire
interim status under RCRA. The Agency
further explained that such injection
wells would be regulated under Subpart
R until a UIC program had been
implemented in each State. After an
injection well received a permit under
UIC, it would achieve a RCRA permit by
rule under § 122.26. As explained
elsewherejn this preamble the permit
by rulejias been amended so that only
certain of those wells can achieve a
RCRA permit by rule. The remaining
wells-wilibe subject to permitting under
Subpart R or S of the Part 264 proposed
regulations.
1. Applicability—§ 264.430. The
proposed requirements of Subpart R
apply to wells used for the disposal of
hazardous waste by injection into the
subsurface which pass through the
surficial aquifer (i.e., discharge below
the surficial aquifer). All such wells will
by necessity be cased since they must
pass through an aquifer. Wells which
discharge hazardous waste into or
above the surficial aquifer, for which
casing is not always necessary, are to be
subject to the requirements of proposed
Subpart S. The requirements of this
-------
Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11149
Subpart R, therefore, apply to Glass I
wells and some Class IV wells (as
designated under the UIC program).
Such wells must also comply with
applicable requirements and standards
established in Parts 122 and 146 as
explained in another section of this
preamble. '''•'._.
Injection wells which receive a RGRA
permit under Subpart R will have
complied with the ground-water ;.
protection standard also proposed in
today's Federal Register. The only
additional technical requirements
necessary in Subpart R then relate to
design and operation capable of
achieving compliance and monitoring to
verify compliance.
Part 146 requirements for Class I
wells, promulgated on June 24,1980,
were established to assure that injection
or formation fluids not migrate out of the
injection zone and into an underground
source of drinking water. In the case of
RCRA, Subpart R injection wells
(regardless of UIC designation) must be
designed and operated to prevent
migration of hazardous waste out of the
, zone of containment or otherwise into
other formations or aquifers. Because of
the similarity of objective the Agency
has utilized the promulgated Part 146
requirements to the extent possible in
these proposed Subpart R regulations.
The reader must understand, however,
that the Part 146 requirements differ
significantly from Part 264 requirements.
The Part 264 requirements are minimum
standards, requirements and criteria
which must be developed by a State
seeking authority to implement a UIC
program. These Part 146 requirements
do not apply to owners or operators of
injection wells directly. Such owners
and operators must comply with State
requirements which have been ,
established in implementing a State UIC
program. For this reason, these Part 146
requirements have not-been adopted by
reference in Subpart R but are utilized
as explained below. -
2. General design and installation
requirements—§ 264.431. This proposed'
- requirement is a performance standard.
Owners and operators must design and
.install injection wells to assure.that
injected hazardous waste enter and stay
within the zone of containment;
specified in the facility permit, and not
migrate into other formations or
aquifers. In § 146.12 are design and
construction requirements for Class I
wells under UIC. In § 264.431 owners *
and operators are informed that
utilization of the technical standards
and considerations specified in § 146.12
will enable compliance with the
§ 264,431 performance requirement. The
§ 146.12(a) restriction on location with
regard to underground sources of
drinking is not included since some .
wells regulated in accordance with
: Subpart R may discharge above
. underground sources of drinking water.
, Also, requirements regarding prevention
of migration into underground sources x>f
drinking water are equally applicable in
preventing migration into formations or
aquifers other than the zone of
containment, whether or riot they are
underground sources of drinking water.
In order to comply with § 265.431, an
injection well will need to be cased and
cemented and hazardous waste will
need to be injected through tubing with
a packer as specified in § 146.12.
. 3. General operating requirements—
§.264.432..This proposed requirement is
a performance standard also. Once an
, injection well is properly installed it '
must be operated and maintained to
prevent unacceptable migration of
injected hazardous waste or reaction or
decomposition byproducts of the waste.
Section 264.432 explains that the
operating procedures included in
§ 146.13 can enable compliance with this
performance standard. Pressure in the
injection zone is not to exceed a
calculated maximum and pressure on
the well annulus between the casing and
tubing maintained to assure mechanical
integrity. Injection into the annulus is
explained in § 146.13 as unacceptable,
4. Monitoring and response—
§ 264.433. These proposed requirements
are similar to those proposed on May 19,
1980 in § 265.434 for .interim status :
facilities. They are also similar to those
contained in § 146.13(b). Demonstration
of mechanical integrity and maintenance
of allowable injection zone pressure will
' enable owners and operators to assure
that migration beyond the zone of
containment has not occurred. Ground-
water quality monitoring is npt a general
requirement within § 264.433 but may be
required .in the facility permit in certain
circumstances.
5. Closure and post-closure-—
§ 264.434. The closure requirements in
these proposed regulations specify that
wells must be closed to prevent future L.
use and plugged. Plugging uppn.well .• T*
abandonment irf the normal practice.
Section 264.434 explains that the ,
plugging techniques described in
§ 146.10 can enable compliance with the
plugging requirement.'Post-closure care
is not required of wells regulated in'
accordance with Subpart R, therefore,
an exclusion from compliance with
§§264.117i 264.118 and §§264.144-—
264.145 is included in § 264.434. These
are the only exclusions fromjhe general
standards and requirements of Part 264.
/. Subpart S—Seepage Facilities
This Section of the regulations applies
to facilities which are designed'to ,
• discharge via seepage facilities. Seepage
facilities may or may not be designed to
provide holding and controlled release
capability for liquid wastes and wastes
containing free liquids. These
regulations provide standards for
design, operation, and inspection for
facilities which are classified as seepage
facilities. There are four types, of
seepage facilities: (1) Seepage lagoons,
(2) drying beds, (3) seepage pits, and (4)
seepage beds. The first two types are
—similar to surface impoundments, in thaf
they are used for depositing liquid
wastes and sludges except they are ' "
designed with the objective of seepage
into the land. Seepage pits are similar to
dug wells and seepage beds are any
horizontal distribution system (whether
cbvered.or uncovered) used to
intermittently introduce liquids into the
land (e.g., leaching fields associated
with septic tanks). For the purpose of
these regulations, any injection well that
is not cased to prevent discharge into
the surficial aquifer is also a seepage
facility.
1. Applicability—% 264.460. The
regulations in this Subpart apply to
owners and operators of seepage.
facilities used to treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste, except as § 264.1
provides otherwise. The regulations for
seepage facilities are identical, to a
degree, to the proposed regulations for
surface impoundments under Subpart K
of Part 264. For seepage facilities, there *
are no regulations for liners and a
leachate detection, collection and
removal system since seepage facilities
are designed to discharge.
The rationale for the surface
impoundments requirements used to
regulate seepage facilities can be found
in the preamble for Subpart K—Surface
Impoundments. Seepage lagoons and
drying beds must comply with all
sections 6f these regulations, while
seepage pits and seepage beds must
only comply with: (1) § 264.463 ,
(containment system) and § 264.467
(contingency plans) provided these two
types of seepage facilities maintain a
dike, (2) § 264.468 (closure and post-
closure), (3) Si 264.469 (special
requirements for ignitable or reactive
waste), and (4)'••§ 264.270 (special
requirements for incompatible wastes).
The types of seepage, facilities are not
yet defined in § 260.10. They are
described in § 264.19. The Agency
intends to define those types in the rule
but is soliciting public comment by this
proposal before doing so.
-------
11150
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, Februaiy 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules^
/. Subpart T—Minimum Acceptable
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes Prior
to Disposal
Under this subpart, requirements are
established for the minimum acceptable
treatment of hazardous waste prior to
disposal in a land treatment facility. The
purpose of these requirements is to
reduce the potential adverse effects of
hazardous waste disposal by reducing
the mobility of wastes, or their ability to
cause other wastes to become mobile, or
generate toxic gases.
Owners and operators of hazardous
waste landfills are required under this
subpart, by using available conventional
technology, to convert soluble metals as ,
salts to less soluble forms (i.e., oxides,
hydrous oxides or sulfides) and to
precipitate metals that are in solution.
Wastes that are highly acidic or alkaline
must be neutralized and wastes that are
or contain surfactants or organic
solvents must be disposed of separately
from other wastes. Specifically, wastes
that contain cyanide must be treated so
that the cyanide is destroyed, thus
reducing the risk that toxic hydrogen
cyanide gas will be formed.
The requirements under this subpart,
relating to mobility of wastes, address
three general groups of mechanisms that
may result in the enhancement of waste
migration in soils. The first mechanism
is one in which waste constituents are
tolubllized by other waste constituents „
and thereby increasing their potential
for migration. Examples of this
mechanisms include the solubilization of
organics in organic solvents,
solubilization of metal salts in acid [or
bases), and the solubilization of
inorganic and organic wastes by the
action of surfactants and chelating
agents. The second mechanism is the
dissolution of metal salts by percolating
water, while the third mechanism
Involves the chemical reactions among
waste constituents which results hi the
generation of products which may be
more mobile than the initial reactants.
An example of the third mechanism
would be pesticides that form soluble
salts with alkaline caustics [Guthion/
sodium hydroxide).
Except for § 264.491(a)(5) the Agency
has not proposed establishing treatment
requirements under this section for
specific and non-specific sources of
hazardous wastes listed in §§ 261.31 and
261.32. However, it is intended that
treatment requirements be established
for the listed wastes and other wastes
which may be listed as information
becomes available to the Agency. The
Agency is requesting comments on
treatment requirements appropriate to
specific nnd non-specific sources of
wastes defined in § § 261.31 and 261.32
or specific hazardous wastes which are
appropriate prior to disposal.
K. Amendments to Part 280
1. Definitions—% 260.10. Certain
definitions are being added and other
definitions are being amended to
conform with the usage of the terms in
the regulations governing the land
disposal of hazardous wastes.
In addition, the numbering sequence
of the definitions in § 260.10 is being
deleted in favor of an alphabetized
arrangement of terms to accompdate the
addition of pew definitions.
Many comments were received on the
use of the terms contamination and
degradation in the October 8,1980
Notice. Most of those comments
requested or suggested definitions for
those terms. To avoid the confusion that
often arises by the use of these words,
they have not been used in the
regulations being proposed today.
The amendments of the definitions of
Aquifer, Injection well, Undergound
injection, Well, and Well injection in
§ 260.10 are technical amendments to
conform those definitions to the
definitions of the same terms in § § 122.3
and 148.03.
Similarly, the amendment of the
definition of Disposal in § 260.10 is a
conforming amendment (separate from
that referred to in the preamble on Part
122) to the definition of the term in
§122.3.
The more substantive amendments
are related to the Agency's decision to
regulate surface impoundment's which
are not designed to prevent seepage,
other types of seepage facilities (which
were formerly considered "injection
wells"), and other wells which discharge
or inject hazardous wastes into surficial
aquifers under both the RCRA and the
SDWA. This necessitated the addition
of new definitions for Underground
seepage and Seepage facility and
amendment of the definition of Landfill
and Surface impoundment. A definition
of Surficial aquifer has also been added
because the term is used in the amended
RCRA permit by rule (see § 122.26 as
amended) for deep injection wells
subject to exclusive regulation under the
UIC Program which are used to dispose
of hazardous wastes. A definition of
Cased injection well has also been
added because the term is used in the
definition of Seepage facility. A Cased
injection well will usually be a Class I
well as defined for the UIC program.
Such wells, when used for hazardous
waste disposal are subject to a standard
of no migration into a Surficial aquifer.
Some of these are to be permitted by
rule under the RCRA and individually
permitted under the UIC program.
The above referenced decision also
made it appropriate to add certain
definitions which existed in Parts 122
and 146 to Part 260. These are
Formation, Formation fluid, Injection
zone, and Plugging.
A new definition has been added for
Land disposal facilities, and the
definition of Disposal facility has been
modified to reflect the fact that waste
will not remain in place after closure at
some types, of facilities which are
regulated as land disposal facilities.
This situation may occur when either
the waste will be removed or the waste
or the decomposition byproducts of the
waste will migrate from the facility and
therefore not remain at the facility after
closure. The definition of Land
treatment facility has been similarly
modified to reflect the fact that waste
mayor may not remain in place after
closure at land treatment facilities, A
new definition has also been added to
establish the meaning of a phrase—Zone
of containment—used in the regulations
' governing land disposal of hazardous
wastes.
Finally, definitions have been
introduced for the terms Decompostion
byproduct and Reaction byproduct. .
These and similar terms, such as,.
contaminants, have been used
extensively in the regulations and
preambles to describe the substances
other tharf'the hazardous wastes or the
hazardous waste constituents which can
be expected to exist in leachate when
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents 'are disposed of into or on
, the land. They have also been added to
the definition of Disposal. Although
many of these byproducts are not
hazardous, some can and do cause
adverse effects on human, health and the
environment and therefore must be
considered in the permitting of land
disposal facilities.
2. Petitions to amend Part 264 or Part
265 to allow special types of treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities at a
particular location, for a particular
hazardous waste, or for a hazardous
waste from a particular source—
§ 260.23. In accordance with section 7004
of RCRA, Subpart C of section 260 sets
forth procedures by which any person
may petition EPA for the promulgation,
amendment, or repeal of any regulation
, under RCRA. This section provides a
mechanism by which owner/operators
or potential owner/operators may
petition for an amendment of any of the
operational.locational, design or
construction requirements of Parts 264
or 265 by demonstrating that the
, practice or procedure they propose to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24. / Thursday, Februarys, 1981 ./ Prcposed Rules -11151
use is equal to or better than that
already required by the regulations.
Such demonstrations are to be made for
a particular facility or waste and any
petitions granted will be applicable only
to the facility or waste for which the
demonstration was made. This section
incorporates the petitioning procedures •
set forth in section 260.20 and allows the
. Administrator to grant a temporary
-amendment prior to making a final
decision on a petition.
Several comments on the October 8,
1980 Notice requested 'that when
technical design requirements are '.
specified in the regulations, the Agency
allow the permittee to substitute
different but equivalent designs. EPA
agrees that this is a desirable feature
and is proposing to institute it through
this petition process. This process will
allow recognition of unique site specific
factors that enable owner/operators to
effectively employ different treatment,
storage or disposal designs. It is also
intended to encourage innovative
technologies and maintain flexibility in
the regulations by allowing the technical
requirements to be adapted to advances
in the state of the art. . ,
L. Amendments to Part 122
1. Definitions— § 122.3. Two
definitions—Disposal and Disposal
. facility are being revised in § 122.3. Both
definitions are being revised to. conform
to revised definitions in § 260.10.
In addition because of the use of the
terms Formation, Formation fluid.
Injection zone, Plugging, Underground
injection, Well, and Well injection in
Part 264, the parenthetical reference
associated with the term has been.
expanded to include the RCRA.
The termsurf idol'aquifer, used in
§ 122.26, has been added in both
§§122.3 and 260.10.'
2. Modification or revocation and
reissuance of permit—% 122.15(a)(8).
Section 122.25{a)(8) provides the means
by which permits may be modified in '
response to the repredictions of locus
and rate of leachate effects required by
. § 122.28(f). This modification provision
is necessary because state of the art
limitations make it impossible to
precisely predict the zone of effects, at
the time of permit application. As new ,
information is gathered through
monitoring, predictions of leachate
migration can be made more accurately.
These repredictions can then be
incorporated into the permit limitations "
for maximum allowable zone of effects.
" If the repredictions indicate that the
originally predicted zone of effects will
be or have been exceeded, the permittee
is required to propose permit
modifications. The proposed
modifications may be to reduce the rate
of waste disposal or expand the zones of
permitted effects. Likewise, if it appears
that the originally predicted zone will
not be reached, the permittee may
request a modification of the permit to
reduce the zone limitations. This la§t
type of modification may be of real ;
interest to a permittee since the zone of
permitted effect defined (i.e., the zone of
containment) is an encumbrance on the
land which reduces it real Value..
The Director is required to modify a '
permit if he finds that the zones of
effects defined in the permit are
substantially unrelated to the actual
zones of effects; The modification in
intended only to decrease the permitted
zones of effects when a permittee has
made a very conservative estimate
during the permitting process that''
becomes apparent upon monitoring. All '
permit modifications which decrease the
permitted zones of effects or reduce the
rate of waste disposal are considered -
"minor modifications" (see § 122.17) and
therefore may be made without a draft. .
permit or public review.
Minor modifications of permits—
§ § 122.17(e)(8). Permit modification
made pursuant to § :122.15(a)(8) which
decrease the zone of permitted effects
caused by leachate discharges from land
disposal facilities or reduce the rate of
juvaste disposal are included in the list of
' "minor modifications" contained in
§ 122.17. The effect of these
modifications is to make the permit
more stringent. Because they are "minor '
modifications", no draft permit or public
. review is required^
4. Application for a Permit—
§ 122.22(a). Certain commenters on the
, Part B application informational
requirements proposed on June 14,1979
(44 FR 34278-80) noted that part of the
informational requirements to be
submitted with Part B of the application '
might require more than six months to
obtain. The Agency agrees and is
proposing to add §§ 122.22(a)(4) and (5)
to limit the discretion of the Director to
deny an application which is incomplete
when the informational requirements of
the Agency or the regional availability
of professional services with the
requisite skills to generate and evaluate
the information limit the ability of the
applicant to comply with the six month
filing requirement of § § 122.22(a)(2) and
(3).
The authority of the Director to deny
an incomplete application, when it is
apparent that a completed application
would not, comply with the ground water
protection standard is re-established as
§ 122.22(a)(6) and new provisions are
added to allow an interim permit to be
issued. - -•-. . • ••--. •
The provision for the issuance of an
interim permit provides a mechanism to
allow and endores improvements at
existing facilities prior to final permit
issuance, a mechanism to recognize
"good" facilities, and a mechanism to
terminate interim status for "bad"
facilities. The provision of a five year
.limitation for an interim permit is based
on the expected Agency delay in acting
on lower priority permit applications for
existing facilities. .''--•.'-
5. Permit application requirements—
contents of Part B of the RCRA permit
application—§122.25. Specific permit ,
application requirements applicable to
the land disposal of hazardous wastes
have been iadded as §§ i22.25(c) through
(h). the information required by these
subsections is supplementary to the
requirements to be fulfilled for Part B of
the application in ctimpliance with
§ 122.25(a}.iThese subsections respond
to commenters who pointed out that all
of the Part B informational requirements
proposed on June 14,1979 (44FR 34278-
80) wereiiot needed or appropriate for
all facilities!. It limits the obligation of
applicants 1:o supply information that
would not be relevant to their particular
application,,
Many of lihese pro visions, are similiar
to those .proposed on June 14,1979 (44
FR 34178-pHO), but they are expressed
with greatei? specificity and are limited
to land disposal facilities. Therefore,
they reflect the concern expressed by
commenters! that much of the required,
information was not needed for all
facilities and should be made specific on
a case by case basis.
a. Specific technical information
requirements for land disposal
facilities—% 122.25(c). Section 122.25(c)
establishes the obligation to file the
information required to evaluate the
specific types of facilities with reference
to the technical requirements of the •
individual Subpart for each facility type
(Subparts Kj L, M, N, R, and S).
b. Specific generic information
requirements for land disposal '
facilities— § 122.25fd) and(e).
Subsection l22.25(d) establishes the
obligation 'to file, as part of Part.B of the
application, a detailed definition of the
wastes to" bei disposed of, a detailed
prediction of the leachate plume which
will be established as a result of any
permanent disposal of hazardous wastes
into or on the land, and a description of
the location of gaseous migration in and
from the land. These subsections, which
are central to the regulation is discussed
in detail below under—6. Information
Requirements for Permitting Discharges
from Land Disposal Facilities. ' •
c. Reports on hydrogeology;
climatology, and geography—§ 122.25(f).
-------
11152
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday, .Fejrnwy 5 . ....... 1981
Subsection 122.25(f) establishes the
obligation to file, as part of Part B of the
application, reports on the
hydrogeblogy, climatology, and
getography of the area where the facility
is to be located.
lite report on hydrology and geology
18 to be based on by data available from
public sources and confirmed by site
Investigations or based on site
Investigations required in paragraph (g).
Specific reference to accommodating the
potential interested readers of the report
an made in §§ 122.25(f)(2) (i) and (vii).
These subsections stress the need to
avoid excessive use of technical jargon
which could create lengthy hearings due
to requests for clarification and
Interpretation from the interested public.
Subsections 122.25(f)(2) and (f)(3)
establish Ihe obligation to file, as part of
Part B of the application, a report on the
climatology and geography based on the
data required by §§ 122.25(g) (2) and (3).
d. Sits investigation requirements—
i 122,25(8)- The acquisition of basic field
data on site specific conditions is
essential to the preparation of the report
required to § 122.25(f) and to the
development of the generic
Informational requirements for land
disposal facilities of § 122,25 (d) and (e)
which are discussed in detail below.
The site investigation requirements of
these regulations require a relatively
standard type of field investigation. The
only basis for defining the requirements
In the regulation is to establish certain
minimum requirements and to deal with
the degree accuracy needed on a
situation specific basis.
The use of standard datum (i.e., USGS
controls) references is required so that
analysis of the site can be made with
valid references to data generated by
others.
The majority of the requirements are
for survey accuracy definition. A survey
accuracy sufficient to allow (not require)
Ihe mapping of the area within forty
meters of any construction activity at a
contour interval of two meters is
required. The same surface survey
accuracy applies when leachate will
migrate within ten meters of the ground
surfaco. The Agency is quite concerned
that predictions of the locus of leachate
migration be accomplished with a high
degree of accuracy when leachate will
bo near the ground surface. A depth of
ten meters has been chosen to represent
a depth that is beyond casual
excavation and will below the cellar
depth of most small structures. The
survey of the contact surface between
uneonsolldated and consolidated
materials is also required; the accuracy
specified is a four meter contour
Interval. Ground water table contour
requirements are similar. The specified
accuracy is two meters wliere ground
water mounding can be expected and
where ground water mixed with
leachate will be less than ten meters
from the ground surface. Comment is
requested on the reasonablenesss of
these requirements.'
It is also required that sufficient
ground water data be obtained to allow
flow net analysis of ground water and
leachate flow under varying conditions
of stress on the system.
The required information oh
climatology is self explanatory, .
however, the 'informational
requirements on land use and land use
controls requires discussion.
Permit applicants are required to
describe the type of land use, the land
use controls and the projected land use '
in the area of the proposed site. The
rationale for the requirement is to
provide the permit reviewer sufficient
information on the character of the
patterns of activity to judge the
compatibility of the proposed facility.
The presence and strengths of land use
controls to preserve the appropriateness
of the setting are a critical element.
Absent controls, exclusion of future
encroachment of residential or
otherwise less than compatible uses
tiannot be prevented. Projections of land
uses are likewise essential, the controls
at best are inducements for or against ,
particular land uses; whether or not the
"permitted" or "allowed" use will occur
can be haphazard if not desultory. The
permit will be issued considering the
impact on current patterns, compliance
with appropriate ISnd use controls and
compatibility with projected land uses.
It is not the Agency's intent to either
foster or inhibit local control of land use.
The history of national and state efforts
at land use controls is too heavily
burdened with emotional distraction to
use as a major element of siting strategy.
Siting of hazardous waste management
facilities clearly presents greater then
localized issues for resolution, but the
localized issues are intense, and they
are intensely perceived. States have
delegated land use controls to local
governments, and inspite of a
resurgence of State interest during the
60's and 70's, land use decisions are
preponderantly.local issues. The review
process for hazardous waste
management facility siting will establish
the mechanism for presenting both local
and statewide land use decisions.
However, the reviewer is reminded.to
maintain a proper perspective.
Procedural and substantive issues
involved in establishing land use policy
in the vicinity of prospective sites will
be considered as well as the resulting
designations. The review process will
not be bound by local zoning or other
land use decisions, nor should it be
construed as review, endorsement or
appeal of local decisions by the EPA.
Rather, .where local regional or State
planning decisions have been made, or
where local hearings have been held on
land uses issues, the facts, the testimony
and the 'subsequent changes, as well as
the decisions may be considered by the
reviewer. Full de novo consideration of
these issues should be placed in
- perspective by the reviewer, considering
the statewide and interstate regional
implications of the siting question. The
• reviewer mayconsider evidence, . .
regarding the exclusionary use of zoning
where it has been practiced, the taking
issue where appropriate or any of the
commonly troublesome land-use pitfalls.
Permit applicants are also required to
provide information concerning whether
or not the aquifer underlying the area in
the vicinity of a facility is or will be
used as a water supply. A variety of
facility designs must be anticipated,
with designs with varying degrees of
reliance upon natural assimilative
capacities versus containment and
treatment. Underlying aquifers will be
subject to the threat if not the assurance
' of entry of contaminants. The Agency
requires a demonstration of any claim
that the aquifer subject to accidental or
designed discharge will not be used as a
source of water supply for any use; for
instance, if such claim is made, or if
alternatively, the vicinity of the aquifer
near the discharge does bear
withdrawal for use, the Agency requires
rather full description of the use. These
regulations provide the requirements of
use disclosure which must be supplied
for facilities in Glasses A-E.
Class A: Applicants wishing to locate
facilities over aquifers which are not
and will not in the future serve as
sources of water for any use must
investigate that entire aquifer and
interconnected aquifers into which
leachate will migrate. Systems of
interconnected aquifers should be
treated as a single aquifer for this
purpose. The objective of the
investigation is to ascertain that in fact
domestic, agricultural, industrial or
commercial uses are not now served
and will not be served in the future.
Demonstration of the contention .that
they will not serve is intended by the .
Agency to constitute the following:
1. A tabulation of all withdrawal .
controls now in-effect (e.g., State
prohibitions on withdrawal) or private
ownership of the whole aquifer with
deed notation to warn future owners.
2. If the water will not be used
because of its poor quality,
-------
VQl ff- N±JjZJhursday- February. 5. .1981 / Proposed Rules
11153
demonstration should include lab
analyses and a cost assessment for
treatment to acceptable quality.
3. The closest users of groundwater ,
should be identified and the intervening
aquifer discontinuity demonstrated,
4. Any existing discharges and,surfaee
outcrops of the aquifer should be
identified. "
5. Three dimensional descriptions of
boundary conditions surrounding the
aquifer. :' ;
Class B: The requirements for Class A
facilities should be met for the unused
, and unusable portion. In addition, the
applicant should indicate the nature and
extent of the hydraulic interface with
usable portions of the aquifer. Flow net
descriptions, timing and migration
potential should be presented indicating
both the worst case and the most
probable arrival of contamination from
the facility to the used or usable portion.
Classes C, D, and E: All facilities
located over used or usable aquifers
must submit information concerning the
possibility of contaminants from the
facility arriving at each possible point of
withdrawal for use. Surface discharges
should be considered possible points of
use for this purpose. Flow net analysis
and pollutant transport predictions are
required. These must be prepared in
sufficient detail to support pollutant
migration increments at three year
intervals to facilitate validation.
The minimum monitoring scheme in
accordance with Subpart F will provide
an acceptable drilling plan for
"acquisition of nearsite data on the
aquifer. Well logging, with split-spoojti
samples at five foot intervals, will
generally be considered satisfactory
geophysical data. The same level of
detail should be provided on the existing
water-wells in the aquifer^ where
available. All users should be listed,
clearly indicating the level of treatment
now provided, and the capability of that
treatment with respect to anticipated
contaminants and their by-products
from the facility.
Subsection 122,25.(g) establishes a
similar obligation to file a description of
the ground water monitoring program
proposed.to verify or improve the "best
estimate" predictions of leachate
migration .and a description of any
modeling program base on monitoring
data which is required by the • ;
regulations or proposed by the
applicant. *, *
6. Information requirements for
permitting discharges from land -
disposal facilities—§ 125.2S(d). a.
Purpose.—Under the approach being
proposed today, each hazardous waste
facility will be evaluated directly for its
impact on human health and the
environment. Inste.ad of merely
estimating the adverse environmental
impact of a facility by comparing its
design parameters with national design
requirements thought, to be safe, this
approach will evaluate each facility on
an individual basis. To safely and
properly determine the human health
and environmental impact of a
hazardous waste facility, extensive
information is required :on: (1) The
characteristics of the wastes disposed, *
of both individually and collectively, (2)
the hydrogeoiogical characteristics of
the site, (3) the water quality
requirements of any underlying aquifer,
and (4) the interaction of wastes with
the site hydrpgeology and (5) the
resultant effects on water quality. It is
only by the acquisition Ihd'subsequent
analysis of this information that a
reasonable assessment of any adverse
health and environmental impact can be
determined on a site specific basis.
b. Summary of proposed regulation—
§ 122.25(d). Because each hazardous
waste management facility is to be
independently evaluated for its impact
on human health and the environment, a
uniform mode of analysis must be '
provided to ensure that all sites are
evaluated by the same criteria. This
uniform mode of analysis will take the
. form of extensive informational
requirements for evaluating and
predicting the effect of a hazardous
waste facility on human health and the
environment. These informational
requirements are outlined in § 122.25(d)
and require the permittee to provide
information on five major topics:
-, (1) A description of the wastes (both
qualitative and quantitative) to be
disposed of hi the facility.
(2) A description of leachate .and gas
migration from the facility.
(3) A hydrogeologic description of the
unsaturated zone. . "
(4) A hydrogeologic description of the
saturated zone..
(5) A description of all discharges into
surface waters and all withdrawals of
.ground water, that will be mixed with
leachate from the disposal facility.
The overall objective'of these
informational requirements is to acquire
the data necessary to establish the
absence or degree of adverse effects on
human health and the environment. • —
In order tp provide maximum "
flexibility in implementing the above
described informational requirements,
varying, levels of precision will be
allowed. Section 122.25(e) outlines the
framework for recognizing major
differences in site and waste specific ' -
circumstances, and inadequacies in the
state of the art which would indicate a
necessity to allow some variation in, the ;
required degree of precision to comply
with informational requirements. This
- section seeks to limit unnecessary •
informational requirements and ease the
, regulatory burden wherever possible
without jeopardizing the' assessment of
•'health an.d environmental effects.. For
example, a detailed analysis of the
effects associated with the human '
consumption of affected ground water is
unnecessary if the ground-water
protection standard is met and the water
is noj and will not be consumed.
c. Waste identification, and
quantification— § 122.25(d)(l). Waste
identification and quantification is the
first and most vital step hi the analysis
of health and environmental effects. . .
This subsection requires a detailed
accounting of hazardous wastes to be
disposed of in each operational unit of a
disposal facility (see § 122.3 Definition
of "Hazardous Waste Management
facility" and § 260.10 Definition of
"Facility";). This-is simiar to the
accounting required in Part A of the !
permit application (see § 122,24(g]J. The
information required hi Part, A also
includes an identification by hazardous
waste number (see § 122.1(c)(l))
However that information (to be
recorded on Form 3) deals only with the
hazardous waste delivered to the facility
and how it is tp be stored, treated, or
disposed. One cannot necessarily '
'identify the specific disposal facility
operational unit from Form 3 unless
there is only one of each type of unit at
the facility. In some cases, the
hazardous "wastes disposed of at, a
facility may be a waste'produced by a
treatment process'at the facility. Such a
hazardous waste is not described on
Form. 3 except by reference to the
.generic descriptions of storage,
treatment, and disposal unit operations
for each identified waste received. It
should be reemphasized that a waste
resulting from the treatment of a
hazardous wastk remains a hazardous
waste by definition'(see § 261.3(c)(2))
although such a hazardous waste will
not have a Hazardous Waste Number
(see "when, applicable" in •
'
. ,
It is possible for a waste which has
been classified as hazardous to be
exempted firom the direct regulatory
jurisdiction of the Agency under Subtitle
C of RCRA in accordance with a
specified procedure (see - •
§§§261.3(a)(2)(i], arid (ii), and .
261.3(d)(2), all of which reference
§ § 260.20 and 260.22]. Sections 260.20
and 260.22 describe a rulemaking '
procedure by which the Administrator
can be petitioned to exclude a specific
-------
11154 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5, 1981 / Prpposedjge^
waste at a facility from being defined as
hazardous. The procedure is relatively
rigorous, however, and in most cases
where a petitioner would be successful,
it would probably be less burdensome to
apply for and receive a permit. A
successful petitioner would not be .
subject to Subtitle C of RCRA, although
would still be subject to Subtitle D.
The key concept to the importance of
tho informational requirements is
brought forth in §§ 122.25(d)(l)(ii) and
(ill). Unless absolute storage
(containment) of the waste is achieved
in a land disposal facility, disposal is
only transitory and will ultimately result
in the migration of the waste and its
decomposition byproducts. For all
practical purposes, absolute storage in
land disposal facilities is unachievable
for more than some limited period of
time during which active management is
continued. Furthermore, absolute
storage may not be achievable in most
land disposal facilities even where there
!s continuous management. Because of
Iheso realities, the primary issues in
regulating land disposal facilities are
associated with the rate and locus of
release of waste contaminants. The
pertinent factors are reaction rates,
decomposition rates, release rates, and
migration rates.
Alt hazardous waste is composed of
matter, which cannot be destroyed.
Some listed hazardous wastes are
elemental in form either as
disassociated ions hi Solution or as
soluble salts. These materials, which
can be categorized as metals and
inorganics, are native to the
environment and are hazardous
primarily due to the relative amount in
which they are present when disposed
of as a waste. Additionally, they may be
hazardous because they induce the ionic
components of pure water (the
bydroniurn ion (H»)+) or the hydroxyl ion
(OH-)), to be present in excess amounts.
This results in a water solution which is
corrosive due to acidity or causticity.
Successful disposal of metals and
inorganics involves their reintroduction
into the natural environment at a rate
which is consistent with their natural
occurrence in the environment. Placing
such materials on or in the land in a
controlled manner can be a successful
way to achieve this end. To be sure qf
safe disposal, knowledge of several
factors is required: the interactions of
materials disposed of in a mixture, the
solubility of the materials in water, the
chemical interaction of the materials
with natural earth materials, and the
concentrations of contaminants which
will constitute an unusual exposure and
cause adverse health and environmental
effects. Proper waste disposal may be
accomplished by several techniques or
combination of techniques. For example,
in some cases treatment may be -
necessary to alter the chemical form of
these materials before disposal.
Similarly, in other cases, design features
can be engineered to reduce the amount
of water available to solubilize the
wastes. Likewise, management controls
can be instituted to limit exposure
within the locus of waste disposal and
migration by simply restricting human
activity. Some listed hazardous wastes
in this category [metals and inorganics)
are so insoluble that restricting re-
excavation is the only control that is
needed. Other listed hazardous wastes
are significantly soluble only when
mixed with certain other wastes.
Therefore, in addition to restricting re-
excavation, these incompatible wastes ,
need to be segregated. All of the factors
which control the rate of migration are
determinate provided the locus of
migration is determinate and the
characteristics of the earth materials
encountered in that migration are
known or can be measured.
Natural and synthetic organics are the
most problematical classes of hazardous
wastes because their numbers are
nearly infinite. Synthetic organics,
created by man.for some specific useful
purpose and ultimately discarded, are(
often the subject of the greatest public
interest when they can or do adversely
affect human health. It should be
stressed however, that in addition to
synthetic organics, natural organics also
constitute a. large number of listed
hazardous wastes that exhibit the most
publicly feared adverse effect on human
health—carcinogenesis. Essentially all
organics, whether natural or synthetic,
are prone to biochemical degradation.
However, because of their toxicity or
their molecular configuration, a number
of organics are extremely persistent in
the natural environment. This effect is
magnified when they are disposed of in
bulk quantities [or high concentrations)
antagonistic to the coexistence of life '
forms. The problem of high
concentrations can be dealt with more
successfully through diffuse disposal by
land spreading (see Subpart M—Land
Treatment) rather than landfilling.
Landfilling an organic waste may only
act to attenuate the waste physically as
the waste migrates through the land
(below the soil solum) where life -
generally does not exist'. In addition,
biodegradation is often limited to :•
relatively slow anaerobic metabolic
processes such as fermentation because
in a normal landfill, available oxygen is
quickly utilized by any life forms which
are present.
With regard to formulated inorganics
and decomposition inorganics, the data
base for the land disposal informational
requirements is adequate. However with
respect to natural and synthetic organics
the data base is less precise. This is due,
in part, to the fact that the means to
measure or even, identify specific
derivatives of many such organics (both
natural and synthetic) and correlate
these measurements with observed
health and environmental effects is of
relatively recent origin. Except where
the effects were so, acute as to be
discernable without precise
measurement, the prevailing practice
concerning the presence of most
organics in drinking water within the
last decade has been to lump them
together under the heading of "faste and .
odor" problems.
With the proper waste identification
and quantification; all of the additional
factors needed to evaluate the rate of
migration of any given contaminant or
mixture of contaminants in earth,
materials are determinate. Even
complex mixtures will tend to
differentiate in transfer through the soil
due to the rate phenomenon of
chromatographic reaction with the soil.
Wastes disposed of separately at the'
same site may also become mixed in
transit. Therefore, the mixing of wastes
in the disposal process introduces a
significant complication to the problem
of predicting whether adverse effects to
human health and the environment will
result. However, by controlling the . .
creation of new mixtures of
contaminants in disposal to those which
will not interact (or interact in a
predictable way), the disposer can take
advantage of available reference data to
the extent that it exists. If the disposer
does not control the creation of new
mixtures of contaminant's, then he may
have to incur the obligation and cqst of.
defining environmental fate factors
experimentally.
In §'122.25(d)(l)(ii) an applicant is
required to describe the expected rate of
waste deposition. These data are
-essential to any valid prediction of
solubilization, migration, and effect.
These data, supplemented by data
obtained by waste analysis where
required, (see § 264.13(a)(l)) and data
accumulated for annual reporting (see
§§ 264.75(d) and 264.75(e)) will be the
basis for triannual reassessment of that
prediction based on actual date on the
type of waste disposed and the rate of
disposal for each waste (see § 122.28(f)).
In § 122.25(d)(l)(iii) an applicant for a
permit is separately required to
-------
24 /Thursday, February 5, 1^81 / Proposed. Rules
11155
establish an absolute limit on the rate of
waste deposition he is seeking
authorization for. This limit will be used
in determining permit violations, A
' permit violation will occur if a
specifically defined type of waste is
disposed of in quantities greater than
authorized or if a type of waste not
authorized by the permit is received and
disposed of into or on the land. It should
be noted that the permit limits based on
§.122.25(dHl)(iii) will not function to '
limit the receipt of waste at the facility,
but only the rate of disposal of that
waste into or on the land. The difference
between the rate of delivery or receipt
and the rate of permitted disposal, if
any.Tnust be accounted for in storage.
By this means, permit applicants will be
able to allow for projected business .
growth or even provide some margin for
management error in committing
themselves to service clients whose
business needs for disposal services
might expand qr exceed estimate needs;
Permittees can also allow some margin
to accommodate emergency or
unforeseen needs.
d. Lesachate migration—§ 122.25(d)(2).
This subsection requires a detailed
prediction of the rate at which leachate
(sombilized contaminants) will migrate
from each land disposal operational
unit. Section 122,25(d)(2)[iii) requires a
characterization of the liquid available
to mobilize solid materials. There are
three types of liquids available to act as
solvents: rainwater, liquids placed in the
disposal facilities, and liquids generated
in the disposal facilities.
The first type of liquid is infiltrating
rainwater. The amount of rainwater.
which can be predicted to impact on any
particular facility will vary with location ,
due to climate, geology and topography.
Incident rainwater will vary seasonally
at each location. The rate of infiltration
at any given time is determined by
analysis of runoff, evaporation, and
transpiration. All of these factors vary
with the physical state and
configuration of the site. Individual sites
can be designed and managed to induce:
Surface run-off (by proper grading),
evaporation (by allowing liquids to be
exposed to the atmosphere over large
areas), or transpiration (by possessing a
high density vegetative cover). The
normal situation at an active landfill is
such that the infiltration of rainwater is
enhanced due to a disturbed and
unvegetated site surface. In actively
used areas, surface runoff is most often
collected and retained on the site • ., ? •
thereby inducing infiltration. Channeling
' of run-off from the site to surface waters
is subject to permitting under the NPDES
program, and is usually avoided for
management convenience. The net effect
of these factors, in non-arid areas with
relatively impermeable soils, i.s that the
soil below the site (and often .the waste
within the site) becomes saturated with
water thereby enhancing solubilization
and migration of the waste constituents
(see § 122.25(d)(4)(ii)). The phenomena
for this adverse effect is the elimination
of the zone of aeration in which
maximum'attenuation of waste
. "constituents would normally occur (see
§ 122.25(d)(3)). ' ' ',
The second type of liquids are those
_ placed in a land disposal facility. In the
Interim Status Standards (ISS) for
landfills and waste piles, this practice
has been restricted, but,not eliminated.
By contrast, the waste disposed ofjn a
surface impoundment or by land.
spreading are often in the liquid state. A
solid waste disposed of in a landfill,
even though solid in handling
characteristics, could be as high as 90-
, 95% liquid and still not release "free
liquids" (see the Preamble to the ISS at
45 FR 33214). ~
The third and final type of liquid
referenced in § 122.25(d)(2)(iil) are
' liquids which are generated within a
land disposal facility operational unit.
Affixed water is often a part of a solid. •
Additionally some solids are
hydrophillic and may capture water
from the surrounding medium (including
the air). Of greater potential importance
are the liquids that may be generated by
organic decay. Most organic matter was
originally formed through the process of
photosynthesis which involves the
combining of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water (H2O) to form organic material"
(CHO)X. When the process is.reversed
during the decay of organic matter,
water is released. In anaerobic
environments, such as those commonly '
found in landfills used to dispose of
organic matter, alcohol intermediates
are formed through fermentation-
reactions and are often released.
The solution available to dissolve
solids is a mixture of these liquids and
the dissolved gases to whiclrthey are
exposed—-predominately CO2, HaS, and
NHo. The character of the liquids are
further altered by the solubilization of
solids from the wastes and soils with
which it comes into contact. An
equilibrium between the solution and
the solids with which it is in contact is
most often reached when excess solids
and gases are present (the norm in a
landfill). For metals and inorganics this '.
equilibrium can be determined from
either reference sources or experimental
data. However for organics, the
character of the solution will vary
depending of the adsorptive affinity of
the organic constituents for the solids
(including the. soils) with which it
contacts. Within a landfill, or at the
interface with natural earth materials,
the character of the leachate solution
with respect to organic constituents is
usually determinate only by direct
measurement unless the system is
chemically simple. Based on experience,
it can be empirically characterized by
reference to historical direct
measurements or by experimental
simulation; :
Sections 122.25(d)(2)(i) and (ii)
requires the permittee to characterize
the leachate to the best of his ability.
Section 122!.25(d)(2)(iv) requires him to
make a "worst case" predicition which
will be used hi subsequent predictions
.of the limits of authorized effects and
locus of effects by which the permit will
be limited. The permit will not directly
limit the maximum rate of leachate;
discharge with respect to the
concentration or mass of contaminants
(however, volume may be limited in the
permit as a control on surface
management and ground water
mounding),1 Leachate monitoring is
required by direct or simulative means
for each type of land disposal facility in
the appropriate Subpart (see Subpart K-
Surface Impoundments,-Subpart L-
Waste Piles, Subpart M-Land Treatment,
Subpart N-Landfills, and Subpart R-
Underground Injection and Subpart S—
Seepage facilities).
eTUnsaturated zone monitoring—
§ 122.25(d)(3). This subsection requires
the permittee to characterize the
migration of leachate and gases through
the unsaturated zone. Gases may be
generated either directly from the waste
in the facility or from leachate. With
respect to leachate, this characterization
will require lknowledge of the interaction
of the leachate with each particular type
of earth material with which it will come
into contact. The exchange
characteristics with earth materials are
determinate1 for individual' contaminants
and specific; types of earth materials
(both soil and rock) and rates of solution
flow. They are commonly described
empirically from laboratory or field (in
situ) measurements and reported
according tci a convention involving an-
expression called the Freundlich
isotherm equation and a "distribution
coefficient" included'in the equation.
When consideration of velocity factors
are ridded, the values referred to as the
"retardation factor", are expnessed as a
function of both the porosity of the
specific earth materials and the ;
distribution coefficient. The velocity
factors are riot usually important in the
unsaturated !zone but are significant in
-------
11156
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No.-24 / Thursday. February 5, 1981 /
the saturated zone. The exchange in the
unsaturated zone is a mass exchange
phenomenon which will vary with time
at any location until the exchange
capacity of the earth materials is fully
utilized (I.e. the solution and the soil are
in chemical equilibrium and no net
exchange occurs). Therefore a
progressive diminishing of the total
exchange capacity must be anticipated.
If the design of the disposal facility
depends on the exchange taking place,
then the exchange capacity can not be
exceeded, This is a mass balance type
of problem which could limit the total
mass of contaminant placed in any one
land disposal operational unit Control
Is achievable by two methods: (1)
Determining the total exchange capacity
available and limiting the total mass of
the waste disposed of to or below thai
limit, or (2) retarding the migration of
the leachate by closing and covering the
disposal facility.
An effective infiltration reducing
cover can significantly reduce the
driving force which allows leachate to
migrate, the cover would thereby
commensurately reduce the rate of
contaminant mass migration. It should
be noted that this design and
management technique requires
continuing maintenance, and becomes
ineffective when the zone of deposition
is within the saturated zone.
Unfortunately, it is quite common for
landfills to be designed to operate
within the saturated zone, being
maintained dry by groundwater and/or
leachate withdrawal systems. This
practice ignores the fact that the water
table elevation which will be re-
established following closure will
saturate the waste unless the leachate
withdrawal is continued ad infinitum.
When this saturation occurs, the
character of the leachate will tend to
change since greater volumes of water
will bo in intimate contact with the
waste. The driving forces tending to
move the leachate will also be altered
thereby increasing the rate of migration
of solubilired contaminants and likely
causing the leachate to move in new
unprodlcted directions.
Another factor which must be
considered for at least the most active
containments is horizontal dispersivity.
This phenomena is caused by capillary
action, molecular diffusion, and the
tortuosity of the dominant vertical flow
path through the unsaturated zone.
Horizontal dispersivity can be
empirically determined, but the resulting
horizontal component of flow is usually
so small that a vertical characterization
with some safety factor is sufficient.
This does not mean that the horizontal
component of leachate flow can be
ignored, however, since the presence of
relatively impermeable layers or lenses
will force horizontal flow by inducing
perched saturated zones;
Ultimately, the complexity of the
analysis required in § 122.25(d)(3) is
dependent on the natural complexity of
the geology in the vicinity of the site.
The regulations require the applicant to
define the locus of effect resulting from
his waste disposal activities. The'
applicant can choose to locate the
disposal site where the natural geologic
system is homogenous and relatively
simple to define. Alternatively, by
locating where the system is complex
and thereby difficult to define, the
applicant will be obligated to expend
greater resources in investigating,
understanding, and defining the locus of
effect that his proposed activity will
have on the environment. By careful site
selection, the permit applicant can
greatly reduce the informational burden
of the permitting process, thus reducing
the costs associated with obtaining a
permit. -
The art of defining gaseous migration
is less fully developed than the art of
defining liquid migration. The principles
and factors are however known, and the
requirement of definition should
encourage the refinement of the art. •
With the incidents of serious adverse
health and environmental effects known
to the Agency, the problem cannot^be
ignored due to the relative weakness of
the developed art of definition.
f. Saturated zone monitoring—
§ 122.25(d)(4). This subsection requires
the permittee to characterize the
migration of leachate in the saturated
zone. The first task, required in
§ 122.25(d)(4)(ii), is to describe the
alteration caused by the facility in the
vertical elevation of the ground water in
the zone of saturation. This
phenomenon, called ground water
mounding, occurs beneath essentially all
active operational units of land disposal
facilities in response to the addition of
liquids from normal land disposal
practices (see § 122.25(d)(2) with respect
to quantitative factors). In performing
this analysis, it must be remembered
that the elevation of the saturated zone
also rises and falls due to natural
variations in the amount of rainwater
infiltration. Occasionally, the saturated
zone elevation will vary due to external
factors which may influence the
pressure head adjacent to the leachate
migration zone. Seasonal variations in
elevation can be quite large, particularly
in tight soils such as tills and clays.
Determination of these seasonal
variations can be made by conventional
hydrogeologic investigation and an
understanding of the natural system.
Naturally occurring high water table
elevations are often identifiable by
physical observation of the soil due to
soil mottling and can be directly
measured through wells: In some areas,
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
measures these variations in specified
observation wells and reports results
monthly. This data, however, may not
be sufficiently localized for direct
(rather than inferential) use in the
facility design. The characterization of
variations in the elevation of the
saturated zone is of extreme importance
in defining the ground water flow
system because the water table head is
the driving force behind ground water
migration.
Based upon characterization "of the
ground water mounding caused by the
facility and the results of the site .
investigation required in § 122.25(g), a
flow net can be devised to predict
leachate flow patterns assuming that the
flow characteristics were similar to
ground water indigenous to the area.
Refinements to this assumption can be
made by considering additive factors to
account for transverse, lateral and
vertical dispersivity. The use of a
ground water flow net and analysis of
leachate dispersivity factors 'then allows
the probable leachate plume to be
described as required in
§ 122.25(d)(4)(iii).
Dispersivity is an empirical factor
which varies with the specific type of •
contaminant and earth material through
, which the contaminant migrates in the
ground water. Dispersivity can be
described by reference to the three
possible dimensions—transverse,
lateral, a'nd vertical. The real extent of
the plume (in the horizontal plane)
would be described by the
contaminant(s) that exhibited the
greatest transverse and lateral
dispersivity. In practice, experimental
determinations of dispersivity are
imprecise and in situ response can only
be approximated. The format of the
regulation allows this imprecision to be
accommodated administratively by
allowing uncertainties to be accounted
- for between the best estimate of the
.zone to be affected and the permit
limiting estimate of the zone. These
accommodations are reflected in
§ 122.25(d) (7) and (8). .
The third dimension, vertical
dispersivity, would be a reflection of the
transverse dispersivity in homogeneous
medium. Due to layering, however, in
situ resistance to vertical flow is often -
greater than the resistance to horizontal
. flow. Gravitational effects can also be
-------
Federal Register / VoL 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules 11157
very significant. Many contaminants are
immiscible in water arid respond
independently to gravitational forces in -
accordance to their specific gravity.
Contaminants which are significantly
lighte'r than water tend to float at the
surface of the plume zone. Those
contaminants which are significantly
heavier, sink and extend the vertical
dimension of the zone downward.
Similar effects are caused when .- ' .
contaminants are miscible (or soluble)
in water as the heavier contaminants
usually tend to drag the leachate zone
deeper into the ground water flow
system. The more rapid the relative flow
is in the transverse direction, the less
pronounced vertical dispersivity will be.
The vertical dispersivity effect must be
. defined to comply with § § 122.25(d)(4)
(iii) and (iv).
The definition of the transverse
transport of contaminants by units of
mass depends primarily on-the leachate
exchange phenomenon of the earth
medium through which it flows. Except
in slow moving systems [e.g., tight soil)
the velocity factor is significant, and
must be taken into acco.unt. This means
that "retardation factors" should be
used to express the phenomenon rather
than '.'distribution coefficients" alone.
' The leachate-soil exchanges can be an
extremely significant factor in improving .
the quality of the leachate through
dilution, or in certain cases (e.g., in
shallow-systems with sufficient energy
to support biological activity), the
degradation of organic matter. The
do'minant effect is a reduction in the
concentration of contaminants .at an
area of discharge (or withdrawal)
through delay (retardation) and dilution
(dispersion). Continuous long term use
of the same" disposal area for the same
refractory contaminants will ultimately
negate the desired effect of retardation.
With respect to immiscible '
contaminates which tend to layer in the
flow system, the exchange capacity is
utilized more rapidly. Therefore, quality
improvement with respect to distance
and time are less probable. Immiscible
contaminants which are lighter than
water are quite likely to exhibit greater
transverse dispersivity than water,
especially if they are less viscous than
water. Immiscible contaminants which
are heavier than water will tend to be
deppsited to a greater extent in the
natural system and sink deeper into the
ground water system. Heavier
immiscible contaminants may exhibit a
pressure head independent of the
ground water system (due to their own
-specific gravity) and migrate in different
directions than the ground water.
Sections 122.25(d)(4)(i) through (v)
require an analysis of contaminant
transport in the saturated zone. Such an
analysis is within the state of the art,
however the art is not yet precise. The
regulations accommodate this
imprecision by requiring,maximum rate
and locus predictions and commitments
(see §§ 122.25(a)(l)(iii), (2)(iv), (3)(v),
(4)(iv) and fv), (5)(ii) and (iv). Periodic
re-predictions are also required based
on monitoring data collected during
operation of the facilities (see 122.28(f). .
Where imprecision is due to the physical
characteristics of the contaminants (i.e.,
those which are immiscible and exhibit
specific gravities quite different than
water or leachate), design, management,
and regulatory controls should seve to
restrict disposal in the saturated zone.
These controls may be pertinent to the
concentrated land disposal of volatile
organic solvents and chlorinated organic
solvents, controlled (retarded)
evaporation, or long term storage in the
unsaturated zqne, -
g. Discharge from zone of
containment—§ 122.25(d)(5). This
subsection deals with contaminants
other than gases, that are discharged or
withdrawn from the zone of
containment described in § § 122.25(d)(3)
(v) and (iv). It should be noted that the '
ground water table forms the upper
boundary of the zone of containment
except where the description provided
in compliance with § 122.25(d)(3)(vj
shows otherwise. .
Section 122"25(d)(5)(i) deals with the
expected locus of discharge from the
containment zone while § 122.25(d)(5)(ii)
deals with the locus ofdischarge to be
authorized by the permit. To be
authorized, the discharge effects (which .
are maximum effects not expected to be
are realized) must meet: the ground
water protection standard (established
in § 264.2), the performance standards
(established in §§ 264.20 and 264.21),
and'the demonstrations of performance
(required in § 264.21).
Fluids withdrawn from the saturated
zone are discussed in §§ 122.25(d)(5)(iii)
and (iv), in a manner similar to the locus ,
of discharge considerations discussed
above. .
7. Variations in precision—§ 122.25(e).
The purpose of this subsection is to
establish a basis for allowing some
variation in the degree of precision .'.
required to comply with subsection (d)
informational requirements. The
informational requirements are based on
the .premise that a certain amount of
information is necessary to determine
whether or not an effect resulting from
land disposal is acceptable. This
minimum information must be sufficient
to allow the following questions to be
answered: ! .
(1) What /may cause the adverse
effect? ' • . - .
(2) Wher& may .the effect pccur?
(3) How much exposure may occur?
The hard data needed to answer these
questions will vary considerably with
the character of waste disposed of, the
location of the disposal site, and the
method of disposal. These variations in
circumstances surrounding a permit
application indicate a necessity to allow
. some variation in the degree of precision
of the data required for informed •
decisions on permit applications.;
Additionally, inadequacies in the state.
of the art are recognized and accounted
for by allowing best estimates where
currently available prediction methods .
do not provide precise data.
The Agency is striving to be as
flexible as possible by limiting
informational requirements where
possible and allowing variations in the
levels of precision required in
recognition'of state of the art
constraints. To further aid permit
applicants ia meeting the informational
requirements, EPA has available a
number of guidance documents in the
form of Permit Writer's Guidance
Manuals and .Technical Resource
documents (see § VII(B) of the Preamble
for more information on these •
documents).
Section 122.25(d)(2)(iv) requires that
the definition of the character and
volume of leachate discharged from a
facility be a best estimate. The
monitoring and modeling requirements '
of § 122.5(f) provide a mechanism for •
subsequent verification and re-
prediction of. this initial estimate.
Section 122.25(e)(3) further clarifies the
term "best eistimate" by requiring the
estimate, to be sufficiently precise to
establish a number of factors necessary, '
- to determine the potential adverse effect
of the leachate. v
As .mentioned previously, the art of
defining gaseous migration is less fully
developed ttian the art of defining liquid
migration. In recognition of this, _ _
§ 122.25(e)(5) requires only a best ,
_; estimate of the locus of gaseous
migration. A't a facility containing .many '
operational units (the same or- different
types of units),-;the gaseous migration
from one unit may be a small percentage
of the total emissions of the facility.
Section 122.25(e)(2)(iv) allows the.rate of
gaseous migration from any one
particular operational unit at a facility
to be considered in conjunction with the
rate of migration from all operational .
units at the facility. "'
Section 122.25(d)(8) gives a permit
applicant the option of using a multiplier
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday. February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11158
(O.R., 105 percent, 120 percent) in
defining the location and rate of
migration to allow for a margin of error
in his predictions. The applicant must,
however, define the factor(s)-if he elects
to use one. By providing for a margin of
error in this way, a permittee can guard
agttinst permit violations resulting from
the imprecision of prediction methods
without compromising the "best.
estimates".
Where leachate (or ground water
affected by leachate) will discharge to
standing surface water or the surface of
the ground, a prediction as accurate as
can bo achieved is required by
§ 122,25(d)(ll). However, where the
affected surface water or ground is
within the controlled boundaries of the
facility, & lesser degree of accuracy is
acceptable. This imprecision is allowed
because exposure to the potentially
affected water and ground will be
controlled through the security
requirements contained in § 264.14. -
Leachate plumes caused by the
disposal of hazardous wastes into or on
the land may migrate into a number of
various passive collection devices such
as storm drains, sanitary sewers,
ditches, or agricultural drainage
systems. This migration may cause
damage to the collection devices (e.g.,
corrosion of sewer pipes) and the
subsequent, unexpected migration of
contaminants where the leachate plume
Interacts with the normal flows
associated with these devices. Section
I22.25(e){12) requires that these factors
be predicted and accounted for in the
information submitted by permit
applicants.
8. Permits by rule—§ 122.26. As
mentioned previously in this preamble,
the scope of the permit by rule to allow
RCRA jurisdiction over certain types of
facilities to be exclusively administered
under the UIC program has been
proposed for amendment A basic
problem became .evident upon analysis
by the Agency of the decision not to
implement the total UIC ban of Class IV
wells. Class IV wells are those which
"inject" hazardous waste above an
"underground source of drinking water"
fUSDW). Included are a number of
facilities that are wells because of the
UIC definition (i.e.. deeper than wide).
Many are among those subject to
Subpart S—Seepage Facilities—of
today's promulgation. It should be noted
that the Class IV ban of wells that inject
directly into a USDW is being
continued, and must be considered a
limitation on RCRA jurisdiction to
permit such facilities.
The basic problem is that the scope of
authority to permit or deny applications
for permit under the RCRA and the
SDWA is not equivalent. In today's
proposed rule that problem is being
resolved by promulgating undefboth. the
RCRA and the SDWA. In this way the
RCRA standard will apply equally to
either program and, at least within the
Agency, exclusive jurisdiction is not a
primary issue. The allocation of staff
resources with appropriate talents to
review permit applications for
hazardous waste land disposal facilities
can be managed as appropriate to the
Agency's goals.
The permit by rule allows UIC
exclusive jurisdiction in those
circumstances when it is clear that the
RCRA standard will be complied with.
Those circumstances exist only when no
waste will enter a surficial aquifer and
no w,ater will be withdrawn for use from
the zone of containment within the
injection zone. In all other
circumstances, the RCRA criteria and
standards will apply. Due to the choice
to promulgate under both laws, permits
using the RCRA rule may be issued by
those administering the UIC program.
9. Triannual reprediction of leachate
plume migration—•§ 122.28(f). Permittees
are required in § 122.25(d) to define
maximum rate and locus effects of
leachate discharges from their facility
and include these definitions in the
permit application. These predictions
are then incorporated as permit
limitations (see § 122.29(c)) and if ,'
exceeded, constitute a permit violation.
However, the state of the art in defining '
leachate transport is not precise and it is
recognized that predictions made at the
.time of permit application may not be
accurate. To further account for this
imprecision (§ 122.25 (d) and (e) also
account for it), § 122.28(f) requires
submission of triannual repredictions of
the effects described in § 122.25(d) and
any information supplemental to the
reprediction required in § 122.25(e). Any
proposed modifications to the
monitoring and modeling program
necessary in light of the reprediction of
effects must also be submitted.
The triannual reports, containing the
above described information, need not
be submitted until March 1 of the year
following the completion of three full
years of operation. For the purposes of
this requirement, the water year
(October 1 to September 30), rather than
the calendar year, is used for the
computation of years of operation.
If these xepredictions indicate that
limits on the rate or locus of effects,
contained in the permit have or will be
exceeded, the permittee must request a
modification of the permit.
The proposed modification can be to
expand the zone of effects or reduce the
rate of waste disposal (see
§ 122.15(a)(8)(i)). If it appears that the •
maximum zone of effects defined in the
permit exceeds that which will be
reached, the permittee may request a
permit modification to reduce the
defined zone (see § 122.15(a)(8)(ii)).
If the Director finds that the zone of
effects defined in the permit is
substantially unrelated to the actual
zone of effects, he must require the
permittee to redefine the zone (see
§ 122.15(a)(8)(iii).
10. Establishing RCRA permit
conditions—% 122.29. Two permit
conditions are being proposed as
additions to § 122.29. The first,
contained in § 122.29(b), requires that
RCRA permits limit the maximum rate .
of disposal at or below the rate applied
for by the applicant. The second,
contained in § 122.29(c), establishes that
the only effects which will be authorized
by permits are those defined by the
applicant in accordance with § 122.25(c).
This does not mean that all described
effects will be authorized, but only that
any effects which are not described in
the application will not be authorized by
the issuance of a permit even in the
absence of a permit condition.
VIII. Supporting Documents
The Agency has developed or will
prepare the following supporting
documents in conjunction with these
regulations.
A. Background Documents
.- Nine background documents support
these regulations, providing response to
• public comments and rationale for how
and why the regulations have come to
be written the way they are. In
conjunction with the references listed in
them, these documents provide the basis
for and defense of the proposed
regulations. "
For the most part, they are the same
background documents issued in
support of the May 19,1980,
promulgation, but they have been
expanded to include: (a) Summaries and
responses to comments on the May 19
interim final, interim status regulations;
. (b) summaries and response to
comments on the October 8,1980,
supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking, permit standards applicable
to owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities; (c) summaries and responses
to comments on the proposed
(December 1978) general standards; and
(d) rationale for the general standards
proposed today. The following
documents, directly support the
regulations proposed today.
1. Surface Impoundments
2. Waste Piles*
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No, 24 / Thursday, t February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules 11159
3. Land Treatment
-.4. Landfills 1
5. Underground Injection and
Underground Seepage .
6. Information Requirements for
Permitting Discharges from Land
Disposal Facilities :
7. Ground Water Protection Standard
8. Ground-water and Air Emission "
Monitoring
9. Performance Standards for Land
Disposal Facilities
Copies pf the Background Documents
used in support of these proposed rules
are available for review in all EPA
Regional Office libraries and in EPA
headquarters library (Public Information
Reference Unit) Room 2404, Waterside
Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
D.C. 20460.
B. Guidance Documents
The permit official must review and.
evaluate permit applications to
determine whether the proposed •
objectives, design, and operation of a
land disposal facility will be in
compliance with all applicable
provisions of the regulations (40 CFR
264). .
EPA is preparing two types of.
documents for permit officials
responsible for hazardous waste .
landfills, surface impoundments, and
land treatment facilities: Permit Writer's
Guidance Manuals and Technical
Resource Documents. The Permit
Writer's Guidance Manuals provide
guidance for conducting the review and
evaluation of a permit application for - -
site-specific control objectives and
designs. The Technical Resource
Documents support the Permit Writer's
Guidance Manuals in certain areas .(i.e.,
liners, leachate.management, closure,
covers, water balance) by describing
current technologies and methods for
evaluating the performance of the
applicant's design. These documents
will also assist the owner/operator to
identify and evaluate technologies
.which can be used to control potential
adverse effects on human health and the
environment in order to comply with' the
Part 264 regulations. The information
and guidance presented in these
manuals constitute a suggested
approach for review and evaluation
based on best engineering judgments.
There may be alternative and equivalent
methods for conducting the review and
evaluation. However, if the results of
these methods differ from those of the
EPA method, their validity may have to
be validated by the applicant.
'In reviewing and evaluating the
permit application, the permit official
must make all decisions in a well
defined and well documented manner, •'-.--
Once an initial decision is made to issue
or deny the permit, the Subtitle C
; regulations (40,CFR 124.6,124.7 and
124.8) require preparation of either a
statement of basis or a fact sheet that
discusses the reasons behind the
decision. The statement of basis or fact
sheet then becomes part of the permit
review process specified in 40 CFR
124.6-124.20,
These manuals are intended to assist
the permit official in arriving at a
logical, well-defined, 'and well-
documented decision. Checklists and
logic flow diagrams are provided
.throughout the manuals to ensure that
necessary factors are considered in the'
decision process. Technical data are
presented to enable the permit official to
identify proposed designs that may
require more detailed analysis because
of a deviation from suggested practices.
The technical data are not meant to
provide rigid guidelines for arriving at a
decision. References are cited
throughout the manuals to provide
further guidance for the permit official
when necessary.
The following draft Technical
Resource Documents ar.e available:
a. Evaluating Cover System for Solid
, and Hazardous Waste (SW-867)
b. Hydrologic Simulations on Solid
Waste Disposal Sites (SW-868)
c. Landfill and Surface Impoundment
Performance Evaluation (SW-869)
d. Lining of Waste Impoundment a'nd
Disposal Facilities (SW-870)
Single copies of these documents are
available from Ed Cox, Solid Waste :
Information, U.S. EPA, 20 West St. Glair
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. If
available copies run out, the Agency
may have to charge by the page for
photocopying. EPA is also preparing the
following additional manuals in support
of the Part 264 Land Disposal regulatory
program: '
1. Permit Writer's Guidance Manuals:
a. Landfills
b. Surface Impoundments '.
c. Land Treatment
d.,Piles
2. Technical Resource Documents:
a. Management of Hazardous Waste
Leachate (SW-871)
b. Guide to the Disposal of Chemically
Stabilized and Solidified Wastes (SW-
872)
c. Closure of Hazardous Waste
Surface Impoundments (SW-873)
cL Design and Management of
Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
Facilities (SW-874)
e. Soil Permeability Test Manual
f. Leachate Characterization from a
Hazardous Waste Facility
. g. Landfill Closure Manual ,
h. Ground-Water Monitoring for
Owners and-Operators of Treatment,"',
Storage or Disposal Facilities
_JC. Economic, Environmental, and
Regulatory Impacts . ,
Under Executive Order 12044, the
Agency is required to prepare a
regulatory analysis for all new
significant regulations. This analysis is
to include a comprehensive economic
impact analysis and a discussion of the
regulatory alternatives considered. The
Agency has not yet prepared the
economic impact analysis for this
rulemaking. However, EPA plans to '
complete one and make it available for
public review and comment before a
final rule is promulgated. The Agency's
October 8,1980 Supplemental Proposed
Rulemakmg Notice described and
invited public comment on the
regulatory'alternatives considered. EPA
believes that Notice fulfilled, in part, it's
obligation under E.0.12044 to describe
and invite comment on the regulatory
approaches considered. However, EPA
plans to prepare and allow public -
comment on a full Regulatory Analysis
before promulgation of a final rule. This
analysis will discuss the approaches
•considered and the rationale for the
approach taken in today's proposed rule.
Under the Federal Reports Act of
1942, OMB reviews reporting
requirements in proposed forms and "
regulations in order to minimize the
burden of respondents and the cost to
the Federal government. For all new
regulations, OMB's procedures require
us to estimate the size of the reporting
•burden, describe who must report and
apply to OftiB for a clearance.
Accordingly, EPA is estimating the .
reporting burden of today's proposed
rule and will submit a clearance
package to OMB as soon as possible. -
Congress luis recently amended this Act
with the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, Pub. L. 96-511. After the effective
^date of this new Act (April 1,1980) all
^agencies must have OMB's approval of
- the reporting burden before any
regulation is promulgated.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act '
requires all Federal agencies to consider
the effects cf their'regulation on "small
entities", i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions!. Itrequires agencies to
propose, for public comment a
"Regulatory Flexibility Analysis" ;for
any, regulations proposed after January
1,1981, which will cause a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The1 Act requires the analysis to -
include, among other things, an estimate .,
of the number of small entities affected
by the regulations (where feasible), a
-------
lltGO Federal Register /Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, Februarys,JL981 _/ Proposed Rules_
description of the reporting and other
compliance requirements imposed on
them, and a description of any
alternatives considered to minimize the
economic impact of the regulations on
them.
Although EPA has not yet prepared a
Regulators' Flexibility Analysis of the -
small entity impacts of the rules it is
proposing today, it believes th.at a
significant portion of the potential
impact of these rules on small entities
has already been substantially reduced
by the small quantity generator
exemption contained in EPA's May 19,
19flO, regulations; an exemption granted
primarily for administrative reasons.
See 40 CFK 281.5. EPA intends to
analyze the impact of these rules on
small entities more thoroughly in the
future, and publish it's analysis for
public comment. In the meantime, the
Agency expressly invites the public to
address the impact of this rule on small
entities in their comments.
Dated: January 17,1981.
Douglas M. Costlo,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR Part 264,260, and 122
are proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. Amend Table of Contents as
follows:
a. Add to Subparl A—General:
Stc.
204,2 Non-numerical health and
environmental standard (Ground-water
protection standard).
b. Add to Subpart B—General Facility
Standard!!.
204.19 Land disposal facilities.
204.20 Minimum standards applicable to a
variance from the ground-water
protection standard for ground water
used for drinking.
204,21 Performance standards and
associated demonstrations of
performance.
c. Add the following:
Subpart F—Ground-water and Air Emission
Monitoring
Sec.
204.90 Applicability.
204.91 Ground water monitoring system.'
204.92 Sampling and analysis.
264.93 Preparation, evaluation, and
response.
204.94 Rocordkecping and reporting.
204,95 Air omission monitoring system.
204,98 Air emission sampling and analysis.
204,97 Air emission evaluation and
> response.
Sec.
264.98 Air emission recordkeepirig and
reporting. .
***** , -
Subpart M—Land Treatment
264.270 Applicability.
264.271 [Reserved]
264.272 General operating requirements.
264.273 [Reserved]
264.274 [Reserved]
264.275 [Reserved]
264.276 Food chain crops.
264.277 [Reserved]
264.278 Unsaturated zone [zone of areation)
monitoring.
264.279 Recordkeeping.
264.280 Closure and post-closure.
264.281 Special requirements for ignitable or
reactive waste. .
264.282' Special requirements for
incompatible waste.
264.283 Special requirements for classes of
facilities.
Subpart N—Landfills
264.300 Applicablity.
264.301 General design requirements.
264.302 General operating requirements.
264.303 [Reserved]
264.304 [Reserved]
264.305 [Reserved]
264.306 Inspection and( testing.
264.307 [Reserved]
264.308 [Reserved]
264.309 Surveying and recordkeeping.
264.310 Closure and post-closure.
264.311 [Reserved] '
264.312 Special requirements for ignitable or
reactive waste.
264.313 Special requirements for
incompatible wastes.
264.314 Special requirements for liquid
waste.
264.315 Special requirements for containers.
264.316 Special requirements for classes of
facilities.
Subpart R—Underground Injection
264.430 Applicability.
264.431 General design and installation
requirements.
264.432 General operating requirements.
264.433 Monitoring and response.
264.434 Closure and post-closure.
Subpart S—Seepage Facilities
264.460 Applicability.
264.461 General design requirements.
264.462 General operating requirements.
264.463 Containment systems.
264.484 Diversion structures.
264.465 [Reserved]
264.466 Inspections and testing.
264.467 Contingency plans.
264.468 Closure and post-closure.
284.469 Special requirements for ignitable or
reactive waste. , ,
264.470 Special requirements for
incompatible wastes.
Subpart T— Minimum Acceptable Treatment
of Hazardous Wastes Prior to Disposal
264.490 Applicability.
264.491 General requirements.
2. The authority citation for Part 264 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3004, and
3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal AcVas
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 42* U.S.C. .
6901 et seq., §§ 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and 6925;
and, with respect to "well injection", Sections
1421,1422,1423, and 1424 of the Safe Drinking •
Water Act, as amended by the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1977, 42 U.S.C.
300f et seq. sees. 300h, 300h-l, 300h-2, and
300h-3.
3. In §'264.1, paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows: ,
§ 264.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*.**•* *'
(d) The requirements of this Part
apply to a person disposing of
hazardous waste by means of
underground injection subject to a
permit issued under an Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program
approved or promulgated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and a permit by rule
under § 122.26(b) of this chapter only to
the extent they are required by § 122.45
of this chapter. These Part 264
regulations do apply to the aboveground
treatment or storage of hazardous waste
before it is injected underground.
***.**
4. Section 264.2 is added to read as
follows:
§264.2 Nonnumerical health and
environmental standard (Ground-water
protection standard).
The owner or operator of a land
disposal facility shall not dispose of
hazardous waste into or on any land
unless:
-(a)(l) Leachate and other subsurface
discharges that wilf enter into and
migrate within a ground water aquifer
will not mingle with and thereby affect
any ground water which is being or may
in the future be collected or withdrawn
for domestic, agricultural, industrial,
commercial or other uses, or
(2) A variance is authorized in
accordance with the procedures of
Subpart A of Part 124 based on a
showing by the owner or operator as
required, in this section and §§ 264.20,
264.21, and-§ 122.25; and'a finding by the
Regional Administrator; that any ground
water which is being or may in the
future be collected or withdrawn for
domestic, agricultural, industrial,
commercial or other uses'will not be
adversely affected for such uses and
that public health and the environment
will not be adversely affected; and
(b) Affected ground water will not
adversely affect the use of the overlying
land outside of the.land disposal facility
for residential, agricultural, industrial, or
commercial purposes or otherwise
adversely affect public health or the
environment; and
-------
5< 1981
Rules
* 11161
. (c) Discharges of affected ground ,
waters to surface waters will not
adversely affect existing pr potential
future uses of such surface waters or
othenvise adversely affect public health
or the environment,
5. In § 264,10, paragraph (b) is revised
' to read as follows: -
(b) Section 264.18(b) is applicable only
'to facilities subject to regulation under
this Part 264, Subparts I, J, K, L, M, N, O,-
R. S, andT.
6. Section 264.19 is added to read as
folows:
§264.19 Landdisposal facilities. '•.-'•..
(a) Several'types of facilities at which
hazardous waste is intentionally placed,
discharged, deposited, or injected into or
on the land; at which waste may remain
after closure; and from which leachate
may discharge into or on any land are
defined in § 260.10. These facilities
include the following types;
{!) Surface impoundments other than
those used solely for storage or storage
and treatment,
(2) Waste piles other than those used
solely for storage or storage and
treatment,
, (3) Land treatment facilities,
(4) Landfills, -.••_-•
; . (5) Underground injection facilities,
(6) Seepage facilities; including
seepage lagoons, drying beds, seepage
pits, seepage beds, and injection wells ,
that are not cased to prevent discharge •
.into the surficial aquifer.
(b) No disposal of hazardous wastes
into or on the land .will be authorized by
permit except in a facility listed in
subsection (a) of this section unless the
specific type of land disposal facility is
approved by rulemaking petition in
accordance with § § 260.20 and 260;23,
(c) For the purpose facilitating.
descriptions of the varying amounts of
information required to pursue a permit
under §§ 264.2[a) (1) or (2) and to.
establish compliance with performance
standards, monitoring and modeling
requirements, and technical standards;
and to facilitate descriptions of varying
performance standards, monitoring and
modeling requirements, arid technical
standards in these regulations; the
following classes of land disposal
facilities are established:
(1) Class A: A land disposal facility
which does or will discharge into an
aquifer which,, in its entirety, is not and
will not in the future be a source of
water supply for any use.
' (2) Class B: A land disposal facility
which does or will discharge into a ,
portion of an aquifer which is not and
will not in the future be a source of
water supply for any use although other
portions of the same aquifer is or may in
the future be a source of water supply
for some use.
(3) Class C; A land disposal facility
which does or will discharge into a ,
portion of an aquifer which is or may in
the future be a source of water supply -
for uses other than as drinking water.
(4) Class D: A land disposal facility
which does or Will discharge into a
portion of an aquifer which is or may in
the future be a source of public drinking
water supply.
: (5) Class E: A land disposal facility
which does or will discharge into a
portion of. an aquifer which is or may in
the future be a source of private drinking
water supply. . ." • • ,
7. Section 264.20 is added .to read as
follows:
§ 264.20 Minimum standards applicable to
a variance from the ground-water
protection standard for ground water, used
. Milli-
grams
Owners and operators of Class D and
E land disposal facilities shall not; -
(a) Discharge contaminants which will
cause the concentratipn of contaminants
at any point of actual or potential
collection or withdrawal of ground
water for use as drinking water to
exceed:
(1) 80% of the following maximum
contaminant levels specified in the
National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulations:. ; .. .
Barium ..,.,.;
Cadmium
Chromium.
Lead .-.
Nitrate (as N)..,
Selenium
grams
per liter
1.
. -. 0.01
0.06
0.05
, 10.
0.01
(2) 40% of the following maximum
contaminant levels specified in the
National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations:
grams
per
liter
Chlqrfde.... ;.-. ;. ...... 250.
Foamjng ;agents „ ...„. o.5
Su!fat8 .. .,...„...,.;.„.„ 250
•Total dissolved solids (TDS) .....11™."IZZ13ZZ 500!
•, (3) 20% of the following maximum
contamination levels specified in the
National Secondary Drinking, Water
Regulations:' " , - .
Copper.;......;..
Iron
Manganese._':
Zinc..;..
* . -
.03
0.05
0.2
(4) A color of greater than 3 color
units. •• ;i '•-'•'-:• - - /. '-.•• -V- • •
(5) An odpr greater than 1 threshold
odor number.
(6) A sodium,concentration greater >
than20m&/l. . ,
(b) Discharge"any of this following
contaminants-or groups of contaminants
to ground waters which are or which
could in the future be collected or
withdrawn for use as drinking water.
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic ' | ' . ---.•.---. -^ -,-•
Benzene '
Berizidine .' . " ,'.'.
Beryllium ••':••
Cdrbamate Insecticides, including but not
limited to;
Methoiny]
2-Methyl-:2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde-o-
(methylicarbamyl) oxime -. .
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides,
including but riot limited to;
Aldrin .; , ' , ; •
Chlordanti ,
DDf (Total--BDT1 pDD,'& DDE)
Dieldrin [ . ;•••' .-' ,. , , '
Endria and metabolites ..
Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide (all
isomers) "
" Kepone . .':•." .. . '. , . .
Lindane as ; - '-."••
gamma-Htixachlorooyclohexane ..-. .
Hexachloiocyclohexan and -* ;
Hexachloipcyclohexane (all iso.raers)
1,2,3,4,5,6-JBexachlorocyclohexane
Methoxychlcir,
Toxaphene ; ' •
Chloroetheno .. ' . -' .
Chloroform ' ,
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides, including but not
limited to; - •
2,4-Dichloi;ophenpxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxypropionic acid
2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin . '"
2,4,5-TricMorophenoxyacetic acid
2,4,5-Trichforophenoxypropionic acid (2.4,5-
TP} \ ;•:.:"-.•-:• _•";- .• • ' -
Chromium (hexavalent)
3,3'-DichlorolDenzidine
1,2-Dichlorbeniane , ( ,
Dichloroethylenes, including but not limited..
to;- ' '- ,. T. .'; . '• ' •
1,1-Dichlorbethylene ' "''
trans-l,2-pichloroethylene
2,4-Dimethylphenol •
Oinitrotoluenes,^including but not limited to; •
2,4-Dinitrololuene "
2,6-Diriitrololuene - '.
1,2-Diphenolhydrazine , - : ;«•"'
Haloethers and ChlorrJalkyl Ethers, including -
but riot.limited tor "':'..
Bis(chloromethyl)ether ,
Bis(2Tchlor()theoxy) methane '.'.'•
Bis(2-chloroethyi)ether ' f.
-------
11162
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday,
Bi»(2'Chloroisopropyl)elher
4-BrwnopIienyI phenyl ether
2>CMoroGlhyl vinyl ether
Chloromethyi methyl ether
I lexfichlorobenzene
Hcxadilorobutiidierm
Ifcxaehloroethane
Hydrogen sulflde
Nlttmoamtnes, Including but not limited to;
N-Nitrosodi-N-bulylamine
N-nitrosodicthanolamine
N-Nltro$od!ethylamine
N-NHrosodlmethylamtae
N-Nitrosadtphcnylamine -
N-NiUwodl-N-propylamlnti
N-NRrosotnGthylotnykmine
N-Nilrostomelhylvlnylamine
Polychloriniled biphenyls
OiyttitOphMpfiata Insecticides, including but
not limited to;
Q.O.Diethyl-S-l2-(ethylthlo)ethyl] ester of
phosphoro-thioic acid (Disulibton)
Methyl parathion
Parathtori
Pliornte
Penlndiloronitrobenzene
Polyaackar Aromatic Hydrocarbons,
Including but not limited to;
BenzCcJneridinG
Be0z{a)untlwacene
Bcnzo(b)fluorfflnthcne
Benxo(j)nuottinthone
I)il)««t«,lilacrkUnc
Dibenzta.hlanlhraceno
?l f.Dib«nzoIa,gjcarba2olo
DitKjnzofa.elpyrenc
Oibeirai
Otbcnzu
«,h]pyreno
s.ljpyrcne
Ftuorant iena
Indono(l&3-cd|pyreoe
N'ophthalcne
1,1,2,2-Tebnchlwroe thane
Tclrachloroethene
Telrachloromethane
1,1,2-TricMorocthane
Trfchlorottlhene
8. Section 264,21 is added to read as
follows:
1264.21 Performance standards and
'associated demonstrations of
performance.
The dt>monstrations,of performance
required in paragraphs (a), (b), [c), and
(d) of this section shall be considered in
preparing the draft permit required by
1124.0 and in preparing the statement of
basis required by § 124.7, and
summarized in accordance with
§| 124,8(b)(4) and (5) in the fact sheet
required by § 124.8.
(n) Tho owner or operator of a land
disposal facility shall not initiate or
continue;
(I) Any discharge that will result in
the migration of contaminants into any
aquifer not described in the permit
application as receiving discharge,- or
(2) Any discharge that will enter any
aquiferfs) described in the permit
application as receiving discharge and
result in migration of contaminants from
the containment zone into surface
waters; and
(i) Result in a violation of applicable
Water Quality Standards approved or
established by the Administrator or
interfere with the attainment or
maintenance of water quality ,in any
portion of the navigable waters for
which the Administrator has established
or caused to be established water
quality related effluent limitations; or
< (ii) Be inconsistent with any Areawide
or Statewide Waste Treatment'
Management Plans prepared hi
accordance with §§ 303e or 208 of the
Clean Water Act and approved by the
Administrator, or
(in) Result in contaminants for which
the Administrator has not developed
and published criteria for water quality
in accordance with section 304(a) of the
Clean Water Act: _ :
(A) Reaching any present or potential
source of water withdrawal from
surface waters for domestic,
agricultural, industrial, commercial or
other uses; unless
(B) A variance is authorized in
accordance with the procedures of
Subpart A of Part 124 based on a
showing by the owner or operator as
required paragraphs {a3(2)(iv) and (v) of
this section and a finding by the
Regional Administrator that any surface
water which is being or may in the
future be withdrawn for domestic,
' agricultural, industrial, commercial or ,
other uses, will not be adversely
affected for such uses and that public
health and the environment will not be
adversly affected.
- (iv) The.owner or operator of a land
disposal facility requiring a variance in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B)
of this section must demonstrate that
there is a social and economic need for
the facility, and that there are no -
practical options for waste reduction
including resource recovery, treatment
prior to disposal, and waste segregation
which could reduce or eliminate the
need to dispose of the waste into or on
the land.
(v] The owner or operator of a land
disposal facility requiring a variance in
accordance with paragraph (a)(2](iii)(B)
of this section must further demonstrate
that the effects to be caused by
discharge^) will not adversely affect
public health and the environment by
detailed predictions of the generation,
transport, and fate of individual
contaminants in the leachate
discharging to surface waters, and by
detailed assessments of the risk of
exposure to such individual
contaminants' taking into account;
(A) Transport, dispersion, and fate of
individual contaminants in ground water
with respect to; solubility in ground
water, exchange with the soil or rock,
attenuation by the soil or rock,
degradation of the contaminants,
dilution by ground water, persistance of
the coritaminaiits, accumulation of the
contaminants in soil or rock, miscibility
in ground water, volatility from ground
water, and the viscosity, specific
gravity, and surface tension of the
contaminants or contaminant solutions.
(B) Transport, dispersion, and fate of
individual contaminants in surface
waters with respect to; solubility in
surface waters, degradation of the
contaminants, dilution by surface
waters, persistance of the contaminants,
accumulation of the contaminants in
detritus and benthic deposits, and
volatility from surface waters.
(C) The exposure level to individual
contaminants with respecf to;
concentration, duration, and variability.
(D) The effects of exposure to
individual contaminants on humans,
animals, and plants based on reputable
scientific studies which have been
subject to challenging scientific review
with respect to; chronic or acute
toxicity, bioaccumulation,
carcinogenesis, mutagenesis,
teratogenesis, and eutrophication.
(3) To place in the. facility any volatile
wastes that will migrate and be emitted
into the air unless it can be
demonstrated that volatile contaminants
will not adversely affect public health or
the environment:
(i) Because the emissions will not
cause substantial present or potential
hazard to public health and the
environment outside of the facility or
migrate into structures occupied by
persons; and
(ii) Because access to the land area
where gases will escape will be
controlled dining the active life of the
facility, during the closure and the post-
closure care periods, and following the
post-closure care period if gaseous
escape will continue to occur.
(4) Any discharge to ground water
_• that will adversely affect any structures
which exist or may be constructed in or
above any aquifer described as
receiving discharge.
(b] Owners and operators of Class A
and B land disposal facilities shall'not
discharge to or otherwise affect ground
water unless such ground water is not
now and will not in the future be used
as a source qf water supply. The owner
or operator shall document:
(1) That the authority to control
ground water collection and withdrawal
for use is vested with a duly authorized
government entity which has exercised
-------
19k '/ Prtipbsecl Rules
its authority to control ground water
collection and withdrawal and use in
favor of the :type of use the owner or
operator carries pn or intends; or '
(2) That privately held vested rights to
control the collection and withdrawal
and use of ground water from within the
containment zone and any withdrawal
: and use of ground water 'which would
cause the zone to expand have been /
exercised, or will be exercised prior to °'
the initiation of discharge, to preclude
continuing or future collection arid
withdrawal and use of ground water
affected or to be affected by the
discharge; or ' -\-
(3) The owner or operator shall
otherwise document that the ground
water cannot now and will not in the
future be used.
(4) "Well injection" of hazardous,
waste directly into ground water which
meets the definition of an "underground
source of drinking water" in § 146.03
will not be authorized by permit unless
the injection is into an "exempted
aquifer". An aquifer or a portion thereof
exempted solely due to the criteria of .
paragraphs (b)(l) or (b)(4) of § 146.03
shall not be considered exempt for the
purpose of hazardous waste injection,
(c) Owners and operators of Class C,
D, and E land disposal facilities (i.e.,
those requiring a variance under § 146.2)
must demonstrate that there is a social
and economic need for the facility, and
that there are no practical options for
waste reduction including resource
recovery, treatment prior to disposal,
and waste segregation which could
reduce or eliminate the need to dispose
of the waste into or on the land.
(d) Owners and operators of Class C,
D, and E land disposal facilities must
further demonstrate that the effects to
be caused by disharge(s) will not - -
adversely affect public health and the
environment by detaHed predictions of
the generation, transport, and fate of •
individual contaminants in the leachate
and by detailed assessments of the risk
of exposure to such individual
contaminants taking into account;
(1) Transport, dispersion, and fate of
individual contaminants in ground water
. with respect to; solubility in ground
water, exchange with the soil or rock,
attenuation by the soil or rock,
degradation of the contaminants,
dilution by ground water, persistence of
the contaminants, accumulation of 'the
contaminants in soil or rock, miscibility '
in ground water, violatility from ground .
water, and the viscosity, specific
gravity, and surface tension of the.
contaminants or contaminant solutions.
(2) The exposure level to individual "
contaminants with respect to;
concentration, duration, and variability.
."• (3) The effects of exposure to
individual contaminants on humans,
animals, and plants, based on reputable
Scientific studies which have been
subject to challenging scientific review
with respect to; chronic or acute
toxicity, bioaccumulation,
carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and
teratogenesis.
§§ 264.22-264.39 [Reserved]
9. In 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F is . ,
added to read as follows:
Siabpart F—Ground-water and Asr
Emission Monitoring ' ..- :
§264.90 Applicability.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in
this chapter, the owner or operator of a
land disposal facility as defined in
§ 260.10 and listed in § 264.19, which is
used to manage hazardous waste must
implement a ground-water monitoring -
program, capable of determining
compliance with or violation of the
ground-water quality provisions of the
facility's permit, in accordance with the
requirements of this Subpart. Ground-
water monitoring is required during the
active life of the facility, and if
hazardous wastes or decomposition
byproducts remain after closure, during
the post-closure period as well.
(b) The owner or operator of a facility
Irom which hazardous waste or
decomposition byproducts have not
entered the ground water must install,
operate and maintain a ground-water
monitoring system to detect any such
entry which may occur.
(c) The owner or operator of a facility
from which hazardous waste or
decomposition byproducts have entered
the ground water must install, operate
and maintain a ground-water quality
monitoring system to measure the effect
of discharges from the facility on
Aground-water quality.
•(d) The owner or operator of a facility"
from which hazardous waste or
decomposition_byproducts are emitted
into the air must establish and operate
an air monitoring program to measure'
the effect of the facility on ambient air
quality, and the locations of gaseous
release from below the surface of the
ground or the surface of wastes placed
into or on the land.
§ 264.91 Groynd-water monitoring system.
(a) A ground-water monitoring
system, to detect the entry of hazardous
waste or decomposition byproducts
from the facility into ground water, must
be capable of yielding ground-water
samples for analysis arid must consist
of:
(1) Monitoring wells [at least one)
installed hydraulically upgradierit (i.e.,
in the direction of increasing static
head) for the limit bf the waste '''•-".''
management area. Their number,
locations, and depths must'be sufficient
to yield ground-water samples that are:
(i)' Representative of background
ground-water quality in the surficial-
aquifer underlying the facility; and ''
(ii) Not affected.by the facility; and
(2) Monitoring wells (at least three)
installed hydraulically downgradient
(i.e., in the direction decreasing static
head) at the limit of the waste
management area. Their number, ,
locations, and depths must enable the
iminediate! detection of any statistically
significant;amounts of hazardous waste
or decomposition byproducts that
migrate frcim the waste management '"'
area to the sur'ficial aquifer.
(b) If the; monitoring system described
in paragraph (a) of this section cannot
be utilized because of an inability to
satisfy well-locational requirements,
then the owner or operator must install
an alternate ground-water monitoring
system capable to detecting the entry of
any hazardous waste or decomposition
byproducts; into the ground water.
(c) A ground-water monitoring system
to measure the effect of discharges from
the facility on ground-water quality
must be capable of yielding ground-
water samples for analysis to provide
sufficient ground-water quality data to
perform the comparisons, and
evaluation*! required in accordance with
§ § 264.93 (i), (g), and (h) and must
consist ot:, ( • ,. . •
(1) Monitoring wells installed
hydraulically downgradient (i.e., in the
direction decreasing static head) at the
limit of the waste management area.
Their number, locations, and depths
must enable 'the detection and
quantification of any hazardous waste
or decomposition byproducts from the
facility which have entered the ground
water, and f .
. (2) Monitoring wells installed
hydraulically downgradient from .the
limit of the waste management area.'
Their number, locations, and depths ,
must enable the detection and
quantification of any hazardous w.aste
or decomposition byproducts from the
facility which have migrated via the
ground water.
(d) Separate monitoring systems for
each operational unit of a'facility are
not required! provided that provisions for
sampling upgradient and downgradient
water qualify enable detection and .
measurement of any discharge from the
waste inanagemerit area1 (i.e., the limit
projected in1 the horizontal plane as it
-------
11164
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1981 / Proposed Rules
would exist at completion of the
hazardous wasle management activity).
(1) In the case of a facility consisting
of only one land disposal operational
unit, tho waste management area is
described by the waste boundary
(perimeter).
(2) In the case of a facility consisting
of more than one operational unit, the
waste management area is described by
an imaginary boundary line which
circumscribes the several waste
management operational units.
(e) All monitoring wells must be cased
in a manner that maintains the integrity
of the monitoring well bore hold. This
casing must be screened or perforated,
and packed with gravel or sand where
necessary, to enable sample collection
at depths where appropriate aquifer
flow zones exist. The annular space (i.e.,
the space between the bore hole and
well casing) above the sampling depth
must be sealed with a suitable material
(e.g., cement grout or bentonite slurry) to
prevent contamination of samples and
the ground water.
1264.92 Sampling and analysis.
(a) The owner or operator must obtain
and analyze samples from the installed
ground-water monitoring system. The
owner or operator must develop and
follow a ground-water sampling and
analysis plan. He must keep this plan at
the facility. The plan must include
procedures and techniques for.
(1) Sample collection;
(2) Sample preservation and shipment;
(3) Analytical procedures; and
(4) Chain of custody control.
(b) The owner or operator with a
ground-water monitoring system
installed to comply with the
requirements of § 264.91(3) must:
(1) determine the concentration or
value of the following or other suitable
parameters, used as indicators of
ground-water contamination, in ground-
water samples obtained from monitoring
wells in accordance with paragraphs
(b)(2). (b)(3), and (b)(4) of this section:
(J) pH
(if) Specific Conductance
j Hi) Total Organic Carbon
(iv) Total Organic Halogen
(2) For each monitoring well, establish
initial background concentrations or
values of the indicator parameters
specified in paragraph (b)(l) of this
section, based on at least quarterly
sampling for one year.
(3) For each of the indicator
parameters specified in paragraph (b)(l)
of this section, obtain at least four
replicate measurements for each sample
and determine the initial background
arithmetic mean and variance for each
well by pooling the replicate
measurements for the respective
parameter concentrations or values in
samples obtained from each well during
the year.
(4) After the first year, all monitoring
wells must be sampled and the samples
analyzed at least semiannually.
(c) The owner or operator with a
ground-water monitoring system
installed to comply tvith the •
requirements of § 264.91(c) must
determine the concentrations of
hazardous waste and decomposition
byproducts in ground-water samples
obtained with such frequency as
necessary to enable the evaluations
specified hi § § 264.93 (f), (g), and (h).
(d) Elevation of the ground-water
surface at each monitoring well must be
measured each time a sample is
obtained and, if such measurements
show a seasonal variation hi excess of
five feet or a variation in the relative
elevation of the ground-water between
any two wells in excess of two feet,
measured monthly. All ground-water
elevation measurements will be
recorded as a distance measurement
from the reference elevation on the well
head, and with respect to mean sea level
based on USGS or USC&GS datum.
§ 264.93 Preparation, evaluation, and
response.
(a) The owner or operator with a
ground-water monitoring system
installed to comply with the
requirements of § 264.91(a) must have an
approved plan for a ground-water -
contamination assessment program. The,
plan must describe a ground-water
'• monitoring program capable of
determining whether hazardous waste
or decomposition byproducts from the
facility have entered the ground water.
(b) For each well sampled in
accordance with § 264.92(b)(4), the
owner or operator must calculate the
arithmetic mean and variance, based on
at least four replicate measurements on
each sample, for each indicator
parameter specified in § 264.92(b)(l),
and compare these results with the
respective initial background arithmetic
means established in accordance with
§ 264.92(b)(3). These comparisons must'
consider individually each of the wells
in the monitoring system and must
include:
(1) The Student's t-test at the 0.01
level of significance to determine
statistically significant changes from
initial background concentrations or
values, or
(2) A suitable statistical comparison,
other than the Student's t-test, or
suitable quality control procedure (e.g.,
tolerance intervals) to determine
unanticipated changes from initial
background concentrations or values..
(c) If the comparisons made under
paragraph (b) of this section for .the
upgradient wells show a significant
change the owner or operator must:
(1) Determine whether the facility has
caused the significant change,
(2) Determine whether the facility
ground-water monitoring program must
be modified to enable compliance with
the requirements of § 264.90 (a) and (b),
(3) Notify hi writing the Regional
Administrator of his findings and of his
proposed modifications to the facility
ground-water monitoring program, and
(4) Reinstate the original or an
approved ground-water monitoring
program for the facility.
(d) If the comparisons made under
paragraph (b) of this section show a
significant increase (or pH decrease),
the owner or operator must:
(1) Implement the plan for a ground-
water contamination assessment
program which meets the requirements
of paragraph (a) of this section, and -\
(2) Determine, as soon as technically
feasible, whether hazardous waste or
decomposition byproducts from the
facility have entered ground water..
(e)[l) If the determinations performed
in accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of
this section support a conclusion that no
hazardous waste or decomposition
byproducts from the facility have
entered the ground water, the owner or
operator must:
(i) Notify in writing the Regional
Administrator of his findings and
propose for approval any modifications
to the facility ground-water monitoring
program, and
(ii) Reinstate the original or an
approved modified ground-water
monitoring program for the facility.
(2) If the determinations performed in
, accordance with paragraph (d)(2) of this
section support a conclusion that
hazardous waste or decomposition
byproducts from the facility have
entered the ground water, the owner or
operator must implement a ground-
water monitoring program in accordance •
with §§ 264.90 (a) and (c).
(f) The owner or operator with a
ground-water monitoring system
installed to comply with the
requirements of § 264;91(c) must predict
the anticipated reduction in the
concentration of hazardous waste and
decomposition byproducts in the ground
water between monitoring wells
specified in § 264.92(c)(l) and those
specified in § 264.92(c)(2), initially and
annually thereafter.
(g) At least annually the owner or
operator must compare the quality of
ground water samples obtained from the
-------
24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
monitoring wells required in accordance
with §,264.92(c)(2) with the predicted
quality in accordance with paragraph (f)
of this section and include an. analysis
of this comparison with the annual
report. •
(h) The owner or operator must use
the data generated by the ground-water
quality monitoring program required in
accordance with §§ 264.90 (a) and (c), in
preparing the tri-annual reprediction
required in accordance with § 122.28(f).
§264.94 Recbrdkeeping and reporting.
(a) The owner or operator must keep
records of all analyses and evaluations
of ground-water quality and surface
elevations required in accordance With
. this subpart.
' •" (b) The owner or operator must report
the following information to the
Regional Administrator: ,
(1) The results of evaluations made in
accordance with the requirements
specified in §§ 264.93 (c), (e).
(2) Annually: the concentrations or
values "determined in accordance with
§§264.92 (b), Cc), and (d) along with the
evaluations required under §§ 264.93 (b)
and (g). During the active life of the
facility, this information must be
submitted as part of the annual report
required under § 264.75.
§ 264.95.' Air emission monitoring system. '
(a) An air emission monitoring system
to measure the effect of the facility on
ambient air quality must be capable' of
yielding ambient air samples for -
analysis to provide sufficient ambient
air quality data to perform the
comparisons and evaluations required in
accordance with § 264,97 (a), {b), and (c)
and must consist of:
(1) Monitoring air samplers installed
upwind at or beyond the limit of the
waste management area to yield air
samples that are:,
(i) Representative qf background
ambient air quality in the atmosphere
upwind of the facility, and
(ii) Not affected by the facility; and
(2) Monitoring air samplers installed
downwind at or beyond the limit of the
waste management area. Their number
and locations must enable the detection
and quantification of any hazardous
constituents or decomposition
byproducts from the facility which have
been transported via atmospheric
dispersion, and
(3) Wind direction and speed
indicators to determine wind direction
and speed. Their number and locations,
must enable the upwind and downwincf
use of monitoring air samplers installed
in accordance with (a)(l) and"(aj(2) of
this section, and the evaluations
required in accordance with § 26497 fa],
(b), (c), and (f). '
fb) If the air monitoring system
, described in paragraph (a) of this
section cannot,be utilized because of an
inability to satisfy locational
requirements, then the owner or
operator must install an alternate air
emission monitoring system 'capable of
providing sufficient quantity of ambient
quality data equivalent to the
requirements of paragraph (a) of this
section. - .
; (c) An air emission monitoring system,
to detect the locations of a gaseous
release must enable the immediate
detection of .the emissions of any
hazardous constituents or
decomposition byproducts which have
migrated from the limit of the waste -
management area defined in
.§ 122.25{d)(3).
§264.96 Air emission sampling and
analysis.
(a) The owner or operator must obtain
and analyze samples from the installed
air emission monitoring system. The
owner or operator must develop and '
follow an ambient air sampling and
analysis plan. He must keep this plan at
"the facility. The plan must include
procedures and techniques for:
(1) Sample collection;
•!- (2) Sample preservation and shipment;
_.{3) Analytical procedures, including
types of contaminant to be analyzed;
(4) Collection of wind direction,
speed, and stability data; and
(5) Chain of custody control.
(b) The owner or operator with an air
emission monitoring system installed to
comply with requirements of § 264.95(a)
must: :
(1) Determine the concentrations of
^hazardous constituents and
decomposition byproducts in ambient
air samples in accordance with (b)(2) of
this section.
(2) For each air upwind and
downwind sampler site, obtain at least
four upwind or downwind
concentrations taken preferably on an
equal Interval over a three month period
and determine the arithmetic mean and
variance.' -.- v . .".
(c) The owner or operator with an air
emission monitoring system.to comply
with the requirements of § 264.95(c)
must monitor two times .per year with a
portable or other equivalent detection
device the concentration of the
following or other suitable parameters,
used as indicators to detect the location
of migrated gaseous emissions:
(1) Total hydrocarbons; and
(2) Total halogenated compounds.
(d) The owner or operator with an air
emission monitoring system
implementing the requirements of
§ 264.95 (a) and (c) must determine thea
wind direction and speed, and other
meterological conditions any time air to
air emissions are Sampled, as necessary
for the evaluations required in
accordance with .§'264.97 (a), (b), (c),
and(f). ; ..: .
§264.97 Air.emission evaluation and
response.
(a) The owner or operator with an•''.'
ambient air monitoring system installed
to comply with the requirements of
1264.95(a) tnustr predict the anticipated
concentration of hazardous constituents
and decomposition byproducts in the
ambient ait at the downwind monitoring
sampler sites taking into account the
upwind concentration, initially and
quarterly thereafter,
(b) Quarterly the owner or operator
must compare the quality of ambient air
samples obtained from the downwind
air monitoring sites required in
accordance: with § 264,95[aj(2) .with .the
predicted quality in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section and include
an analysis of the quarterly comparison
with the annual report.
(c) Annually the owner or operator
must repredict, based on data generated ,'
by the air monitoring program required
in accordance with § 264.90(d), the
anticipated effect of the facility on
ambient air ;quality.The anticipated
effect must include at a minimum the
worst condition; quarterly, and annual:
effects. r -'•. '••'•• :•• ;..'•• -:. '-" . '• ' -
(d) As pait of the annuarreport'
required under § 264.75, the owner or
operator must compare the anticipated
effect of the facility on ambient air
quality as repredicted in accordance
with paragraph (c) of this section with
the provision of the facility permit. .
(e) If the comparisons made under
paragraph (d) of this section show non-
compliance with permit provisions on
ambient air quality, the owner or
operator must:
(1) Determine whether the facility
disposal practice must be modified to .
enable compliance with the
requirements! of the permit, and
(2) Include his findings and his -
proposed modifications to the facility
disposal practice in the annual report
required under § 264.75.
(f) The owner or operator with an air
emission monitoring system to comply
with the requirements of § 264.95(c)
must have aim approved plan for an air
and area contamination assessment
program. The plan must describe an air
emission monitoring program capable of
identifying the location of gaseous
release migra tedjrom the limit of the
waste management area, and capable of .
-------
11166
Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 /
assessing the effect on ambient air
qpllty in the affected area.
(g} If monitoring performed to comply
with the requirements of § 264,96(cj
shows a detection of gaseous release,
the owner or operator must implement
the plan for an air and area
contamination assessment program
which meets the requirements of
paragraph If) of this section,
(h) After Implementation of the plan in
accordance with paragraph (g] of this
section, the owner or operator must
compare the extent of migration and the
assessment with the provisions of the
facility permit and in accordance with
the provisions of the plan, provide an
analysis of this comparison in writing to
the Regional Administrator.
1264,98 Air omission recordkeeplng and
reporting.
(a) The owner or operator must keep
records of all analyses and evaluations
of ambient air quality, wind direction
and speed, and air emissions required in,
accordance with this subparL
(b) Thu owner or operator must report
the following information to the
Regional Administrator:
(1) The results of evaluations made in
accordance with the requirements
specified in § 204.97 (d), (e), and (h).
(2) Annually: the concentrations or
values determined in accordance with
§ 204.90 (b), (c), and (d) along with the
evaluations required under § 264.97(b).
During the active life of the facility, this
information must be submitted as part of
the annual report required under
| 204.75.
§264.220 [Amended]
10. Section 204.220 is amended by
removing the Comment,
11. In § 264.221, paragraph (c) is
revised, paragraph (d) Is redesignated as
paragraph (e)» paragraph (e) is
redesignaled as paragraph (f), and a
new paragraph (d) is added to read as
follows:
§ 264.221 General design requirements.
« « * * *
(c) A surface impoundment must be
designed to prevent direct discharge to
surface water (except discharges
authorized by an NPDES permit) during
the life of the impoundment.
(d) A surface impoundment which is
designed to be used solely for storage or
storage and treatment and to prevent
discharge Into the land and ground
water, and to surface water (except ,
discharges authorized by an NPDES
permit) during the life of the
impoundment;
(1) Must have a containment system
which complies with § 284.223{b); and
(2) Is exempt from the requirements of
Subpart F.
(e) Dikes must be designed with
sufficient structural integrity to prevent
massive failure without dependence on
any-liner system included in the surface
impoundment design.
(f) A leachate detection, collection,
and removal system must be designed
so that liquid will flow freely from the
collection system to prevent the creation
of pressure head within the collection
system in excess of that necessary to
cause the liquid to flow freely.
12. Section 264.228 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 264.228 Closure and post-closure.
Unless otherwise authorized in the
permit for the facility, at closure, all
hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed from the
impoundment and managed as a
hazardous waste in accordance with all
applicable requirements of Parts 262-266
of this chapter. Any component of the
containment system or any apurtenant
structures or equipment (e.g., discharge
platforms and pipes, and baffles,
skimmers, aerators, or other equipment)
containing or contaminated with
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
residues must be decontaminated; or
removed and also managed as a
hazardous waste.
§ 264.250 [Amended]
12. Sectipn 264.250 is amended by
removing the Comment.
13. In § 264.251, paragraph (b) is
revised, and a new paragraph (c) is
added to read as follows:
§ 264.251 General design requirements.
* * * * *
(b) A waste pile must be designed to
prevent direct discharge to surface
water during the life of the pile.
(c) A waste pile that is designed to be
used solely for storage or storage and
treatment and to prevent discharge into .
the land and ground water, and to
surface water during the life of the pile;
(1) Must have a containment system
which complies with i 264.253; and
(2) Is exempt from the requirements of
Subpart F.
14. In § 264:252, paragraph [c) is '
revised to read as follows:
§ 264.252 General operating requirements.
*****
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the
permit for the facility, leachate and run-
off from the pile must be collected and
controlled.
15. In § 264.254, new paragraphs (b)
and (c) are added to read as follows:
§ 264.254 Inspection and testing.
******
(b) The owner or operator of a waste
pile must include in the inspection plan
required under § 254.15 a schedule of
inspection of the devices for controlling.
wind dispersal (where required) and
run-on, and any waste pile containment
system under § 264.253. Except as
otherwise provided in paragraph (c) of
this section, the inspection schedule for
a waste pile containment system must
include periodic removal of the waste
pile and testing of the underlying base to
.ensure that it has not deteriorated to the
point where it is no longer capable of
containment, is already leaking, or is
otherwise in disrepair.
(c) If it is impractical to remove the
waste pile and test the underlying base
periodically because of the size of the
pile or the type of base used, (e.g.,
synthetic membrane which could be
damaged during waste removal), the
owner or operator may omit the pile
base inspection from his inspection
plan: Provided, That the waste pile has
a leachate detection, collection, and
removal system as specified in
§ 264.253(aH3).
16. Section 264.258 is revised to read
as follows:
§264.258 Closure and post:closure.
Unless otherwise authorized by the
permit for the facility, at closure, all
hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed from the pile
and managed as a hazardous waste in
accordance with all applicable
requirements of Parts 262-266 of this
chapter. Any component of the.
containment system containing or
contaminated with hazardous wastes or
hazardous waste residues must be
decontaminated; or removed and also
managed as a hazardous waste.
17. In 40 CFR Part 264, Subparts M, N,
R, S, and T are added to read as follows:
Subpart M-~Land Treatment
§264.270 Applicability.
The regulations in this Subpart apply
to owners and operators of hazardous
waste land treatment facilities, except
as § 264.1 provides otherwise.
§264.271 [Reserved]
§ 264.272 General operating requirements.
(a) Run-on must be diverted away
from the active portions of a land
treatment facility.
(b) Run-off from active portions of a
land treatment facility must be
collected. .
-------
Federal Register /
o- •24^/jrhursday: .February 5, 1981 / Propibsed Rules
11167
§264.273-264.275 [Reserved]
§ 264.276 'Food chain crojJs.
(a) Owners or operators of land
treatment facilities who propose to grow
food chain crops after the effective date
of this Part must comply with
.paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
(b)(l) Food chain crops must not be
grown on the treated area of a
'hazardous waste land treatment facility
unless the owner .or operator can
demonstrate, based on field testing, that
: arsenic, lead, mercury, or other
constituents: .
(i) Will not be transferred to the food
portion of the crop by plant uptake or
direct contact, and will not otherwise be
ingested by food chain animals (e.g., by
grazing); or ,
(ii) Will not occur in-greater
concentrations in the crops grown on the
land treatment facility than in the same
crops grown on untreated soils under
similar conditions in the same region.
(2) The information necessary to make
the demonstration required by
paragraph (a)(l) of this section must be
kept at the facility and must, at a
minimum:
(i) Be based on tests for the specific
waste and application rates being used
at the facility; and '
(i!) Include descriptions of crop and
' soil characteristics, sample selection
criteria, sample size determination,
analytical methods, and statistical
procedures.
(c) Food chain crops must not be
grown on a land treatment facility
receiving waste that contains cadmium
unless all requirements of paragraph
(c)(l) W through (iv) of this section or all
requirements of paragraph (c)(2) (i)
through (iv) of this section are met.
(l)(i) The pH of the waste and soil
mixture is 6.5 or greater at the time of
each waste application, except for
;waste containing cadmium at -
concentrations of 2mg/kg (dry weight)
or less;'
(ii) The annual application of
cadmium from waste and soil cadmium
does not exceed 0.5 kilograms per
hectare (kg/ha).
(iii) The cumulative application of
cadmium from waste and soil cadmium
does not exceed 5 kg/ha if the waste
and soil mixture has a pH of 6.5.
(iv) If the waste and soil .mixture has a
pH of 6.5 or greater, or is,maintained at
a pH of 6.5 or greater during crop
growth, the cumulative application of
cadmium from waste and soil cadmium
does not exceed: 5 kg/ha if soil cation
exchange capacity (CEC) is less than 5;
10 kg/ha if CEC ,is 5-15; and 20 kg/ha if
soil CED is greater than 15.
(2) (i) The only food chain crop
produced is animal feed.
(ii) The pH of the waste and soil
mixture is 6.5 of greater at the time of
waste application or at the time the crop
is planted, whichever occurs later, and
this pH level is maintained whenever''
food chain crops are grown.
(iii) There is a facility operating plan
which demonstrates how the animal
feed will be distributed to preclude •
ingestion by humans. The facility
operating plan describes, the measures
to be taken to safeguard against
possible health hazards from cadmium
entering the food chain, which may
result from alternative land uses.
(iv) Future property owners are
notified by a stipulation in the land
record or property deed which states
that the property has received waste at
high cadmium application rates and that
food chain crops should not be grown,
due to a possible health hazard.
§264.277 [Reserved]
§ 264.278 Unsaturated zone (zone of
aeration) monitoring..
(a) The owner or operator must Eave
in-writing, and must implement, an
unsaturated zone monitoring plan which
is designed to characterize the leachate ;
that is expected to leave the zone of
incorporation and substantiate the
predictions made under §§ 122.25(d) (2)
and(3).andl22.28(f). , -
(b) The unsaturated zone monitoring
plan must include, at a minimum:
(1) So,M monitoring using soil cores,
and • .
(2) Soil-pore water monitoring using
devices such as lysimeters.
(c) To comply with paragraph (a)(l) of
this section, the owner or operator must
demonstrate in his unsaturated zone
monitoring plan that:
. (1) The depth at which soil and soil-
pore water samples are to be taken is
below the zone of incorporation.
(2) The number of soil and soil-pore •
water samples.to be taken is based on
the variability of:
(i) The leachate expected to leave the
zone of incorporation; and
, (ii) The earth materials above the
zone of saturation; and
(3) The frequency and timing of soil ~
and soil-pore water.sampling is based
on the frequency, time, and rate of
waste application, proximity to ground
water, and soil permeability. • :
(d) The owner of operator mus't keep
at the facility his unsaturated zone
monitoring plan,'and the rationale used
in developing this plan.
(e) The "owner or operator must
analyze the soil and soil-pore water
samples and qompare the results to the
predictions required under § § 122.25(d)
(2) and (3) and 122.28(f).
§264.279 Recordkeeping. •
The owner or operator of a land
treatment facility must keep records of
the-application dates, application rates,
"quantities, and location of each • '
hazardous vraste placed in the facility,
in the operating record required in
§264.73. "
§264.280 Closure and post-closure.
(a) In the closure plan Under § 264.112
and the post-closure plan under
§ 264.118, the owner or operator must
address the following objectives and
indicate how they will be achieved:
(1) Control of the migration of
leachate from the zone of incorporation
into the ground water;
(2) Control of the release of
contaminate d run-off from the facility
into surface water;
(3) Control of the release of airborne
participate contaminants caused by
wind erosion; andl "
(4) Compliance with § 264.276
concerning the growth of food-chain
crops. ;
(b) The owner or operator must
consider at least the following factors in
addressing the closure and post-closure
care objectives of paragraph (a) of this
section:
(1) Type and amount of hazardous
waste applieis to the land treatment
facility;
(2) The mobility and the expected rate
and amount pf migration of the leachate
zone of incoirporation;
(3) Site location, topography, and
surrounding land use, with respect to the
potential effects of pollutant migration
(e.g., proximity to ground water, surface
water and drinking water sources);
(4) Climate, including amount,
frequency, and pH of precipitation; .
(5) Geological and soil profiles and
surface and subsurface hydrology of the
site, and soil characteristics, including '
cation exchange capacity, total organic
carbon, and pH; :
(6) Unsaturated zone monitoring
information obtained under § 264.278;
and j..-,-. ,
. (7) Character of the leachate and its
extent of migration in the earch
materials above the zone of saturation.
(c)The owner or "operator must
consider at least the following methods
in addressing the closure and post-
closure care objectives of paragraph'(a)
of this section:
(1) Removal of contaminated soils;
(2) Placement of a final cover,
considering: | -•- . ":
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday. February 5. 1981 / Proposed fiules
11168
(.1) Functions of the cover (e.g.,
infiltration control, erosion and run-off
contra], and wind erosion control), and
(II) Characteristics of the cover,'
including material, final surface
contours, thickness, porosity and
permeability, slope, length of run of
slope, and type of vegetation on the
coven
(3) Collection and treatment of run-off;
(4) Diversion structure to prevent
surface water run-on from entering the
treated area; and
(5) Monitoring of soil, soil-pore water,
and ground water.
(d) In addition to the requirements of
§ 284.117, during the post-closure care
period, the owner or operator of a land
treatment facility must;
(1) Maintain any unsaturated zone
monitoring system, and collect and
analyze samples from this system in a
manner and frequency specified in the
post-closure plan;
(2) Restrict access to the facility as
appropriate for its post-closure use; and
(3) Assure that growth of food chain
crops complies with § 264.276.
(e) For the purpose of complying with
i 204.115, when closure is completed,
the owner or operator of a land
treatment facility must submit to the
Regional Administrator certification
both by the owner or operator and by a
qualified engineer or by a qualified soil
scientist that the facility has been closed
in accordance with the specifications in
the approved closure plan.
§ 284.281 Special requirements for
Ignltabte or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive wastes must not
be land treated, unless:
(a) The waste is immediately
incorporated into the soil so that (1) the
resulting waste, mixture, or dissolution.
of material no longer meets the
definition of ignitable or reactive waste
under §§ 261.21 or 261.23 of this chapter,
and (2) § 264.17(b) is complied with; or
(b) The waste is managed in such a
way that it is protected from any
material or conditions which may cause
it to ignite or react.
§264,282 Special requirements for
Incompatible wastes.
Incompatible wastes, or incompatible
wastes and materials, (see Appendix V
for examples) must not be placed in the
same land treatment area, unless
§ 264.17(b) is complied with.
§ 264.283 Special requirements for
classes of facilities.
A Class C, D, or E land treatment
facility must have a minimum of two
meters between the incorporated waste
and the aquifer being or to be used, (i.e.,
the historical high water table for water
table aquifers, or the bottom of the
confining soils for artesian aquifer).
§ 264.284-§ 264.299 [Reserved]
Subpart N—Landfills
§ 264.300 Applicability.
" The regulations in this Subpart apply
to owners and operators of facilities that
dispose of hazardous waste in landfills,
except as § 264.1 provides otherwise.
§ 264.301 General design requirements.
(a) All new landfills and new landfill
cells must have a leachate monitoring
system capable of producing
representative samples of leachate.
(b) Any liner systems present at the
facility must be constructed:
(1) Of materials which have
appropriate chemical properties and
strength and of sufficient thickness to
prevent failure due to pressure head,
physical contact with the waste to
which they are exposed, climatic
conditions, the stress of installation, and
the stress of daily operation; and
(2) On a foundation or base capable of
providing support to the liner(s) and
resistance to statip head above the
liner(s) to prevent failure of the liner(s) «
due to settlement or compression.
(c) Any leachate collection and
removal system present at the facility
must be constructed:
(1) Of materials which have
appropriate chemical properties) and are
of sufficient strength and thickness to
resist collapse or clogging under the
pressures exerted by the overlying
wastes, waste cover materials and by
any equipment used at the facility.
(2) With sufficient capacity to" achieve
and maintain a leachate depth of one
foot or less at any point on the base of
the landfill.
§ 264.302 General operating requirements.
(a) Run-on must be diverted away
from the active portions of a landfill.
. (b) Run-off from active portions of a
landfill must be collected. . _
(c) The owner or operator of a landfill
containing hazardous waste which is
subject to dispersal by wind must cover
or otherwise manage the landfill so that
wind dispersal of the hazardous waste
is- controlled.
§§ 264.303-264.305 [Reserved]
§ 264.306 Inspections and testing.
(a) Each landfill, including
appurtenances to control run-on and
run-off, must be inspected once each
week and after storms to detect
evidence of deterioration.
(b)(l) During construction or
installation, liner and cover systems
must be inspected for uniformity,
damage, and imperfections (e.g. holes,
cracks, thin spots, and foreign
materials).
(2) Earth material liner and cover
systems must be tested for compaction
density, moisture content, and
permeability after placement.
(3) Manufactured liner and cover
materials (e.g. membranes sheets, and
coatings) must be inspected to ensure
tight seams and joints and the absence
of tears and blisters.
(c) Leachate samples must be
collected and analyzed once each year
and the results compared to the
predictions required under
§ 122.25(d)(2). These comparisons must
be reported on an annual basis along
with the monitoring results required
under § 264.94(b)(2)/
§§264.307-264.308 [Reserved]
§ 264.309 Surveying and recordkeeping.
The owner or operator of a landfill
. must maintain the following items in the
operating record required in § 265.73:
(a) On a map, the exact location,and
dimensions, including depth, of each cell
with respect to permanently surveyed
benchmarks; and
(b) The contents of each cell and the
approximate location of each Hazardous
waste type within each cell.
§ 264.310 Closure and .post-closure.
(a) As part of the closure and post-
closure requirements of Subpart G of
this part, the owner or operator must
place a final cover over the landfill. The
final cover must: ' -
(1) Be designed, constructed and
maintained in a manner which is '
consistent with the permit issued for the
facility.
(2) Be tested an inspected during
.closure and'post-closure according to
the requirements of § 264.306.
(b) During the post-closure care
period, the owner or operator must:
(1) Maintain all containment
structures and equipment at the facility
in a manner which is consistent with the
permit issued for the facility.
(2) Continue to operate the leachate
monitoring system required by
§ 264.301(a) and § 264.306(c).
§264.311 [Reserved]
§264.312 Special requirements for
Ignitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive waste must not
be placed in a landfill, unless the waste
is treated, .rendered, or mixed before or
immediately after placement in the
landfill so that:
/ (a) The resulting waste, mixture, or
dissolution of material no longer meets
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 /Proposed Rules
11169
the definition of ignitable or reactive
waste under § § 261.21 or 261.23 of this .
chapter, and, ..,.."
(b) Section 264.17(b) is compiled with.
§264.313 Special requirements for
incompatible wastes.
Incompatible wastes, or incompatible
wastes and materials, [see Appendix V
for examples) must not be placed in the
same landfill cell, unless § 264.17(b) is
complied with.
§ 264.314 Special requirements for liquid
waste.
(a) Bulk or non-containerized liquid
waste or waste containing free liquids
must not be placed in a landfill, unless:
(1) The added liquid is shown to
enhance stabilization of the landfill, and
(2) The; landfill has a liner which is
chemically and physically resistant to
the added liquid, and a functioning
leachate collection and removal system
with a capacity sufficient to remove all
leachate produced.
(b) A container holding liquid waste
or waste containing free liquids must
not be placed in a landfill, unless:
(1) The container is designed to hold
liquids or free liquids for a use other
than storage, such as a battery or
capacitor; or
(2) The container is very small, such
as an ampule.
§1264.315 Special requirements for
~ containers.
» (a) An empty container must be
crushed flat, shreddedt or similarly
reduced in volume or filled with solids
before it is buried beneath the surface of
a landfill. A partially empty container
must be: : - -
(1) Filled with solids compatible with
the wastes already in the container; or,
,(Z) Crushed to eliminate void spaces;
or •
(3) Emptied and the empty container
crushed flat, shredded, or similarly
reduced in volume before it is buried
beneath the surface of the landfill.
(b) "Full or filled container" means
the materials in the container:
(1) Are within 7.6 centimeters (3
inches) of the top of the' container, or. :
(2) Occupy 90 percent or more of the. >
volume of the container, whichever
results in the lesser void space,,
(c) "Partially empty container" means
a container that is neither empty nor
full; ••'.-". • ,
§264.316 Special requirements for
classes of facilities.
New landfills, regardless of class (see
§ 264.19), must have a minimum of two
meters between the leachate detection,
collection, and removal system liner,
other liner, or waste, whichever is
lower, and the historical high water
table for a water table aquifer, or the
bottom of the confining soils for an
artesian aquifer.
§§ 264.317-264.339 [Reserved]
Subpart R—Underground Injection
§264.430 Applicability.
The regulations of this Subpart apply
to owners and operators of facilities
which dispose of hazardous waste by
means of an injection well which
discharges below the surficial aquifer,
except as § 264.1 provides otherwise.
§ 264.431 General design and installation
requirements..
/ An underground injection well which
discharges hazardous waste below the
surficial aquifer must be designed and
installed to prevent the migration of,
hazardous waste and decomposition or
reaction byproducts from the well
casing and from the zone of
containment. An injection well designed
and installed in accordance with the
technical requirements and
specifications included in § 146.12(b),
(c), (d) and (e) of this chapter will be
considered as satisfying the
, requirements of § 264.431. _ , :
§ 264.432 General operating requirements.
The owner or operator of an'
underground injection well which
discharges hazardous waste below'the
surficial aquifer must prevent the'
migration of hazardous waste and
decomposition or reaction byproducts
from the well casing and from the zone
of containment. An injection well
operated in accordance with the ,
technical requirements and
specifications included in § 146.13{a) of
this chapter will be considered as
satisfying the requirements of § 264.432.
§264.433 Monitoring and response.
The owner of operator of an
underground injection well which
discharges hazardous waste below the
surficial aquifer must:
(a) Develop a plan for a monitoring
program capable of determining
compliance with § 264.432 and the
facility permit by:
(1) Demonstrating the mechanical
integrity of the infection well; and" .
(2) Demonstrating that the pressure of
the injected fluids remains within
allowble limits.
(b) Specify in the plan required under
paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) For demonstrating mechanical
integrity: : -
(i) The annular pressure range to be
maintained and basis for^determining it
for the specific well tubing, packer and
casing characteristics and for the
anticipated injection fluid temperature;
(ii) The devices and procedures for
continuous monitoring and recording of
the annular pressure, and evaluation of
that information'; and
. (iii) Procedures for immediate
response to changes in the annular
pressure outside the allowable range,
and for restoration of mechanical
^integrity; i, ' . .
(2) For demonstrating that injection
fluid pressure remains within allowable
limits: v
(i) The calculated.fracture pressure
and the basis for determining it for the
specific formation and zone of
containment. ,
(ii) The calculated allowable injection
pressure to be measured at the well
, head and the basis for determining it for
specific injection fluid characteristics
(i.e., specific gravity, viscosity and .
temperature};
(iii) The techniques and procedures
for continuoms monitoring and recording
of the injection pressure at the well
head, and for evaluation of that
information; and
(iv) Procedures for immediate
response to an increase in the well head
pressure above the allowable limit, to
restore pressure to within allowable
limits. ••-.:.-
(c) Implement the monitoring plan
which satisfies paragraph (b) of this
section arid determine the mechanical
integrity of tile well and the injection,
zone pressure. • ,
(d) Keep records-of the monitoring
data and evaluations specified in*
paragraph (b)(l) and (2) of this section
throughout the active life of the facility,
(e) Submit an annual report to the
Regional Administrator'in which
compliance with § 264.432 is assured;
and separately identify in the annual
report those corrective actions, specified
in paragraphs (b)(l)(iii) and (b)(2)(iv) of
this section which were implemented
during the reporting period; and provide
an explanation of circumstances which
required corrective action.
§ 264.434 Closure and post-ciosure.
(a) The .owner or operator of an
• underground injection-well which '
discharges hazardous waste below the
surficial aquifers must close his facility
, in a manner that prevents future use of
the well and muiimizes threats to public
safety. :•'-•".•'•'•
(b) The owner or operator of an
underground injection well which
discharges hazardous waste below the
surficial aquifer must close by plugging
the well wjth cement. Plugging in
accordance with the technical *
requirements included in § 146.10(b) of
-------
1U70 Federal Register-/ Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thursday." February 5. 1981 / Proposedjglg^
this chapter will be considered as
satisfying this requirement.
(c) The owner or operator of an
uderground injection well which "
discharges hazardous wat.te below the
surffcial aquifer is excluded from the
requirements of §§ 284.117-264.118 and
I § 264,144-284.145 of this Part.
ff 264.435-264.459 [Reserved]
Subpart S—Seepage Facilities
§264.460 Applicability.
The regulations in this Subpart apply
to owners and operators of seepage
facilities used to treat, store, or dispose
of hazardous waste, except as § 264.1
provides otherwise.
1264.461 General design requirements.
(a) Seepage lagoons and drying beds
must bo designed to comply with the
requirements of § 264.221, Subpart K.
1264.462 General operating requirements.
Seepage lagoons and drying beds
must be operated and maintained to
comply with the requirements of
§ 284.222, Subparl K.
S 264.463 Containment system.
(a) All earthen dikes must have a
protective cover, such as grass, shale, or
rock, or be constructed of materials
which are sufficiently resistant to wind
and water erosion to preserve the
structural integrity of the dike.
§ 264.464 Diversion structures.
(a) Run-on must be diverted away
from a seepage lagoon or a drying bed. ,
§264.465 [Reserved]
§ 264.468 Inspections and testing.
(a) The owner or operator of a
seepage lagoon or a drying bed must
comply with the inspection requirements
of 1264.228, Subpart K.
§264.467 Contingency plans.
Seepage facilities with dikes must
comply with the requirements of
1264.227, Subpart K, applicable to dikes.
1264.468 Closure and post closure.
Unless otherwise authorized in the
permit for the facility, at closure, all
hazardous waste and hazardous waste
residues must be removed from a
seepage facility and managed as a
hazardous waste in accordance with all
applicable requirements of Parts 262-286
of this chapter. Any component*of the
containment system or any appurtenant
structures or equipment (e.g., discharge
platforms and pipes, and baffles,
skimmers, aerators, or other equipment)
containing or contaminated with
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
residues must be decontaminated; qr
removed and also managed as a
hazardous waste.
§ 264.469 Special requirements for
ianitable or reactive waste.
Ignitable or reactive hazardous Waste
must not be placed in a seepage facility,
unless:
(a) The waste is treated, rendered, or
mixed before or immediately after
placement in the facility so that:
(1) The resulting waste, mixture, or
dissolution of material no longer meets
the definition of ignitable or reactive
waste under §§ 261.21 or 261.23 of this
chapter; and
(2) § 264.17(b) is complied with; or
(b) The waste is managed in such a
way that it is protected from any
material or conditions which may cause
it to ignite or react; or
(c) The seepage facility is used solely
for emergencies.
§ 264.470 Special requirements for
Incompatible wastes.
Incompatible wastes, or incompatible
wastes and materials (see Appendix V
for examples] must not be placed in the
same seepage facility, unless § 264.17(b)
is complied with.
§ 264.471-§ 264.499 [Reserved]
Subpart T—Minimum Acceptable
Treatment of Hazardous Waste Prior
to Disposal
§ 264.490 Applicability.
The regulations of this subpart apply
to owners or operators of facilities used
for the land disposal of hazardous
wastes, except as § 264.1 provides
otherwise. -
§ 264.491 General requirements.
, Except as otherwise provided in this
section or in Part 266, owners or
operators of facilities shall, at a
minimum, use available technology to
reduce the potential adverse effects of
hazardous waste disposal by:
(a) Treating wastes prior to laridfilling
to reduce their mobility or their ability
to cause other waste to become mobile,
or ability to release toxic gas.
. (1) Soluble metals as salts or salt
solutions shall be converted to an oxide,
hydrous oxide or sulfide.
(2) Using available technology to
precipitate metals from solutions in
which they are solubilized due to
complex formations or chelation.
(3) Wastes that are highly acidic or
alkaline shall be neutralized.
(4) Wastes that are or contain
Surfactants, organic solvents or
chelating agents shall be disposed
separately from other wastes.
v (5) Wastes containing cyanide salts or
salt solutions shall be treated so that the ,
cyanide is oxidized.
§§264.292-264.499 [Reserved]
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 260 is
revised to read as folows:
' Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3001
through 3007, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., sees.
6905, 6912(a), 6921 through 6927, 6930, and
6974; and, with respect to "well injection",
Sections 1421,1422,1423, and 1424 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, as amended by the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1977,42
U.S.C. 300f et seq. sees. 300h, 300h-l, 300h-2,
and 300h-3. .
§260.10 [Amended]
2. In § 260.10, paragraph (a] is revised
to read as follows:
(a) When used in Parts 260 through .
265 of this chapter, the following terms
have the meanings given below:
* * * * *
3. In § 260.10, remove the number
preceding each defined term..
4. In § 260.10, revise the definitions of
the following terms to read as follows:
(a) * * *
Aquifer means a geologic formation,
group of formations, or part of a
formation that is capable of yielding a *
significant amount of water to a well or
spring.
* *,•*.* *
Disposal means the discharge,
deposit, injection, dumping, spilling,
leaking, or placing of hazardous waste
into or on any land or water so that such
hazardous waste or any constituent,
decomposition byproduct, or reaction
byproduct thereof may enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or
discharged jlnto any waters, including
ground waters.
Disposal facility means a facility or
' part of a facility at which hazardous
waste is intentionally placed into or on
any land or water, and at whfch waste
may remain after closure.
* V * * *.
Injection well means a well into
which fluids are being,injected.
******
Landfill means a disposal facility or
part of a facility where hazardous waste
is placed in or on land and which is not
a land treatment facility, a surface
impoundment, or an injection well or
seepage facility.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 46, -No. .24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11171
Land treatment facility means a
facility or part of a facility at which
hazardous waste is applied onto or
incorporated into the soil surface.
ft . , ft" * : * * • •
Surface impoundment or
"impoundment" means a facility or part
Of a facility which is a natural
topographic depression, manmade
excavation, or diked area formed
primarily of earthen materials [although
it may be lined with man-made
materials), which is designed to hold an
accumulation of liquid wastes or,wastes
containing free liquids, and which is not"
an injection well or seepage facility.
Examples of surface impoundments are
holding, storage, settling, and aeration
pits, ponds, and lagoons, .
* * * * * *
Underground injection means a well
injection. ,
* * * * *
Well means a bored, drilled or driven
shaft, or a dug hole, whose depth is
greater than the largest surface
dimension. "
Well injection means the subsurface
emplacement of fluids through a bored,
drilled, or driven well; or through a dug
well where the depth is greater than the
largest surface dimension.
, 5. In § 260.10, the following terms and
definitions are added in aphabetical -
order to read as follows:
(a) * * * = ,
Cased infection well means a well
which is cased within the surficiat
aquifer to prevent the escape of fluids
from the well into the surficial aquifer,
* * • *ij * *
Decomposition byproduct means a
byproduct of hazardous waste derived
from the-waste by physical, chemical, or
biological reactions.
* * - * * * •• '
Formation means a body of rock
characterized by a degree of. lithologic
homogeneity which is prevailing, but not.
necessarily, tabular and is mappable on
the earth's surface or traceable in the
-subsurface.
Formation fluid means fluid present in
a formation under natural conditions as
opposed to introduced fluids, such as
drilling mud. ,
* * * -• * * . • .
Injection zone means a geological
formation, group of formations, or part
of a formation receiving fluids through a
well.
* * * * *
Land disposal facility means a
disposal facility or part of a disposal
facility at which leachate or other
hazardous waste will or.may discharge
into ground water:
* * * * *
. Plugging means the act of or process •
of stopping the flow of water, oil, or gas
in formations penetrated by a borehole
. or well,
* * * * *
Reaction byproduct means a
substance resulting from physical,
chemical, or biological reactions
involving a hazardous waste or
decomposition byproduct with any other
. substance including byproducts derived •
from each materials which react with
hazardous waste or decomposition
byproducts.
* * # * * ,
Seepage facility means any land
disposal facility which is used to
emplace liquids into the land or the
ground water which is not a cased
injection well, a landfill, a surface
impoundment, or a land treatment
facility.
* • .. * * * * - .,
Surficial aquifer means the uppermost
aquifer with an upper boundary defined
by a water table which is naturally
recharged-from the ground surface and/
or from the unsaturated zone and in
addition includes formations which are
saturated with water intermittently,
seasonally, or which develop a perched
water table within the unsaturated zone.
• *. * * • * *
Underground Seepage means the
underground emplacement of fluids at
atmospheric pressure through an.
uncased well, a dug hole, or a disposal
facility constructed in a dug hole or an
earth material fill.
* * .* * * -
.Zone of containment means the
volume of earth materials defined by a .
permit applicant in accordance with
§ § 122.25(d)(3)(v) and (4)(iv) beyond
which the permit applicant asserts his
discharge will'not cause effects in the
ground water or in earth materials.
, 6. Section 260.23 is added to read as
follows: . •'
§260.23 Petitions to amend Part 264 or
Part 265 to allow special types of
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities at
a particular location, for a particular
hazardous waste, or for a hazardous waste
from a particular source. •
(a) Any person who is operating or
who proposes to construct and.operate a
treatment, storage, or disposal facility of
a type other than those types defined in
§ 260.10 or otherwise described in these '
regulations and for which operating • '
methods, techniques, and practices have
been prescribed in accordance with
§ 3004(3) of the Act and for which
location, design, and,construction
requirements have been prescribed hi
accordance with § 3004(4) of the Act:
may p'etition for an amendment under
this section and § 260.20. To be
successful the petitioner must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Administrator that the operating -
methods, teohniquesf and practices he
proposes to use; and the location,
design, and construction of the facility
he is operating or proposes to construct
and operate are equivalent or superior
to the requirements of Part 264 or Part
265 for the particular location at which
he is operating or proposes to operate;
and for the particular hazardous v
waste(s) he is treating,' storing, or
disposing of or proposes to treat, store,
or dispose of.,. ' ' -
(b) After receiving a'petition, the
Administrator may request any • * '
additional information which he
reasonably may require to evaluate the
petition. ;
• (c) An amendment will only apply to
' the particular waste(s) or facility •
covered by the petition and
demonstration. '*
(d) For facilities operating pursuant to
section 3005(e) of the Act and Part 265 of
these regulations, the Administrator
may (but sheill not be required" to) grant '•
a temporary amendment before making
a final decision under § 260.20(d)
whenever he finds that there is
substantial likelihood that an
amendment will be granted. The
Administrator shall publish notice of
any temporary amendment in the
Federal Register
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT .
PROGRAM „-• r
1. The authority citation for Part ±22
reads as follows:
Authority: Resource Conservation: and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S..C. 6901 et seq.; Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et. seq.;
and Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C, 1251 et. seq. ,
"• 2. In § 122.3, revise the definitions of
the following terms to read as follows;
§122.3 Definitions.
* * * . * *
Disposal (RCRA) means -the
Discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any
"hazardous waste" into or on any land
or water so that such hazardous waste
or any constituent-or decomposition or
reaction byproduct thereof may. enter
the environment or be emitted into the
air or discharged into any waters, «•
including ground waters. ~
-------
11172 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
Disposal facility (RCRA) means a
facility or part of a facility at which
"hazardous waste" is intentionally
placed into or on the land or water, and
at which waste may remain after
closure.
4 * ft * *
Formation fJRCRA and UIC) means a
body of rock characterized by a degree
of lithologic homogeneity which is
prevailing, but not necessarily, tabular
and is mappable on the earth's surface
' or traceable on the subsurface.
Formation fluid (RCRA and UIC)
means "fluid" present in a "formation"
under natural.conditions as opposed to
introduced fluids, such as "drilling
mud".
* * * . * *
Injection zone (RCRA and UIC) means
a geological "formation", group of
formations, or part of a formation
receiving fluids through a "well".
• « * * *
Plugging means the act of or process
of stopping the flow of water, oil, or gas
in "formations" penetrated by a
borehole or "well".
* * « * *
Underground injection (RCRA and
UIC) means a "well injection."
*****
Well (RCRA and UIC) means-a bored,
drilled or driven shaft, or a dug hole,
whose dupth is greater than the largest
surface dimension.
Well injection (RCRA and UIC)
means the subsurface emplacement of
"fluids" through a bored, drilled, or
driven "well;" or through a dug well,
where the depth is greater than the
largest surface dimension.
*****
3. In § 122.3, the following terms and
definitions are added in alphabetical
order as follows:
nt
§122.3 Definitions.
» * * * *
Surfic/al aquifer (RCRA and UIC)
means the uppermost aquifer with an
upper boundary defined by a water
table which is naturally recharged from
the ground surface or from the ;
unsalurated zone and in addition
Includes formations which are saturated,
with water intermittently, seasonally, or
which develop a perched water table
within the unsaturated zone.
» > * * *
Zone of containment (RCRA and UIC)
means the volume of earth materials
defined by a permit applicant in
accordance with § 122.25(d)(3) (v) and
(4)(vi) beyond which the permit
applicant asserts his discharge will not
cause effects in the ground water or in
earth materials.
4. In § 122.15, paragraph (a)(8) is '
added to read as follows:
§ 122.15 Modification or revocation and
reissuance of .permits.
***** •
(a) * * *
(8) For RCRA only, based on the
repredictions required in § 122,28{f);
(i) When the repredictions indicate
that the limits established in accordance
with §§ 122.2S(d)(3) and (4) have not or
will not be met, the report required in
§ 122.28(f) shall include a request for
modification of the permit to:
(A) Reduce the rate of waste disposal
defined in accordance with
122.25(d)(l)(iii); or
(B) Increase the zones of permitted
effects defined in accordance .with
§§ 122.25(d)(3)(v) and (4)(iv).
(ii) The permittee may include in the
report required in § 122.28(f), a request
for modification of the permit to reduce
the zones of permitted effects.
(iii) If, in the opinion of the Director,
the zones of permitted effects are
substantially unrelated to actual zones
of effects based on monitoring and
modeling, the Director that the permittee
redefine the zones to more closely
reflect the actual zones of effects which
exist and are predicted.
*****,
(5) In § 122.17, paragraph (e)(3) is
added to read as follows:
§ 122.17 Minor modifications of permits.
* * * * " *•
(e) * * *
(3) Reduce the rate of waste disposal
in accordance with § 122.15(a)(8) (i) or
decrease the zone of permitted effects in
accordance with § § 122.15(a)(8)(ii) or
(iii). .
* * i * * *
" 6.'In § 122.22, paragraphs (a)(4), (5),
(6), (7), and (8) are added to read as
follows:
§ 122.22 Application for a permit.
******
(a) * * * '
(4) If a Part B application filed in
; response to a requirment initiated under
§ 122.22(a)(2) is considered incomplete
by the permit applicant at the time of the
required filing, he shall so advise the
Director stating the reason the
application is incomplete and the date
oh which the completed application "will
be filed.
(5) If the Director determines the
reason that the filing is incomplete is
.beyond the reasonable discretion of the
applicant due to the requirements of
§§ 122.25(d), (f), and (g) including the
regional availability of professional
services with the requisite skills, he
shall not deny the application on the
basis of § 122.25(a)(3).
' (6) If the Director determines that an
incomplete application shows that the
permit applicant will not comply with
§ 264.2; he may either deny the
application'or issue an interim permit
• with a compliance schedule for the filing
of a completed Part B. He may
incorporate such other conditions in the
interim permit as he finds appropiate to
protect public health.or the environment.
(7) If the Director determines that an
incomplete application shows that the.
permit applicant will, in all likelihood,,
comply with § 264.2; he may issue an
interim permit.
(8) No interim permit shall be issued
for a term longer than five years.
*****.
. (7.) In § 122.25, paragraphs (c) through
(h) are added as follows:
§122.25 Contents of Part B.
***.•**
(c) Specific information requirements.
The following additional information,
based on the technical requirements of
Subparts K, L, M, N, R, and S (generic
requirements for all land disposal
facilities are covered in paragraph (d) of
this section), is required from owners or
operators of specific types of HWM '
facilities that are used or to be used for
land disposal:
(1) For all facilities that use surface
impoundments for reasons other than
solely for storage or storage and
treatment, except as otherwise provided
in § 264.220, all of the applicable
information requirements in
§ 122.25(b)(4).
(2) For all facilities that use waste
piles for reasons other than solely for
storage or storage and treatment, except
as otherwise provided in § 264.250, all of
the applicable information requirements
in § 122.25(b)(3).
(3) For all land treatment facilities,
except as otherwise provided in
§ 264.270, the owner or operator must
submit detailed plans and .
specifications, and data which must
collectively include the information
itemized in paragraphs (c)(3) (i) through
(iv) of this section. For new facilities, the
plans and specifications must be in
sufficient detail to provide complete
information to a contractor hired to
build the facility even if the owner or
operator intends to construct the facility
without hiring a contractor. For existing
facilities, comparable detail must be
provided, but the form of presentation
need not assume contractor construction
except to the extent that the facility will
be modified. , . , .
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules
11173
(i) Detailed design drawings and
specifications of the run-off collection
structures required in § 264.272.
(ii) The unsaturated zone monitoring
plan as required in § 264.278, including
the rationale used in developing the plan
and a detailed map of tile facility
showing the location and depth of the
soilTpore water sampling devices.
[iii] Detailed descriptions of any
inspection, testing, and recordkeeping
procedures needed to comply with
§ 264.279. -..'-.'.
(iv) A description of the operating
procedures~including any plans or
equipment that will ensure compliance
. with §§264.281 and 264.282.
(4) For landfill facilities, except as
otherwise provided hi § 264.300, the
owner or operator must submit detailed
plans and specifications accompanied
by an engineering report which must
collectively include the information
itemized in paragraphs (c)(4) (i) through
(x) of this section. For new facilities, the
plans and specifications must be in
sufficient detail to provide complete
information, to a contractor hired to
build the facility even if the owner or
operator intends to construct the facility
without hiring a contractor. For existing
facilities, comparable detail must be
provided, but the form of presentation
need not assume contractor construction
except to the extent that the facility will
be modified, ,
[i) Detailed design drawings and
specifications of the leachate monitoring
system required in § 264.301(a).
(ii) 'Detailed design drawings and
specifications of any liner(s) and liner
base(s) present at the facility and the
installation procedures used to comply
with § 264.301(b),
(iii) Detailed design drawings and
specifications of any leachate collection
and removal system present at the
facility demonstrating compliance with
the requirements in § 264.301(c).
(iv) Detailed plans and specifications
and basis of design of any structures
needed to comply with the general
operating requirements in § 264.302.
(v) Detailed descriptions of any
inspection, testing, and recordkeeping
procedures needed to comply with
§ 264.306.
fvi) Detailed design drawings and
specifications of the final cover required
in § 264.310(a).
(yii) Detailed descriptions of all ,
maintenance, testing and inspection
procedures to be used at the facility
during the closure and post-closure care
period as needed to satisfy the
requirements of § 264.310 (b) and (c).
(viii) A map(s) which satisfies the
requirements of § 264.309 (a) and (b}. All
existing facilities must submit map(s)
showing the approximate location of
each hazardous waste type within each
cell for all wastes disposed of during'the
interim status period.
fix) A description of the operating
procedures including any plans or
equipment that will ensure compliance
with §§264.312, 264.313, 264.314 and
264.315. '
(x) Detailed design drawing(s) of the
landfill and surrounding geology
showing the dimensions and-depth of
the uppermost aquifer beneath the
facility.
(5) For underground injection
facilities, except as otherwise provided
in § 264.430, the owner or operator must
submit detailed plans and specifications
accompanied by an engineering report
which must collectively include the
information itemized in paragraph (c)(5)
(i) through (v) of thjs section. For new
facilities, the plans and specifications
must be in sufficient detail to provide
complete information to a"contractor
hired to build the facility even if the
owner or operator intends to construct
the facility without hiring a contractor.
For existing facilities, comparable detail
must be provided, but the form of
presentation need not assume contractor
construction except to the extent that
the facility will be modified.
(i) A statement of the maximum •
.pressure to be applied to the well head
and basis (calculations) of
establishment.
(ii) A statement of the annular
pressure to be maintained and basis
(calculations) of establishment.
(iii) An analysis of the well
construction material selection including
casing, cementing, tubing and packer
materials.
(iv) A description of the operating
procedures to comply with § 264.432.
(v) A description, and justification .of
well plugging techniques to be utilized,at
closure.
(6) For seepage- facilities, except as
§ 264.460 provides otherwise, all
applicable information requirements in
§ 122.25(b)(3).
(d) Informational requirements for
permitting discharges from land
disposal facilities. Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, each owner -
or operator applying for a permit to
dispose of hazardous waste into or on
the land shall file the following
information as part of his application:
(1) A definition of the specific
hazardous wastes to be disposed of in
each disposal facility operational unit,
including:
(i) The specific wastes by hazardous-
waste number when applicable.
;(ii) The expected rate of deposition of
each1 specific waste including both
wastes defined as hazardous wastes in
.accordance with § 261.3 and any other
waste-to be disposed of in conjunction
with such hazardous wastes. "
(iii) The maximum rate of deposition
of each specific waste described in
accordance with § 122.25(d)(l)(ii) for *
which permit authorization is being
requested. '
(2) A definition of the .rate of mass
transport of leachate and gases from the
-land disposal facility, including;
(i) The mass rate of hazardous wastes,
and the decomposition byproducts of
hazardous wastes expected to leach or
otherwise escape from the facility,
(ii) The mass rate of any .other wastes
and the decomposition byproducts of
such other wastes expected to leach or
otherwise escape from the facility,
(iii) The mass rate of infiltrating
rainwater and other liquids disposed of
or generated within the facility expected
to leach or otherwise escape from the
facility, and ; ;
(iv) The maximum mass rate of
infiltrating rainwater, any other liquids
to be disposed of or generated within
the facility, hazardous wastes and any
other wastes to be disposed of within
the facility, and the deompositon
byproducts of such hazardous wastes pr
other wastes including gases expected
to leach or otherwise escape from the .
facility.' .
(3) A definition of the earth materials
above the zone of saturation which will
be in contact with leachate discharging
from the land disposal facility and gases
released from the facility and the
leachate, including; • •
(i) The lateral and vertical extent of
the expected migration of leachate in
any materials emplaced to control the
rate of leachate migration.
(ii) The lateral and vertical extent of
the expected migration of leachate in
each natural earth material formation
determined to exist during site
investigation studies required in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(iii) The lateral and vertical extent of
the expected migration of gases through
any materials or wastes emplaced
within the facility. .
(iv) The lateral and vertical extent of
migration of gases in each natural
formation determined to exist during the
site investigation studies required in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(v) The maximum lateral and vertical
extent of earth materials above the zone
of saturation and the area at the surface
of the ground or the waste for which
authorization to be in contact with
leachate dischzirged from the facility or
gases released from the facility and the
leathate is being requested;'
-------
11174 Federal Register / Vol. 46. No. 24 / Thuraday.£ebruary 5, 1981 /Proposed Rules^
(4) A definition of the earth materials
In th« saturated zone which will be in
contact with the leachate discharged
from the land disposal facility and tKe
extent and rate of leaching, including;
(i) The mass rate of transport of
infiltrating rainwater, any other liquids
to bo disposed of or generated within
the facility, hazardous wastes or any
other wastes to be disposed or within
the facility, and the decomposition
byproducts of such hazardous wastes or
other wastes; expected to leach from the
facility to the ground water.
(if) Any alteration in the vertical
elevation of the zone of saturation
expected to occur due to the existence
of the facility and/or the discharge from
the facility to the saturated zone.
(Hi) The transverse, lateral, and
vertical extent of the expected migration
of leachate within each natural earth
material formation hi the saturated zone
determined to exist during site
investigation studies required in
paragraph (g) of this section.
(iv) The maximum transverse, lateral,
and vertical extent of earth materials in
the saturated zone for which
authorization to be in contact with
leachate discharged from the facility is
being requested.
(v) The maximum mass rate of
transport within the saturated zone of
infiltrating rainwater, any other liquids
to be disposed of or generated within
the facility, hazardous wastes or any
other wastes to be disposed of within
the facility, and the decomposition
byproducts of such hazardous wastes or
other wastes for which permit
authorization is being requested.
(5) A definition of the discharges and/
or withdrawals of ground water mixed
with leachate, including;
(i) The mass rate of discharge from the
saturated zone of liquids to be disposed
of within the facility, liquids other than
water which will be generated within
the facility, hazardous wastes or any
other wastes to be disposed of within
the facility, substances solubilized from
earth materials by leachate, and the
decomposition byproducts of such
hazardous wastes, liquids, or other
wastes or substances; into any flowing
surface waters, any standing surface
waters, or to the ground surface within
the zone of containment.
(ti) The maximum mass rate of
discharge from the saturated zone of
liquids to be disposed of within the
facility, liquids other than water which
will be generated within the facility,
hazardous wastes or any other wastes
to be disposed of within the facility,
substances solubllizod from earth
materials by leachate, and/or the
decomposition byproducts of such
hazardous wastes, liquids, or other _
wastes or substances; into any flowing
surface waters, any standing surface
waters, or to the ground surface within
the zone of containment for which
permit authorization is being requested.
(iii) The mass rate of withdrawal from
the saturated zone of liquids to be
disposed of within the facility, liquids -
other than water which will be
generated within the facility, hazardous
wastes or any other wastes to be
disposed of within the facility,
substances solubilized from earth
materials by leachate, and the
decomposition byproducts of such
hazardous wastes, liquids, or other
wastes or substances into any well or
other ground water collection device,
except monitoring wells or collection
devices installed or to be installed to
monitor or characterize the leachate and
the ground water.
(iv) The maximum mass rate of
withdrawal from the saturated zone of
liquids to be disposed of within the
facility, liquids other than water which
will be generated within the facility,
hazardous wastes or any other wastes
to be disposed of within the facility,
substances solubilized from earth
materials by leachate, and the
decomposition byproducts of such
hazardous wastes, liquids, or other
wastes or substances; into any well or ,
any other ground water collection
device, except monitoring wells or
collection devices installed or to be
installed to monitor or characterize the
leachate and/or the ground water.
(e) The precision of the definitions
required in subsection (d] of this section
may be varied in accordance with the
need for information to establish
compliance with the standards of 'this
regulation as follows:
(1) The informational requirements of
§ 122.75(ct)(l) are applicable to all types
and classes of land disposal facilities
without exception.
[2] The informational requirements of
§ 122.75 are applicable to all types and
classes of land disposal facilities
however;
(i) For surface impoundments and
waste piles, used solely for storage or
storage and treatment which are
designed to preclude leakage, as
described in § 264.19(d) (i) and (ii), no-
definition of leachate discharge is
required unless leakage is to be
controlled by a leachate collection
system.
(ii) For seepage facilities and injection
wells which are designed and operated
solely to introduce liquids into the land,
leachate discharge can be considered
equivalent to waste deposition unless
the boundary conditions, between the
liquid and the land, control the rate of
discharge to a rate less than the rate of
deposition.
(iii) For all types oHacilities, the rate
of gaseous escape which occurs directly
to the atmosphere from any land
disposal facility operational unit may be
considered in conjuction with gaseous
emissions from all operational units of.
the facility.
(iv) For all facilities from which
leachate will discharge into the land, the^
informational requirements of ^
§§ 122.25(d)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii) are to be
considered as a best estimate of the
volume and character of the leachate
which will discharge from the facility
into the land or be collected for
treatment, discharge, or disposal from
within or above materials emplaced to
control the rate of leachate migration.
Leachate discharge into the land will be
subject to verification and more precise
definition based on monitoring and
modeling in accordance with § 122.28(f).
(3) For any portion of the leachate
which will discharge into natural earth
material formations, the volume of
discharge must be defined as precisely
as possible; and the character of the
leachate defined with sufficient
precision to establish:
(i) The physical characteristics of the
leachate to allow definition of the locus
of leachate migration through natural
- earth materials including;
(A) The uniformity of the the expected
leachate (i.e. solubility and miscibility in
ground water and constancy with
respect to time). Immiscible portions of
the leachate or substantially differing
leachate must be considered
independently.
((B) The range of viscosity of the
leachate and immiscible portions of the
leachate.
(C) The range of specific gravity of the
leachate and immiscible portions of..the
leachate.
(D) The range of surface tension of the
leachate and immiscible portions of the
leachate. .
(ii) The chemical characteristics of the
. leachate and immiscible portions of the
, leachate for the purpose of;
(A) Discussing the expected or
probable fate of the contaminants in the
leachate base on independent study, or
(B) Discussing the expected or
probable fate of the contaminants in the
leachate based on reliable reference
sources of data.
(4) The informational requirements of
§ 122.25(d)(3)(ii) may be approximated
with respect to the extent of the zone in
• each homogeneous natural earth
material formation as a downward
vertical extension of the overlying
-------
Federal Register/ Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed Rules -11175
mi^wire»mp-Vra»Vff^-w-rgtV-T«ffyOTm«rt«W1K»Mt£gBftt3aE&
-------
11176 Federal Register / Vol. 46, No. 24 / Thursday, February 5, 1981 / Proposed^ules_
rock), karsl zones (of consolidated rock),
and swelling (of day).
(vif) Include a description and such
mapping of the progression of the
migration of the leachate plume in the
ground water flow system during the
active life of the facility, during the post-
closure care period and, unless the
plume discharges to surface water or it
can be shown that the plume will be
collected or withdrawn, subsequent to
the post-closure period. The mapping
shall be adequate to ensure an
understanding of the locus of the
migration of the leachate plume by a lay
.reviewer of the description.
(2) A report on the climatologic
factors based on the data required in
paragraph (g)(2) of this section.
(3) A report on the geographic factors
based on the data required in paragraph
(g)(3) of this section.
(g) Site Investigation Requirements.
Bach applicant for a permit for a
hazardous waste facility shall
investigate the site and environs of the
storage, treatment, or disposal activity
and establish permanent on site vertical
and horizontal controls to allow all
elevations and locations to be surveyed,
expressed, and plotted with reference to
USGS and USC&GS horizontal and
vertical controls.
(1) With respect to geologic and
hydrologic factors:
(i) Surface topography shall be
surveyed with sufficient accuracy to
allow the plotting of surface contours at
a contour interval not greater than two
tnetera over an area extending at least
forty meters beyond any proposed
construction activity, including
excavation or filling, or any area where
leachate will migrate within ten meters
of the ground surface.
(il) Unless reliable boring data is
available from previous investigations,
sufficient borings shall be made in
"Sneonsolidated earth materials in the
vicinity of the site and the zone of
leachate or gaseous migration to
characterize or verify the
characterization of unconsolidated earth
materials with respect to type of
material, uniformity, permeability,
porosity, and fracturing. In addition,
where such materials will be subject to
loads or used as a functioning part of a
constructed facility; swelling,
settlement, and plasticity shall be
characterized or verified.
(HI) Where leachate migration will
reach the contact surface between
unconsolidated and consolidated earth
materials, the contact surface of
consolidated rock shall be surveyed
with sufficient accuracy to allow the
plotting of the contact surface at a
contour interval of not greater than four
meters.
(iv) Where leachate migration will
occur within consolidated rock, the
effected consolidate rock shall be
characterized by geologic investigation
with respect to type of material,
permeability, porosity, relationship to
any overlying mantle of unconsolidated
materials, relationship to adjacent
consolidated materials, degree of
weathering including the formation of
karst zones, degree of fracturing, the
location and character of fault zones,
and attitude.
(v) Ground water elevations shall be
determined with sufficient accuracy to ,
allow the plotting of water table
contours at a contour interval of not
greater than two meters beneath the site
where ground water mounding may or
will occur due to discharge from the
facility, and in any area where ground
water affected by leachate will migrate
within ten meters of the ground surface.
Beyond the above described areas,
sufficient ground water elevation data
shall be obtained to construct a ground
water flow net for any given set of
conditions of discharge to the ground
water, withdrawal or discharge from the
ground water, and recharge of the
ground water which may occur prior to,
during, or after the active operation of •
the facility.
(vi) To the extent that new borings are
made or hew wells are installed to
obtain the data necessary to
characterize or verify the character of
earth materials or the ground water
within and flowing through such earth
• materials, boring holes and wells shall
be filled and, if necessary, plugged and
sealed to avoid creating new paths for
fluid migration unless the hole or well
will be maintained as a ground water
sampling well hi accordance with
Subpart F.
(vii) All existing excavations, borings,
or wells, or other ground water collection
devices within the zone of containment
shall be located by field survey, and
described in detail.
(2) With respect to climatologic
factors;
(i) The seasonal variation' in ambient
temperatures including the average
monthly temperature, and the extremes
during any month.
[ii) The seasonal variation in wind
conditions including the average jiumber
of days in any direction and at any
velocity range for which data exists and
the direction and velocity of expected
extremes.
(iii) The seasonal variation in the
type, duration, intensity, and amount of
precipitation including both monthly
averages and the expected extremes
during any month.
(3) With respect to geographic factors;
(i) The type of land use including but
not limited to:
(A) The associated densities of human
population living, working, or passing
through the area.
(B) The associated density of animal
population living in or passing through
the area.
(C) The associated intensity of use for
the production of food chain crops.
(ii) The controls over land use and the
manner in which such controls are
implemented or are to be implemented.
(iii) Projected future land use based
on trends in land use, existing or
developing plans to modify the land use.
(4) With respect to the following
special requirements based on land
disposal facility class:
(i) An applicant for a permit for a
Class A land disposal facility must
investigate the entire aquifer to which
discharge will occur and within which
leachate will migrate'and establish,
based on reliable reference data or
independent field investigation, that;
(A) No part of the aquifer is now or
will in the future be used as a source of
water supply for domestic, agricultural,
industrial, or commercial uses.
(B) No migration pan occur from the
aquifer to any other aquifer.
(ii) An applicant for a permit for a
Class B land disposal facility must
investigate the entire portion of the
aquifer to which discharge will occur
and within which leachate will migrate
(which may be equivalent to or inclusive
of the zone of containment) and
establish, based on reliable reference
data and/or independent field
investigation, that;
(A) No part of the portion of the
aquifer is new or will in the future be
used as a source of water supply for
domestic, agricultural, industrial, or
commercial uses.
(B) No migration can occur from the
portion of the aquifer to any other
portion of the aquifer or to any other
aquifer.
(iii) An applicant for a permit for a
Class C land disposal facility must
investigate in detail each location of
ground water withdrawal or collection
for use, referencing well logs or
construction records when available,
with respect to the type of well or other
ground water collection device
including;
(A) The age of the well or collection '
device, the materials of construction,
and the location of casing, screens,
seals, plugs, etc. "7
(B) The zone of collection or
withdrawal.
-------
5''1981 ''/' Proposed Rules
-.-.-- (C) The rate'of ground-water
, collection or withdrawal.
(D) The possible yield of the well or -*
other ground-water collection device.
(E) The actual use of the collected or
withdrawn ground water,
(iv) An applicant for a permit for a
/ Class D, land disposal facility must, in
addition to the requirements of :;.--'.'.;•-.
, paragraph (iii) for .any ground water use
other than public drinking water,
investigate each location of grpund
water withdrawal or collection for use
: as public drinking water, referencing .
well logs or construction records when
available, with respect to the type of
well or other ground water collection
device including;
(A) The age of the well or collection
device, the materials of construction, .-,
and the location of casing, screens,
seals, plugs,-etc. , -
(B) The zone 6f collection or ,
withdrawal. - '-- •
(G) The rate of ground water
. collection or withdrawal.
(D) The potential yield of the well or
other ground water collection device.
(E) The physical potential yield of the
aquifer to additional wells or Other
grpund water collection devices in the -
same zone of withdrawal.
(F) The treatment provided prior to
distribution of the ground water for use.
(v) An applicant for a permit for a
Class E land disposal facility must, in
addition to the requirements of
paragraph (iii) fpr any ground water use
other than public drinking water and the
requirement of paragraph (g)(4)(iv) of
this section for any ground water use as
' public drinking water, investigate each
location of ground water withdrawal or •
collection for use as private-drinking
water, referencing well logs or
construction records when available,
with respect to the type of well or other -
ground water collection device
including;
(A) The age of the well or collection
device, the materials of construction,
and the location of casings, screens,
seals, plugs, etc.
(B) The zone of cpllectipn pr"
withdrawal.
(C) The rate pf ground water
collection or withdrawal.
(D) The possible yield of the well or
other ground-water collection device.
(E) The physical potential yield of the
aquifer to additional wells or other • ,
ground water collection devices in the
same zone of withdrawal.
(F) The alternative sources of public
or private drinking, water available to
the well owner.
(h) A description of the monitoring
and, if planned or required, the modeling
proposed to comply with Subpart F
(Grpund Water and Gaseous Emission
Monitoring) or to verify or jefine the
projections of the transverse, lateral,
and vertical, extent of the migration of
and the mass of contaminants- in ihe
leachate, the lateral and vertical extent
of the migration of gases, and the mass
of gaseous emissions.
8. In § 122.26, paragraph (b) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 122.26 . Permits by rule.
*; * * * *.
fa) Injection wells.The owner or ,
: operator of an injection well disposing ,
of .hazardous waste beneath a surficial
aquifer and beneath a confining zone
that does not allow movement of fluid
into a surficial aquifer if the owner pr
•operator:
(1) Has a permit for underground
injection issued under Part 122, Subpart
C or Part 123, Subpart C; and
(2j Complies with the conditions of
-- that permit and the requirements of
§ 122.45 (requirements for wells
managing hazardous waste); and
(3) Providing that no ground water is
being or will in the future be withdrawn
from the zone of containment,
9.. In § 122.28, a new paragraph (f) is ,
added to read as follows:
§ 122.23 Additional conditions applicable
..toallRCRApermits. •'-- •
"* * * * * "
(Q The following report shall be
submitted by the permittee to the
Director on fyiarbh 1 of the year
following three full years of permitted
operation, based on an OctoberT
through September 30 year (i.e., not a
calender year) and tri-annually
, thereafter during the active life and
post-closure period of the facility.
(1) A modified prediction prepared in
accordance with the permit application
requirements of § 122.25{d); and
(2) Proposed modifications to the
monitoring arid (if necessary) modeling
program describer in accordance with
the permit application requirements of
§122.25.
10. In § 422.29, paragraph (b) is
redesignated as paragraph (d), and new
paragraphs (b) and (c) are added to read
• as follows: ,
§122.29 Establishing RCRA permit .' '
(b) The maximum allowable rate of
disposal of specific hazardous wastes
and other wastes at or below the rate
for which permit authorization was.
requested in accordance with
§ 122.25(d)(l)(iii), and --.-'.
(c) For land disposal facilities, a
condition limiting allowable effects
authorized by the permit to include, at a
maximum, only those effects to the land,
to the ground water, to the atmosphere,
or via the ground water; to the land, to
the surface, waters, or to the atmosphere
as have been defined in the permit
application and which:
(1) Result within the zone of
containment;
•(2) Result from discharges from the
zone of containment to surface waters
or to the surface pf the ground;
(3) Result from collection or
withdrawal of ground water; '
(4) Result from gaseous escape from
the facility pf from leachate; and
(d) Each o:F the applicable
requirement!! specified ,in 40 CFR Parts
264and266.
[FR Doc. 81-2537 Pled 2-4^81:8:45 am] '
BILLING CODE 6! SO-29-«3
-------
-------
-------
Postage and
Fees paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Third-Class
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |