Thursday
February 25, 1982
Part I!
Hazardous Waste Management- Interim
and Proposed Regulations
-------
8304 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 38 / Thursday, February 25.1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122, 264, and 265
[SW-FRL 1999-3a]
Hazardous Waste Management
System Standards for. Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities and EPA Administered Permit
Programs; Hazardous Waste Permit
Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Interim final amendments to
rule.
SUMMARY: On May 19,1980, EPA
promulgated regulations applicable to
owners and operators of hazardous
waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities which prohibited the landfill
disposal of most containerized liquid
waste or waste containing free liquid on
and after November 19,1981. Further, on
June 29,1981, EPA amended its
hazardous waste management
regulations so as to extend the
compliance date of the restriction on the
landfill disposal of containerized liquid
ignitable wastes to coincide with the
compliance date of the general
restriction on landfill disposal of liquids.
The Agency is today extending the
compliance date on both these
requirements until May 26,1982, and, in
a separate action, is proposing
amendments to these restrictions. This
extension of compliance dates is
provided for the sole purpose of
allowing time to complete the
rulemaWng action on today's proposed
amendments.
The Agency is also today exempting
from the requirements of the hazardous
waste management regulations, the acts
of adding absorbent material to
hazardous waste In containers and
adding hazardous waste to absorbent
material in a container, at the time
waste is first placed in the container, in
order to reduce the free liquids in a
container.
DATES: These amendments are effective
February 18,1982, Comments are due on
or before March 29,1982.
ADDRESS: Comments should be
addressed to Deneen Shrader, Docket
Clerk, Office of Solid Waste (WH-562),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D,C. 20480. Comments
should identify the regulatory docket as
follows: "Docket No. 3004, Extension of
Section 265.314(b)". The official docket
for this regulation is located hi Room
2836, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW., Washington,,
D.C. 20460 and is available for viewing
from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday thru .
Friday, excluding holidays.;
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA hazardous waste hotline,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
800/424-9346 (382-3000 in Washington,
'D.C.). For specific information on this
amendment, contact Alfred W. Lindsey,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202)755-9185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
On May 19,1980, EPA promulgated
hazardous waste regulations in 40 CFR
Parts 260-265 (45 FR 33066 et seq.) which
established hi conjunction with earlier
regulations promulgated on February 26,
1980 (45 FR 12721 et seq.), the principal
elements of the hazardous waste
management program under Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42
U.S.G. 6921, et seq.}. Part 265 of the May
19 regulations set forth standards
applicable to hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities which have "interim status"
under Section 3005(e) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). Subpart N (§§ 265.300-265.339)
of those regulations established interim
status standards applicable to owners
and operators of landfills.
Section 265.314 (b) and (c) of these
standards provide that containers
holding liquid waste or waste containing
free liquids must not be placed in a
landfill on and after November 19,1981
unless the container is designed to hold
liquids or free liquids fpr a use other ,
than storage (such as a battery or
capacitor), the container is very small
(such as an ampule), or the container is
packaged in accordance with § 265.316
(lab packs, see 46 FR 56592, November
17,1981). Section 265.312(b) of these
standards, as amended on June 29,1981
(46 FR 33502), provides that liquid
ignitable waste may be placed, hi a
landfill, if containerized and handled in
the mariner specified under that section,
until the compliance date for the ban on
landfilling liquid waste contained in
§ 265.314. After that date, disposal of
liquid ignitable waste in landfills is
prohibited.
Subsequent to the promulgation of
these regulations, the regulated
community brought to the Agency's
attention several difficulties they are
having or would have in complying with
these requirements. Some of the
information on these problems was
brought to the Agency's attention in the
context of ongoing litigation
negotiations under the Shell Oil v. EPA
lawsuit. In addition, a rulemaking
petition has been filed with the Agency
pursuant to 40 CFR § 260.20, requesting
the deletion of §§ 265.312 and 265.314(b).
EPA believes there are important
policy and technical issues concerning
the ban on containerized liquids in
landfills that need to be resolved. EPA is
today proposing amendments, in a
separate action, that address many of
the concerns raised by the regulated
community.
Compliance with the existing
§ 265.314(b) could impose substantial
capital costs on the regulated
community for such things as decanting
equipment. Some of those costs could
prove to be unnecessary if EPA finalized
amendments to the regulations that are
similar to those being proposed today.
EPA does not believe it makes sense to
require the regulated community to incur
.those costs while EPA resolves some of
the key issues concerning § 265.314(b).
Therefore, EPA is amending
§ 265.314(c) to defer the compliance date
of § 265.314(b) until May 26,1982 and is
amending § 265.312(b) to provide a
compliance date for this section that
coincides with that of § 265.314(b).
The preamble to the proposed
amendments, also published in today's
Federal Register, contains a further
discussion of the problems raised by'the
regulated community, EPA's reaction to
these perceived problems, EPA's
continued concerns regarding
containerized liquids in landfills, and
several options the Agency is
considering to resolve these problems in
an environmentally protective yet
practical manner.
. H. Exemption of Addition of Absorbent
Material
The Agency is aware that many •
persons are now, or are planning to
begin, adding absorbent material to
waste in containers or adding waste to
drums containing absorbent material, in
order to solidify or reduce the free liquid
" content of their containerized wastes.
There appears to be a great deal of
confusion in the regulated community
regarding whether or not these practices
constitute treatment and are subject to
regulation. These practices are
"treatment", as that term is defined in
§ 260.10 because they are "methods
* * * designed to change the physical
* * * character* * * of hazardous
waste so as to render such waste * * *
less hazardous to * * * dispose."
-------
Federal /Register/ 'VoL'4£ jfo. 38;,/ Ifairsday. February25.19827Elites knd
Because :of this, ^persons who-employ
feesepractices.must'either have interim
status-era permit covering these
practices andmustcomply wife'-fe'e
relevant requirements -of the ;interim
sta'tus standards of 46 CFR Part 265 or
those standards df'40:CFRPart.264
incorporated in-their permit,'as ._••
appropriate. " • . ;
The Agency does not -"believe tha't
these"treatment practices, when
employed at the time'hazardous wastes
have been first placed in containers,
pose a substantial ^hazard to human
health or the environment.'EPA has not
received any" reports Brother
information indicating that these
practices pose a hazard. Moreover, "an
assessment of the .physical-chemical
reactions :involv.ed in these .practices has
ledjEpA td:therconclusion.that there'is
no significant likelihood-.thait they could
pose a hazard as long as the absorbent
material is not capable ;Bf^chemically
reacting wife ithe waste to .produce
explosion, fire orthe generation of toxic
gases. Thefabsorbents commpnly.used
are cement kiln dust, jy.ash, fuller's
earth, and vermiciilite;'None of these
materials are known to react in such a
dangerous manner with any of fee
hazardous wastes identified in 40 GFR
Part 261. . _ - ; •
However, the Agency is not convinced
that these treatment practices, when
employed at a time after hazardous
wastes have been emplaeed in , J
containers, pose no substantial hazard.
This is because such-containers mustbe
opened in order to employ these .
practices. Several menibers of'the
regulated community have.argued that
the opening of containers can be
hazardous because'of accidental :
ignition of ignitable wastes, accidental
reaction of reactive wastes, orrelease. of
toxic gases. Presumably,'these dangers
can be, avoided by Bijiployirig
sophisticated container opening
facilities and;practices which are
designed to prevent these Jiazards.
Without these safeguards, however,
absence .of potential hazard cannot be
assumed. Consequently, the Agency
believes that these practices must be
regulated under the standards of 40 CFR
Parts 264 and 265-to assure the
application of these safeguards. ,
Importantly, the potential .hazards
cited above do not derive from the
actual addition of absorbents to wastes
-or wastes to absorbents but, instead,,
derive from the essential ancillary
operation of opening containers.
--Althoughit would beypossible
. the regulation of-the ^container-opening
•operation without regulating ;the
absorbent-adding'OpeEatiOn, these ;
';_ operations are so intimately tied
' together feat regulation-of fee-combinee!
operafions-as,a treatment process seems
justified'in construcfirig regulatory
requirements.
Another potential probleminvolvedlri
~ these .treatment practices is fee
•possibility of leakage from the .
container, -It isimportant thatihe
absorbent treatment process take place
•in a coixtaiijer of solid structural "
integrity that'is not susceptible to
leakage. Therefore the container used
for this treatment ^operation must be
designed and managed in accordance
with those provisions of EPA's Part 265
interim status standards that are aimed
at maintaining the physical integrity of
•the,container itself. ' ' ;
Specifically, those taking advantage.'of
(this exemption must assure compliance
with §§ 265.171 and 265.172. These
•provisions are-designed to'assure that:
the container is compatible wife fee
--waste;placed in it and feat fee .physical
integrity of fee container is maintained.
Hn the case of .mixtures of wastes and
.absorbent material, -those requirements
apply to the waste/absorbent mixture as
'well as fee waste itself. :
In many cases, ifee mixing of wastes
and absorbent materials will be
performed by generators in fee
•contauiers that will actually be used to
•transport the;waste. Under § 262.30 of
EPA's hazardous waste'regulations,
•containers used to teansjport wasteliavB
So satisfy certain requirements specified
in Department of Transportation
^regulations. EPA believes feat -•--
• containers .designedin accord with fee
DOT regulations referenced in § 262.30
should satisfy the general requirements
-of §§ 26B.171 and 265.172.
Based on fee foregoing analysis, EPA
is today amending §;265.1'to exempt
from regulation trader'interim status fee
ipractice of adding absorbent material to
'hazardous waste in a container or
adding hazardous waste to absorbent
•material in a container. This exemption,
-however, is subject to three conditions:
a. The absorbent treatmerit process
must occur at fee time when waste is
first placed in a container;
b. The treatment'process must assure
compliance with § 265.17[b);
c. The containet must comply with
^§265.171811(1265.172.
, The Agencyis-alsQ^maKing to-day ' ,
similar-amendments to-§:^64a and
'1122.21. :
. The Agency believes that the effect of
today's amendment'is to provide J
:?generators;wife;a conditionref '.• .,
> exemption;from regulation with respedt s
"to absorbent addition practices.'It
Jurther'believes featifeis-amendment
"will have three practical effebts for
generators who employ these practices.
First, existing generators who'have
interim status -forgone or-more'hazardous
waste management activKies.ana'Who
•did not include;absofbent-adding
/operations in feeir-paEtA^ermit
application .willntitihave'to se:ek?and
obtain an interim -status modification
under § 122.23(Q). Second,'existing .
•generators who dp nothave interim
- status;and new generators wilLnot have
to apply,for and obtain.a!RCRA .permit
before employing these,practiceB. Third,
existing, generators 'having interim, staius
only for these ^practices will fnot'ha veto
eventually obtain a 'RGRA permit. . - .
Because of feese elfects, many ,
generators will be ^pared'the '. " .- -
administrative .burden of app'Iying for
and obtaining eifeersan'Mtepim status
modification or a-JRCRA'perniit for
-activities feat do not.pose a -substantial
"'hazard and certainly; do not justify feese
administrative burdens. (Because of
•these reducerl-burdens, .EBAibelieves
,:'feat generators.wiU'be encouraged!to~. :
'or, at least, wilLnot be' discouraged
"from—^employing absnrberit-Mding.
practices.-This'is of sjgmfiGant .
•environmental importance •because it. •
..leads,to .fee,minimization'df
-containerized free-liquid-wastes which
may be landfilled and;ppomotes such
.minimization byigeneratoES-wrho can . .
most economically accon^plishiifeis
objective. . . '
HI. Effective Date ''.-•.:'.
Section 3010fb). of RORA -prbvides -fea't
EPA's hazardous waste regulations and
revisions thereto :take effect six months .
after their prOmulgation,:!rhe purpose of
this StatutoTy requirementas to-allow
.persons affected 'by 'the TegUlatioiiS
sufficient lead time to prepare to'comply
with major neWireguldliojcyTequu'ements.
Today's amendments, however, do no't
impose new requirements but rather
deifer and reduce pre-existing |
requirements. Since an effectivefdate six
.months after;promu!gation would defeat ,J.
•the purposes of today's amendments, the
Agency is malcing them 'effective •
Immediately. ; . ; " ,
-------
6306 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 38 / Thursday. February 25. 1982 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Compliance With Executive Order
12291
Executive Order 12291 (46 FR13193,'
February 19,1981) requires that EPA
prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis .
for each major rule. The Order defines a
"major rule" as any regulation that is '
likely to result in:
A major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal. State, or local agencies or
geographic regions; or
Significant adverse effects on
competition, emplojonent, productivity,
innovation, or on the ability of United
States-based enterprises to compete
with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic or export markets.
This action is a postponement of the
compliance date of a regulation and an
exemption from a previously imposed
requirement. As such, it has none of the
effects noted above. Accordingly, EPA
concludes that this action is not a major
rule under E.0.12291.
This notice was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by E.0.12291.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, 5 U.S.G. 601 et seq., whenever an
agency is required to publish a general
notice of rulemaking for any proposed or
final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a •
regulatory flexibility analysis which
describes the impact of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions). The Administrator may
instead certify, however, that the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
These amendments should have no
adverse economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities hi
that they (1) defer the compliance date
of the pre-existing requirements, and (2)
exempt from regulation a process
previously subject to regulation under
RCRA. Accordingly, I hereby certify that
this interim final regulation will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This regulation therefore does not •
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.
Dated: February 18,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulation is amended as follows:
PART 122—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM; THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM; AND THE UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 122.
reads as follows:
Authority: Resource Conservation
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq., '
and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.
2. Section 122.21 is amended by
adding paragraph,.(d)(2)(viii) to read as
follows:
§ 122.21 Purpose and scope of Subpart B.
*****
(d) * * *
(2)***
(viii) Persons adding absorbent
material to waste hi a container (as
defined in § 260.10 of this chapter) and
persons adding waste to absorbent
material in a container, provided that
these actions occur at the time waste is
first placed in the container; and
§§ 284.17(b), 264.171, and 264,172 of this
Chapter are complied with..
PART 264—STANDARDS FOR
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF r
HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES
3. The authority citation for Part 264
reads as follows;
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), and 3004,
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a),
and 6924).
4. Section 264.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (g)(10) to rqad as follows:
§ 264.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
* *. * * ' *
(8)***
• (10) The addition of absorbent
material to waste in a container (as .
defined in § 260.10 of this chapter) or the
addition of waste to absorbent material
in a container, provided that these
actions occur at the time waste is first
placed in the container; and
§§ 264.17(b), 264.171, and 264.172 are
complied with.
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for Part 265
reads as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), and 3004, .
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976, as araended.(42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a),
and 6924).
•6. Section 265.1 is amended by adding
paragraph (c)(13) to read as follows:
§ 265.1 Purpose, scope, and applicability.
*****
(c)***
(13) The addition of absorbent
material to waste in a container (as
defined in § 260.10 of this chapter) or the
addition of waste to the absorbent
material in a container provided that
these actions occur at the time waste is
first placed in the containers; and
§§ 265.17(b), 265.171, and 265.172 are
complied with.
7. In § 265.312, paragraph (b) is
revised to read as follows:
§265.312 Special requirements for
ignitable or reactive waste.
* *• * *• *
(b) Until the compliance date for
§ 265.314(b), liquid ignitable wastes in
containers may be landfilled without
meeting the requirement of paragraph
(a) of this section, provided that the
wastes are. disposed in such a way that
they are protected from any material or
conditions which may cause them to
ignite. At a minimum, these liquid
ignitable wastes must be disposed in
non-leaking containers which are
carefully handled and placed so as to
avoid heat, sparks, rupture, or any other
condition that might cause ignition of
the wastes; must be covered daily with
soil or other non-combustible material to
minimize the potential for ignition of the
wastes; and must not be disposed in
cells that contain or will contain other
wastes which may generate heat
sufficient to cause temperatures equal to
or exceeding the flash point of the
wastes.
**-,***
8. In § 265.314, paragraph (c) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 265.314 Special requirements for liquid
waste.
*****
(c) The date for compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section is
November 19,1981. The date for
compliance with paragraph (b) of this
section is May 26,1982.
[FR Doc. 82-4899 Filed 2-24-82; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-30-M
-------
25,1982 •/ Propose! Rides
8307.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 265
[SW-FRL 1999-3]
Interim Status Standards for Owners
and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency. ":. ..
ACTION: Proposed amendments to rule.
SUMMARY: On May 19,1980, EPA
promulgated regulations, applicable to .
owners and operators of ^hazardous
waste treatment 'storage, and disposal
facilities during interim status, 'which
prohibited the landfill disposal of most
containerized liquid waste or waste
containingiree liquid on and after
November 19,1981. As :a, result of Issues
raised by the regulated community with
respect to tiiis prohibition, the Agency is
today proposing.an amendment to this
regulation 'to ;allow some trorttainers
* holding free liquids to be.disposed.of in
a landfill, m some circumstances.
In a separate action, intoday's Federal
Register, EPA is providing a 90-day
. extension (from today's date) of the
compliance date .for the prohibition of
landfill disposal of containerized liquid •'
waste and the .restrictions cm ihe landfill
disposal of liquid ignitable waste to
allow time to complete -this nilemaking
action and to avoid immediately
imposing requirement's that might be
changed as a.result of,this rulemaking
action. ,
DATES:-Comments are .due on or before
March 29,1982. ;'..'"
ADDRESS:,Gomments should.be
addressed to Deneen'Sbrader, Docket
Clerk, Office of^olid Waste (WH-r562},
U.S. iWironmerital Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.,20460, Comments
should identify :the regulatory.docket as
follows: "Docket No. 3004, liquids in
Landfills." The.official.docket:for this
regulation is .located in Room 2638, U
-------
8308
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 38 / Thursday. February 25, 1982 / Proposed Rules
techniques (e.g., screens, vacuum filters,
filler press, centrifuge, heat drying) or by
chemical/absorbent processes (e.g..
cement kiln dust, fly ash, vermiculite,
fuller's earth, and cementitious
materials). Finally, keeping liquid and
solid wastes separated at the generation
point can achieve liquid-free wastes.
However, the Agency has found merit
in the comments criticizing the absence
of definition of terms and a test
protocol. This led the Agency into a
thorough discussion and negotiation of
this matter with interested petitioners in
Shell Oil v. EPA. Out of this discussion
and negotiation, EPA came to the
following tentative conclusions.
The Agency believes that the current
§ 265.314(b) prohibition is too extreme
for real-world application. In its literal
interpretation, landfill disposal of
containerized wastes containing only
"one drop" of free liquid is banned. This
would often require extraordinary, high-
cost management practices to achieve
compliance. For example, a generator
may take reasonable means to deliver
liquid-free containeriKed wastes to a
disposal facility by using screening or
olher dewatering or absorbent-addition
methods on his wastes before placing
them into containers. But frequently the
vibration and settlement occurring in
transit to the landfill will result in the
separation from the wastes of additional
small amounts of free liquids and result
in the delivery of containers holding
some amount of free liquids at the
disposal facility. Therefore, the facility
operator, in order to assure compliance
with § 265.314(b). would have to open
and inspect all incoming containers and
perform additional dewatering
(decanting) or absorbent-addition
operations on those containerized
wastes found to contain even the
smallest amounts of liquids. The Agency
concluded that this opening, inspecting,
and additional treatment operation by
the landfill operator, in many cases,
would add unnecessary costs and
operational disruption and could present
unnecessary personnel safety and
environmental hazards because of the
ignitability, volatility or toxicity of many
\vastes commonly shipped in containers.
Even after considering these real-
world problems, the Agency still
believes it is appropriate to require in
the interim status standards a
minimization of free liquids in
containerized wastes—minimization
that could be achieved by reasonably
simple and available dewatering
practices and ordinary waste
management practices. Because of the
lack of extensive data on the levels of
free liquids reduction that can be
reasonably achieved on the wide variety
of hazardous wastes, the Agency was
unable to derive a calculated ,
quantification of "minimization" but
came to the professional judgment that
containerized wastes containing less
than ten percent by volume of free
liquids could be readily achieved and
reasonably implemented. Indeed, one
major landfill operator has indicated
that such a level can be and is being
achieved in his current operations.
The Agency concluded that a 10
percent maximum objective would
produce a decided improvement over
past practices in disposing of
containerized wastes and, therefore, is
consistent with the regulatory strate'gy
of using interim status standards to
achieve initial, readily achievable
improvements in hazardous waste
management practices (see discussion of
criteria for interim status standards in
45 FR 33159). The Agency also decided
that this objective, combined with other
interim status standards, would achieve
reasonably acceptable environmental
protection for interim status landfill
operations. Although the Agency
recognizes that the containerized free
Liquid wastes allowed in landfills often
will eventually leak from their
containers and migrate out of the
landfill and into the environment, it
•believes that this leakage will be slow*
occurring over an extended period of
years, and is likely to be considerably
diluted and attenuated (in the
environmental). Because the amount of
containerized free liquids available for
leaching would be minimized, because
the interim status closure and post-
closure requirements would limit the
amount of additional leachate
generation from precipitation infiltration
available for environmental migration,
and because bulk-free disposal would
be regulated, the Agency believes that
' any potential adverse environmental
consequences will be substantially
reduced.
At the same time, the Agency has
concluded that more rigorous regulation
of liquid emplacement in landfills may
be justified for permitted facilities. In
particular, it believes that certain
persistent, mobile, and highly toxic or
carcinogenic liquid wastes might need to
be absolutely prohibited from disposal
in landfills, in either bulk or
containerized form. Additionally, some
hydrogeologic settings might dictate
more severe restriction of landfill
disposal of containerized free liquids.
The Agency is studying these matters
and intends to propose future
regulations or amendments as'might be
called for by its findings. At this time,
however, the Agency believes that
minimization of landfill disposal of,
containerized wastes, as discussed
above, is a reasonable objective for ,
interim status standards.
Having come to this position, the
Agency discussed with the petitioners in
Shell Oil Co. v. EPA a simple rule that
would prohibit the landfill disposal of
containers that contain more than ten
percent by volume of free liquids as
measured by an appropriate test
protocol. In discussing this approach
EPA .recognized that this requirement,
although achievable, would still have
some of the same practical real-world
problems in implementation as the
current rule. Landfill operators might
still have to open and inspect incoming
containers to monitor compliance 'and
correct noncomplying containers by
decanting free liquids or adding
absorbent. This opening, inspecting, and
additional treatment operation, with its
attendant safety and environmental
risks, seemed to be a feature to be .
avoided if possible. Additionally,
petitioners claimed that some hazardous
wastes require extraordinary means of
dewatering to achieve a content of free
liquids less than ten percent. They
argued that such extraordinary means of
dewatering these wastes could be
avoided if the regulatory approach taken
could average the free liquid content of
these wastes with other wastes to
achieve the same end result.
", Consideration of these points ultimately
led to the development of today's
proposed amendment. As described
below, this proposed amendment takes
a different approach than discussed
above, but the Agency believes that it
- achieves approximately the same
results; that is, land disposal of
containerized free liquids will be
significantly limited (see discussion in
III(B) below). The proposed amendment
avoids the necessity of determining the
free, liquid fraction of individual
containers, thereby avoiding the added
and potentially unsafe operation of
opening of containers to determine
compliance with the regulation. This
feature also simplifies enforcement of
the regulation by focusing inspection on
the number of non-exempted containers
placed in a landfill rather, than on the
testing of individual containers for
compliance with a specific free-liquid
limit. Finally, the Agency believes that
today's proposed amendment
incorporates an economic incentive for
landfill operators to minimize the
number of containers holding free
liquids in order to conserve that portion
of their landfill which, pursuant to
-------
Federal Register /•' Vol. 47, No.' 38 / Thursday, February 25, 1982 / Proposed Rules .8309
today's proposed rule, may be allocated'
for containers holding free liquids.
Based on the rationale just discussed,
EPA has decided to propose the
"regulatory approach described below
rather than an approach that would limit
the liquid content in each container to
10%. EPA does, however, seek public
comment on the latter regulatory § , . .
approach. EPA is still actively
considering a regulatory approach based
on a "10% rule" as an alternative, oria
supplement, to the regulatory approach
being proposed, today,
III. Proposed Amendment to § 265.314(b)
"A Overview ... . ' -.••••;. ..
Today's proposed amendment to
§ 265.314(b.) would allow containers.
holding free liquids to be placed ma
. landfill provided that: (1) The volume of
such containers does not exceed a
formula-determined fraction of the total "
volume of wastes and reasonable
intermediate cover to be placed in the
landfill, (2) the closure and post-closure
maintenance plans provide for the post-
closure maintenance of the final cover to
accommodate subsidence that may
arise from the collapse of such
containers if they rupture and the free
.liquids escape and (3} such containers
are uniformly placed in the landfill so
that any subsidence resulting from the ,,
collapse of containers w-ill be as uniform
as possible. Further, today's proposed
amendment requires that each container
of waste be assumed to hold free liquids
' and subject to the above requirements
unless: (1) The owner or operator
demonstrates that the container does
.not hold free liquid, (2) the container is
very small, such as an ampule', (3) the
container only holds such free liquids as
it was designed to hold in its use other
than storage (e.g., a battery or capacitor
•holding free liquids), or (4) the container'
is a "lab pack" as defined m § 265.316."
The last three types of containers
exeepted from the requirements of
today's amendment already are allowed
to be placed in a landfill without
restriction under the current
requirements of- § 265.314(b) and
§265;si6. ••.'.::.-.-.' •.'... ; . ./..,:•:
•B. Formula 'forDetermining the •
Allowable Volume, of Containers . -
•Holding Free Liquids That May Be <
Disposed of in a Landfill i
The formula contained in today's -.
amendment for determining the fraction
of the. total volume of waste and
intermediate cover that can be 'devoted
to containers holding free liquids was
derived from a proposal submitted by
the National Solid Waste Management .
Association (NSWMA) and the
Chemical Manufacturers Association
(CMA) during discussions of this issue .
with petitioners in Shell Oil v, EPA. The
formula is: ... •"..".. , .
lH. " '. ' •' ;'•' "••'".'"..' ;
V=—for H less, than 25 feet
apo •" '. ., , v •' ."...
V=0.3—H for equal to or greater than 25 feet
soo .'..; , -'.',.. .-,. ., ; . ;
where V=the allowable volumetric fraction
- of the total volume of wastes and • j
. reasonable intermediate cover in the
landfill that can be used for disposal of
containers holding free liquids
H=the maximum vertical depth of waste and
• reasonable intermediate cover in the
• landfill at closure (aS measured in feet}
Although this formula was derived to
limit the subsidence'that will result from
the degradation of containers
-------
8310
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 38 / Thursday, February 25, 1:982 / Proposed Rules
Consequently, EPA invites comments on
this issue. In particular, EPA wishes to
know if such situations are likely to
happen and how best Ihey can be
accommodated. If the occurrences are
likely to be frequent and the
environmental consequences serious,
the Agency may have to require
provisions Jn the closure plan and
closure financial responsibility to
accommodate these eventualities.
C. Effect of the Formula on Controlling
Subsidence
As previously mentioned, 'the formula
used in today's proposed rule was
derived from a formula submitted by
NSWMA and CMA during negotiations
in Shell Oil v. EPA. It is evident that
these petitioners designed the formula to
limit the maximum depth of subsidence
and, perhaps, the maxjmum volume of
subsidence.1 The basis for this limitation
was the professional judgment of the
capable, expert landfill operators, who
advised NSWMA and CMA on this
matter, that a maximum subsidence
depth greater than 11.25 feet should be
avoided, EPA relies on this professional
judgment in tentatively accepting the
formula used in today's proposed
amendment. __
Under the approach taken in today's
proposed amendment, EPA is concerned
about the long-term subsidence that may
occur in allowing the landfill disposal-of
containerised liquid wastes, the current
rule docs not necessitate such a concern
because it prohibits the landfill disposal
of containers holding fiee liquids.
Consequently, today's proposal 'includes
not only the formula-derived limitation
of landfill disposal of containers holding
free liquids, but also .requirements for (1)
uniform placementof containers in the
landfill and ,[2] a final cover at Closure
designed to accommodate the expected
subsidence. The first of these .added
provisions is intended to alleviate
differential subsidence .that might be
accentuated by non-uniform placement
of containers holding free liquid wastes.
The second of the additional provisions
is intended to assure that special
consideration is given in closure and
post-closure plans to the added
subsidence that may result from the
'The formula produces theoretical depths of
subsidence ranging from zqro,at a fill depth of zero,
Inocuting to a maximum of 1125 feet at fill depths
of 7S foot and than decreasing toizero itt fill depths
of 150 feel. These theoretical subsidence .depths
assume that the containers will eventually
completely collapso to a theoretical cotitdiner
volume of zero and that soil bridging and other soil
structure effects do not sllffmiate'theithoordUcally
possible BUbsidence.depth.sta actuality, neither of
Ihese assumptions will operate perfectly and the
actual fubsklcnce depth will be less than that
theoretically predietod'by the formula.
landfilling of containerized free liquid
wastes. Such special considerations
may include: ,(1) Providing greater slopes
in the contouring of the final cover at
closure to accommodate the loss of
elevation of contours when subsidence
eventually occurs; (2) the stock-piling of
final cover materials at closure for
repairing subsidence damage .to the final
cover, and (3) a commitment in the post-
closure plan to extent the post-closure
care period for further-repair and
maintenance of ithe final cover if
unusual subsidence occurs in the later
stage of the post-closure care period.
. Although the formula in today's ,
proposed amendment will provide a
means of calculating the maximum
potential dimensions (depth and
volume) of subsidence that may "be
caused by landfilling of containerized
free liquid "wastes, :the more detailed
prediction of and planning for
remedying damage caused by such . '
subsidence will depend on a great many
factors, including the character (bridging '
capacity, density] of the wastes and
soils placed above ^and between the
buried containers. Because the detailed
consideration of these factors is too
complex to easily articulate in
regulatory form, the Agency intends to
develop technical.guidance to assist
compliance with.Ms element of today's
•proposed amendment.
In spite of the fact that today's
proposed amendment addresses the
subsidence problem that may attend
landfilling of containerized free liquids,
the Agency has some concern about the
ability of landfill owners and operators
to adequately plan and provide for
remedying the damage caused.by post-
closure subsidence.2 It will be difficult
to predict with accuracy, 'and therefore
provide in closure andpost-closure
plans, the actual timing, location, size,
and nature of subsidence and final cover
distortion. In addition, it is possible that
some amount of the 'subsidence may
occur after the post-closure period. The
Agency and .the'regulated-community
simply do not have much ^observed
experience ;or data concerning
subsidence to those landfills -where
containerized wastes -are carefully
placed, it'is possible that subsidence
due to landfilling of limited numbers of
containers holding free-liquid wastes •
may noJ be extensive and may not be
significantly greater than the subsidence
resulting from the landfill disposal of
other wastes. If it'can be assumed, as
3 Some subsidences may occur during operation
of the landfill, particularly in very deep landfills
where the weight-of very deep overlying materials
may cause some jcollapsing'of containers,
particularly those that have been weakened
because of some amount'of-deeay.
previously mentioned, that individual
containers average 40 percent free .
liquids, then maximum subsidence
depths of four .and.a half"feet can be
expected. These subsidence depths may
be manageable. Moreover, these
subsidence depths may not be
significantly idifferent than those that
attend the disposal of other wastes and
which the Agency has not addressed
with any special requirements in the
Part 265 regulations.
Another concern that the Agency has
with the subsidence -that might result!
from landfilling of containerized free
liquid wastes is the significant and, .
perhaps, irreparable damage that it may
have on the integrity of-multi-layered -
final covers. The state of the art in
designing, and constructing final covers
calls for two or three layers -of different ,
materials, where each layer has a
specific function to serve; e.g., a bottom
layer of material of very low
permeability to inhibit infiltration of
precipitation into the landfill, "a second .
layer of very highly permeable material
to promote drainage from the landfill of
the precipitation intercepted by the first
layer and a top layer of soil for •
maintaining vegetation cover. .
Subsidence could disrupt a carefully
constructed final cover of'this or similar
type, and repair would need to be more
extensive than merely filling in the
depressions created,by subsidence with
a single type of .material stockpiled for
this purpose.
Because of these concerns about the
possible additional subsidence from the
landfill dispo'sarof containers holding
free liquid wastes, EPA specifically
invites comments on this matter and on
the subsidence control requirements
included in today's proposed
amendment.
D. LinerfLenchtite Collection -System or
Absorbent Material
The proposedTegulation does not
include a requirement for either (1) a
liner andileadhate collection and
removal system, or (2) placement of
absorbent materials around or under the
containers holding free-liquid wa'Stes,.
This requirement was included in the
. NSWMA/CMA proposal but is not
reflected'in today!s proposed
amendment. '
EPA believes a "liner and leacha'te
collection and removal system is not
likely to result in the removal :of _
appreciable 'quantities of free liquids
that eventually may leak from • •
containers placed in a landfill, 'and
therefore will not provide .significant '
additional -protection Hgainst migration
of these liquids into the environment.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. ,3j[/_Jhursday, February 25, 1982 / Proposed Rules' 8311;
EPA believes that most containers
which hold free liquids will fail at some
distant future time and then release
liquids over a long period of time. These
releases could occur after the post-
closure care period, when the leachate
collection arid removal system is no , ...
longer operated by the facility operator.
Although a very lengthy or indefinite
post-closure care period could
accommodate this problem, it would not.
resolve a second problem discussed
below.-
A second problem arises because, in
most cases, leaking containers will
release liquids slowly over time/This
typically means that leachate within the
facility will "rain" down on the facility
liner at a relatively low rate. Where the
liner is constructed of relatively ...
permeable material [e.g., clay), this low
rate of leachate impingement will mean
that a significant percentage of the '.
leakage will exfiltrate through the liner
rather than flow along the top of the •
liner to points where it can be collected
and removed.
EPA also does not believe that.
placement of absorbent material around
or under containers holding free liquids
can be relied upon to significantly
absorb liquids that leak from buried '
containers and thereby prevent
migration of these liquids into the
environment. The reasons for this belief,:
were diseussed in the preamble to the
:May 19,1980 regulation (at 45 FR 33214);
namely, difficulty in predicting
absorbent capacity or performance in a
landfill (e.g., the effects of decay,
pressure, displacement, capacity taken
up by precipitation, and channelized
.flow). •'•:' . •,'
In accordance .with § 265.314(a), bulk
liquids may be placed in a landfill if the
landfill has a liner, which is chemically
. and physically resistant to these liquids,
and a leachate collection and removal
system. The agency believes that a liner
and leachate collection system is
capable of intercepting and removing
most of the leachate derived from bulk
liquid disposal and, therefore,
•minimizing the migration of this leachate
into the environment. Bulk liquids, as
opposed to liquids in drums, are
immediately free-to migrate through a
landfill and should do so relatively
quickly. Therefore, such free liquids can
be collected and removed via the.
leachate collection system during the
facility's operating and postclosure care\
periods. Secondly, unlike containerized - •.
liquids which'are released gradually and
in small quantities, bu}k liquids will tend
to flow, rather than trickle, down
through the landfill onto the liner and
thus .are much more amenable to
collection and removal via a leachate
collection and removal system. Thus,
bulk liquids are more .likely to flow in
the collection system .while liquids - -
released from containers are more-likely
to seep through a liner if the liner is
porous (e.g., clay). ":'=••
The Agency specifically solicits
comments on its assessment of the non-
necessity of requiring a liner and
leachate collection system or the
placement of absorbent material in
landfills in which containerized free '•
liquids are disposed of. .
E. Test Protocol for Free Liquids ,
Today's amendment provides that all
containers are to be presumed to.hold .-
free liquids'and landfilled in accordance
with the requirements discussed above
unless they are demonstrated not to
contain free liquids (or unless they are
small containers such as ampules;
containers such as batteries, designed to
hold free-liquids for use other than
storage; or lab'packs). To provide a
means of demonstrating that a container
does not hold free liquids, today's
proposed amendment- contains a test
protocol for free liquids. " •
• EPA has considered and tested a wide
variety of test methods which could be
used to define the measure free liquids.
Gravity tests, as well as tests which :
simulate earth pressures at various
depths, have been investigated. The'
literature on over 70 test proce_dures has
been examined. Several of the most
promising test procedures examined
have been evaluated in the laboratory
using samples of typical semisolid
waste. The test procedures examined
were those employing: A press, a -
filtration unit similar to the one used in
the EP Toxicity Test Procedure (45 FR
33127), a laboratory centrifuge, screens
of various mesh sizes, the inclined plane
described in the preamble to the May 19,
1980 regulation (at 45 FR 33214) and the
paint filter included in today's proposed
amendment. . /
The test protocol EPA is'proposing
today is a gravity test which is intended.
to determine, in a simple way, whether a
representative sample from a container
of,waste holds free liquid. EPA believes
that this .protocol can be used to
determine the presence of free liquids in
sliidges, semi-solids, slurries and other
wastes that commonly are received in
containers by landfill operators for
landfill disposal. . .
The proposed test protocol calls for a
100 ml representative sample of the • ''
waste from a container to be placed in a
400 micron, conical paint filter for five •
minutes. The filter specified is a •
standard paint filter which is commonly
available at hardware and paint stores
at low cost. The filter is to be supported • •
by a funnel on a ring stand with a
beaker or cylinder below the funnel to
capture any free liquid that passes
• through the filter. If any amount of free
liquid passes through the filter, the .
waste is to be considered to hold free
liquid and subject to the requirements of
§ 265.314(b) of today's proposed rule.
Preliminary tests on five different
wastes indicate that the five minute test
period is adequate to determine whether
a waste contains any free liquids, i.e., it
•- provides an adequate' "pass/fail" test.
However,- if the Agency were to adopt a
rule requiring the measurement of the
percentage of free liquid in the waste in
individual containers (see discussion in.'
Ifl(B) above), a longer .test period •
probably would be necessary to achieve
an accurate measurement. The Agency's
preliminary tests indicate that the five ,
minute test period significantly
underestimates the amount of free
liquids in samples of some types of
wastes andjhat a 15, 30, or even 45-
minute test period may be necessary to
accurately measure the free liquid
content of such wastes. The Agency
solicits cojnments on whether a longer
test period (e.g.,'15 to 45 minutes)
presents an undue operational burden
on landfill operators.
The Agency recognizes that there,may
be other test protocols that are capable :
of determining whether or not a.waste
- sample contains free liquids. Indeed, the
Agency solicits comments on any such
protocols. In addition, whatever protocol
is finally adopted, persons will always
have the opportunity to petition EPA
under §§ 260.20 and 260.21 for use of an
equivalent test protocol. '
Today's proposed rule does not.
require a landfill owner or operator to
test containers of wastes for their free
liquid content. Rather, it enables that "
person to .demonstrate that a container
does not hold free liquid to avoid having
to meet the requirements of § 265.314(b)
. for landfill disposal of the container. A
landfill owner or operator may choose
to consMer all containers of waste as
holding free liquids and dispose of them
in accordance with § 265.314(b}. Where
he chooses to exercise the option of
demonstration, he. may use the test;
protocol or he may choose to make the ;
demonstration in another manner,
certifying that' his knowledge about the
containerized waste substantiates its
absence of free liquids. '
The Agency .believes that this latter
demonstration may be possible'in some
instances (e.g., where the landfill owner
or operator receives, on a constant
basis, containerized wastes from a
certain generator and knows by prior
-------
8312
Federal Register ;/ Vol. 47. No. ,38 / Thursday,' February 25, 1982 .,•/ Proposed Rules
observation that those 'containerized
wastes do not vary .and do not-contain
free-liquids). It should be recognized,
however, that EPA would be .using -the
tost protocol specified in the regulations
for enforcement purposes unless -an
equivalent test protocol had been
established for the waste under
§§200.20 and 260.21.
Where the landfill owner or operator
chooses to test containerized wastes to
make the above-discussed
demonstration, EPA would expect him
to lest a representative sample—
representative of the waste in the
container sampled. Guidance on
obtaining representative samples from
containers is provided in Test Methods
for the Evaluation of Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods, SW-846,
an EPA publication. In those cases
whore a demonstration is being made on
a batch (e.g., Iruckload) of similar
containerized wastes^ the representaGve
sample must be representative both
among the containers in the batch and
of the waste in the individual containers
actually sampled.
Today's proposed amendment does
not prohibit the co-disposal of
"exempted" containers with containers
holding free liquids. It does, however,
implicitly require careful recordkeeping
of those containers exempted and-their
placement in the landfill so that EPA
can properly monitor compliance.
IV. Proposed Amendment to § 265.312
Section 205.312, Special requirements
for ignf table or reactive waste, as
amended on June 29,1981, states that
ignitable waste may .not lie placed in a ,
landfill unless it is treated, rendered, or
mixed before or immediately after
placement in a landfill so that it no
longer meets the definition of ignitable
waste or unless it is containerized and
handled according to the specific
handling requirements. However,, after
the compliance date for § 265.314, liquid
ignilablc waste 'in containers are banned
from landfills in accordance with
§ 205.312(b).
Today's proposed amendment to
§ 205.312 deletes any distinction
between liquid and solid ignitable
waste, and provides that containerized
ignitable waste (liquid or solidj may be
placed in a landfill subject to the
specified handling requirements. With
this proposed change, restrictions on the
amount of liquid ignitable waste which
can be placed in a landfill would be
defined by § 265.314(b). Containers
holding liquid ignitable waste would be
counted in tho total number of
containers holding liquid waste allowed
in the landfill pursuant to the proposed
amendment to § 265.314[b). In addition,
liquid ignitable waste «in-containers
would still have to be handled in
accordance with She special "handling
requirements specified in § .265.312.
Under the proposed amendment, solid
ingnitable waste in containers would
still be allowed to be disposed of in
landfills, provided that it is handled in
accordance with the specified "handling
requirements.
The test for determining which wastes
are liquids or contain free liquids,
specified in the proposed § 265.314,.
would be used for determining if an
ignitable waste is a liquid or contains
free liquid. Thus, liquid ignitable waste
will be treated Consistently with other
containerized waste.
The Agency received 16 written
comments on its June 29,1981
amendment to § 265.312. Some
commenters stated that incineration-of
ignitable wastes-can be •accomplished
and therefore reasoned -that -the ban on
disposal of liquid ignitable waste ;in
landfills should'go into effect as
scheduled. One commentor has
developed a procedure aimed at
solidifying semi-solid ignitable waste
and raising the flash point of the waste
to above 140°F. The majority of the
commenters supported the approach
used in § 265.312 (b) and,(c) as it applied
to both liquid and solid containerized
ignitable wastes ;(i.e., allowing
landfilling of these wastes under special
management conditions.); however, the
commenters did not believe that the
extension until November 19,1981 for
liquid ignitable waste was of sufficient
duration. They stated that there
continued to be no viable alternative to
the landfill disposal of some ignitable
wastes.
The .Agency continues to :believe 'that
most liquid ignitable wastes can.be
treated, recycled, or'disposed of by
means other than landfilling (see
preamble discussion to June 29,1981,
amendment (46 FR 33502)). However, the
proposed amendments to §§ 265.312 and
265.314 will allow the landfill disposal of
some liquid ignitable waste. These
amendments should, therefore,
accommodate those ignitable wastes not
amenable to incineration, deep well
injection, solvent recovery, use as fuel,
or other treatment, recycling, or disposal
options.
V. Regulatory Analysis
Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12291
(46 FR 13193, February 19,1981) requires
EPA to initially determine whether a
rule that it intends to propose or issue is '
a major rule and to prepare a regulatory
impact analysis for all major rules.
EPA has determined that :both
amendments being proposed today are
not major rules. Accordingly, a
Regulatory Impact Analysis is not being
prepared for either-of these proposed
amendments. ., .,
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et seg,, EPA is required to
•determine whether .a. regulation will
have ,a significant impact on -a
substantial number of small entities so
as to require a regulatory analysis. In
that the p'roposed amendments should
reduce the burden of compliance with
the hazardous waste management,
regulations for .small entities, the
Agency had determined that this action
is not subject to the Regulatory
Flexibility Adt.
This proposal was submitted to the
•Office-of Management-and Budget for
review as required'by E.Q.12991.
•Da'ted: February 18,1982. " ,
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
• . /
PART 265-.INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, 40 CFR Part 265 is proposed
to be amended as follows:
- 1. The authority citation for Part 265
reads as follows;
Authority: Sees. 100B, 20Q2(a'), and 3004-of
the Solid Waste.Disposal Act, as,amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
•of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(8),
6924). • • .
2. Section 265.312 is revised to read as
follows:
•§> 265.312 Special requirements for
ignitable or reactive waste.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this (section, ignitable or .reactive
waste must n&t "be ..placed'in a landfill,
unless the waste is treated, rendered, or
-mixed before of immediately after
placement in a landfill so that:
(1) The resulting 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) Section 265.17(b) is complied with.
(b) Ignitable wastes in containers may
be landfilled without meeting the
requirement of paragraph (a) of this
section,-provided that the wastes are
disposed in :such a way that they are
protected from any material or
conditions which may cause them to
ignite. At a minimum, ignitable wastes
must be disposed.in non-leaking
containers which -are .carefully handled
and placed so as to avoid heat, .sparks,
-------
Federal Register / Vol.47, No. 38 /Thursday,-February 25, 1982 / Proposed Rules 8313
rupture, or any other condition that
might cause ignition of the wastes; must
be covered daily with soilor other non-
combustible material to minimize the
potential for ignition of the wastes, and •
must not be disposed in cells that
contain or will, contain other wastes
which may generate heat sufficient to
cause ignition of the waate.
3. Section 265.314 is amended by
revising paragraph (b), revising
paragraph (c) and redesignating it as
paragraph {f), and adding new .
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) to read as
follows: :.....''• . ...: ": . .',
§265.314 Special requirements for liquid
waste.
* ' * * * * ...
(b) Containers holding free liquids
must not be placed in a landfill unless:
(1) The volume fraction (V) of the total
landfill volume devoted to waste and
reasonable intermediate cover that is
occupied by containers holding free
liquids is no greater than that described
by the formula:
V=H for H -less than 25 feet
V=0.3— H for H equal to or greater than
500 : "
25feet
where: H=,the average depth of wastes.and ,
reasonable intermediate coyfir in the .
landfill; and •" . . ' . ,
(2) The closure/and post-closure plans
required in § §265.112 and 265.117
provide for the design and maintenance"
of the final cover, including the final
contour and slope of the final cover,
sufficient to accommodate the
subsidence and distortion of the final
: cover that may result from the \ .
deterioration of the containers,placed in
.the landfill. The closure plan must
provide for the stockpiling or other on-'
site availability of materials to repair
subsidence damage to- the final cover
that might occur during the post-closure-
period; and . ..-'-.".•
(3) The containers holding free liquids
are placed in a uniform and compact
manner in the landfill. , - '.'-'-
(c) For the purposes of paragraph (b)
of this section, all containers are
presumed to be containers holdingjree
liquids unless:
(1) The container is very small, such
as an ampule; or ;
(2) The container is designed to hold ,
free liquids for use other than storage,
such as'a-battery or capacitor; or
(3) The container is a lab pack as
defined in § 265-.316, and is disposed of
' in accordance with § 265.316; or
(4) The owner or operator can
demonstrate that a representative
sample of the waste in the container
does not contain any free liquids.
, . (dj The demonstration requirement of
paragraph (c)(4) of this Section.can be
, met if a 100 ml representative sample of
• the waste from a container can be •
completely retained in a standard 400 u
conical paint filter for five minutes
without loss of any portion of the waste
from the bottom of the filter (or an
equivalent test approved by the
^Administrator under the procedures set
forth in §§260.20 and 260.21 indicates
no liquids or free, liquids in the waste). _
(e) Where containers holding free
liquids are disposed in only ?i portion of
a landfill, the formula of paragraph
(b)(l) of this Section must apply only to
that portion of, the landfill.
(f) The date for compliance with
paragraph (a) of this .Section is
November 19,1981. The date for
compliance with paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section is March 29,1982.
[FR Doc, 82-4900 Filed 2-24-82; 8:45 am] .
BILLING CODE 6560-30-M -
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private .Use
$300
Third-Class Mail
'Postage and-fees Paid
ERA
Permit No. G-35
Washington'DC 20460
------- |