0*3
Monday
March 22,1982
Part
Envirofifnent^I
Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management System
Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and
Disposal Facilities
-------
12316 Federal Register / Vol. 47. No. 55 / Monday. March 22,1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 265
[SWH-FRl 2081-4]
Hazardous Waste Management
System Standards for Owners and
Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities ,
AGENCY: Environmental Protecton
Agency.
ACTION: Interim final amendment to rule.
SUMMARY: On May 19,1980, EPA
promulgated regulations that would
prohibit landfill disposal of
containerized liquid wastes on or after
November 19,1981. On February 25,
1982, EPA issued proposed rules setting
forth a new approach to restricting
landfill disposal of these liquids, and
extended the date for compliance with
the May 19 requirement to allow time to
complete this rulemaking. On March 11,
1982, EPA held a hearing to consider
whether this interim suspension should
be left in effect.
After considering the hearing record,
EPA has decided to impose interim
restrictions on landfill disposal of
containerized liquid waste pending full
rulemaking on the issue. Under these
interim rules, no container holding free-
standing liquid may be placed in a
landfill. Guidance for Regional offices,
states and the regulated industry to use
in determining what constitutes
freestanding liquid is set out later in this
preamble.
DATES: This rule is effective on March
22,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The RCRA hazardous waste hotline,
Office of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401JM
Street, SW., Washington, B.C. 20460.
800/424-9346 (382-3000 in Washington,
D.C.) For specific information on this
amendment, contact Rod Jenkins, Office
of Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460,
(202) 382-4489.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
L Background
On May 19,1980, EPA promulgated
regulations which, in connection with
certain earlier regulations, established
most of the basic elements of the
hazardous waste management program
required by Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation arid Recovery Act of 1976,
as amended, 42 U.S,C. 6921 et seq. See
45 FR 33066 et seq. (May 19; 1980); 45 FR
12721 et seq. (February 26,1980). Part
265 of those regulations sets out
standards that apply to existing
. hazardous waste treatment, storage and
disposal facilities pending their receipt
of a permit setting out site-specific
requirements.
Sections 265.312 and 265.314 of this
Part, as originally promulgated, would
have forbidden the placement in a
landfill of a container holding liquid
waste after November 19,1981, with
certain limited exemptions.
After this regulation was promulgated,
EPA received numerous suggestions that
a total ban of this nature would be
impossible to comply with in practice,
and would lead to difficult and
avoidable problems of testing containers
in the attempt to determine whether
they were "indeed free of liquid.
Accordingly, on February 25,1982, EPA
proposed alternative methods of
restricting containerized liquid wastes in
landfills. Under one method, the volume
of drums containing any amount of
liquid wastes in a landfill would be
restricted to an absolute maximum of
25% of the total landfill volume, and in
most cases less than that. Under the
other method, EPA proposed each
container would be limited to a
prescribed liquid hazardous waste
content such as ten percent."47 FR 8307.
EPA also extended the date for
complying with §§ 265.312 and 265.314
for 90 days to allow time for
consideration of this new approach. 47
FR 8304.
On March 11,1982. hi response to two
petitions for reconsideration of this
extension, EPA held a public hearing to
consider whether some interim control
might be advisable pending full
resolution of these issues in rulemakihg.
As a result of that hearing, EPA,
preferring to err on the side of caution
pending completion of its rulemaking,
has decided to restrict the landfill
disposal of containers with liquid waste
to those containing no free-standing
liquids. The reasons for that decision
are set out below.
II. Basis for Decision
The great majority of participants at
EPA's March 11 hearing urged EPA to
impose some type of interim control
requirements on the land disposal of
containerized liquid wastes.
Participants at the hearing divided
into two camps on the type of interim
controls EPA should adopt.
Representatives of generators of
hazardous wastes, and of landfill
operators, urged EPA to make it's
February 25 25% by volume proposal
immediately effective. Tr.' 66-67
(National Solid Waste Management
Association), 100 (Chemical
Manufacturers Ass'n). Under this
proposal, no more than 25% of a
landfill's volume could.be occupied by
drums containing liquid wastes. EPA
believes that in practice the actual
volume of liquids disposed of would be
less than half that. The 25% upper limit
is a maximum that only applies to
landfills that are exactly 25 feet deep;
landfills shallower or deeper than 25
feet are limited to a lesser percentage. In
addition, the proposal states that the full
volume of any container with any
liquids in it is charged against the 25%
requirement. This means that, for *
example, a 55 gallon drum with ten
gallons of liquid in it takes up 55 gallons,
not ten gallons, of the allowable liquid
volume.
Representatives of states, the general
public, and of hazardous waste disposal
facilities other than landfills urged EPA
to control containerized liquids on a
container-by-cpntainer basis. Tr. 36.
(Hazardous Waste Treatment Council),
116 (New York State), 150 (Maryland),
162 (Association of State & Territorial -
Solid Waste Management Officials), 193
(League of Women Voters), 213 (NRDC),
229 (Rollins Environmental Services),
261 (CECOS Interhat'l). They generally
agreed, however, that it would be
impractical to require a total absence of
liquidsJn a container before it could be
landfilled. Suggestions of how much
liquid could properly be allowed ranged
from three to ten percent. TR. 40, 69,123,
138,233.
The difference between these two
proposals is not extreme. Though-
control of liquids on a drum-by-drum
basis is plainly more restrictive than a
25% total limit, evidence at the hearing
indicated that even the 25% approach
would reduce the disposal of liquids in
landfills below current levels. Tr. 89-90,
236. But see Tr. 38, 58.
Conversely, representatives of landfill
operators stated that the 25% proposal
was roughly equal in practical effect to a
container-by-container approach with
some exemption for small amounts of
liquid, and that either approach was,
acceptable. Tr. 68-69, 84-86, 94
(National Solid Waste Management
Ass'n).
III. EPA's Decision
. Against this background, EPA has
'decided to prohibit, on an interim basis,
the landfilling of containers which
contain free-standing liquids. There are
three reasons for this choice.
'Tr. means the transcript of the March 11 hearing.
-------
Federal Register / Vpi. 47, Mo. SS/ Monday> March 22, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 12317
1. Most if not all of the States and
localities that currently restrict the
landfill disposal of containerized liquid
wastes do so by restricting the;wastes"
on a container-b;y-container basis'. This *
appears to work/in this context to the
' general satisfaction of thos'e involved. ,--.'
.The proposal for a 25% maximum -
volume, by contrast, is new. "
Though EPA continues to believe that
the 25% approach deserves serious
consideration as a permanent method of
restricting liquid wastes in landfills, the
approach of choice for an interim rule
should be one with which people are
already familiar.
2. Proponents of the 25% approach
argued that some containers of waste
are too dangerous or too expensive to
open and test for liquid content, as
would be required under a cdntairier-by-
container approach. Tr. 76-77, 85-86.
However, a number of participants in
the hearing stated that they did in fact
open every container. Tr. 183-85, 231-32,
261. See also Tr. 93. In its post-hearing
comments, the National Solid Wastes'
Management Association in effect
agreed that all drums could be opened, '
though it continued to assert this was
bad[policy. Finally, as discussed.in
detail below, the guideline EPA is
issuing for determining whether there
are free-standing liquids in a container
will not require the opening of each
, container in all instances.
3. Another argument advanced for the
25% approach is that some liquid wastes
cannot be disposed.of except in ;
landfills. Tr. 51,101,106-07. See also Tr.
151,238-39,244.
In planning to meet restrictions on
disposal of containerized liquids in ,
landfills those affected have the choice
of a wide variety of alternatives to
landfilling, such as incineration, waste
reclamation of recycling. EPA believes
that alternatives to landfilling of liquids
should be used increasingly in the future
to minimize landfilling of liquid
hazardous wastes; For these reasons
EPA has consistently in the past'.
rejected the argument that lack of other
treatment alternatives is a proper reason
to allow continued landfill disposal of
free-standing liquids. See 47 FR 8307-08.
However, this is a matter open for
further consideration in the February 25,
proposal. -
IV. Free.-Standing Liquids
EPA considered a number of
approaches to specifying what small
amounts of liquids in containers could : :
properly be placed in landfills. .:: . : .
One approach would:be to, prohibit all.
land disposal of such liquids, as the
original rule did, and rely on
enforcement discretion to avoid
unworkable results. EPA rejected this
approach because'it is unwilling to
establish regulatory requirements that it
Icnows are technically unachieveable -
and:therefdre unenforceable.
Another would be to establish a
specific percentage of liquids that
cannot be exceeded. As noted earlier, a
number'bf hearing participants
recommended this approach. --.'.'
However, promulgation of such a
percentage would require a precise
implementing test procedure. There
currently is no consensus on what
procedure to pick; iri fact one purpose of
EPA's February 25,proposal is to help
develop such a test. ,
EPA recognizes that the general terms
of today's amendment do hot provide
the certainty that many of the regulated
community would like to see on this
point. The proposed rulemaking is
focused on diminishing this uncertainty.
The regulated community can help EPA
to do that by providing factual
information and data 'to the Agency as
part of then- comments. /
Today's amendment clearly calls for
landfill operators to use readily '
available, technically feasible «
techniques, such as decanting of free-
standing liquids from containers or
adding absorbants. to containers holding
free-standing liquids, to eliminate
landfill disposal of containerized free-
standing liquids. EPA interprets free-
standing liquids as those that form
distinct pools .or layers, within a
container. Included in the definition of
free-standing liquids are those covered
with a scum of film, or those liquids
known to accumulate in layers or pools
'below the surface of a container. Of
course, EPA requires that the test for
liquids be made without first agitating
the drum or taking other steps to reduce
the chances that free-standing liquids
will be observed. In most cases,
determining the presence or absence of
free-standing liquids will not be difficult
Where it is difficult to determine
whether a given substance that
separates out from the waste is a freer
standing liquid, the paint filter test
described in the February 2"5 proposed.
rule can be used to determine whether a
certain substance is or is not a free-
standing liquid.
EPA also considered banning the land
disposal of containerized liquids that do
not occur as free-standing liquids, but .
instead occur as liquids occupying the
pore space of an otherwise solid or
semi-solid waste in the container.
EPA rejected-this approach for three
reasons. . :: "'--
First, a total ban on such liquids is- .
impractical for the reasons given earlier
in this preamble. Accordingly, any rule
on the subject would have to limit such
liquids to a certain percentage pfytotal
waste. However, no meaningful ,
percentage can be set -without relying on
a test procedure that has not been
developed yet. Accordingly, any rule oh
the point; would either he unenforceable
for lack of a test procedure or would
give arbitrary enforcement power to
EPA. . - . . '.'- :' ;- :' ;-."'.
Second, liquids of this nature are not .
likely to present a serious problem-for .
the short period this interim,rule is in
effect.
"Third, on samples tested to date, this
pore-space liquid has'been less than 5%
by. volume of the containerized, wastes.
EPA has testing underway to specify
this figure more precisely.and will also
examine the matter further in the
pending rulemaking. .
Implementation of today's rule will
generally require landfill operators to ,
open and inspect all containers of "
wastes for free-standing liquids. EPA is
persuaded by comments that this is
technically feasible without prejudging
whether the practice constitutes sound
public policy. EPA recognizes that it will
also be more costly and tune-consuming
arid will require safety precautions for
some wastes. The rule will allow landfill
opera tors "to open and inspect less than .'
.all containers where they can
demonstrate that such practices assure
reasonable .compliance.'For example,
where the landfill operator receives ;a ,,
batch of containerized wastes and has
good.evidence .tiiat the content among
containers does not vary significantly,
and does not contain free-standing ;
liquid, he may open and inspect a
representative sample of the containers.
Along similar lines, where the generator
certifies to the landfill operator that he'
is delivering to the landfill operator
wastes that comply with'today's
amendment, the landfill operator-may .
satisfy his responsibilities by obtaining
the generator's certification and
verifying >the generator's performance on
, a representative number of the
containers, received. '"" '
V. Conclusion . ; ;'
EPA finds that there is good cause for
promulgating this regulation without
going through a formal proposal. The
hearing that was held provided a forum;
for all major interest groups in this field
to attend and state their views^ and they
used this opportunity effectively.
Moreover, today's promulgation :
provides a freerstanding liquids rule ' :-
'which can be: readily arid easily' /
enforced. There is good Cause1 for :
making it effective immediately because
if applies a rule of reason to the
-------
12318 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 55 / Monday, March 22, 1982 / Rules and Regulations,
Agency's original requirements and
because there is general consensus
based on the hearing record that interim
controls of this nature are desirable.
This interim rule constitutes EPA's
response to the two petitions it has
received on this matter. *
This rule was submitted to the Office -
of Management and Budget for review
as required by E.0.12291.
Dated: March 17.1982.
Anno M. Gorsudi,
Administrator,
For the reasons set out in the,,
preamble. Part 205 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended
lo read as follows:
PART 265INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
1. The Authority citation for Part 265
fends as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006, 2002(a), and«3004,
Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a),
find 0924).
2, In § 265.314 paragraphs (b) and (c)
are revised 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) AH free-standing liquid (i) has been
removed by decanting, or other
methods, (ii) has been mixed with
absorbent or solidified so that free-
stnnding liquid is no longer observed or
(iii) had been otherwise eliminated; or
(2) The container is very small, such
us an ampule; or
(3) The container is designed to hold
free liquids for use other than storage,
such as a battery or capacitor; or
(4) The container is a lab pack as
defined in § 265.310 and is disposed of
in accordance with § 265.316.
(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 March 22,1982.
|FR Doe. 82-7808 Rlod 3-18-82; 1:50 pm|
BIUINO CODE 6560-30-M
-------
.'.-.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460 '
Postage and
- Fees paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
s^fr EPA335
w
U.S.MAIL
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Third-Class
------- |