Wednesday
February 15, 1984
Part H
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Ch. I
Hazardous Waste Management System;
Advance Niotice of Proposed Rutemaking
-------
5854
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFH Ch. I
[SWH-FRL 2484-1]
Hazardous Waste Management
System
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.
SUMMARY: Between May 19, I960 and
July 26,1982, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) issued an
extensive series of regulations under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act for the disposal of hazardous waste
into or on the land. While the current
land disposal regulations are designed
to minimize migration of hazardous
waste constituents into the environment,
this may not be accomplished
completely or forever. EPA therefore
concludes that additional controls
should be considered to further restrict
or prohibit the disposal of hazardous
wastes on or into the land. This notice
sets forth EPA's thinking on this subject;
announces the Agency's current
activities to develop regulations to
further restrict or prohibit the land
disposal of certain hazardous wastes
under certain conditions; and solicits
public comment on this matter.
DATES: The Agency will accept public
comment on this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking until May 15,1984.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
mailed to the Docket Clerk [Docket No.
3001/3004, Land Disposal Restrictions],
Office of Solid Waste (WH-562), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW.. Washington, D.C. 20460.
Comments received by EPA and all
references used in this document may be
inspected in Room S-212C, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C., from 9:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday,
except on legal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA/Superfund Hotline, at (800) 424-
9348 (toll free), or at (202) 382-3000. For
additional information on the program
contact Susan Bromm, Office of Solid
Waste (WH-502), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C., 20460, (202) 382-5219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I, Background
A, Introduction
Since May 1980, EPA has issued a
series of regulations implementing the
hazardous waste management system
under Subtitle C of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976,
as amended (RCRA). These regulations
are published in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regualtions (CFR) in Parts 124,
260 to 266, 270 and 271. The regulations
delineate which solid wastes are
regulated as hazardous wastes, and set
forth the responsibilities of generators
and transporters of hazardous waste, as
well as owners or operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal (TSD) facilities. In addition, the
regulations establish a permitting
program for TSD facilities and provide
for State authorization to administer the
program.
The scope and complexity of this
regulatory program has compelled the
Agency to issue the regulations in
phases over a period of several years.
The promulgation of interim final
standards for new and existing
hazardous waste facilities that treat,
store, and dispose of hazardous waste
into or on the land l on July 26,1982,
essentially completed the principal
elements of the hazardous waste
program needed to process permits for '•
such facilities, although the Agency does
expect to undertake some additional
refinement of these standards. The
objective of the land disposal standards
is to prevent the migration of hazardous
waste constituents into the environment
during operation, and to minimize such
migration to the extent necessary to
protect human health and the
environment after closure. In addition,
the regulations require ground-water
monitoring and response programs that
are designed to detect significant
contamination from land disposal units
and provide corrective action when
needed.
1 Throughout the remainder of this document, the
term land disposal facility will be used to denote
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities at which, in
whole or in part, hazardous waste is intentionally
placed on or into the land and at which the waste or
waste residue will remain after closure. Land
disposal units addressed in the July 26,1982,
rulemaking indue; (1) surface impoundments where
the waste remains after closure, (2) land treatment
units, and (3) landfills (including waste piles where
the waste remains after closure). However, for
purposes of this Notice, the term land disposal unit
also Includes underground injection wells and other
land disposal practices such as open burning or
detonation of explosive waste or placement of
wastes in caves, mines, or salt deposits.
Underground injection wells are unique among
waste management units in that they are
specifically regulated under a separate statute as
well as under RCRA. Under the Safe Drinking
Water Act, EPA regulates the subsurface injection
of liquid in wells through the underground injection
control (UIC) program. Where the liquids injected
are hazardous wastes, there is overlapping
jurisdiction between the UIC program and the
RCRA hazardous waste program.
Many States have already adopted or
will be adopting comparable rules in the
near future in order to qualify for interim
or final authorization under Section 3006
of RCRA. The result will be that
protection of human health and the
environment from the potential hazards
associated with the land disposal of
hazardous waste will be significantly
enhanced on a nationwide scale.
Despite these requirements, the Agency
believes that further restrictions on the
land disposal of hazardous waste may
be necessary. It is difficult to assure the
containment of most wastes and their
constituents for extended time periods.
As a result, the regulation of hazardous
waste land disposal must proceed from
the assumption that hazardous wastes
constituents and by-products will
eventually migrate into the environment
at some unknown rate and
concentration. (See 46 FR11129,
February 5,1981.) Restricting the land
disposal of wastes that contain
constituents that are highly toxic, highly
mobile, highly persistent, or likely to
bioaccumulate in the environment will
reduce the potential for harm to public
health or the environment from the •
disposal of those wastes.
B. Previously Issued Restrictions on the
Land Disposal of Hazardous Waste
EPA previously recognized that some
hazardous wastes pose particular
dangers when disposed in a land
disposal facility. Previously issued
restrictions dealt with two broad classes
of problems: (1) fires, explosions,
production of toxic fumes, and similar
problems resulting from improper
management of ignitable, reactive, and
incompatible wastes; and (2)
contamination of surface and ground
waters. The Agency has, therefore,
promulgated requirements specifically
designed to prevent these problems (see,
for example, 40 CFR 264.17, 265.17, and
265.314) by conditionally restricting the
land disposal of ignitable, reactive,
incompatible, and liquid wastes. For •
example, ignitable and reactive wastes
may not be placed in a land disposal
facility: (1) Unless the waste is treated,
rendered, or mixed before or
immediately after placement so that the
resulting waste, mixture, or dissolution
of material no longer meets the
definition of reactive or ignitable or (2)
for ignitable wastes in landfills, unless
containerized and protected from
materials or conditions that might cause
them to ignite. Incompatible wastes may
not be placed in the same land disposal
unit unless precautions are taken to
prevent reactions that threaten human
health and the environment and such
-------
precautionary measures are
documented. Bulk or non-containerized
free liquid waste may not be placed in a
landfill unless the landfill has a liner
and leachate collection and removal
system that meets the design and
performance standards of 40 CFR
264.301. Containerized free liquid waste
may not be placed in a landfill unless:
(1) All free-standing liquid has been
'removed, (2) the container is very small,
such as an ampule, (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 40 CFR 264.316) and
meets the disposal requirements of
§ 264.316. The Agency established its
basis for these restrictions in the
preamble to the .May 19,1980,
regulations (see, e.g., 45 FR 33182-33183;
33209-33215), and in the preambles to
subsequent amendments of these
regulations (see, e.g., 47 FR 12316-12318,
March 22,1982),
C. Other Restrictions on the Land
Disposal of Chemical Wastes: PCBs
The use and disposal of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are
regulated under Section 6(e) of the Toxic
Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA).
PCBs are toxic to animal and aquatic
life and have been identified by EPA's
Carcinogen Assessment Group to be a
potential human carcinogen. Their slow
rates of chemical and biological
degradation, capacity to bioaccumulate,
potential to migrate when mixed with
solubilizing solvents, persistence within
the biosphere, and biological effects,
cause PCBs to be of particular
environmental concern. Under TSCA,
EPA has prohibited the land disposal of
certain PCB wastes. These restrictions
are published in the Code of Federal
Regulations at 40 CFR Part 761, Subpart
B. In these regulations, EPA generally
requires incineration of liquid PCBs, and
in all cases prohibits landfilling of
liquids containing PCBs hi
concentrations of greater than 500 ppm.
EPA has limited high concentrations of
liquid FCBs from landfills due to the
potential for migration of the liquids out
of the landfill, coupled with their
extreme persistence and ability to
bioaccumulate.
D. Congressional and State Actions
Amendments to RCRA are pending
before both Houses of Congress that
•would require EPA to promulgate
regulations prohibiting one or more
methods of land disposal of specified
hazardous wastes that are identified or
listed under 40 CFR Part 261. (See S.757,
98th Cong., 1st Sess. section 5 (1983);
H.R. 2867. 98th Cong., 1st Sess. section 5
(1983).) Both bills recognize the
uncertainties associated with long-term
containment of hazardous wastes in
land disposal facilities, and thus, as
currently drafted, require the
Administrator to prohibit the land
disposal of certain hazardous wastes
unless it may reasonably be anticipated
that one or more methods of land
disposal will be protective of human
health and the environment for as long
as the waste remains hazardous. la
addition, the Senate bill provides that
for certain hazardous wastes containing
significant concentrations of.
constituents that are highly toxic, are
highly mobile, or have a strong
propensity to bioaccumulate, a method
of land disposal will not be deemed
protective of human health and the
environment unless it is established, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, that
there will be migration of such
constituents for as long as the waste
remains hazardous.
Both bills also direct the Agency to
develop a schedule for reviewing
hazardous wastes for possible
restriction. This schedule must provide
for review of one-third of all listed
hazardous wastes within 32 months of
enactment, two-thirds of all listed
wastes within 42 months of enactment,
and 100 percent of all listed wastes, as
well as all wastes identified by
hazardous waste characteristics, within
52 months of enactment. The House bill
contains a provision that automatically
prohibits land disposal'of hazardous
waste if EPA fails to meet the time
schedule for reviewing wastes for
purposes of determining whether
prohibitions are warranted. However,
since final legislation has not been
enacted, the statutory criteria for such
prohibitions are still not firmly
established.
In addition, a number of States have
taken legislative and regulatory actions
over the past three years. California has
developed a comprehensive program to
restrict wastes from land disposal.
Other States that are active in this areas
include Illinois, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Ohio»
Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. The
nature of these activities is shown in
brief in Table 1. A complete synopsis of
these various state requirements has
been assembled by EPA and is available
for viewing in the RCRA docket (see
additional information under
"ADDHESSEES").
II. EPA Plans
The Agency has recently initiated a
program to explore whether certain
wastes should be restricted from some
or all types of land disposal, what the
nature of the restrictions should be, and
what treatment and recycling
alternatives exist for such wastes. The
purpose of this notice is to describe that
program, and solicit comments from the
public on the design and components of
that effort. EPA's approach is to move
forward on two tracks to determine
which wastes pose a significant hazard
to human health and the environment
and thus are candidates for restriction
from various types of land disposal. The
longer track is a two-year study that.will
determine which hazardous wastes are
the most toxic, mobile, persistent, and
bioaccumulative in the land disposal
environment; survey and evaluate
alternative technologies and their
capacities for treating or recycling those
wastes; and assess the economic,
environmental, and regulatory impact of
any prohibitions.
TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF STATE ACTIVITIES FOR RESTRICTING LAND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS
WASTES
State
California
Illinois....,., „„ ,
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri ,.
New York
Ohio
Rhode Island
Wisconsin
Legislative
action
X
x»
X „. .
x
x
Report
required by
legislature
x
X... .
x
x
Regulatory
action
proposed
X
x
Regulatory
action draft .
x
Regulatory
action final
x.
x
x
The Agency has termed the other
track the "fast-track approach" because
it is scheduled to be completed in a
short time frame. The purpose is to
assess for two general classes of
hazardous waste—dioxin-containing
wastes (proposed EPA Hazardous
Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022, and F023>
and certain solvent wastes (EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002, F004,
and F005)—the alternative technologies,
capacities, costs, and regulatory impacts .
-------
5856 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15. 1984 / Proposed Rules
of prohibiting these wastes from land
disposal.
In addition, the Agency is looking at
State experience in this area to
determine which State actions would be
appropriate and effective for the Federal
program. The remainder of this notice
discusses these various activities.
A. Ttvo-year Study
1. Defining Which Wastes Merit Further
Land Disposal Restrictions
As a first step in identifying candidate
wastes for land disposal restrictions,
EPA plans to first designate screening
criteria for toxicity, mobility.
persistence, and bioaccumulation, and.
then screen and rank wastes according
to these criteria. This waste ranking will
also be used for the purpose of
developing a schedule for reviewing
wastes for possible restriction, if such a
schedule is mandated as a result of
RCRA Reauthorization amendments.
Toxlcity screening will consider any
existing information on acute and
chronic effects, as well as carcinogenic,
mutagenic, and teratogenic effects.
Some work has been done previously for
the Agency to develop such a data base,
including a weighting scheme for the
various toxic effects of waste
constituents.2 EPA will consider using
this type of an approach for purposes of
this study, in addition to others. The
Agency specifically solicits comments
on any toxicity screening criteria. With
respect to mobility, EPA is interested in
both a waste's ability to migrate to
ground water and to volatilize into the
atmosphere. Regarding a waste's
potential for migration to ground water,
we are primarily concerned vith the
solubility of a waste or its constituents
In waten however, we will also consider
ita solubility in other liquids (e.g.,
solvents) as well as historica. eviduice
of migration (e.g., past damage
incidents). We will also look to a
contaminant's ability to be attenuated
by different soil types or absorbed,
adsorbed or any physical/chemical
changes of the leachate as it moves
through the soil. With respect to a
waste's volatility, we will look at a
number of factors including vapor
pressure (see detailed discussion in 45
FR 33166, May 19,1980; also see 46 FR
12430, February 13,1981).
EPA is also concerned about the
persistence of toxic constituents in a
land disposal environment, including
persistence in ground water, should the
waste constituents leach out of the
**Toxiclly Scoring System Using the Registry of
Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS) Data
D«BB," prepared by Clement Associates for U.S.
EPA. Jurte 18,1BB2.
disposal site. There are certain waste
constituents, such as metals, that persist
forever. Persistent constituents that are
also toxic would be of particular
regulatory concern. For other
contaminants that degrade over time.
EPA is considering using half-life data
as an indication of persistence.
In addition, other criteria are
available for consideration in
determining estimates of persistence-
These can be broken into two areas,-
physical measurements and general
structural characteristics:
a. Physical measurements—the best
indicators of lifetime (persistence), along
with water insolubility (log P) are
melting points, boiling points,
electrochemical oxidation voltages and
electrical breakdown strengths (for
which there are extensive tables on
organic chemicals), ignition temperature,
resistence to gamma radiation, dielectric
loss tangent at low frequency {< cps.),
dielectric constants and measurements
from thermal gravimetric analysis {e.g.,
heat of formation, etc.). Generally, any
measurements indicative of low ionic
character, low polarity, low non-ultra
violet light adsorption and high bond
energies would be considered to
estimate a longer lifetime.
b. General structural
characteristics—compounds considered
stable are those which are non-ionic,
aromatic-polycyclic Quorinated and/or
chlorinated, aromatic cyclic ethers,
organic-metallic, and organic ring
structures containing sulfur. Those
considered unstable are compounds
such as those containing nitro groups,
compounds sensitive to reduction, and
compounds containing groups such as
hydroxy and acids, which are ionic and
sensitive to hydrolysis.
We specifically request information on
these and any other indicators of
persistence that would be useful to the
Agency.
The propensity of a chemical to
bioaccumulate is also important and will
be considered in evaluating which
wastes should be restricted from land
disposal. This property may be
demonstrated by the uptake and
bioconcentration in marine and
freshwater vertebrates and
invertebrates, or again, we may utilize
appropriate physical measurements or
general structural characteristics (as
discussed above). Where this
information exists on individual waste
constituents, it will be evaluated for its
usefulness as part of the screening
process for the hazardous wastes of
concern.
Screening criteria such as those
discussed above will be used to assess
the hazards of all known constituents of
listed wastes and selected characteristic
wastes. Certain hazardous constituents
of listed wastes are identified in
Appendix VII of Part 261. Where EPA
has information on hazardous
constituents of listed wastes other than
those listed in Appendix VII, the Agency
will also use this information to
evaluate the hazards of the listed
wastes. Where adequate information
exists on the health effects of the whole
waste, it will be used; otherwise some
type of weighting scheme will be
devised to assess the combined effect of
the individual waste constituents of
concern.
As a first step in developing a ranking
of hazardous wastes, EPA is reviewing
and analyzing existing hazardous
chemical ranking methodologies. Hazard
ranking schemes under review include
those developed by Federal and State
agencies, European organizations, quasi-
governmental organizations, trade •
associations, and the private sector.
These schemes fall within three general
categories:
(1) Modeling schemes—those which
employ a model to combine the
toxicological properties, the
environmental mobility, and the
persistence of hazardous substances
into a single number which takes into
account the probability of an effect as a
function of dose;
(2) Numerical schemes—those which
assign numerical scores to inherent
properties and environmental factors;
and
(3) Decision-rule schemes—those
which divide waste into general
classifications based on predetermined
definitions.
Modeling schemes are generally more
complex than the other types of schemes
and require more data input. They do,
however, provide more precise results in
the form of a single numerical risk score.
Numerical and decision-rule schemes
are more straightforward and easier to
use but provide less quantitative results
than modeling schemes, particularly
because they generally consider less
factors than modeling schemes.
As a result of reviewing and analyzing
existing ranking schemes, EPA intends
to do two preliminary rankings of
hazardous wastes using both a modeling
scheme and numerical scheme that
reflect the criteria selected for toxicity,
mobility, persistence, and
bioaccumulation. The results of these
two rankings will then be compared for
consistency. EPA's final ranking will be
based on the results of these two
preliminary rankings as well as data on
volumes of waste generated and current •
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules
5857
management practices. Data on waste
volumes and current management
practices will be obtained from EPA's
recently completed National Survey of
Hazardous Waste Generators and
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facilities Regulated under RCRA in
1981.
2. Assessment of Alternative
Technologies
The purpose of this portion of the
study is to examine the extent to which
wastes identified as candidates for land
disposal restrictions are currently land
disposed and to identify appropriate
alternatives to land disposal of these
wastes, including treatment, recycling,
waste reduction technologies, and long-
term storage. The focus will be on
proven technologies and will include an
assessment of current and anticipated
new capacity, future capacity
requirements, and the cost of the various
alternatives. EPA will also examine the
environmental effects of the alternative
technologies.
More specifically, the Agency will
evaluate whatever information and data
are available to:
• Define each waste (e.g., spent
solvents, spent still-bottoms, solvent-
containing sludges) and describe its
characteristics (including physical form,
solids content, organic content, heat
content) that may affect its ability to be
treated prior to disposal.
• Identify all proven (and developing)
treatment, recycling, and waste
reduction technologies that are practical
for each waste type, including an
assessment of destruction and
stabilization capabilities of the
technologies, and any pretreatment of
the waste necessary to make the
technology feasible;
• Identify the current practices used
to manage each waste type; and
• • Survey the available or expected
capacity (both on a national and
regional basis) for each waste
technology. EPA plans to rely, in part,
on information contained in the
Hazardous Waste Data Management
System (HWDMS) and data from the
National Survey of Hazardous Waste
Generators and Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities regulated under
RCRA in 1931 for this purpose.
In addition, EPA believes that it is
important to determine the hazards
posed to human health and the
environment from emissions generated
by the alternative technologies, in order
to assess the environmental
acceptability of these technologies.
Therefore, we hope to characterize the
" emissions/releases for each treatment
technology/waste combination,
including the rate of release of the
various toxic constituents into the air,
surface water? and-gr5uritb.water.v Thes
Agency also plans to char~acte'fl2e"aiKr
quantify any residues generated from
each treatment technology identified.
The Agency also intends to consider
other factors in determining
environmental acceptability, such as the
probability of increased transportation
accidents. (For example, we will
compare the hazards posed by
transporting a hazardous waste
thousands of miles to a treatment
facility with the hazards of transporting
the same waste to a land disposal
facility only a few miles away.) EPA
solicits comments on possible date
sources on the risks of transportation.
3. Criteria for Prohibiting Wastes From
Land Disposal
Once the Agency has completed its
ranking of hazardous wastes based on
toxicity, mobility, persistence, and
propensity to bioaccumulate and its
assessment of the availability, capacity,
and risks of alternative management, it
must then determine which wastes
should be subject to restrictions. The
first step will be to review the waste
ranking and the screening criteria to
determine whether there is a breakpoint
at which constituents can be considered
highly mobile, highly toxic, highly
persistent, or highly bioaccunnilative.
After defining this breakpoint, one
possible regulatory approach is to
prohibit the land disposal of all wastes
identified in this first step. There are,
however, several shortcomings to an
approach which only considers inherent
waste characteristics. First, under this
approach, no attempt is made to
determine if the wastes identified in one
step might, despite their characteristics,
be suitable for certain types of land
disposal. Secondly, this approach does
not consider whether alternative
treatment technologies exist and, if they
do exist, whether there is sufficient
alternative capacity. Thus, the possible
result would be long-term storage of
wastes for which alternative technology
or capacity does not exist. Thirdly,
under this approach there is no attempt
to determine whether alternatives to
land disposal, including long-term
storage, actually presents a lesser risk to
human health and the environment than
land disposal.
Another approach would be to add a
second step to the decision rule to
determine if wasts identified in step one
are in fact suitable for one or more types
of land disposal. For example, although
landfilling of a particular waste may be
of considerable long-term hazard, the
waste might be very effectively disposed
of by land treatment. A possible
variation on this approach is to place
tife-burden of demonstrating the
acceptability of certain methods of land
disposal of wastes identified in step one
on interested members of the regulated
community through a petition process.
There are various standards that can
be used for determining the
acceptability of different types of land
disposal. One such standard is not
migration from the disposal unit for as
long as the waste remains hazardous.
Another possible standard is no
migration from the disopsal unit for a
fixed number of years (e.g., 100 years,
1000 years, etc.). A third possible
approach is to allow land disposal if the
risks to human health and the
environment from'known alternative
management technologies (including
long-term storage) are greater than the
risks of land disposal. EPA solicits
comments on possible standards for
determining the acceptability of land
disposal for particular wastes.
After a determination is made that a
waste is not suitable for one more
methods of land disposal, an effective
date for the land disposal restriction
•'must be determined based on the
availability and adequacy of alternative
management technology. In the case of
wastes for which effective alternative
management capacity does not. exist,
longer effective dates for land disposal
prohibitions could be set to allow a
reasonable time for the siting,
permitting, and construction of
additional capacity. In the eases of
wastes for which environmentally
acceptable alternative technology has
not been developed, however, setting
effective dates will be more difficult
since it is virtually impossible to predict
how long it will take to develop
acceptable alternatives technology. In
such cases, wastes could be placed in
long-term storage pending development
c_.f acceptable alternative technology.
EPA is also exploring the use of risk
analysis as part of its approach to
prohibit certain wastes from land
disposal.. The Agency would like to be
able to determine the relative risks to
human health and the environment
posed by land disposal of hazardous
wastes using various facility designs or
hydrogeologic settings as compared to
the risks of the alternative technologies,
measuring these risks in terms of
emissions of hazardous constituents into
the environment, and human exposure
to them on a regional or site-specific
basis. However, the Agency has some
concerns that there may be difficulties
regarding the accuracy and precision of
the analysis. For instance, some of the
-------
5858 Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 32 / Wednesday, February 15, 1984 / Proposed Rules
difficulties that may be encountered:uv>i
attempting to perform risk analysis
include: characterizing the concentration
and quantities of release of hazardous
constituents from hazardous waste
management facilities, modeling
exposure to these constituents through
soils, ground water or air; finding
acceptable ground-water models for
characterizing mixtures of wastes; and a
general disagreement in the scientific
community on the assumptions to be
considered. Nonetheless, while some
difficulties do exist, they must not be so*
severe as to prohibit the use of risk
analysis. Thus, EPA is exploring
possible use of this type of analysis and
solicits comments on the use of risk
analysis for this purpose.
4. Pretreatment Standards
There currently exist a variety of
treatment technologies that change the
physical or chemical nature of a waste,
reduce the waste volume, and reduce or
separate hazardous constituents in the
waste. These technologies may either
render a waste nonhazardous, reduce
the hazard level of a waste, or change •
properties of a waste so as to make the •
waste safer to land dispose or easier to
recover. Many treatment technologies
result in treatment residuals that may
still be hazardous, thus requiring some
type of farther management control.
A regulatory program that merely
specifies that certain wastes are
prohibited from land disposal leaves
open the questions of (1) what is the
appropriate manner of managing
treatment residuals and (2) to what level
must a waste be treated in order to be
safely land disposed? For example,
certain stabilization or solidification
technologies will reduce the mobility of
toxic constituents in a waste but do not
actually destroy or render the
constituents non-toxic. Thus, although
the stabilization or solidification process
may significantly reduce the risks
associated with the land disposal of a
waste, it will not necessarily render the
waste non-hazardous nor its disposal
risk-free.
In the Office of Technology
Assessment's report on Technologies
and Management Strategies for
Hazardous Waste Control (OTA-M-196,
March 1983), residuals from treatment
operations and pretreated (or stabilized)
waste are included in those found in
general to be most suitable for land
disposal. In consideration of these
factors, the Agency is exploring the
possibility of specifying pretreatment
. standards for hazardous wastes prior to
land disposal.
Such standards-could take several
forms. If, ita restricting wastes from land
disposal-,BBBA.estayiishBS3Qppcentration
levels for hazardous constituents, then
presumably treatment to below the
specified level would render the waste
suitable for land disposal. Alternatively.
pretreatment standards could specify
acceptable treatment technologies for
particular wastes.
5. Regulatory Analyses
Once we determine that certain
hazardous wastes should be restricted
from one or more types of land disposal.
EPA will conduct a regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) as may be required under
Executive Order 12291.8 A regulatory
impact analysis will consist of (1)
problem definition; (2) examination of
regulatory alternatives; (3) cost analysis
of waste management options; (4) cost/
benefit analysis to assess and compare
the relative costs and benefits of the
land disposal restrictions; and (5)
economic impacts (e.g., plant closures,
job losses, price changes, etc.). Under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
Agency will also examine whether there
would be a significant impact on small
business, and if so, what special
alternatives would be available.
6. Analysis of State Land Disposal
Restrictions.
To date, EPA knows of'nine States
that have initiated regulations or
policies to prohibit or restrict the
disposal of hazardous waste. An in-
depth evaluation of the various State
approaches would be useful in
determining which of these provisions
could be incorporated into the Federal
program. In addition to the initial survey
that EPA has already performed, the
Agency plans to analyze several aspects
of each State's program, including: (1)
the technical basis for restricting
specific wastes; (2) the extent to which
the wastes are required to be treated
before land disposal and the supporting
rationale; (3) the regulatory impact of
waste restrictions, including the effect
on waste management practices and
costs (for example, the availability of
alternative technology, the possibility of
wastes being placed in indefinite
storage, shipments out of State,
increased illegal disposal); and (4) the
availability and impact of variance
1 Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must conduct
an RIA for all major rules. A major rule is any
regulation that is likely to result in: (1) an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a
major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries. Federal, State, or local
government agencies, or geographic regions; or (3)
significant adverse effects on competition,
employment, investment, productivity, innovation,
or on the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to
compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic
or export markets.
procedures (with their resource
implications). EPA realizes that a
particular State's rules may well be
formulated for State-specific waste
disposal problems ,and, therefore, the
kind of analysis discussed above is
required in order to determine whether
any such provisions could truly be
applicable on a nationwide basis. We
solicit comments on the above issues as
they relate to State programs which are
both under development and currently
in place.
B. "Fast-track"Study
For the "fast-track" study, several
wastes have been selected—namely
dioxin-containing wastes (Proposed EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F020, F021, F022,
and F023) and solvent wastes (EPA
Hazardous Waste Nos. F001, F002, F004,
and F005)—and we are proceeding with
examining the alternative technologies
and regulatory impacts of prohibiting
these wastes from land disposal. EPA
has chosen these wastes because of
their toxicity and persistence
(particularly in the case of dioxins) and
because of the adverse effects that
solvents are known to have on liners in
land disposal and storage facilites.
Further, solvents frequently appear in
drinking water supplies. The Agency
expects to propose a rule on these
wastes, if appropriate, in 1984.
HI. Request for Comments
EPA solicits comments on all aspects
of this Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Comments should be
mailed to the address noted in the
"ADDRESSES" section within 90 days of
the date of this notice.
General issues, applicable to both the
fast-track and the longer track studies,
on which EPA would like to receive
comments include:
• Which wastes should be prohibited
from land disposal and why? How can
EPA define "highly toxic," "highly
mobile," "highly persistent," and "strong
propensity to bioaccumulate" as these
terms relate to hazardous constituents
especially if there is no natural
breakpoint in the hazardous waste
ranking? Should these factors be
considered individually or in
combination? (e.g., should a waste that
is very toxic but not very mobile be
subject to restriction?) If these four
factors are to be considered in
combination, what relative weights
should they be given?
• Should regulations restricting the
land disposal of a waste consider the
various forms of a particular listed
waste [e.g., dioxin contaminated soil vs
production still bottoms)?
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 32 / Wednesday. February 15, 1984 / Propqsed Rules
5859
• Should quantity of waste (or
contaminant) generated have any
bearing on a decision as to whether a
restriction is appropriate?
• In. restricting wastes from land
disposal, should EPA establish
concentration limits for hazardous
constituents? Presumably, if a hazardous
waste contained these constituents in
concentrations greater than those
specified, the waste would be prohibited
from land diposal. Should this type of
approach be used? How should
concentration limits be set?
• Should EPA differentiate between
types of land disposal facilities (e.g.
landfills, land treatment, surface
impoundments, injection wells) in
setting restrictions? If so, is this best
done generically through the rulemaking
process, or through a petition process
thereby placing the burden of proof on
the regulated community to show that
certain methods of land disposal are
appropriate for certain wastes?
• Should the Agency take
hydrogeologic setting into account in
restricting certain wastes from land
disposal? If so, how is this best done?
• What standard should the Agency
apply in determining if certain methods
of land disposal are acceptable for
wastes that contain significant
concentrations of constituents that are
highly mobile, highly toxic, highly
persistent, or that have a stong
propensity to bioaccumulate? (One
possible standard is no migration from
the disposal unit for as long as the waste
remains hazardous.)
• How can risk assessment be used in
formulaUng a setef ilarid:.-disposalv?oaeto
prohibitions? How accurate are models
simulating the discharge from land
disposal facilities, including
characterization of the concentrations
and quantities of hazardous releases
and attenuation? How accurate are
models simulating exposure to these
constituents through ground water and
air? How useful are dose-response
curves in assessing the health effects of
these constituents, based on current
knowledge? How could EPA do an
analysis of the exposure to hazardous
constituents from land disposal facilities
as compared to the exposure to
emissions from an alternative treatment
or recycling technology?
• How should cost be considered in
deciding whether to prohibit wastes
from land disposal?
• Should the availability and
technical feasibility of alternative
treatment and recycling technologies be
the driving force for setting land
disposal restrictions, or should land
disposal restrictions be set regardless of
existing technology in hope of creating
an incentive for the development of the
needed processes? How should
availability of alternative technologies
be considered in setting effective dates
for land disposal restrictions? Must the
alternative techniques be more
protective of human health and the
environment than land disposal? If so,
how should EPA measure and compare
the risks of land disposal and
alternative technologies? Should the
risks associated with transportation of
wastes longer distances to alternative
technology sites be considered in
assessing the risks associated with
alternative technology? If acceptable
alternative treatment or recycling
technology is not available, should
wastes be placed in long-term storage?
• Can treatment and recycling
facilities be expected to develop or will
public opposition to such facilities be a
signficant deterrent to this program? Are
the construction and operation of
treatment and recycling facilities
perceived to be as much of a threat to
human health and the environment as
land disposal facilities?
• How should EPA determine what
level of pretreatment is necessary in
order for wastes to be safely land
disposed? Should EPA specify
pretreatment standards (i.e., the
performance to be achieved by
treatment) or acceptable treatment
technologies (e.g., specific methods of
stabilization)? What form should these
standards take?
EPA intends to continue its efforts as
described in this Notice and to consider
all public comments received. However,
as previously discussed, both Houses of
Congress are considering bills that
contain amendments specifically
relating to land disposal restrictions.
The passage of such legislation could
redirect the Agency's efforts in this area.
Dated February 3,1984.
William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 84-J034 Filed 2-14-84; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
-------
------- |