Wednesday
June 3, 1987
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 260, 265, and 270
Permitting Mobile Hazardous-Waste
Treatment Units and Delisting Hazardous
Wastes; Tentative Response to Petition:
Proposed Rule
-------
20914
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3, 1987 / Proposed R..I..
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 260, 265, and 270
(FRL-3169-9J
Permitting Mobile Hazardous-Waste
Treatment Units and Delisting
Hazardous Wastes
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Tentative response to petition:
Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This notice provides the
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) tentative response to a petition
submitted by the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council (HWTC) under
section 7004(a) of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. 6974(a)J and 40 CFR 260.20.
The HWTC petition requested that EPA
propose modified permitting procedures
and other regulations to facilitate the
use of mobile treatment units (MTUs) in
the treatment of hazardous wastes. The
notice also addresses recommendations
on MTU permitting developed by the
National Hazardous Waste Forum on
Transportable Treatment Units, held in
February and April 1988.
In this response. EPA is proposing
specific language under § 270.66 to
expedite permitting of MTUs. In
addition, the Agency is proposing
alternative delisting procedures under
§§2/0.22 and 270.32(f). under which
delisting can occur as part of the
permitting process. This incorporation of
delisting into the permitting process
would be available for all types of
facilities.
This notice also solicits comment on
HWTC's request that certain "low-risk"
treatment technologies be conditionally
exempted from permitting, and it
tentatively denies other parts of the
petition.
Finally. EPA proposes to amend the
definition of "designated facility" in 40
CFR 260.10.
DATE: EPA will accept comments from
the public until August 3,1967.
ADDRESSES: Members of the public must
submit an original and two copies of all
their comments to: EPA RCRA Docket .
(S-212). 401 M Street SW.. Washington,
DC 20460. Communications should
identify the docket number F-87-PMTU-
FFFF. The EPA RCRA docket is located
at the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Sub-basement. 401M Street
SW., Washington. DC 20460. The docket
is open from 9:00-4:00 Monday through
Friday, except for Federal holidays. To
review docket materials, the public must
make an appointment by calling 475-
9327. The public may copy a maximum
of 50 pages from any one regulatory
docket at no cost. Additional copies cost
$.20 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA hotline at (800) 424-9346 (in
Washington. DC, call 382-3000) or Robin
Anderson. (202) 382-4498. Office of Solid
Waste (WH-563). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington. DC
20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble Outline
I. Authority
II. Background
A. RCRA Permitting and MTUs
B. National Hazardous Waste Forum on
Transportable Treatment Units
C. Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Petition
1. Permitting Procedures
2. Delisting
3. Regulatory Exclusions
D. RCRA Regulations Governing Petitions
III. Analysis of EPA Tentative Response
A. Summary of Response
B. Permitting Procedures for MTUs
1. EPA Proposal
2. HWTC Alternative
3. Definition of Facility and Corrective
Action
C. Delisting Procedures
1. Background
2. Current Procedures
3. Proposed Approach
4. Specific Information Requirements
5. Establishing Permit Conditions for
Delisting
6. Public Notice and Comment
7. Modification to the General Rulemaking
Petition Process
8. Other Regulatory Changes
D. Regulatory Exclusions
1. Background
2. UniU Suggested for Exclusion from
RCRA Permitting
3. Conditions for Exclusion
4. Evaluation of Risk Posed by Suggested
Units
5. Permit Modification Approach
IV. Other Issues
A. Class Permits
b. Permits by Rule
C. Preconstruction Ban
D. Other MTU Activities
1. MTUs at RCRA Permitted Facilities
2. Activities at Interim Status Facilities
3. Regulatory Exclusions from RCRA
Permitting
V. Definition of Designated Facility
.VI. State Authority „_ „ __..
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized States
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VTI. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Authority
This tentative response is issued
under the authority of sections 2002,
3001, 3004, 3005. and 7004 of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and RecoveYy
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912 6921
6294, 6295. and 6974.
II. Background
A. RCRA Permitting and MTUs
Subtitle C of RCRA creates a cradle-
to-grave waste management system
designed to ensure that hazardous waste
is identified and safely transported,
stored, treated, and disposed of. Section
3001 of RCRA requires EPA to identify
which wastes are hazardous, while
sections 3002 and 3003 require EPA to
promulgate standards for generators and
transporters of hazardous waste. In
addition, section 3004 requires owners
and operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to comply with
standards "necessary to protect human
health and the environment." These
standards are generally implemented
through permits issued by EPA or
authorized states.
Under section 3005(a) of RCRA.
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous wastes must be permitted in
accordance with the section 3004
standards. However, recognizing that
permitting could be a lengthy process,
Congress created "interim status" for
facilities that were in existence on the
effective date of EPA's permitting
regulations (November 19,1980) or on
the date of any statutory or regulatory
change which subjects a facility to the
RCRA permit requirements. Under
section 3005(e). owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities in existence on that
date (i.e., on November 19,1980 or on
the date of any statutory or regulatory
change that subjects the facility to
RCRA permitting) who submit a Part A
permit application and a section 3010
notification are treated as having been
issued permits. Until an authorized state
or EPA takes final action on their'permit
applications, these facilities must
comply with the interim status
standards established by EPA.
Permits must be issued according to
the procedures established in 40 CFR
Parts 124 and 270. Under these
procedures, EPA must develop a draft
permit applying the section 3004* -
standards (as codified in 40 CFR Parts
264 and 269). give local notice of the
draft permit, allow a 45-day comment
period, and hold a local hearing, if
requested, before it may issue a permit.
In addition to applying Part 264
standards to the specific unit in which
hazardous waste is managed, the permit
must also include a schedule of
compliance for addressing the corrective
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1S87 / Proposed Rules
action requirements of section 3004(u) of
RCRA. This section requires facilities
seeking a permit after November 8, 1984
to address releases of hazardous waste
or hazardous constituents from "solid
^aste management units" elsewhere on
the facility.
"Hazardous wastes" are defined by
EPA in 40 CFR Part 261. In particular,
wa,st,es are considered hazardous if they
exhibit one or more of the hazardous
waste characteristics or are specifically
listed; in addition, any mixture of a solid
waste and a listed hazardous waste and
any residue derived from the treatment
storage, or disposal of a listed -
hazardous waste is also considered a
hazardous waste.1 However, persons
may petition the Agency under §§ 260 20
aid 260.22 to exclude or delist a waste
produced by a particular facility. If a
listed waste, mixture containing a listed
waste, or a treatment residue derived
from a listed waste meets the criteria
spelled out in these regulations, EPA
will delist it from the list of hazardous
wastes.
Taken together, EPA's hazardous
waste regulations provide
comprehensive protection from risks
associated with the treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous waste. These
regulations, however, were primarily
developed with stationary units in mind.
ESA recognizes that they are not well
suited, in certain respects, to mobile
treatment units (MTUs), which are
designed to move from facility to facility
traating waste on-site. In particular, the
regulations now require MTUs to
undergo a full-scale permitting
pr ocedure at each site of operation,
requiring basic issues of unit design and
operation to be readdressed at each
location. EPA believes that this
requirement provides a significant
disincentive to the use of MTUs and,
more broadly, to the treatment of
hazardous wastes. In addition, the
current delisting regulations make it
d.fficult for potential users of MTUs (or
any other treatment technology) to know
whether a specific treatment will yield a
waste that will not need to be regulated
as a hazardous waste. This uncertainty
a!so discourages hazardous waste
treatment. Therefore, in today's notice.
which responds to a petition from the
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
(HWTC), EPA proposes to amend its
regulations to expedite MTU permitting
1 Mixtures of solid waste or characteristic
hazardous waste or residues derived from the
treatment, storage. or disposal of characteristic
waste are also considered hazardous, unless these
mixtures or residues no longer exhibit any of the
hazardous waste characteristics.
and to integrate the delisting procedure
into the permit review process.
These amendments are important
because of the need for alternatives to
land disposal of hazardous waste—
established as national policy in the
RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984—and the
anticipated lack of hazardous waste
treatment capacity. In particular, the
HSWA ban on land disposal of
untreated solvents and dioxins (51 FR
405/2, November 7,1988) places an
immediate strain on treatment capacity.
This strain will increase significantly in'
the next few years as the land disposal
restrictions apply to the other hazardous
wastes. In addition, the corrective action
authorities of HSWA (sections 3004(u)
3004(v), and 3008{h) of RCRA) not only
add to the volume of hazardous wastes
that must be managed, but create a need
for innovative and flexible strategies for
the treatment of these wastes. Similarly
the expanded Superfund program under'
the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1988, with its
emphasis on alternative treatment
technologies and permanent remedies
will place new demands on the nation's
treatment capacity.
EPA believes that mobile treatment
technologies, if appropriately used and
regulated, can play a significant role in
achieving the goals of HSWA. Mobile
technologies can be adapted to the full
range of treatment processes, from
simple physical pretreatment in tanks to
full-scale incineration. They may
involve single tank trucks that can be
quickly put into operation at a site. or. in
the case of certain incinerators, they
may consist of several large modules
that can take a few months to install.
The time they remain at a site may vary
from a few weeks to years, depending
on the type of unit and nature of the
treatment operation.
These mobile technologies provide
significant flexibility to industry in
selecting among treatment technologies
in pretreating wastes before treatment
at on-site units, and in reducing waste
volume before shipping. They are also
particularly well adapted to cleanup
activities, corrective action, and closure
of hazardous waste facilities. At the
same time, they may greatly reduce the
risks inherent in the transport of
hazardous waste to off-site facilities. For
these reasons, EPA believes that MTUs
have an important role to play in the
treatment of hazardous waste and serve
as an important complement to
stationary treatment facilities. The
purpose of today's proposal is to remove
regulatory impediments to their use in
treating RCRA hazardous wastes
B. National Hazardous Waste Forum c~
T.-ansportable Treatment Units
One of the Agency's first steps in
developing a strategy toward MTUs w^
the commissioning of a National
Hazardous Waste Forum to explore
RCRA permitting and other issues. In
October 1985. EPA's Office of Solid
Waste awarded a grant to the Center for
Environmental Management at Tufts
University to convene a national forum
on emerging or troublesome hazardous
waste management issues. The Forum
established a steering committee
representing government, industry, and
public interest groups to select issues for
discussion. One of the issues chosen
was the use of mobile treatment units
(also called transportable or portable
treatment units) and the potential
impediments to their siting and
permitting. To address these issues the
steering committee established a
National Hazardous Waste
Management Forum on Transportable
Treatment Units.
The Forum, which met in February
and April 1988, presented its
conclusions to the Office of Solid Waste
to a July 1986 report. The report stated
that there are "many serious barriers" to
the increased use of MTUs to treat
RCRA hazardous wastes. It cited two
requirements as particular impediments:
That an MTU must obtain a complete
site-specific RCRA permit before it can
operate at any site and that facilities at
which an MTU operates are subject to
section 3004(u) corrective action
requirements. To address these and
otherissues, the Forum recommended
that EPA: (1) Establish a state-wide
permitting system for MTUs (providing
for a single state permit for a given unit,
but requiring public hearings before
operation at any specific site), with an
option for either a national permit or a
national technology review; (2) divorce
the corrective action requirements of
section 3004(u) from MTU permits, so
that generators using MTUs to treat
their wastes would not be subject to
corrective action (this would be done by
redefining "facility" so that the
permitting requirements for an MTU
would apply to the MTU unit and not to
the sue at which it operates); (3) modify
the deusnng procedures so that
treatment residues could be delisted as
part of the permitting process; and (4)
exempt from permitting or issue permits-
by-rule for certain treatment processes
involving "low safety hazard and/or
minimum environmental discharge."
The final report of the National
Hazardous Waste Forum is included in
the RCRA docket which is located at the
-------
20916
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
address listed at the beginning of this
notice.
C, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Petition
On January is. 1988. shortly before the
Forum s first meeting. HWTC petitioned
EPAJiPder section 7004(a) of RCRA and
40 CFR 260.20 to issue regulations to
facilitate the issuance of RCRA permits
to ' portable hazardous waste treatment
units" or MTUs. HWTC subsequently
provided a more detailed request on
April 25,1988. that EPA modify its
procedures for delisting hazardous
wastes, and on August 27. September 17.
and December 15.1988 submitted
substantial revisions of its petition. The
original petition and subsequent
correspondence with the HWTC are
included in the RCRA docket.
In its petition. HWTC asserted that
the current RCRA regulations
discourage the use of MTUs by requiring
RCRA permits for each site of operation,
instead of for each MTU. HWTC argued
that the permitting process is duplicative
for units that travel from site to site and
is excessively time-consuming and
burdensome, especially considering the
short period of time that MTUs may
operate at a single site (from a few
weeks to a few years). In particular,
HWTC cited the corrective action and
public hearing requirements as
burdensome, arguing that these
requirements would effectively prevent
MTUs from treating RCRA hazardous
wastes. As a result. HWTC argued that
EPA's regulations prohibit the use of
promising and flexible treatment
technologies and discourage the
treatment of hazardous wastes.
The HWTC petition requested
modification in several major areas:
permitting procedures and standard*.
delisting, and regulatory exemption*. A
discussion of HWTC's recommendation*
in each of these areas is presented
below.
1. Permittingprocnrlmm &»ks initial
petition in January IMfcHWTC
recommended that HPAsfrnAjp (1)
permits-by-mle for specife technologies;
(2) statewide or areawkk pmi»U for
specific MTUs that oncegmted would
allow the unit to operate without being
subject to public notice requirements at
each site of operation: (3) class permits
for MTUs. establishing shortened form*
and expedited review procedures; and
(4) a regulatory amendment divorcing
the corrective action requirements of
section 3004(u) from the MTU permit As
in the National Hazardous Waste Forum
report, corrective action would be
separated from permit requirements by
a redefinition of the term "facility," so
that the permit applied only to the MTU,
not to the property on which it operated.
In a later submission on August 25,
1986. HWTC substantially revised its
petition. In this document. HWTC
petitioned EPA to issue a separate
Subpart of Part 270 for MTUs,
establishing two sets of conditions for
MTUs operating at RCRA sites: Type I
conditions, which would be unit-specific
and would not change from site to site,
and Type 11 conditions, which would be
site-specific and would be issued at
each site where the unit operated.
Corrective action and public hearing
requirements would apply at each site of
operation (although public hearings
would be consolidated where possible)
2. Delisting. HWTC argues that the
current delisting procedures discourage
the use of MTUs, because under these
procedures (according to HWTC) a
waste generator cannot know if a
treated waste will be considered
nonhazardous until months after the
permit is issued and operation has
begun. If a generator cannot be assured
that a waste will be treated by the MTU
to nonhazardous levels and thus be
exempt from further RCRA controls, he
or she may have little incentive to
contract for an MTU. To address this
situation, HWTC recommended two
regulatory changes. In the short term,
HWTC believes that EPA should
establish procedures for integrating
delisting decisions into the permitting
process, so that the permit would
prescribe specific treatment standards
defining the residue as nonhazardous. In
the long term, EPA should develop self-
implementing treatment standards for
specific wastes, prescribing the levels of
treatment that would render the waste
nonhazardous.
3. Regulatory exclusioss. HWTC also
petitioned EPA to exclude certain
specific treatment technologies that they
believe have a low potential for release
of hazardous substances to the
environment from permitting under
S 27ai(c)(2); Section 27ai(cM2) currently
exempts treatment in totally enclosed
treatment systems, wastawater
treatment tank systems, and elementary
neutralization units. HWTC
recommended adding to tots list «igh»
physical treatment technologies
involving volume reduction, materials
sizing and preparation, and phase
separation.
D. RCRA Regulations Governing
Petitions
EPA's process for addressing
rulemaking petitions under RCRA is
specified in 40 CFR 260.20. These
regulations require that the
Administrator publish in the Federal
Register a tentative decision on the
petition and solicit public comment The
tentative decision may be in the form of
an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, a proposed rule, or a
tentative determination to deny. Upon
written request of any interested person,
the Administrator may, at his or her
discretion, hold an infomal public
hearing to consider oral comments.
After evaluating all public comments,
EPA will make a final decision by
publishing in the Federal Register a
regulatory amendment or a final denial
of the petition.
This notice constitutes EPA's tentative
decision on HWTC's petition.
HI. Analysis of EPA Tentative Response
A. Summary of Response
EPA has tentatively decided to grant
HWTC's request for developing special
MTU permitting procedures by
proposing a new S 270.66. In particular.
this section would allow owners or
operators of MTUs to obtain a state-
wide permit for specific MTUs or groups
of identical MTUs. This permit would
prescribe conditions applicable to the
design and operation of the unitrThese
conditions would apply state-wide, and
the permit could be issued for a
particular unit even if specific sites of
operation had not been identified.
Because the permit will not contain site-
specific conditions, such as corrective
action, it is not a section 3005{a) RCRA
permit The permit would be issued
according to the procedures of 40 CFR
Part 124 to the maximum extent
possible, including public notice and
opportunity for hearing. MTUs holding a
state-wide MTU permit would be
allowed to operate at a specific facility
within the state once site-specific
conditions were added to the permit and
a final RCRA operating permit was
issued to the facility in accordance with
40 CFR Part 124. Site-specific conditions
would inchtde such requirements as
location standard*, the contingency plan
and security procedures, and corrective
action at sites of operation.
EPA has also tentatively decided to
grant HWTCs request to add an
alternative deusting procedure, which
will be incorporated into the permitting
process under 127O22 and 127O32(e).
This alternative delisting mechanism
coud be used by stationary treatment
units as well as by MTUs. The proposed
incorporation of the delisting procedure
into the permitting process, which
modifies and elaborates on HWTC's
petition, would require the same
technical showing as the current
delisting procedures.
-------
L'nder the proposed amendment, a
permit applicant could submit
infomation necessary to delist the
treatment residue, including information
on the waste feed, likely constituents in
me treated waste, and the actual (or
proposed) waste sampling and analysis
procedures with his or her application.
The delisting authority would then
review the information and set delisting
levels for the hazardous constituents in
the treated residue. These levels would
be included in the draft permit for public
comment. If actual waste residue data
were included as part of the permit
application, these data would be
available for review by the public. If,
however, the permit application did not
include the actual waste residue data,
the draft permit would include a
requirement that the treated waste be
sampled and analyzed to verify that the
prescribed levels were met.
Once the permit is issued, the
permittee could handle the treated
residue as nonhazardous if it met the
constituent levels and all other
conditions set in the permit. However,
the permittees who did not originally
submit actual waste data would be
required to submit confirmatory data to
the delisting authority to ensure that the
levels in fact were met and that the
approved sampling an analysis plan was
followed. Permittees who submitted
actual waste data in the application
would be required by the delisting
authority to submit confirmatory data
only in limited cases where the potential
for waste or treatment variability was
great.
With respect to the third component
of the petition, the Agency is requesting
comment on whether the eight
technologies cited in the petition could
be operated without a permit in a
manner that is protective of human
health and the environment. EPA is also
asking what conditions, if any, should
be imposed on any exemption for these
units to ensure adequate environmental
and public health protection.
EPA anticipates that this proposal will
significantly simplify the permitting
procedures for MTUs and will provide a
delisting procedure which will facilitate
the use of MTUs as well as stationary
hazardous waste units. This proposal
will encourage treatment as an
alternative to land disposal and will
simplify remedial actions, and. thus,
serve the purposes of HSWA. For these
reasons, the Agency believes that this
rule will provide a net benefit to human
health and the environment.
B. Permitting Procedures for MTUS
1. EPA proposal. Today's proposal
would establish a two-stage permitting
process for MTUs. Design and operating
conditions woul;d be addressed in a
stale-wide MTU'permit. while site-
specific conditions would be contained
in RCRA permits issued to the facilities
at which the MTU would operate. This
approach would allow EPA or an
authorized state to address the general
permit conditions for the MTU once,
eliminating duplicative reviews, while
satisfying the statutory requirement of
local notice and corrective action at
each site of operation. The details of
EPA's proposal are discussed in the
following sections.
a. Procedures for issuing state-wide
mobile treatment and site-specific
operating permits. Under today's
proposal, EPA or an authorized state
would approve the state-wide mobile
treatment permit, using the 40 CFR Part
124 procedures to the extent possible.
Under the proposed procedures, the
MTU owner or operator would submit a
permit application (including Parts A
and B} for a specific unit or set of
identical units to EPA or the authorized
state, stating that he or she was seeking
a state-wide permit. EPA or the state
would prepare a draft state-wide permit
with supporting material, which would
be published for comment using
procedures similar to those described in
40 CFR 124.10. (Section 124.10(c)(2)(ii)
requires notice in local newspapers and
radio stations for RCRA permits; for
state-wide mobile treatment permits, the
regulating agency would be required to
provide reasonable state-wide notice, as
well as local notice in the vicinity of any
sites where an operating permit was
being sought.) The regulating agency
would also be required to hold a public
hearing, if requested, as provided in
\1124.12(a)(3). However, the Agency or
the state could, at its discretion, hold a
single state-wide hearing or several
hearings throughout the state.
Before a permitted MTU could operate
at a specific facility in a state, however,
EPA or the authorized state would have
to issue the facility a RCRA permit
which would include as a component of
the permit the general conditions of the
state-wide permit and site-specific
conditions. This operating permit would
be issued according to the procedures of
40 CFR Part 124. EPA or the state would
publish for local comment the draft site-
specific conditions, together with the
state-wide permit, and would provide
the public an opportunity for a local
hearing before issuing an operating
permit.
Today's proposal would allow an
MTU owner or operator to obtain a
state-wide MTU permit even in the
absence of specific sites of operations,
EPA anticipates, however, that in many
cases the owner/operator will have
identified at least one potential site ,„'
the time of permit application.
Furthermore, in some cases, an MTU
owner/operator may wish to test wa~
streams from potential customers to
determine their treatability and whe^
they meet delisting standards. In thes*
cases, the owner/operator may find i<
advantageous to obtain a final-section
3C05(a) permit for the property where
the MTU is stored. The owner/operaic
will then be able to perform treatabili",
studies under the terms of the permit '
issued at that site.
Where the owner/operator has
identified one or more potential sites.,;'
operators within a state, he or she com
apply simultaneously for the state-wid-
permit and the site-specific RCRA
permits. In this case, EPA or the state
agency should be able to consolidate
public hearings to a certain degree. For
example, if a single site were identifie I
m a permit application, and a hearing
state-wide and site-specific conditions
were requested, it might often be
possible to hold one hearing on state-
wide and site-specific conditions in Ike
vicinity of the proposed site of
operation. If several sites were
identified, it might be possible to
consolidate the hearings at a single
location depending upon the proximity
of the sites.
The purpose of EPA's proposed
approach is to allow one-time review
and permitting of the basic design and
operating conditions of an MTU. These
conditions would be spelled out in the
state-wide mobile treatment permit and
would be included in the facility-specify
permits allowing the unit to operate at
specific sites. In issuing the final RCRA
operating permit at a specific site, the
regulating agency would only address
such questions as location standards,
the contingency plan, and corrective
action for solid waste management amis
located on the specific facility.
Under today's proposal, however,
EPA or the authorized state, in issuing
the site-specific RCRA permit, would
provide opportunity for comment on the
state-wide as well as the site-specific
conditions. Section 7004 of RCRA
requires that EPA provide local ~->tice
and opportunity for comment before a
permit is issued. The Agency questions
whether the procedures for issuing state-
wide mobile treatment permits provide
adequate opportunity for local comment
where the specific sites of operation
have not been identified in the permit
application. Therefore, today's proposal
would allow for local comment on all
aspects of the draft permit, including the
-------
20918
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
slate-wide conditions, before RCRA
permits for specific sites are issued.
EPA recognizes that this requirement
may be of concern to MTU or facility
owner/operators, because it appears to
provide the permitting authority and the
public an opportunity to revisit issues
that, in theory, had already been
decided m the approval of the state-
wide permit. EPA does not believe.
however, that this concern should
override the clear Congressional
directive in RCRA that members of the
public be provided the opportunity to
comment on facilities permitted to
operate in their neighborhoods.
Furthermore. EPA believes that in
practice this requirement will be of
limited significance, except in the most
controversial cases. Where public
comment has been solicited on state-
wide conditions in the initial approval
procedures, and where the state-wide
permit conditions conform fully with the
Part 264 requirements. EPA believes that
it will be unusual for major substantive
issues regarding state-wide conditions
to be raised that had not already been
adequately addressed and resolved.
As an alternative to this approach.
HWTC suggested that a single state-
wide permit be issued to a mobile unit,
which would be modified through the
major-modification procedures of
§ 270.41 before the unit could operate at
specific sites. The major modification
procedure as proposed by HWTC would
include all the procedural and
substantive safeguards of permit
issuance. In addition, the HWTC
proposal would allow the public to
comment on state-wide as well as site-
specific conditions during the permit
modification process. EPA has
tentatively rejected this alternative.
because it appears to provide few if any
advantages over the proposed approach
and because it appears to contradict the
requirement in § 3005{a) of RCRA that
final operating permits be issued to
"facilities" i.e.. a specific •** rather than
equipment or particular kxzawdons
waste management unr^Thk issue is
discussed more fully late fas this
preamble.
b. State-wide permit information
requirements. Under today's proposal,
MTU owners and operators desiring '"
approval of a state-wide permit would
be required to submit both a Part A and
a Part B application providing
information on general design and
operating conditions. Proposed
§ 270.66{c) specifies the information
requirements for each of these
applications. Except for minor variations
necessary to reflect the specifics of
MTU operation, these requirements are
the same as the information
requirements for permit applications for
stationary units.
The Part A application for a state-
wide permit would include: The
activities that require the application to
obtain a permit: the address where the
units are stored when not in use: the SIC
codes that best describe the products or
services provided by facilities at which
the MTU owner/operator intends to
operate: the MTU operator's name.
address, telephone number, ownership
status, and related information: whether
the mobile units are new or existing: a
scale drawing of the unit; a description
of the processess to be used for the
treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous wastes and the design
capacity for these items; and the class
codes, to the extent they are known, of
the hazardous wastes that can be
treated by the MTU and for which the
permit is requested. Finally, in the case
of multiple units, the Part A would have
to include a certification by a registered
professional engineer that the units were
identical.
The following information would be
required in the Part B permit application:
The chemical and physical properties (to
the extent they are known) of the waste
to be handled: a waste analysis plan; an
inspection schedule, with respect to
inspection of all monitoring, safety,
emergency, and operating equipment
that are part of the MTU and will be
used at all locations: a description of
percautions to prevent ignition or
reaction of ignitable reactive, or
incompatible wastes; a closure plan,
with closure cost estimates and
financial assurance for closure of the
MTU; documentation of liability
coverage; § 270.16 information
requirements for tanks that are part of
the MTU, and 9 270.19 and § 270.62
information requirements for
incinerators, if applicable. In addition.
the permit applicant would be required
to provide any other information the
permitting authority deems necessary.
EPA requests comment on whether
these elements are appropriate for an
application for a state-wide MTU permit
and whether additional items should be
included. In particular, EPA .requests
comment on information specific to
MTU operations that should be added
c. Site-specific RCRA permit
information requirements. Before the
MTU could operate at a specific site, a
RCRA permit would be required for that
site. The permit applicant would have to
submit a separate Part A and B
application for that site either together
with the original statewide permit
application, or subsequently. Both the
owner/operator of the MTU and the
facility owner would sign the permit
application. The information required in
the site-specific application is specified
in proposed § 270.66(e).
The Part A for each site of operation
would require all the information
currently required under § 270.13 as it
applies to the facility where the unit will
operate. In other words, the applicant
would provide such information as the
name and address of the facility, a scale
drawing and photograph of the facility.
and a specification of the particular
wastes to be treated at that facility. In
addition, the application would include
information on the schedule or duration
of activities at the facility, to the extent
it was known at the time of the permit
application.
The Part B application would require
general information on the facility, such
as a facility description, a topographic
map, and information on location, as
well as information specific to the
operation of the MTU that was not
included in the state-wide permit.
Specific information would include a
description of security procedures;
information on inspections with respect
to structures installed at the facility and
equipment not included in the unit-
specific application: a contingency plan:
information on procedures to prevent
hazards in unloading, runoff, and other
requirements in 5 270.14(b)(8);
information on interim closure of the
MTU before it leaves the facility and on
closure of any structures or equipment
left at the location; and information on
containers, tanks, surface
impoundments, or waste-piles used to
store or treat wastes in conjunction with
the MTU. In addition, in the case of
incinerators, the permit applicant could
also provide data in lieu of a trial burn,
if appropriate.
EPA solicits comments on the
appropriateness of these information
requirements in permitting the operation
of MTUs at specific sites. In particular.
EPA is concerned about whether any
additional items specific to MTU
operation should be added, such as
procedures for installation or
transportation of the unit.
d. Permit_conditions. The site^specific ...
RCRA operating permit with the state-
wide permit conditions included would
impose the same conditions as a permit
for a stationary facility conducting
comparable activities.
The state-wide permit would include
the general duties and requirements of
{ 270.30 and $ 270.31 (e.g., proper
operation and maintenance, inspection
and entry, monitoring and records); it
would require discrete identification
-------
JFederal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
20919
numbers for each unit covered under the
permit (as discussed later, a state-wide
permit might apply to several identical
units); it would impose the notice
requirements of § 254.12; the waste
analysis requirements of 5 264.13; the
personnel training requirements of
§ 264.16; the requirements relating to
ignitable, reactive, and incompatible
wastes of § 264.17; and the manifest,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements of Part 264 Subpart E. In
addition, it would impose Subpart G
closure requirements, as they apply to
the final closure of the MTU, and
Subpart H financial responsibility
requirements, as applicable to closure of
the MTU and liability for MTU
operations. Finally, Subpart J tank and
Subpart O incinerator standards or
incinerator trial burn standards of
§ 270.62 would apply, as appropriate.
EPA has proposed the addition of 40
CFR Part 264 Subpart X. which applies
to miscellaneous units (November 7
1986, 51 FR 40726-40739), and 40 CFR
Part 269 Subpart C, which would limit
volatile organic emissions from
hazardous waste management facilities
(February 5,1987, 52 FR 3748). These
conditions would also apply, if
applicable, when they become final.
The site-specific conditions in the
final operating permit would establish
all applicable requirements not already
addressed in the state-wide permit.
These would generally include security
procedures, preparedness and
contingency plan requirements, and
specific standards for activities at the
facility carried on in connection with the
MTU treatment Examples of such
activities are interim closure of the MTU
at the location and final closure of any
structures or equipment remaining on
the site; financial assurance for such
closures; standards for tanks and
containers built at the facility in
connection with operation of the MTU,
but not already permitted in the state-
wide permit; standards for waste piles
created in connection with MTU
activities; and incinerator operating
conditions (if necMMiy]. In addition.
the final RCRA operating permit would
include a schedule of compliance for
any corrective action at the facility
determined to be necessary by the
permitting authority under section
3004(u) of RCRA, and the facility owner
would have to comply with financial
assurance requirements for corrective
action.
Finally, the site-specific portion of the
RCRA permit would establish the permit
term. Unless otherwise specified in the
final permit, the MTU could operate at
the site at any time during the life of the
site-specific permit without a permit
modification. However, at the discretion
of the regelating agencyV the permit
might require that the permittee notify
the regulating agency or state or local
officials, including local emergency
response officials, before arrival and
operation of the unit at the facility.
EPA therefore is not proposing
specific time limits for operation of an
MTU at a site. The National Hazardous
Waste Forum recommended such a time
limit to prevent the establishment of '
permanent treatment facilities under
special procedures developed for mobile
units. EPA does not believe that this
restriction is necessary. The National
Forum's proposal was based on the
assumption that facilities at which an
MTU operated would be relieved of the
section 3004(u) corrective action
requirements. Therefore, it was
necessary to ensure that facility owners
engaged in long-term treatment could
not use MTU permitting procedures as a
way to avoid corrective action. Under
EPA's proposal the facility at which the
MTU operated would be subject to the
requirements of section 3004(u),
regardless of the amount of time the unit
remained on site, and the unit would be
permitted to operate at that site only
after full opportunity for public comment
under the current permitting procedures.
Therefore, EPA believes that there is no
need to establish a regulatory time limit
for operation of an MTU at a site, other
than the current 10-year limit on all
RCRA permits.
EPA solicits comments on this issue,
as well as on the proposed state-wide
and site-specific permit conditions.
e. Scope of mobile treatment permit.
Proposed $ 270.66 applies specifically to
MTUs. In the proposal, MTUs are
defined as "any device or equipment, or
combination of devices or equipment.
that treats hazardous waste and that is
designed to be transported and operated
at more than one site." This definition
does not specify the type of unit that
might qualify for a mobile treatment
permit under i 270.66, as long as it is
designed for the treatment of hazardous
waste. Thus, a mobile treatment tank.
incinerator, or any other treatment unit
could qualify as a MTU. However, any
permit issued under $ 270.66 would have
to adhere to the Part 264 and other
standards appropriate for that type of
unit.
Several members of the regulated
community has asked whether a mobile
unit could ever qualify as a tank,
because § 260.10 defines tanks as
"stationary devices." EPA confirms that
a mobile tank would qualify as a tank
under § 260.10. and would be subject to
the Subpart J tank standards of Part 264.
as long as it was intended to be
stationary during operation and it
otherwise met the definition of a tank in
some cases, of course, mobile units
might not fall into the definitions of
tanks, containers, or incinerators. In
these cases, they would be permitted
under Subpart X standards for
miscellaneous units, which EPA
proposed on November 7,1986 (51 FR
40726-40739).
Today's proposal specifies that EPA
or an authorized state may issue a state-
wide permit for either a specific MTU or
identical units. In some cases,
manufacturers of MTUs may produce a
number of identical units. EPA believes
that an MTU owner or operator should
be able to receive a single state-wide
permit covering several identical units,
and that no useful purpose is served by
requiring the paperwork of a separate
permit for each unit However, the
general permit would be required to
specify the number and identity of units
permitted, and each unit would require a
discrete identifying number. In addition
the Part A would have to include a
certificate by a registered professional
engineer that the units were identical.
(EPA has not proposed a definition of
identical" in this rulemaking. It
recognizes, however, that trivial
differences will always exist between
different units. For the purposes of this
rule, it intends "identical" to mean
identical in design, size, operation, and
all other conditions that might affect
treatment of hazardous waste,
emissions, or any other factors that
would relate to the performance or
safety of the unit The Agency solicits
comments on the appropriate definition
of "identical" for the purposes of this
rule.)
EPA recognizes that manufacturers
and operators of fixed treatment units
share many of the concerns and
interests of mobile unit owner/
operators. The use of specific treatment
devices might also be facilitated if a
manufacturer could receive approval of
state-wide conditions of those devices.
EPA's proposal does not extend to fixed
units, however, because the Agency
believes that current regulations provide
adequate flexibility for the permitting of
fixed units at specific sites and that any
permitting impediments are best
addressed through development of
guidance and model permits. However.
the Agency requests comments on this'
issue.
f. Closure requirements. The "closure"
of MTUs raises special issues that EPA
has addressed in this proposed
rulemaking. As explained earlier, the
-------
MTU itself will be subject to the
applicable closure requirements of Part
264. and the permit applicant will be
required to submit a closure plan as part
of the permit application. In addition.
any structures, equipment or hazardous
waste left on-site will be subject to the
closure requirements and financial
assurance as part of the operating
permit for the specific site.
...In addi«on. the MTU will undergo an
Interim" closure every time it leaves a
specific site and moves to another.
These proposed regulations do not •
specify conditions of interim closure
before an MTU can leave a facility at
which it is operating. EPA believes that
this question is best handled as part of
the specific permit conditions for the
facility. However, the Agency
anticipates that MTU "interim" closures
will generally be consistent with the
tank or incinerator closure standards
(§§ 264.197 or 264-351). Under today's
proposal, if an MTU fails to meet these
standards, it becomes a hazardous
waste generator and transporter subject
to all applicable requirements under
Parts 262 and 263. including the
manifesting requirements,
g. Trial burns for incinerators. One
promising mobile technology is
incineration. Mobile incinerators have
already been used successfully to treat
solid waste, including RCRA hazardous
waste, and this technology appears to
be particularly well suited to cleanups
and remedial action. A major issue that
EPA and the states must address in
issuing permits to mobile incinerators.
however, is whether trial bums are
needed as each site of operation to
establish operating conditions.
Under today's proposal, the state-
wide MTU permit would generally
establish operating conditions for the
shakedown before trial bums at each
site and for the trial bum itself, as
required in § 270.62. to the maximum
extent possible. The final operating
conditions would be ettabliihed as part
of the site-specific permit However.
MTU permit applicants may provide
data in lieu of a trial bum under
S 270.19{c) when they apply for a site-
specific permit, just as they may in the
case of stationary incinerators. EPA
believes that data developed during '"
operation of the unit handling similar
wastes at previous sites will often be
adequate in lieu of trial bum data, and
that trial bums at specific sites may
often be unnecessary. Particularly as
experience is gained with mobile
treatment in general and with the
operation of specific units, EPA believes
it will be possible to eliminate the need
for site-specific trial burns to establish
operating conditions.
h. Corrective action. Under section
3004{u) of RCRA. all permits issued after
the effective date of the 1984
amendments must address corrective
action for releases of hazardous waste
or hazardous constituents from solid
waste management units on the facility.
As explained earlier, this requirement
would apply at each facility where the
MTU owner/operator is permitted to
operate. EPA's corrective action
program has been described extensively
in a draft strategy entitled the National
RCRA Corrective Action Strategy This
strategy was noticed in the Federal
Register on October 23,1986 (51 FR
37608) and is available from the RCRA
Hotline at the address provided at the
beginning of this notice. Therefore, only
a brief description of corrective action
requirements is provided here.
Before a final operating permit is
issued under proposed § 270.86, EPA or
an authorized state would conduct a
RCRA facility assessment (RFA) to
identify possible releases from solid
waste management units within the
property boundary of the facility at
which the MTU is located. Where
possible releases subject to section
3004(u) requirements have been
identified, the permitting authority
would include a schedule of compliance
in the permit requiring an investigation
of the releases and. if necessary,
corrective action. The corrective action
portion of the permit, like other site-
specific conditions, would be subject to
public comment before permit issuance.
i. Permit modifications. Under today's
proposal, state-wide permits for MTUs
could be modified according to the
procedures of S 270.41 or i 270.42. If the
state-wide permit conditions were
modified, the new conditions would
apply at all sites to which the permit
applied in the future. However, the
modifications would not apply at the
sites that had already been permitted,
unless the operating permits issued for
those sites were modified as well. EPA
solicits comments on how permit
modification regulations should apply to
state-wide MTU permits.
EPA is now concluding regulatory
negotiations on permit modifications
with representatives of industry, public
interest groups, and the states, and will
shortly be proposing amendments to the
current modification procedures. The
amended procedures will not
specifically apply to modifications in
state-wide MTU permits. As part of the
rulemaking, however, EPA will solicit
comment on how the amended
requirements might apply to state-wide
permit modifications. These
modifications might range from addition
of identical units to the permit, change
m storage address, to changes in basic
operation or design. Readers of today's
notice are encouraged to comment on
the permit modification amendments
when they are proposed, particularly as
they apply to MTU state-wide permits
and the use of MTUs at already
permitted sites. Interested persons may
ensure that they are notified of the
publication of the permit modification
proposal by contacting the RCRA
Hotline at the telephone number at the
beginning of this notice or by requesting
notification in comments submitted on
today's proposal.
j. Duration of permit. Section 270.50
states that permits are effective for a
fixed term not to exceed ten calendar
years, and that a permit shall not be
extended by modification beyond the
maximum duration. These requirements
will apply to state-wide MTU permits
and to the site-specific RCRA operating
permits.
HWTC suggested an amendment to
the permit duration requirement under
§ 270.50 to allow separate application of
expiration dates to state-wide and site-
specific conditions. However, the
expiration date of each site-specific
permit could not exceed the unexpired
term of the basic part of the permit. EPA
believes that this regulatory change is
unnecessary and that under the
regulations as proposed, the term of
treatment at a specific site can be
defined as a site'specific condition.
2. HWTC alternative. EPA's proposed
approach to MTU permitting is close to
the approach suggested by HWTC in its
August 25 petition. There are, however,
at least two significant differences.
Under EPA's approach, a state-wide
permit is issued to the MTU prescribing
design and operating conditions, but the
final RCRA operating permit for the
facility is not issued until the site-
specific conditions are added to the
state-wide permit for the site at which
the unit operates. Under the HWTC
approach, a state-wide "RCRA permit"
would be issued to the MTU; this permit
would be modified through the
procedures of § 270.41 to add site-
specific conditions for each site of -
operation. In addition, a separate
"corrective action" permit would be
issued to each site owner addressing
S 3004(u) requirements for that site.
Therefore, the HWTC approach differs
from EPA's proposal in two respects: (1)
It allows the addition of new sites to an
MTU permit through the permit
modification process, and (2) it requires
the issuance of two separate permits at
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
20921
each facility, clearly distinguishing the
legal responsibilities of the MTU owner/
operator, who is solely liable for the
operation, from those of the facility
owner, who is solely hable for
corrective action at the facility.
EPA has tentatively rejected the
HWTC permit modification approach
because it believes that the proposal
• runs counter to the requirement in
section 3005(a) of RCRA that permits be
issued to "facilities." Given that section
3005(a) specifically states that permits
are issued to "facilities," the Agency
does not believe it is appropriate to
issue a section 3005{a) permit where no
"facility" (which by definition refers to a
site of operation) has been identified. In
addition, the Agency believes that the
approval of site-specific operating
conditions at a new site constitutes
permit issuance under sections 3005(a)
and 7004(b), not permit modification.
As an alternative, the Agency is
proposing an approach that provides
essentially the same advantages as the
HWTC approach, but is more consistent
with the statutory framework. The main
advantage of the permit modification
approach would appear to be the
requirement under { 124.5 that, when a
permit modification is requested, EPA
and the public may only address the
terms of the modification, not other
permit conditions. The suggested HWTC
approach, however, would eliminate this
advantage by allowing public comment
on all portions of the MTU permit
Therefore, the procedures would be
identical to those in the EPA proposal,
with only the semantic difference that
they would be called permit
modifications rather than permit
issuances. (The situation would be
different if the facility at which the MTU
were to operate was already permitted
to handle hazardous waste. In this case.
the facility's permit could be modified to
incorporate the MTU—a change that hi
some cases might ae4 be significant
enough to require theft* procedural
process. This isaac.vbtxk ie now being
addressed by EPA fmm^atory
negotia tions on RCRA permit
modifications, is dtccsssed more fully in
section IVD.l of this preamble.)
EPA has also tentatively rejected the
HWTC "corrective action" permit
approach. Again, the Agency believes
that this approach is inconsistent with
the statutory concept of "facility" and
the requirement that all RCRA permits
address section 3O04(u) corrective
action. Under the HVVTC approach, the
site-specific permit for the MTU would
not be issued to a "facility," but rather
to a unit, and it would not address
section 3004{u) corrective action on the
facility. For this reason, EPA does not
believe ;i.t»wouid constitute a legitimate
RCRA permit and therefore the Agency
does not favor this approach.
However, one major advantage of the
"corrective action" permit approach, as
described by HWTC, is that it clearly
divides the legal responsibilities of the
MTU operator and the facility owner.
HWTC is concerned that, if a single
permit is issued to both, the MTU owner
or operator will become liable for
section 3004(u) corrective action on solid
waste management units and other
activities unrelated to MTU operations
and over which the MTU owner/
operator has no control. A similar issue
arises when an MTU is brought onto the
facility to carry out corrective action
and is made part of a facility's permit
through modification.
Although EPA recognizes HWTC's
concerns, the Agency does not believe
that issuing two separate, unrelated
permits at the same facility is necessary
or is the most appropriate means of
resolving this issue. Instead, EPA
believes that it is more appropriate to
delineate the limits of the MTU
operator's RCRA responsibilities in the
permit itself (and eventually as part of
the corrective action regulations). Under
the proposed approach, therefore, the
site-specific permit would specify the
corrective action and other
responsibilities that rest solely with the
facility owner. Thus, the permit would
generally limit the obligations of the
MTU owner/operator to the MTU
operation and related activities
(including corrective action for releases
from the MTU). Except as specified in
the permit. EPA reserves the right to
take enforcement action against either
owner or operator pursuant to CERCLA,
RCRA or any other legal authority. The
limitation of liability stated in the RCRA
permit does not affect any potential
liability under any other authority.
This approach recognizes that where
the facility owner and the unit operator
are different persons, only the facility
owner may in many cases be able to
undertake corrective action. This is
particularly true on portions of a site
that are unconnected with current
hazardous waste management activities
under control of the MTU operator. The
proposed limitation in the operators'
liability, therefor, is a necessary element
of any MTU permitting scheme, because
without it MTU owners are unlikely to
operate at any RCRA hazardous waste
facilities. As a result. EPA and facility
owners would find it difficult if not
impossible to carry out a section 3004(u)
corrective action program if operators of
MTUs brought on site to address
corrective action were held liable for the
operation of permitted units elsewhere
on the site. At the same time, EPA
believes that its approach does not in
any way sacrifice the enforceabiliry of
permits, because facility owners would
remain liable for any activities at the
site (including MTU operations) and
MTU owners/operators would be
responsible for releases resulting from
their operations.
EPA requests comment on the merits
of this approach, as well as on the
"corrective action" permit alternative
proposed by HWTC.
3. Definition of facility and corrective
action. Both the National Hazardous
Waste Forum and the January 15 HWTC
petition recommended that EPA redefine
"facility" in 40 CFR 280.10. Section
3005(a) of RCRA requires each owner or
operator of a "facility" for the treatment.
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste
to obtain a permit In the July 28,1982.
land disposal regulation. EPA defined
the term to mean all contiguous land
and structures under the control of the
owner/operator engaged in hazardous
waste management (47 FR 32288-9, July
28,1982). Therefore, a permit issued to a
"facility" applies to the entire property
surrounding the hazardous waste
management unit, not merely to the unit
itself.
The. January 25 HWTC petition and
the National Hazardous Waste Forum
report proposed amending this site-
based definition to specify that a
"process unir could also be a "facility"
under the regulations. Under the
definition proposed by the HWTC
petition, a hazardous waste
management facility would not always
be defined strictly in terms of its
location, but in the case of mobile units
the facility would be the equipment or
"process unit" used for the treatment
storage, or disposal of hazardous waste
without any reference to the property on
which it operated. An MTU or "facility,'*
therefore, could be issued a general
permit to operate without reference to
sites of operation. The specific sites of
operation would not have to be
identified in the permit, and the site
owner would not incur RCRA
responsibilities.
In practical terms, the most important
results of this change would be
eliminating the need for corrective
action under section 3004{u) of RCRA
and. according to HWTC, for local
notice and opportunity for hearing at the
sites of operation. Under HWTC's
argument if the permit applied solely to
the MTU, then the site owner/operator
would not be subject to corrective
-------
ac ion at other solid waste management
units on his or her site. (To prevent the
use of MTUs as a way to avoid
corrective action for long-term
treatment, the National Forum report
and the HWTC petition restricted MTU
operation without corrective action to 90
days at generator sites or 4 years for
remedial action.) In addition. HWTC
argued that local notice and opportunity
for a hearing would not be required at
each site of operation. A change in the
definition of "facility", therefore, would
provide a major incentive for on-site
treatment by generators not already
subject to RCRA permitting
requirements. Without this change,
according to HWTC. generators not
already in the RCRA permitting universe
would effectively be prevented from
treating their wastes by MTUs or any
other method, because few would be
willing to accept the corrective action
requirements of section 3004(u) as the
price for on-site treatment.
EPA recognizes that a redefinition of
"facility" would provide a major
incentive to on-site treatment by
generators. However, it has tentatively
rejected the HWTC proposal because of
the importance of the definition of
"facility" to the RCRA permit program
and because EPA believes that the
proposal is contrary to Congressional
intent. Although the definition of
"facility" is found in the regulations, not
the statute, subsequent RCRA
amendments that use and depend on the
site-based regulatory definition of
"facility" incorporate that definition into
the statute. The corrective action
requirements of section 3004(ul, added
to RCRA in 1984. are based upon
Congressional understanding that
"facility" means the entire site under the
control of the owner or operator
engaged in hazardous waste
management, not just the individual
hazardous waste management unit (see
50 FR 28712. July 15,19M). For this
reason. EPA does not bdicva that it has
the authority to redefina tba term
"facility^' as suggested in the HWTC
petition.
In addition, redefining "facility" to
include equipment as well as sites will
not relieve the MTU of local notice and
opportunity for a hearing. Under section
7004(b)(2), local notice and opportunity
for hearing must be provided before a
permit can be issued to any "facility."
Thus, a permit could not be issued to an
MTU "facility." whether defined as a
site or equipment, until there had been
notice and opportunity for hearing in
each locality in which it would be
permitted to operate.
HWTC discussed in alternative
approach to permitting MTUs in a letter
to EPA on May 21. 1986. Under this
approach. EPA would issue a special
Part 270 regulation for MTUs
specifically exempting their sites of
operation from the corrective action
requirements. HWTC cited as a
justification for this approach the
language of the Conference Report to
HSWA. which encouraged EPA "to use
its existing authority to develop a permit
program for mobile treatment units."
EPA has tentatively rejected this
suggestion because it does not believe
that the Conference Report language
should be interpreted as overriding the
section 3004(u) requirements, or other
site-specific requirements explicitly
included in the statute. Rather, EPA
believes that this legislative history
indicates Congressional support for
regulatory changes to better
accommodate mobile technology,
consistent with the statutory framework,
an approach followed by EPA in
developing today's tentative response.
Despite thia tentative decision, EPA
recognizes* the breadth of support for a
redefinition of facility, reflected both in
the treatment industry's petition and in
the National Hazardous Waste Forum's
report. In addition, the Agency
recognizes the importance of
encouraging hazardous waste treatment
particularly as land disposal restrictions
go into effect, and the important role
that MTUs could provide in treating
generators' waste. Therefore, EPA
solicits comment on the corrective
action and facility definition issue. In
particular, EPA solicits information on
the extent to which corrective action
requirements are likely to be a barrier to
the use of MTUs at generators' facilities
that would be interested in using MTUs,
and the extent to which generator sites
are likely to have solid waste
management units requiring corrective
action.
C Delis ting Procedures
1. Background. A vital part of the
hazardous waste program is the list of
hazardous wastes. EPA lists wastes as
hazardous if the Agency can
.demonstrate that the waste typically
and frequently meets the criteria for
listing (see 40 CFR 261.11(a)(lJ through
..
Individual listed waste streams may
vary depending on raw materials,
industrial processes, and other factors.
Thus, while a listed waste typically is
hazardous, a specific waste from an
individual facility may not be, even
though it meets the listing description.
For this reason. 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22
of the hazardous waste regulations
provide an exclusion or "delisting"
procedure. This procedure allows
persons to demonstrate that a specific
waste from a particular generating
facility is not hazardous because it does
not meet any of the criteria for which it
was listed, that factors (including
additional constituents) other than those
for which the waste was originally listed
could not cause the waste to be
hazardous, and that, therefore, the
waste should not be regulated as a
hazardous waste.
2. Current procedures. Under the
existing regulations, persons who
generate or manage listed hazardous
waste may petition the Agency for a
regulatory amendment to exclude or
"delist" their waste from regulation (see
40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22). To be
successful, the petitioner must
demonstrate that the waste is not
hazardous. HSWA modified the
hazardous waste identification and
listing procedures under section 3001 by
adding paragraph (f), which establishes
specific criteria and procedures for
evaluating delisting petitions. These
statutory provisions were codified in the
July 15,1985, Final Codification Rule (50
FR 28702) and alter the substantive
standard by which delisting petitions
are evaluated. The amendments set
forth a two-step delisting evaluation
procedure. First, the Agency must
consider the factors for which the waste
was originally listed; then, the Agency
must examine factors other than those
for which the waste was listed
(including additional constituents) in
cases where the Administrator has a
reasonable basis to believe that such
other factors could cause the waste to
be hazardous. The amendments also
establish that the Administrator must
provide notice and opportunity for
public comment on the Agency's
proposed decision (including evaluation
of these additional factors) before
granting or denying a petition.
In submitting a delisting petition.
applicants must provide the Agency
with the information set forth in
§ S 260.20(b) and 260.22(i). including: (1)
A description of the manufacturing
process or processes and feed materials
producing the waste, and an assessment
of whether such processes, operations,
or feed materials can or might produce a
waste that is not covered by the
demonstration; (2) a description of the
waste and an estimate of the average
and maximum monthly and annual
quantities of waste generated; (3)
pertinent data on, and a decision of,
factors considered by the Agency in
listing the waste, demonstrating the
nonhazardous nature of the waste; (4)
-------
J-ederarRegister / Vol. 53. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
representative sampling and testing of
the waste on a minimum of four
samples, including the name of the
laboratory performing the sampling and
testing, the names and qualifications of
the persons sampling and testing the
waste, sampling and testing dates, a
description of the methodologies and
equipment used to collect representative
Samples, and a description of the tests
performed and the instruments used in
performing the tests, including the model
numbers of the instruments used in
p-.'rforming the tests: (5) appropriate
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) data and documentation: (6) a
signed certification statement: and (7)
other general information, including the
petitioner's name and address, facility
location, and a statement of the
petitioner's interest, need, and
justification for the proposed action.
For the Agency to determine whether
other factors (including additional
constituents) could cause the waste to
be hazardous, petitions must also
include the following additional
information (described in detail in
"Petitions to Delist Hazardous Waste: A
Guidance Manual," NTIS, PB 85-194488):
(1) Data on whether the waste exhibits
any of the four hazardous waste
characteristics identified in Subpart C of
P.irt 261; and (2) a complete list of raw
materials, intermediates, by-products,
and products used or produced in the
processes at the plant or facility
generating the waste; a list of those raw
materials, intermediates, by-products,
and products that are discharged into or
likely to be present in the waste, as well
as approximate quantities for each
material entering the waste; and. a list
of those raw materials, intermediates,
by-products, and products that are not
discharged into or likely to be present in
the waste and the basis for this belief; »
or (3) representative analytical data on
at least four representative samples for
ail constituents listed in Appendix VIII
of Part 261 that are likely to be present
in the waste at significant levels, and for
those Appendix Vttl hazardous
constituents for which no testing is
done, an explanation of why these
constituents would not be expected to
be present in the waste or, if present,
why they would not pose a lexicological
hazard.
Delisting petitions are evaluated by
the Office of Solid Waste at EPA
headquarters in Washington, DC or at
the state level in those states that have
2 Based on this information, the Agency may
require analytical testing of the waste for those
additional constituents likely to be present in the
v.dste when the information appears to indicate
ll!<;:r presence at significant levels.
authorized delisting programs. (To date,
r .'orgia is the only state authorized for
the RG_RA delisting, program.) Typically,
t..e da'fa required to support a delisting
decision are developed by the
hazardous waste generator or treater.
As discussed earlier, the permit
application process can be an involved
and time-consuming procedure that can
take several years to complete. Once the
permit is secured (which may
encompass some type of
demonstration—e.g. a trial burn for
incinerators), the owner or operator
must produce a representative quantity
of residue, and then sample and analyze
the residue before attempting to
demonstrate through a delisting petition
that the residue is non-hazardous.
Alternatively, data required for delisting
may be available (e.g., obtained during
interim status) and such data can be
submitted for delisting purposes. The
delisting process, from the date a
complete petition is received to final
determination, typically will take eight
months or longer. Thus, treatment unit
owners may find it difficult to assure
potential clients that the treatment
process will produce a non-hazardous
(delistable) treatment residue, and
therefore they may face substantial
difficulty in marketing their treatment
technology.
To correct this problem, today's
proposal includes an alternative
mechanism to delist a waste from
regulation, by incorporating the current
delisting process into the permit process.
EPA's proposed method for doing this is
discussed below.
3. Proposed approach. Today's
proposal would allow owners or
operators of hazardous waste units
(both MTU's as well as stationary
treatment units) the option of petitioning
for a delisting through the RCRA permit
process at the time that they submit the
Part B of their Part 270 permit
application. (Of course, delisting may
still be conducted under the procedures
currently in place.) In this case, the
delisting portion of the application
would be submitted to the state, or if the
state were not authorized for delisting,
to the EPA regional office. This
approach would allow delisting and
permit decisions to be made
concurrently. The specific information
requirements which would have to be
met to delist a hazardous waste through
the permit process are the same as
currently required under the existing
delisting procedure; these requirements
are set out in proposed § 270.22. and
discussed in this proposal under the
heading "Specific Information
Requirements."
Under the Agency's proposed
approach, delisting petitions would be
reviewed according to the existing
delisting criteria. Although the petitions
would be part of the permitting process.
they would be reviewed and acted upon
by the appropriate delisting authority
(i.e., EPA or state authorized for
delisting); however, the notice and
comment procedures of the permitting
process would apply {§ 124.10). (See
section III.C.6. for a discussion on the
notice and comment procedures.)
Owners and operators of MTUs could
file their petitions as part of a state-wide
or site-specific RCRA permit application
(see proposed | 270.66), and decisions
concerning both the permit and the
hazardous or non-hazardous nature of
the treatment residue would be made at
the same time.
In states that are authorized for
delisting, such delistings would be
granted as part of the state's permitting
process. However, for the delisting
component of the state-issued permit to
be valid nationwide, the applicant
would have to submit a similar delistina
petition to EPA under § 260.20 and
§ 260.22. In cases where the state is not
authorized to conduct the delisting
process but is otherwise authorized for
RCRA or HSWA permitting, the
delisting portion would be reviewed by
EPA, and a permit that includes the
delisting would be issued jointly with
the RCRA base permit. Because the
delisting is performed by EPA. it would
be effective nationally. However.
regardless of the state's authorization
status, unless a state similarly exercises
its own delisting provision consistent
with the Federal action/the Federal
decision to exclude the waste from
regulation will not be effective in that
state since the state program can impose
requirements that are more stringent
than the Federal requirements.
Therefore, as a practical matter, the
applicant may not be able to benefit
from the Federal delisting until the State
law allows the Federal decision to be
implemented. In a state that does not
have a provision for delisting or has no
way to adopt Federal delisting
decisions, EPA will not review the
delisting petition (unless the waste is
involved in interstate commerce) since
EPA's decision will have no effect in
that state.
Under today's proposal, petitioners
could request delisting as part of their
permit application in one of two ways,
depending on whether or not they had
actual waste treatment residue data.
The two approaches are discussed
below.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Propped Rut.,
The first approach, contained in
proposed § 270.22(a). would be
appropriate for those penoni who
already had samples of the treated
waste residue and can provide waste
residue analysis information at the time
of permit application. This, for example,
would be the case for interim status
facilities or for facilities that had sent
their waste to a permitted MTU for a
Ireatability study. Pilot plant data would
normally not meet the data requirements
under § 270.22(a). However, the
applicant may be able to demonstrate
that the pilot plant data satisfy the
requirement for actual data on the waste
to be delisted.
Under the first approach, the permit
applicant would submit all the
information that ia currently required for
dellsting under 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22
(see section on "Current Procedures").
EPA (or the state if the state had
delisting authority) would review the
dellsting information and treatment
residue constituent levels, decide if the
levels met the delisting criteria, and
publish a proposed delisting decision in
the draft permit for public comment.
EPA (or the state if the state had
delisting authority) would consider and
address all comments and then grant or
deny the delisting petition; this decision
would be incorporated in the final
permit
The second approach, described in
proposed § 270.22{b). would be available
to persons who do not have actual
waste treatment residue data. This
might be the case for a new treatment
unit or for a treatment unit new to a site.
Under this approach, the applicant
would submit (in addition to the
generally required information): Waste
feed data, information on the hazardous
constituents that are likely to be present
in the treatment residue, and a detailed
description of the sampling and analysis
plan that would be used to measure
constituent levels. (Information
requirements under thfe option are
discussed in more detail below under
"Specific Information Requirements.")
The delisting authority would use this
information to set deHstmg levels for the
constituents identified in the waste and
to set sampling and analysis
requirements. These conditions would
be published for comment in the draft
permit and. If approved, incorporated
into the final permit
After the permit had been issued, the
permittee would conduct the sampling
and analysis that was required ai part
of the permit to determine the levels of
constituents present in the waste. If
these levels met the conditions laid out
in the permit, the permittee could handle
the treatment residue as nonhazardous.
However, if the permittee found that the
treatment residue did not meet the
delistable levels or that new
constituents existed in the residue, the
waste would have to be handled as
hazardous. In these circumstances, the
permittee would have to seek a delisting
for the residue through the permit
modification process or the standard
delisting procedures.
The Agency's primary objective in
proposing this consolidation of the
permitting and delisting procedures is to
expedite the delisting process. The
proposed system will provide owners
and operators of facilities (including
MTUs) that treat hazardous waste and
seek to have their treatment residues
classified as nonhazardous with a
process by which they can avoid the
time delays inherent in the current
procedure and know in advance what
requirements they must meet to achieve
delisting.
The Agency perceives several
advantages to integrating delisting into
the permitting process: (1) It provides
equivalent safeguards to the delisting
process as currently allowed; (2) it
provides a logical process for delisting
the waste since permit reviews are
designed to examine the nature of a
waste stream, the process used to treat
it, and the operating conditions of the
treatment system, which are also
fundamental elements of the delisting
review; (3) it allows the applicant to
know the constituent levels that must be
achieved before an expensive unit i»
built or leased: (4) it speeds the time
necessary for debating decisions, since
the delisting application it not delayed
while awaiting permitting, construction,
and operational activities; (5) it provide*
the public and the permit-issuing
authority an opportunity to review and
comment on the hazardous and
nonhazardous nature of the treatment
residue as well as the treatment
technology and its performance before
the permit is issued; and (6) it allows the
Agency to use the permitting system's
extensive procedures for modifying and
terminating permits and/or permit
conditions to ensure the permit holder's
continued adherence to the debiting
conditions.
This proposal addresses the
procedures of delisting but does- not
affect the technical criteria for delisting.
EPA is evaluating its delisting standards
and criteria as part of a separate effort
In particular, the Agency is reviewing
the relationship of delisting levels to its
definition of hazardous waste and
treatment levels required by the HSWA
land disposal restrictions. EPA will be
soliciting comments on these and other
issues as a part of this separate effort.
The following sections present and
explain the regulatory changes that are
proposed today to integrate delisting
into the permit process.
4. Specific information requirements.
As explained earlier, today's proposal
would establish two approaches for
permit applicants seeking to delist a
waste treatment residue as part of the
permitting process. Under proposed
5 270.22(a), permit applicants who had
all of the informatioa including the
actual waste residue analysis, would
submit this information as is currently
required under S 260.20(b) and § 260.22.
Under proposed 9 270.22(b). permit
applicants who do not have the
treatment residue data available could
defer submittal of this information until
after issuance of the permit. In this case,
the applicant would have to provide, at
a minimum: (1) All information required
under 5 280.20(b) (e.g^ the applicant's
name and address, proposed action, and
statement of need for delisting); (2) a
description of the manufacturing process
or other operations, a description of feed
materials producing the waste, and an
assessment of whether such processes,
operations, or feed materials can or may
produce a waste that is not covered by
the demonstration; (3) a description of
the waste and an estimate of the
average and maximum monthly and
annual quantities of waste generated; (4)
a description of the methodologies and
equipment that will be used to obtain
the representative samples and a
description of the tests to be performed
and the instruments to be used in
performing the tests, including the model
numbers of the instruments to be used in
performing the tests; (5) a description of
the sample handling and preparation
techniques, including techniques that
will be used for extraction.
containerization, and preservation of the
samples; (6) such supplemental
information as the delisting authority
finds necessary and appropriate to
determine whether the residues from the
treatment process will be nonhazardous;
and (7) a detailed sampling and analysis
plan that will indicate to the Agency the
representativeness of the samples to be
collected. As part of these data
requirements, permit applicants would
also be required to furnish information
on the hazardous constituents that might
be present in the treatment residue (i.e.,
a complete list of raw materials,
intermediates, by-products, and
products that are likely to be used in the
various processes that generate the
waste). The delisting authority may
-------
Federal^Regjster / Vol. 52, No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3, 1987 / Proposed Rules
20925
waive or reduce the level.of detail for
any of these items, if appropriate.
5. Establishing permit conditions for
delisting. Proposed § 270.32(e)
establishes the following permit
conditions.'In those cases where the
delistmg applicant supplies all the
delisting information, as required under
§ 270.22(a), the permit would establish
maximum levels for the constituents
identified in the waste residue. In
addition, EPA (or the state if the state
had delisting authority) could, in its
discretion, require further sampling and
analysis and reporting of these results
as a permit condition. This would be
particularly appropriate if the waste
feed or process conditions were likely to
vary somewhat The permit would also
require that the waste would have to be
handled as hazardous if it failed to meet
the permitted levels.
When the delisting applicant is unable
to furnish actual waste residue data and
thus must apply for a delisting under
§ 270.22(b), the permit would establish
maximum levels for the constituents
anticipated to be present in the waste
residue. These levels would be based on
the information provided by the
applicant on the waste feed and
intended treatment process (proposed
§ 270.32(e)(2)). In addition, the permit
would set conditions for sampling and
analysis of the treated waste to ensure
that no additional toxic constituents are
present in the waste at significant levels
and that the constituent levels set in the
permit have been met such that the
treated waste is in fact nonhazardous.
These data might include, but would not
be limited to: (1) Representative samples
of the total concentrations of all
Appendix VIII hazardous constituents
likely to be present in the treatment
residue; 3 (2) concentrations of total oil
and grease: (3) leachable concentrations
using the Extraction Procedure (EP) or
Organic Waste Extraction Procedure
(O WEP) of the EP toxic metals plus
nickel; (4) leachabla concentrations
using a distilled water leach test for
cyanide: (5) repraaentative QA/QC
procedures (including reporting spike
concentrations and present recoveries),
and (6) the characteristics of ignitability,
corrosivity, and reactivity. In addition,
the permit could require periodic
sampling, analysis, and reporting, where
the delisting authority deemed it
necessary.
3 In determining which constituents are likely to
be present in the waste, the petitioner would have
to provide justification of which other Appendix
VIII hazardous constituents are not expected to be
present, or if present, why they would not pose a
lexicological hazard.
Once the permit holder has
determined that the waste residue meets
the dfejisting levels in the permit, the
permit holder and other persons would
be able to handle the residue as a non-
hazardous waste. However, if the
constituent levels are not met, if a
previously undetected hazardous
constituent is found in the waste
residue, or if the permittee does not
meet any of the other permit conditions
related to delisting, the permittee would
have to handle the waste residue as
hazardous and seek delisting through
the permit modification process or
current delisting procedures.
The permit would also require the
permittee to report the testing results to
the delisting authority within 90 days
after treatment of the first batch of
waste, and the permittee would have to
submit a certificate that is signed by or
on behalf of the permittee that attests to
the truth, accuracy, and completeness of
the information submitted to the
delisting authority. The delisting
authority would review the data to
verify that the waste met all of the
permit conditions (e.g., met the
maximum allowable levels set in the
permit). If the delisting authority found
that the permit conditions relating to
delisting had not been met, it would
notify the facility in writing that the
waste must be managed as hazardous.
In addition, EPA (or the state if the state
had delisting authority) might take
enforcement action against the
treatment facility if it had managed any
of the waste as nonhazardous.
6. Public notice and comment. Section
300l(f)(2)(A) of RCRA states that the
Administrator shall publish, to the
maximum extent practicable, a proposal
to grant or deny a delisting petition in
the Federal Register within one year
after receiving a complete petition.
Section 3001(f) was essentially a
statutory codification of the publication
requirements for delisting under 40 CFR
260.20(c) and (e). Under these
regulations the Administrator publishes
both the proposed and final petition
determinations in the Federal Register.
In addition, upon written request of an
interested party, the Administrator may,
at his or her discretion, hold an informal
public hearing to consider oral
comments on the tentative decision (see
40 CFR 260.20(d)). Section 3001(f) was
added becasue of Congress' concern
that the Agency was granting delisting
decisions without first soliciting public
comment. (See 50 FR 28717. July 15,
1985.)
The alternative delisting procedure
proposed today would employ the local
notice and comment procedures of the
permitting process, spelled out in
§ 124.10. as well as publication in the
Federal Register. Under this proposed
procedure, § 124.10 regulations would
apply to all delistings that are
incorporated into the permitting process
The regulations direct the Regional
Administrator or State Director to give
public notice concerning the .tentative
denial or approval of a permit
application in a daily or weekly major
local newspaper of general circulation
and to broadcast this information over
local radio stations. In addition, notice
must be given to persons on a mailing
hst composed of interested individuals
from the community, including
participants from past permit
proceedings; the public must be notified
of the opportunity to be placed on the
mailing list through periodic publication
m the public press, environmental
bulletins, or state law journals (40 CFR
124.10(c)(l)(viii)). The EPA region or *
state authority must allow at least 45
days for public comment on the draft
permit. Furthermore, 40 CFR 124.12
states that the State Director or Regional
Administrator shall hold a public
hearing whenever he or she receives
written notice of opposition to a draft
permit and a request for a hearing
within the 45-day comment period.
Accordingly, use of the permitting
procedures eliminates the
administrative discretion with respect to
granting a hearing afforded by the
delisting procedures under 40 CFR
260.20(d).
In addition, to provide an opportunity
for comment nationally and to comply
with section 3001(f), EPA would publish
a Federal Register notice on its proposed
delisting decision at the time it issued
the draft permit. The Federal Register
would state that EPA was proposing to
issue or deny a delisting petition
submitted as part of a permit
application: it would identify the
petitioner, the facility, and the waste for
which delisting was sought; and it would
indicate whether EPA was proposing to
grant or deny the petition. Finally, the
notice would identify an EPA contact
from whom further information could be
obtained and to whom comments should
be submitted.
7. Modification to the general
rulemaking petition process. The final
regulatory change necessitated by
today's delisting proposal concerns: (1)
The appropriate authority to receive a
delisting petition and, (2) the notice and
comment provisions to be used in the
general rulemaking petition process. In
particular, § 260.20(a) and (b) states that
any petition that is submitted to modify
or revoke any provision in Parts 260
-------
20926
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. loe / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 /
through 268 and 268 « should be
submitted to the Administrator.
However, when a delisting petition is
submitted as part of the permit process,
the petition should be submitted to the
Director as defined in 40 CFR 270.2.
Therefore, these two paragraphs have
been modified accordingly.
With respect to the notice and
comment provisions. 40 CFR 260.20(c)
and (e) state that the Administrator will
Publ sh in the Federal Register a notice
of (1) his initial determination, in the
form of an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, a proposed rule, or a
tentative determination to deny the
petition, and (2) his final decision. In
addition, 40 CFR 260.20(d) specifies
when the Administrator may hold an
informal public hearing. However, as
indicated in the previous section, the
delisting procedure proposed today
would employ the local notice and
comment procedures used in the
permitting process in addition to
publication in the Federal Register (See
40 CFR 124.10). Sections 260.20(c). (d),
and (e) have been modified to reflect
this change.
8. Other regulatory changes. This
notice also proposes two minor
technical changes to § 260.22[a) and (b).
This amendment would indicate that
alternate procedures exist, as set out in
the permitting process under § 270.22
and § 270.32(f), for seeking a
determination that a treatment residue
fs non-hazardous.
D. Regulatory Exclusions
1. Background. The HWTC petition
included a "conditional" exclusion for
specific treatment processes from the
RCRA permitting requirement*. HWTC
amended its petition on September 17
and December 15.1988, with suggested
preamble and regulatory language that
detailed the conditions of the
exemption. The units recommended for
the exclusions are us*d far volume
reduction, materials mtaf and
preparation, and phas* Mparatfon.
These units might be cosfeiaen or
tanks, and they could be stationary units
as well as MTUs.
As discussed below. EPA believes
that any exemption from the
requirement that facilities that treat
store, or dispose of hazardous waste
obtain a RCRA permit must be justified
on the basis that the exempted activities
pose a minimal risk to human health and
' Section 260:20 (ndlcite* thit rulemiking
petition! may be submitted to modify or revoke any
provtuon in Part* 280 through 285. Sinca tbi*
proviiion wai promulgated, two new chapters—Part
j!6« and 26S have been added. Therefore. | 260.20(a)
hat been reviled to reflect these addition*.
the environment and thus regulation
under section 3004 of RCRA is
unnecessary. Although EPA would
consider exemptions from the RCRA
permit requirements under section 3005
for minimal risk treatment activities, the
Agency has insufficient information at
the present time on the potential risks
posed by the treatment units described
in the petition. The Agency, therefore, is
deferring a decision on whether to
exclude these treatment activities and
solicits comments and information on
these units to aid EPA's decision on this
issue.
The HWTC petition presents two
reasons for exempting these units. First,
HWTC claims that these units pose a
minimal risk during operation and
therefore the RCRA permitting process
is unnecessary to ensure adequate
protection to human health and the
environment The Council states that the
units are in widespread use, are of a
standardized configuration, operate in a
tank or container, and have low or
extremely low potential for release.
However. HWTC recommends certain
operational and procedural
requirements to ensure that the units are
operated in a protective manner
Second. HWTC states that industry
needs the flexibility provided by
permitting exemptions to meet
anticipated treatment requirements.
These include the new land disposal
restriction program. RCRA corrective
action, and the revised toxicity
characteristic (proposed on June 13,
1988, 51FR 21648), which are expected
to bring a large quantity of waste under
Subtitle C of RCRA.
The types of units discussed by
HWTC are frequently used for
"pretreataent"—for example, the
preparation of wastes for chemical.
biological, or thermal treatment
Treatment of hazardous waste is usually
not a one-step process, and the precise
treatment process often depends on the
characteristics of the waste. Waste
treatment systems may require
modification during operation to
accommodate any variations in the
waste characteristics or for other
reasons. In many cases, this will involve
the introduction of new treatment steps
to prepare the waste. Under current
regulations, owners and operators
wishing to use any of these treatment
processes for hazardous waste, or to
add them to an existing treatment train.
must first have interim status; obtain a
change during interim status (40 CFR
270.72); obtain a RCRA permit; or obtain
a permit modification.
HWTC argues that the permitting
process inhibits owners/operators from
using the most appropriate treatment
process because of the time necessary
for a RCRA permit or permit
modification. Owners and operators
may choose either to transport the
waste to facilities with permits or to
store the waste while awaiting permit
modification. This course of action may
increase the risk of release, they argue.
Applicants may also choose not to treat
the waste in the most effective manner
(e.g., they may carry out thermal
treatment of vast quantities of water),
rather than undergo a permit
modification to incorporate a new
treatment unit (e.g., a dewatering unit) in
the treatment process. Thus, HWTC
argues that allowing the exclusions will
result in greater environmental
protection, increased treatment
capacity, and attainment of effective
treatment at a lower cost.
EPA acknowledges that RCRA
permitting is a complex and time-
consuming process and that permitting
may be a disincentive to the use of some
of these treatment methods. The Agency
also recognizes that these treatment
methods provide waste handlers
necessary flexibility in treating wastes
and that they have an important role in
meeting such HSWA requirements as
corrective action and the land disposal
restrictions. The Agency, however, is
not convinced that permitting exclusions
are the most appropriate means of
increasing flexibility in the RCRA permit
process.
Although the permitting exclusion
suggested by HWTC would facilitate the
use of these technologies, the Agency
believes that the exclusion has several
shortcomings. Specifically, the
exemption of activities from permitting
also excludes owners/operators from
corrective action, closure, financial
responsibility, contingency plans, and
the public participation requirements
under RCRA. Thus, EPA must balance
the loss of this protection against any
potential gains to human health and the
environment created by the exclusions
(i.e., waste will be treated rather than
stored or disposed of without
treatment). The Agency also has
reservations about whether treatment -.
processes can be excluded from
permitting on the grounds that they pose
a minimal risk to human health and the
environment when numerous standards
and conditions must be met prior to
qualification as an exempt activity.
Becuase of these and other issues
discussed below, EPA is soliciting
comments on the proposed approach as
well as recommendations for alternate
methods of expediting the use of low-
risk technologies.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday/June 3.
1987 / Proposed Rules
2. Units suggested for exclusion from
KLRA permitting. The specific
treatment processes that. HWTC
recommended for exclusion from the
permitting requirements are blending
units, phase separation units,
dewatermg units, distillation units,
carbon adsorption units, size reduction
units, and soil cleaning units. fOf course
if any of these units are part of a
recycling activity, they are currently
exempt from regulation. See 40 CFR
261.6(c)(l). However. EPA has recently
proposed air emissions standards that
would apply to recycling activities at
facilities otherwise subject to RCRA
permit requirements (February 5,1987,
52 FR 3748).) The exclusions would not
include chemical, biological, or physical
degradations. HWTC proposed
definitions for the units it believes
should be given a conditional
exemption. These definitions-are
provided below:
• "Blending unit" means a liquid
blending tank, pug mill, ribbon blender.
or a plow blender, or similar device
used to blend waste.
• "Carbon adsorption unit" means a
tank or container which uses granular or
powdered activated carbon, in a
pressure or packed process to remove
contaminants from a liquid waste
stream.
• "Dewatering unit" means a rotary
or belt filter, or a filter press to remove
water from a semi-solid waste.
• "Distillation unit" means a unit that
separates miscible liquids and recovers
the separated liquids by condensation
without discharge of vapors to the
atmosphere.
• "Evaporation unit" means a unit
that physically separates a liquid from a
dissolved or suspended solid by the
application of energy to volatilize the
liquid where the volatilized liquid is
captured and condensed so that it is not
released into the environment.
• "Phase separation unit" means a
process that separates solids and/or one
or more liquid1 pftares and/or organic
constituents from inorganic wastes, in
heated or unheated tanks or containers
a centrifuge, or a pressure vessel in
which compressed gas is used to
enhance or induce-phase separation.
[This definition specifically includes
supercritical fluid extraction.]
• "Size reduction unit" means a
grinder, a shredder, a crusher, or similar
equipment whose purpose and function
is to reduce the size of waste particles.
• "Soil cleaning unit" means any unit
that removes contaminants from soil or
sludge by flushing waste with an
extracting solution.
The Agency solicits comments
regarding the treatment methods
identified by the HWTC for exclusion
from permitting. Comments are also
requested regarding whether the
definitions provided are adequate. In
addition, the Agency requests comments
on whether any of the specific treatment
processes in the above list pose a
significant risk to human health and the
environment and, therefore, should not
be considered by the Agency for
exclusion from permitting. The issue of
risk is discussed in greater detail below.
3. Conditions for exclusion. HWTC
suggested that the exemptions for the
treatment processes be contingent on
the owner and operator complying with
certain operational and procedural
requirements. These requirements,
which are intended to be self-
implementing, are less than those
required for a RCRA permit, but they do
incorporate many of the RCRA
permitting requirements: they include
those requirements thai HWTC believes
are necessary to ensure that the units
pose a de minimis risk during normal
operation. However, the Agency has
reservations about whether any activity
that must meet numerous conditions
before qualifying for an exemption can
be justifiably excluded from the RCRA
permit process under section 3005. The
operational and procedural
requirements recommended by HWTC
are described below.
First. HWTC suggests that the
exclusions be limited to activities
conducted in tanks or containers that
handle solely non-reactive wastes (but
not the dioxin-containing wastes F020.
F021, F022, F023, F028; and F027).
Second, the units could not manage
wastes that exceeded 20 ppm volatile
organic compounds, unless the units
were enclosed and under negative-
pressure. Third, the units would be
subject to the general facility standards
of Part 26ft These requirements include
an EPA- identification number, notices,
waste analysis, security, inspections,
personnel training, location-standards,
and the general requirements for
ignitable and incompatible wastes.
Finally, the units would be subject to-the
standards for containers and tanks
under Part 284 Subparts I and J,
respectively. (Presumably, the units
would also be subject to EPA's proposed
air emission standards in 40 CFR Part
269. when they become final.)
The Agency solicits comments as to
whether the conditions specified above
are the appropriate operating
requirements, assuming that an
exclusion is developed for these units. In
particular, the Agency is concerned that
these units may be sources of air
emissions, either through process vents
or indirectly through ancillary
equipment. Therefore, the Agency
requests comments on the 20 ppm
volatility limit including a discussion ••
why this level would or would not be
appropriate and whether this level is
protective for all waste that might be
treated by these technologies. The
Agency also solicits comments on how
the term "volatile organic compound"
would be defined, and what test
methods should be used in determirung
20 ppm volatility. In addition. EPA
solicits comments on the requirement
that units failing the 20 ppm volatility
test be enclosed and under negative
pressure. Enclosing a unit containing
volatile organics and putting it under
negative pressure would cause air
emissions unless air emission controls
are used. Comments are also requested
on whether the conditions suggested bv
HWTC can effectively be imposed
through general regulations, or whether
the oversight provided by the permit
process is necessary.
HWTC also suggested that excluded
activities comply with recordkeeping
requirements and provide notification
similar to the Part A of a permit
application. The notification
requirement would allow the Agency to
know where treatment is occurring so
that periodic inspection and
enforcement action, if necessary, could
be taken to ensure proper operation.
HWTC also recommended that EPA
maintain a file on the excluded units
that would be open to the public.
HWTC recommended that facilities
planning to operate such an excluded
unit be required to notify the Agency
before such activity would occur. If the
unit were to be installed as a permanent
unit, then only one notification would be
required. If the unit were an MTU. then
notification would be required for each
site at which it operated. Specifically,
the notification would include the name
and/or type of the unit, the names of the
owner/operator of the unit, the location
where the unit is operated, the name of
the owner/operator of the hazardous-
waste management facility or the name
of the generator at the location of
operation, identification of the wastes
being treated in the unit, and the
signature of the owner/operator of the
unit. HWTC believes that the
notification requirement will provide
sufficient reporting and documentation
of the treatment units that are
conditionally exempt. A failure to notify
would be a regulatory violation and
would result in a loss of authority to
operate the unit at a facility until
rectified.
HWTC further recommended that
owner/operators be required to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. Mo. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
maimain records on the units to provide
greater assurance that the units were in
compliance with the operational
requirements under Subparts B. I, and J
of 40 CFR Part 264' The owner/operator
would be required to maintain on file a
waste analysis plan as required by 40
CFR 264.13. an inspection schedule and
inspection records as required by 40
CFR 264.15: a personnel training plan
and personnel job description and
training records as required by 40 CFR
264.16; and the information required by
40 CFR 270.15 and 270.16. as applicable.
The Agency acknowledges that these
provisions would significantly improve
enforcement of the regulatory
exclusions, and it solicits comments on
their appropriateness. However, the
Agency remains concerned that
technologies that require regulations of
this detail may not be appropriate for
exclusion from permitting.
4. Evaluation of risk posed by
suggested units. EPA believes that any
treatment, storage, or disposal units that
are excluded from permitting under
RCRA must be able to be performed in a
manner protective of human health and
the environment without review by the
permitting authority or the public. In
reaching a decision that a specific
technology does not require a permit,
EPA must address two separate
considerations: (1) Risk assessment and
(2) risk managment. Risk assessment
uses facts to determine the effects of
exposure to people and the environment.
Risk management is the process of
accepting the most appropriate
alternative, considering the results of
the risk assessment, engineering options,
and social and economic concerns. Risk
assessments take into account whether
particular chemicals are linked to
detrimental effects (hazard
identification), the quantities that must
be present in order to pose a problem
(dose-response assessment), the extent
of exposure with and without adding
controls to the technoljoy (exposure
assessment), and the extent of the
problem (i.e.. type of disease caused,
number of cases). One method of
performing risk assessment! identifies
the routes of releases (fugitive and
process emissions and spills), the
amounts and composition of releases.
and determines the concentration of the
constituents at the point of exposure.
considering the toxicity of the
constitutents. This approach to risk
assessment is being used to compare the
risks generated from methods of land
disposal with alternate treatment
techniques by modelling waste streams
through each treatment system.
In the case of units handling volatile
organics, there is also the potential
release of these organics, which would
contribute to ambient ozone levels.
These risks, which were recently
addressed in EPA's proposal to control
air emissions at hazardous waste
management facilities under section
3004(h). should also be considered in
any assessment of the risks from these
excluded units.
EPA does not have sufficient
information about the technologies
described in the HWTC petition to
enable the Agency to assess potential
for releases to the environment and
whether the operation of these units is
inherently low risk or whether EPA
permitting and public involvement are
necessary to ensure safe operation. To
make this assessment, EPA seeks data
related to the issues discussed above.
The Agency also requests comment on
the following specific questions.
1. Do any of the units that fall under
the proposed definitions pose a potential
risk of release if they are not controlled
through the permitting process? For
example, do super-critical fluid
extraction units pose a threat to release
because they operate at elevated
temperatures and pressures?
Z. What criteria should be applied to
determine the level of control necessary
for these and any other technologies?
What types of controls are normally
used (e.g., pad) or can be used to
minimize release?
3. Are specific operating requirements,
such as those suggested by HWTC,
appropriate? The petition request would
exempt the units from corrective action,
closure, financial assurances for
operation and closure, and contingency
plans. Are standards needed to address
these factors?
4. Are the limitations suggested by
HWTC adequate for the management of
hazardous waste in the eight
technologies for which an exemption is
requested? For example, what is the
basis for limiting the volatile organic
content to 20 ppm at open units? Are
there compounds that would pose
unacceptable risk at 20 ppm?
5. Is the treatment of hazardous waste
in these units sufficiently safe that EPA
oversight and public involvement
through the permitting process is not
necessary?
In particular, EPA would request more
data on each of the eight types of units
in the following areas:
Technology
1. A general description of the
treatment process, with a process
diagram, if available.
2. A description of the operation of the
system, including start-up, shutdown,
routine operation, and maintenance.
3. A description of how the waste is
transferred in and out of the unit
including alternative methods (poured,
pumped, piped, shoveled, conveyor
belts, troughs).
Releases
1. Identified release points (e.g. hose
of the filling tank, changing filters,
shutdown, clogging, leaking
connections).
2. Frequency of releases, extent of
releases, and methods of reducing
frequency and extent of releases.
_ 3. The exposure pathways of release
(i.e., to air, surface water, ground water.
soil, etc.).
Wastes
1. Wastes not amenable to the
treatment method.
2. Wastes that require additional
control requirements because of
toxicity. volatility, solubility,
degradation rate, and potential for
migration.
Exposure _
1. Potential for migration of a release,
including actual incidents.
2. Amounts of releases that present an
acceptable level of risk.
5. Permit modification approach. An
alternative to the HWTC approach
would be to allow permitted facilities to
add new units of the types described by
HWTC through a streamlined permit
modification process. EPA is considering
just this approach in its regulatory
negotiations on RCRA permit
modifications with representatives of
the states, industry, and public interest
groups. The Agency solicits comments
on the permit modification approach as
an alternative to regulatory exclusions,
both in response to this proposal and to
the Agency's proposal on permit
modification requirements, when it is
published.
IV. Other Issues
A Class Permits
In its January petition, HWTC
recommended that EPA develop a rule
authorizing "class permits" for at least
some types of MTUs. This rule, which
would be similar to the Agency's
January 20.1984 proposal for "class
permits" for tanks and containers (49 PR
29524), would standardize permit
conditions for MTUs and establish a
standard Part B application form.
EPA recognizes die value of a
standardized application form for at
least some categories of MTUs and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday, June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
20929
believes that such a form could
streamline the permitting process,
offering significant resource savings to
applicants and. Demit writers. EPA,
however, believes that the advantages
of a class permit rule can be achieved
without the burden of rulemaking and
that any forms developed for MTUs
should be issued as guidance rather
than in rules. EPA has begun work to
develop a proposed form specifically for
mobile treatment tanks and will make it
available for public comment when it is
completed.
B. Permits by Rule
HWTC also petitioned that EPA
amend 40 CFR Part 270 to allow permit
applicants or manufacturers of MTUs to
petition EPA to promulgate rules that
would become the RCRA permit for a
specific MTU or class of MTUs. The rule
would require the owner/operator of the
MTU to comply with the Part 264
standards of waste analysis,
inspections, contingency plans, closure,
and similar requirements, and it would
impose specific conditions appropriate
for the unit. Under the HWTC proposal,
EPA would publish the proposed rule in
the Federal Register for comment, but
site-specific public notice, hearings, and
corrective action would not be required.
After the rule became effective,
authorized states would be required to
incorporate the rule into their programs,
unless a state's permit requirements
were demonstrated to be: (i) "More
stringent" than the Federal
requirements, (ii) not an unreasonable
burden on interstate commerce, and (iii)
consistent with the intent of RCRA to
provide treatment alternatives. HWTC
suggested that the permit-by-rule-
approach would be most appropriate for
"inherently low risk management units."
The Agency has tentatively decided to
deny the permit-by-rule approach. EPA
believes that the proposal is
inconsistent with-public participation
requirements of section 7«04{b)(2),
which are desipwcPt*> provide citizens
in the vicinity afhmtJong waste
facilities with'iirfbiTOntjn about the-
facility and an opportunity to be heard
before the Agwi«y'» final decision to
issue a permit fl3ff Gangs Hec. FflOSS-
1100. Feb. 20,1980}. While the HVFTG
petition would require th* permit
applicant to comply with, all of the-
substantive requirements- of 48 CFR Part
264, the permit-by-rule- approach would
not provide an opportunity for local
notice and comment. Moreover. tfa«
proposed permit-by-rule procedure
would act to override- the auihorirjtofait
authorized state to issue, a RCRA permit
for MTUs, and, aa proposed-by HWTC
is inconsistent with the requirement that
sites where the MTUs operate undergo
corrective action.
C. Pre£pnstructionfBan
Section 3005(a) of RCRA, as amended
by HSWA, requires owners and
operators of all hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities to obtain a RCRA permit
before constructing a new RCRA
facility. In its petition. HWTC expressed
concern that this requirement codified
at 40 CFR 270.10(f), could be interpreted
as prohibiting the construction of an
MTU before permit issuance.
Consequently, HWTC recommended
that EPA amend § 270.10(f) to provide
that, while an MTU may be constructed
before permit issuance, it may not treat
hazardous waste at a location until a
permit has been issued.
EPA tentatively denies this aspect of
the petition because it believes that the
statute and current regulations already
allow the construction of MTUs or MTU
modules before permit issuance. EPA
interprets the definition of "physical
construction" in 40 CFR270.2, as applied
to MTUs, to mean that MTUs can be
prefabricated off-site and transported to
a treatment site without requiring a
permit However, construction at the site
itself, such as pouring concrete
foundations, connecting the MTU to
physical structures qn-site (e.g., utility
connections), and pretesting the unit on-
site with nonhazardous wastes cannot
occur until the RCRA permit is issued.
Once a RCRA permit has been issued
authorizing the use of the MTU at
specified sites, the owner or operator of
the MTU may locate and operate the
MTU at those sites according to the
schedules of operation or term a Q£ tha
permit.
Tha National Hazardous Waste
Forum agreed with this interpretation in
its report and also recommended against
any specific regulatory amendments to
clarify the applicability of the
preconstruction ban to MTUs.
Nevertheless, EPA solicits comment on
its tentative denial and welcomes.
comments justifying the need for a
regulatory amendment to address-thia
issue.
D. Other MTU Activities
1. MTUs at RCRA permitted facilities^
In many circumstances, MTU owner/
operators may wish to operate at
facilities that already haw RCRA
permits. In these cases, the* facility
permit would have- to be modified to-
allow operation-of theMTlTat that-site.
If the MTU already bald a state-wide
permit the stats-wnfe> conditions- could
become the-basis-of the permit
modification. .
Under current regulations, the
introduction of an MTU at a permitted
facility would require a major permit
modification of the facility's permit,
regardless of the type of unit or the
nature or duration of the'activities. EPA
recognizes that this requirement may
significantly limit the flexibility of
hazardous waste management facilities
in handling wastes, particularly the
pretreatment of wastes to prepare the
waste for final treatment, treatability
studies, and remedial action. For
example, many treatment facilities that
accept a variety of wastes do not know
ahead of time whether treatment will be
necessary to render a specific shipment
of waste suitable for final treatment, or
what form of pretreatment will be best.
These facilities would have to go
through the major permit modification
procedure, which at a minimum would
require several months, before they
could bring a mobile unit on-site to
perform the necessary treatment. This
lack of flexibility in some cases might
actually increase risks, because it could
necessitate long-term storage while
pretreatment units were permitted.
As a result, EPA is reviewing the
general question of how best to handle
the introduction of new treatment
processes (both mobile and fixed) at
permitted facilities. Under some
circumstances (for example, for low-risk
technologies), the Agency believes that
it might be appropriate to allow the
addition of new treatment units to a
permit through an expedition
modification process. This issue is being
addressed as part of the Agency's
regulatory negotiation on RCRA permit
modifications. EPA encourages
comments on the application of permit
modification procedures to mobile
treatment units both in response to
today's proposal, and to the permit
modification proposal under
development.
2. Activities at interim atatua
facilities. Section 270.72 prescribes
changes that can. be made, at interim
status facilities without triggering the-
permit requirements. These include
changes in- or additions, o£ treatment
processes, at a hazardous waste
management facility during interim
status, if the owner or operator submits
a revised. Part A permit application,
together witk a justification for the
changes. EPA or the authorized state
must approve the changes, as being
necessary (if to prevent a threat to
human health- or the environment in an
emergency situation, or (ii) to comply
with Federal regulations or state or local
laws (-f 270i72(cj):
t
-------
20930
Federal Register / Vol "?•> Vr, toe / TAT j ,
g / Vol. ^. No. 106 / Wednesday, fur.e 3. 1SR7 /
h. 2n ? circurns(ances. MTUs may
be allowed to operate at interim status
facilities under this authority. For
!™H™ S-a.:a? !and disposal facility S
• ea hquics banned from disposal; to
t;eal wastes prohibited from land
c.'f P5sa'according to treatment
slandards issued under Part 268. or to
treat wastes in accordance with a
section 3008(h) order or an approved
closure plan. In these cases, the activity
night be approved as necessary to
comply with Federal regulations and.
therefore, could take place under interim
status. Similarly, the use of an MTU for
treatability studies at an interim status
fjcility to determine whether a specific
treatment could meet BDAT (best
demonstrated available technology) in
«=cordance with the land disposal
restrictions, or to select a remedial
nseasure in anticipation of Agency
action under section 3008(h) or section
.-J04(u) would be likely to qualify as an
acceptable change in interim status.
Section 270.72(e). however, limits the
pope of activities that can take place at
I tenm status facilities by prohibiting
cnanges that require a capital
expenditure equalling or exceeding 50%
ofthe construction of a comparable new
razardous waste management facility.
1 herefore. under current regulations, an
MTU could not operate at an interim
s.atus facility, even if its operation were
r .icessary to comply with Federal or
c her regulations or in the case of an
t •nergency. if its cost were more than
r IP, Il£c05i of constructing a new
ncil.ty. The facility would first have to
r'ceive a RCRA permit authorizing the
Lse of the MTU. EPA recognizes that
I .is requirement may unnecessarily
r -strict the flexibility of interim status
facilities complying with Federal or
O'her requirements, includino section
'Z'lf^QFUt . J . . •~*""5 ocv*LlUil
•J wainj orders and closure plans.
Therefore. EPA is proposing in a
s 'parate rulemaking that the
reconstruction ban be lifted for certain
?S&9 ne,cessary to ^p'y w*
federal, state or local regulations
3. Regulatory exclutiotm from RCRA
permitting. Under current regulations
§5 264.l(g) and 270.1(c){2)(v) exclude'
owners and operators of elementary
neutralization units and wastewater
treatment units from RCRA permit
requirements. As long as an MTU meets
Hie regulatory definition of these terms
In 3 260.10. it is not subject to RCRA
permitting requirements.
V. Definition of Designated Facility
EPA is also proposing a minor
revision relating to the manifesting of
hazardous wastes to elementary
neutralization units and wastewater
treatment units (as those terms are
defined in 40 CFR 260.10). If wastes are
introduced directly into these units
v.-ithout prior storage, the units are not
required to obtain a permit or comply
with the interim status requirements
under the hazardous waste rules. This is
because the Agency has exempted these
nfo 7SS .f substantive requirements
§ »«n ' 'he Permit requirements of
Part 270, and the interim status
requirements of Part 265. (See 40 CFR
^ «8if?]La??270-WW> and40CFR
265.I(c)(lO). However. EPA's manifest
system regulations require that a
generator send hazardous waste only to
I ,™S,!f a!fd facility-" As Provided in
§ 260.10, a designated facility must have
an pA permit or a permit from an
authorized state, comply with the
interim status requirements, or be a
facility regulated under the special
provisions of § 261.6(c)(2).
Consequently, these two rules are in
conflict. Elementary neutralization units
and wastewater treatment units (other
than publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) that are permitted-by-rule
under 5 270.60) meet none of the
conditions of a designated unit and,
under present rules, are unable to
receive hazardous waste from off-site
being transported under the provisions
of 40 CFR Part 263. Accordingly, the
Agency is amending the regulations so
tnat elementary neutralization units and
wastewater treatment units that do not
store before treatment can receive
hazardous wastes from off-site.
The proposal would first amend the
definition of "designated facility" under
§ 260.10 so that elementary
neutralization waste and wastewater
treatment units that are exempt from
regulation would be considered a
designated facility. In addition. $ 265.19
is added to Subpart B of Part 265. which
states that elementary neutralization
units and wastewater treatment units
that receive hazardous wastes from off-
site without storing them are required to
obtain an identification number
pursuant to § 262.12. and to comply with
the manifest requirements under
§§ 265.71. 265.72 and 285.76.
authorized states have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA) a
state with final authorization
administered its hazardous waste
program entirely in lieu of EPA
administering the Federal program in
that state. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized state,
and EPA could not issue permits for any
facilities in the state that the state was
authorized to permit. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the state was
obligated to enact equivalent authority
within specified time frames. New
Federal requirements did not take effect
in an authorized state until the state
adopted the requirements as state law.
In contrast, under section 3006fal of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g), new
requirements and prohibitions imposed
by HSWA take effect in authorized
states at the same time that they take
effect in nonauthorized states. EPA is
directed to carry out those requirements
and prohibitions in authorized states,
including the issuance of permits, until
the state is granted authorization to do
so. While states must still adopt HSWA-
related provisions as state law to retain
final authorization. HSWA provisions
apply in authorized states in the interim
VL State Authority
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3006 of RCRA. EPA
may authorize qualified states to
administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the state. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the standards and
requirements for authorization.)
Following authorization, EPA retains
enforcement authority under sections
3008. 7003. and 3013 of RCRA, although
B. Effect on State Authorizations
EPA believes that today's
announcement proposes standards that
would not be effective in authorized
states since the requirements would not
be imposed pursuant to the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984.
Thus, EPA is proposing that the
requirements would be applicable only
in Uiose states that did not have interim
or final authorization. In authorized
states, the requirements would not be
applicable until the state revises its
program to adopt equivalent
requirements under state law. However,
HWTC has suggested that the
requirements proposed today should be
characterized as HSWA-imposed
standards because of the HSWA
legislative history encouraging EPA to
. develop expedited permitting , .
procedures for MTUs and the need for
MTUs in implementing the goals of
HSWA. Although EPA disagrees with
this characterization, the Agency solicits
comments on the approach suggested by
rlWTG*
It should be noted that authorized
states are only required to modify their
programs when EPA promulgates
Federal standards than are more
stringent or broader in scope that the
existing Federal standards. For those
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 52. No. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 /. Proposed
2O931
Federal program changes that are less
stringent to reduce the scope of the
Federal program, states are not required
to modify their programs. This is a result
of section 3009 of RCRA which allows
. states to impose standards in addition to
those m the Federal program. The
amendments proposed in today's rule
are considered to be less stringent than
or reduce the sco.pe of the existing
Federal requirements. Therefore,
authorized states would not be required
to modify their programs to adopt
requirements equivalent or substantially
equivalent to the provisions listed
above.
VII. Regulatory Analysis
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"major" and, if so must prepare a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. The notice
published today is not major because
the rule will not result in an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or
more; will not resut in increased costs or
prices; will not have significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, or innovation:
and will not significantly disrupt
domestic or export markets. Therefore,
EPA is not developing a Regulatory
Impact Analysis in connection with this
proposed rule.
The proposed rule was submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review as required by
Executive Order 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., EPA is
required to determine whether a
regulation will have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. For any rule which has such an
impact. EPA must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analytic No regulatory
flexibility analy«i» u required where the
Administrator certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
The amendments proposed today
merely provide additional flexibility for
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities to respond to new
requirements and do not affect the
compliance burdens of the regulated
community. Therefore, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 601(b), I certify that this
regulation will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act .of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.)i!pPA must,esiimate the paperwork
burden'created'b'y any information
collection request contained in a
proposed or final rule. This proposal
does not impose new information
requirements but instead changes the
procedures for submittal of information
currently required. The proposal in fact
will result in a decreased burden for the
applicant by eliminating submitted
duplicate information for multiple sites
at which the MTU will operate. The
information collection requirements
contained in this proposal have been
previouly approved by OMB and were
assigned OMB control number 3510-3.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 260
Hazardous waste, Delisting,
Designated facility.
40 CFR Part 265
Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment and disposal.
40 CFR Part 270
Administrative practice and
procedure. Hazardous waste. Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Permit
application requirements. Waste
treatment and disposal.
Dated: May 21,1987.
Lee M. Thomas,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, it is proposed to amend Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
1. The authority citation for Part 260
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 1006. 2002(a). 3001 through
3007. 3010. 3014. 3015. 3017. 3018,1019, and
7004 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. as
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978, as amended (42 U.S.C.
6905. 6912(a). 6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934.
6935. 6937. 6938, 6939, and 6974).
2. Section 260.10 is amended by
revising the definition of "designated
facility" to read as follows:
§260.10 Definition*.
• * * * *
"Designated facility" means a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or
disposal facility which has received an
EPA permit (or a facility with interim
status) in accordance with the
requirements of Parts 270 and 124 of this
chapter, a permit from a State
authorized in accordance with Part 2~1
of this chapter, or that is regulated under
§ 261.6(c)(2), § 265.19. or Subpart F of
Part 266 of this chapter and that has
been designated on the manifest by the
generator pursuant to § 262.20.
* * • * *
3. Section 260.20 is revised to read as
follows:
§ 260.20 General.
(a) Any person may petition the
Administrator to modify or revoke any
provision in Parts 260 through 266 and"
268 of this chapter. In addition, any
person may petition the Director (as that
term is defined in 40 CFR 270.2) to
exclude a waste at a particular facility
where the petition is submitted as part
of the permit application. This section
sets forth the general requirements
which apply to all such petitions.
Section 260.21 sets forth the additional
requirements for petitions to add a
testing or analytical method to Part 261,
264. or 265. Section 260.22 or 270.22 sets
forth the additional requirements for
petitions to exclude a waste at a
particular facility from §261.3 of this
chapter or the lists of hazardous wastes
in Subpart D of Part 261. "
(b) Each petition must be submitted to
the Administrator or the Director (where
the petition is submitted as part of the
permit application) by certified mail and
must include:
(1) The petitioner's name and address:
(2) A statement of the petitioner's
interest in the proposed action:
(3) A Description of the proposed
action, including (where appropriate)
suggested regulatory or permit language:
and
(4) A statement of the need and
justification for the proposed action.
including any supporting tests, studies,
or other information.
(c) Except as provided in paragraph (f)
of this section, the Administrator will
make a tentative decision to grant or
deny a petition and will publish notice
of such tentative decision, either in the
form of an advanced notice of proposed
rulemaking, a proposed rule, or a
tentative determination to deny the
petition, in the Federal Register for
written public comment.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph
(f) of this section, the Administrator.
upon written request of any interested
party, may, at his discretion hold an
informal public hearing to consider oral
comments on the tentative decision. A
person requesting a hearing must state
the issues to be raised and explain why
written comments would not suffice to
communicate the person's views. The
-------
20332
_, _ l l
Administrator may in any case decide
{e) Except as provided
of this section, the Adminisr
evaluating all public comments. will
!h! r£ ^f Ide9isfon b* Pushing in
the Federal Register a regulatory
at?n A Cnt or a denial of toe Petition
,. "{.Any petition that is submitted to
Jo^S?!8,3 that,teJm i3 defined in
40 U-R 2/0.2) to exclude a waste at a
Particular facility where the petition is
submitted as part of the permit
application will follow the notice and
^MI?oeiltrPr°S^re3 "P^fied at 40 CFR
Part 124. In addition, at the time the
Director publishes notice of the draft
permit, in accordance with 40 CFR
124.10. the Director shall publish a
Federal Register notice:
(I) Stating that the Director is
proposing to issue a delisting petition
submitted as part of a permit
application;
(2) Identifying whether the Director's
proposed decision is to grant or deny the
petition;
(3) Identifying the petitioner, the
fJcllity, and the waste for which
dulisting wa» sought;
(4) Identifying the name, address, and
telephone number of an Agency contact
from whom further information may be
obtained, including a copy of the
Director1* proposed delisting decision;
0
determined to be nonhazardous
pursuant to §§ 270.22 and 270.32(e).
(5) Announcing a public comment
period of at least 30 days.
4. Section 260.22 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) and the first sentence of
paragraph (bj to read as follows:
IX2 p*wlon* to am*nd Part 261 to
CXClUda • W^ttm nmrfcn . I .«. - ___». .
(a) Any person seeking Jo exclude a
waste at a particular generating facility
from the list, in Subpart D ofPirt 261
n;ay either petition for a rag»taory
amendment under thit mcflaM and
§ 260.20, or may use th* psooidures
specified in ${ 270.22 and »O32fe] fa
the case of a treatment aaM or facility
uh!ch meets the reqnireMti of those
provisions. To be successful:
PART 265—INTERIM STATUS
STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND
OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
5. The authority citation for Part 265
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec». 1006,2002-2°.may »'so be ased to petition
ine Administrator for regulatory
fV/ovlir6"!? lo exclnde &«" * 261.3
{d)(2)(ii) or fc) a waste which is
described fn those sections and is a
waste that is listed in Subpart D. or that
contains a waste Ksted in Subpart D, or
that is derived from a waste listed in
bubpart D, unless the waste is a
treatment residue which has been
"iT8*0*1008k 2a* *»•. 3007. 301
and 7004 of th« Solid Waste Disposal Aita
amended by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1978. i* amended (42 U.S.C
8905.6«a 0025. 8827.8839. and «B74).
9. In Part 270. 5 270.22 is added to
Subpart B to read as follows:'
§270.22 SpacHic Information
rcqutrtfiMnts for dMsttng hazardous
wists.
Owners and operators of facilities or
units (including mobile treatment units.
as defined under { 270.68) that treat
hazardous waste and seek to have such
delisted
Process must Provide
A ype? of inf°nnatton together
their application for a permit or a
permit modification to the Director
(a) All information required under
5 260.20(b) and 5 260.22; or
(b) If data on the actual waste is
unknown, then the applicant must
submit information required for delisting
to the best of his or her ability. At a
minimum this information shall include
the following:
(1) All information required under
5260.20(b);
(2) A description of the manufacturing
process or other operations and feed
materials producing the waste and an
assessment of whether such processes,
operations, or feed materials can or may
produce a waste that is not covered by
the demonstration;
(3) A description of the waste and an
estimate of the average and maximum
monthly and annual quantities of waste
generated;
(4) A description of the methodologies
and equipment that will be used to
obtain the representative samples, a
description of the tests to be performed
and of the instruments, including model
numbers, to be used in performing the
tests;
(5) A description of the sample
handling and preparation techniques,
including techniques that will be used
for extraction, containerization and
preservation of the samples;
(6J A detailed sampling and analysis
plan that will indicate how the facility
will collect and analyze representative
samples of the treatment residue;
(7) A description of the types of
materials that will be used in the
various processes' and the identity of the
toxic contaminants that are expected to
be present in the waste at levels of
regulatory concern;
(•) Such supplemental information as
the Director finds necessary and
appropriate to enable the Director to
determine if the residues from the
treatment process will be nonhazardous;
and
(9) The information requirements
underjhis section and level of detail
may be waived at the discretion of the
Director.
10. In } 270.32, paragraph (e) is
redesignated as paragraph (f), and a
new paragraph (e) is added to read as
follows;
$270.32 EstabRsfiln« permit condtttofw.
• • • • •
(e) For permits that incorporate
standards for detisting of waste residue,
the permittee must demonstrate to the
-------
^Federal Register / Vol. 52. N'p. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed Rules
20933
satisfaction of the Director that the
waste will be nonhazardous pursuant to
§§ -260.20(.a) (1) and (2). If the permittee
is successful, the Director must establish
permit conditions for this portion of the
permit as follows:
fl) In cases where applicants provide
all the data required under § 260.20(b)
and § 260.22. in accordance with
§ 270.22(a), the Director shall set permit
conditions as follows:
(ij Maximum levels for the hazardous
constituents identified in the actual
waste. If the contaminants in the waste
exceed these levels, the waste must be
handled as hazardous.
(ii) Sampling, analysis, and reporting •
requirements as deemed necessary by
the Director. &
(2) In the case where the applicant has
insufficient information on the waste to
support a delisting petition under
§ 270.22(a) and applies under
§ 270.22(b), the Director shall set permit
conditions as follows:
(i) Identification of the hazardous
constituents likely to be present in the
treatment residue as well as the
maximum levels of those hazardous
constituents (on the basis of information
received on the waste feed and the
treatment process). -
(ii) Sampling, analysis, and reporting
requirements sufficient to provide the
Director with all information required
under § 260.22 which was not supplied
at the time of the permit application, as
well as requirements for periodic
sampling, analysis, and reporting as
deemed necessary by the Director.
(iii) The permittee must handle the
waste as hazardous until he or she has
analyzed it in accordance with the
sampling and analysis requirements of
§ 270.32(e)(l)(ii) above and determined
that the constituent levels do not exceed
the maximum levels prescribed in
1 2ro.32(e)(l)(i).
(iv) The permittee must submit all
sampling and analysis data required
under § 270.32(e)(2)(ii) to support the
delisting within 90 days from the time of
treatment of the first batch of waste, or
later if approved by the Director.
(v) Together with the information
required under 5 270.32{e)(2){iii). the
permittee must submit the following
statement signed by the permittee or by
a person authorized to sign a permit
application or report for the permittee
under §270.11:
I certify under penalty of law that I have
personally examined and am familiar with
the information submitted in this
demonstration and all attached documents.
and :hat. based on my inquiry of those
invidlJuals immediately responsible for
obtaining the information. I believe that the
submitted information is true, accurate, and
complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine
and imprisonment.;!:.
(vi) The Directpr will review the data
submitted in accordance with
§ 270.32(e)(2)(iv) to determine if the
delisting conditions have been met. In
the event that the delisting conditions
specified in the permit are not met, the
Director will notify the facility owner/
operator that the waste must be handled
as a hazardous waste.
« • « • *
11. In Part 270, § 270.66 is added to
Subpart F to read as follows:
§ 270.66 Mobile treatment units.
(a) Applicability. For the purposes of
this section a "mobile treatment unit" is
any device or equipment, or
combination of devices or equipment,
that treats hazardous waste and that is
designed to be transported and operated
at more than one site.
(b) State-wide mobile treatment
permits. (1) The Director may issue a
state-wide permit to a mobile treatment
unit owner and operator for a specific
mobile treatment unit and any identical
units. The permit will specify general
operating and unit-specific conditions
that will apply at any facility in the
State at which the permitted unit
operates. However, the unit may not
operate at a facility in the State that
does not have a RCRA permit or interim
status until site-specific conditions have
been added to the state-wide mobile
treatment permit, as specified in
§ 270.66(d), and issued as a final RCRA
permit in accordance with the
procedures of 40 CFR Part 124.
(2) State-wide mobile treatment
permits must be approved in accordance
with the permitting procedures of 40
CFR Part 124 except that the local notice
and hearing requirements of
§ 124.10{c)(2)(ii) and $ 124.12(a)(3) do
not apply. The Director shall provide
reasonable notice of the draft permit
throughout the State and opportunity for
one or more public hearings.
(3) The final state-wide permit issued
to a mobile treatment unit will establish
general operating and unit-specific
conditions that will apply at each site at
which the unit operates. The permit
shall:
(i) Incorporate expressly or by
reference all of the conditions listed in
i 270.30 and $ 270.31.
(ii) Assign an identification number
for the permit, with additional
identifying numbers for each unit
operating under the permit.
(iii) Require compliance with:
(A) Sections 264.12. 264.13, 264.16,
264.17. and 264 Subpart E (if applicable);
(B) Section 264.15. with respect to the
inspection of all monitoring, safety,
emergency, and operating equipment
that are part of the mobile treatment
unit and will be operated at all
locations;
(C) Part 264 Subpart G, with respect to
final closure of the mobile treatment
unit, and Subpart H, with respect to
financial assurance for final closure of
the mobile treatment unit;
(D) Part 265 Subpart J, with respect to
treatment and waste feed tanks that are
part of the mobile treatment unit:
(E) Part 264 Subpart O and § 270.62. if
applicable;
(F) Part, 264 Subpart X, if applicable:
and
(G) Part, 269 Subpart C, if applicable,
(iv) Include any other conditions the
Director determines to be necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
(4) With the approval of the permit
applicant, the Director may waive any
of these permit conditons in the state-
wide permit. However, any waived
conditions must be included in all site-
specific RCRA operating permits for the
mobile unit issued in accordance with
§ 270.66(d).
(5) The state-wide mobile treatment
permit may be modified after approval
by the Director under the procedures of
i 270.41 or 5 270.42.
(c) Application for a state-wide
mobile treatment permit. An-applicant
for a state-wide mobile treatment permit
under this section must submit the
following information to the Director:
(1) A Part A permit application
containing:
(i) Identifying numbers or other means
of identification for each of the units for
which a permit is requested.
(ii) The information required in
§ 270.13(a).
{iii] The address of the location where
the mobile treatment unit will be stored
when not in use.
(iv) The information required by
§ 270.13(c), as it applies to the types of
sites at which the applicant proposes to
operate.
(v) The information required by
5 270.13(d) and (g), as it applies to the
mobile treatment unit or units.
(vi) The information required by
§ 270.13(i).
(vii) The class codes of the hazardous
wastes listed or designated under 40
CFR Part 261 that can be treated by the
mobile treatment unit and for which a
permit is requested.
(viii) Where the application is for
more than one unit, a certification by a
requistered professional engineer that
the units are identical.
-------
(2) A Part B permit application
containing:
/!Ji ™P"eraI descn'P<>°n of the unit.
s J-n l<,l!Pformation re 0.14(b)(5), with respect to the
inspection of all monitoring, safety
emergency, and operating equipment
that are part of the mobile treatment
unit and will be used at all locations.
(v) The information required bv
§ 270.14{b){9) and (12). 4 y
fvi) The information required bv
/b13a
„„„__ 4 . 11 i. . I / "* UHS rail, *VIlIj
respect to the final closure of the mobile
treatment unit.
(vii) The information required by
5fai4(b)(17)and(18). ^ y
(viii) The information required by
§ 270.16. with respect to any treatment
and waste feed tanks that are part of the
mobile treatment unit.
(ix) The information required by
5 F?'i9 and,5 270-62-as applicable.
(XJ Any other information the Director
may reasonably need to establish state-
wide permit conditions that will protect
health and the environment.
(Q) Site-specific operating permit. (1)
A mobile treatment unit may not operate
under this section until a site-specific
operating permit has been issued for the
facility at which the unit will operate A
site-specific operating permit includes
both the state-wide permit conditions
and the site-specific conditions that are
applicable to the site at which the unit
will operate. The site-specific permit
must be issued in accordance with the
procedures of 40 CFR Part 124. The
owener or operator of a mobile
treatment unit or of the facility at which
a unit will operate may request approval
of a site-specific operating permit as
part of the state-wide permit
application.
(2} If approval of site-specific
conditions is requested in. tfaa
application for a state-wid«p«rmit. the
Director shall provide local notice and
opportunity for hearing, pursuant to 40
CFR Part 124. on both the sUU-wide
and the site-specific condltonm at each
site at which the unit will operate The
draft permit must indicate which
conditons are state-wide and which are
site-specific. The Director may
consolidate hearings as long as the
location of the consolidated hearing is
convenient to the population centers
nearest to the proposed sites.
(3) If approval of a site-specific
operating permit is requested for a
mobile treatment unit to which a state-
wide permit has been issued, the
Director shall publish for local comment.
m accordance with the permit issuance
procedures of 40 CFR Part 124. the state-
wide mobile treatment permit together
with draft site-specific permit conditons.
The terms of the mobile treatment
permit shall be incorporated into the
final site-specific operating permit
unless the Director detemines that they
are inadequate to protect human health
and the environment at the site.
[4) The final permit issued under this
section shall include all applicable
permit requirements of Parts 264, 269
and 270 not already included in the
state-wide permit and shall specifically:
(ij Identify by number each unit
permitted to operate at the site.
(ii) Identify the duration of the permit
for that specific site. The term of the
permit must not exceed ten years.
(iii) With respect to the operations of
the mobile treatment unit and related
activities, require compliance with:
(A) The security standards of § 264.14
and the inspection requirements of
S 264.15, to the extent that they are not
already covered in the state-wide
permit.
(B] The location standards of { 264.18,
the preparedness and prevention
requirements of Part 264 Subpart C, and
the contingency plan and emergency
procedure requirements of Part 264
Subpart D.
(C) The financial assurance
requirements of Part 284 Subpart H as
they apply to closure at the site of
operation.
(D) The requirements of Part 264
Subpart I; Subpart J, with respect to
storage and pretreatment tanks at the
location that are not part of the mobile
treatment unit and covered by the state-
wide permit; and Subpart L. if
applicable.
(E) The corrective action requirements
of § 264.100. ai they apply to releases of
hazardous wastes or hazardous
constituents from the mobile treatment
unit or from associated activities at the
facility conducted by the mobile
treatment owner and operator.
(iv) Require that the facility owner
comply with:
(A) The corrective action
requirements of { 284.100. as they apply
to releases of hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents from solid waste
management units on the facility.
(B) The financial assurance
requirements of Part 264 Subpart H as
they apply to corrective action.
(C) All appropriate permitting
requirements for hazardous waste
management units on the facility that
are not under the control of the mobile
treatment unit owner and operator.
(v) Incorporate expressly or by
reference the statewide mobile
treatment permit for the unit or units to
be located at the facility.
(vi) Include any other conditions the
Director determines to be necessary to
protect human health and the
environment.
(e) Application for a site-specific
operating permit. An applicant for a
site-specific operating permit under this
section must submit to the Director all
applicable information required in
§ 270.13. S 270.14. and S 270.62 that has
not already been submitted in the state-
wide mobile treatment permit
application. This information shall
include:
[1} A Part A permit application
containing:
(i) The information required in
§ 270.13. as it applies to the facility
seeking the permit
(ii) The schedule of operations at the
facility, to the extent it is known at the
time of permit application.
(2) A Part B application containing:
(i) The information required in
5 270.14(b)(l). (b)(4), (b)(6), (b)(7).
(b)(10). (b)(ll). (b)(14). and (b)(19).
(ii) The information required in
§ 270.18 with respect to storage_and
pretreatment tanks at the location that
are not covered in the state-wide permit
conditions, and the information on
containers in $ 270.15 and waste piles in
5 270.17. if applicable.
(iii) The inspection information
required in i 270.14(b)(5) with respect to
structures installed at the. location and
equipment not covered in the state-wide
permit conditions.
(iv) The information required in
§ 270.14(b)(13) and (b)(15). with respect
to interim closure of the mobile
treatment unit and final closure of any
structures or equipment left at the
location.
(v) Any other information the Director
may reasonably need to establish site-
specific conditions that will protect
human health and the environment.
(3) A copy or the identifying number
of the state-wide mobile treatment
permit for each mobile unit to be located
at the facility, if the units have been
issued final state-wide permits. If the
units have not been issued final state-
wide mobile treatment permits, permit
applications under this section must also
contain the information required in
S 270.66(c).
(f) Conditions applicable to all mobile
treatment units—(1) Treatment ichedule
ana notices. Unless otherwise specified
in the site-specific permit, a mobile
treatment unit may operate at the site
specified in the permit at any time
during the life of the permit and may
return repeatedly to the site without the
-------
_Vol. 52. \'o. 106 / Wednesday. June 3. 1987 / Proposed RuJes
20935
issuance of a new perm;: or
modification. The perm:- may in'c':V;.jft
the requirement that the owner or ' '
operator of the mobile treatmer.! jr.it
provide notice to the Director, st.jte'or
•uciii c:'f:i.:,iis, or local emergency
rf.--ipor.se off-.i.u.s before arrival and
optrr,it:.in of -hd u.-it at the facility.
'-I Afc.?."> •••.•>•. A m-.'bi!e t.ink unit that
noes not meet the requirements of 40
CrR 264.197 or a rr.cbiie incinerator that
does not meet the requirements of 40
CFR 264.315 before leaving a site, must
comply with the requirements df 40 CFR
Parts 262 and 263.
[FR Doc 8--1C365 Flied 6-2-87: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8560-50-M
-------
------- |