Thursday
December 10, 1987
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 144, 260, 264, and 270
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units;
Standard; Applicable to Owners and
Operators; Final Rule
-------
46946 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No: 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1997 / Rule,s and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY. ' .
40 CFR Parts 144,260, 264, and 270
[FRL 3220-1 I
Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units;
Standard; Applicable to Owners and
Operators
Art :MUY: En-, 'rnnrncn!".! !'•••:! •' ri<;n
RCRA/Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-
9346 (toll free) or (202) 382-3000 in
Washington, DC. For information on the
technical aspects of this rule, contact
Kent Anderson. Land Disposal Branch,
Waste Management Division, Office of
Solid Waste (WH-565E), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (202) 382-4054.
A. Si:!,:itin .!i}4.tiOi)—A;;;::1' :•„ ::.
B. 'Suction 2S4.n!)l—Hnvi;.,rn-^"::.-i •
formunce Standards ^
1. Ground-Water and Subsurf;in; Mxr.
tion ;
2. Surface Watfjr {IndiiJ.Vn VVn'-r
and Surface Soils
3. Air '• i
C. Suction 264.602—Monitoifr.jj. Ar.ijyr-
Inspection. Response. Raporiin.y. ""
Own'.1'!'.'-' Action
SUMMARY: The Resource Gons'jrv.Uion
and Recovery Act (RCRAj authorizes
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to issue standards applicable to
owners and operators of hazardous
waste management facilities. Over the
past several years, the Agency has
promulgated standards for specific types
of treatment, storage, and disposal units,
including containers, tanks, surface
impoundments, waste piles, land
treatment units, landfills, incinerators.
•India-ground injection wells, si mi
research, development, and
demonstration facilities. However.
because some hazardous waste
management technologies are not
covered by the existing permitting
standards, owners and operators of
facilities utilizing them cannot obtain
the RCRA permits necessary to operate
(hum.
To fill this gap, the Agency is today
promulgating a new set of standards
under Subpart X of Part 264. The
standards are applicable to owners and
operators of new and existing hazardous
waste management units riot covered
under the existing regulations. This will
enable the Agency, and the States that
adopt equivalent authorities, to issue
permits to miscellaneous waste
management units.
DATE: This final rule is effective January
11.1988.
ADDRESSES: The official record for this
rulemaking under docket No. F-87-
SPXF-FFFFF is located at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. It is
available for viewing from 9:00 a.m. to
4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. The public should
make an appointment to review docket
muU;rinl by calling (202) 475-9327. The
public may copy a maximum of 50 pages
of material from any one regulatory
docket at no cost. Additional copies cost
S0.20 per page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
. For general information, contact the
A. Development of '.hn Hazardous vVas'e
Regulatory Program
B. Summary of the Need for Subpart X
C. General Approach and Scope of Sub-
part X.
D. Comments Received on the Proposed
Rule
1. Specificity of Subpart X Standards
2. Definition of "Miscellaneous Unit"
3. Redefinition of "Landfill"
III. The Agency's Approach
A. Alternative Approaches Considered
1. Design and Operating Standards
2. Technical Performing Standards
3. Containment Standards
4. Facility-Specific Risk Assessment
5. Environmental Performance Standards
6. Combination of Approaches
B. Selected Approach for Subpart X Stand-
ards
1. Examples of Units Covered Under
Subpart X
a. Placement of Hazardous Waste in
Geologic Repositories
b. Placement of Hazardous Waste in
Deactivated Missile Silos
c. Thermal Treatment Units Other
Than Incinerators
d. Open Burning/Open Detonation of
Explosive Wastes
e. Certain Chemical. Physical, and Bio-
logical Treatment Units
2. Examples of Units Not Covered or
Units for Which Subpart X Permits
Will Not Be Issued
a. Treatment. Storage, and Disposal in
Units Currently Regulated Under
Parts 264
b. Open Burning of Nonexplosive Haz-
ardous Waste
c. Units Excluded from Permitting
Under Parts 264 and 270
d. Mobile Units
e. Disposal of Hazardous Waste Un-
dergound That Is Currently Regulat-
ed Under Part 146 •
f. Enclosed Buildings Used for Treat-
ment. Storage, or Disposal
j>. Research. Development. and Dem-
onstration (RD&D) Units Covered
Under § 270.65
IV. Amendments to Part 260: Definitions
A. Miscellaneous Unit
B. Landfill
V. Amendments to Part 264: Subpart X Regu-
lation for Miscellaneous Units
Mis!:i;iicineoiiS Units In S .".rO.J i
C. Coni'rjrmmg Changes
VII. Applicability to Slate Hazardous) V. .;s;i-
Mhnageni'int Programs
A. Applicability of Ruir-s in .'.„•;•..•,•• -:
States •
B. Effect on State Authorizations
VIII. Effective Dates
. IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
B. Regulatory Flexibility1 Act
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
X. SuDpur'iijg Documc.'its
XI. List ot Subjects
I. Authority
These regulations are issued under
authority of sections 1006, 2002(a), and
3001 through 3013 of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act (SWDA), as amended by
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRAj. as ,
amended, 42'U.S.C. 6901 ft st"f.
II. Background
A. Development of the Hazardous1
Waste Regulatory Program
The Environmental Protection A-u-r.c;.
is required by section 3004 of RCRA to
establish standards for owners and
operators of hazardous waste facilities
in order to protect human health and the
environment. These standards establish
the duties of and provide the basis for
issuing permits to the owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment.
storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities
undersectjon 3005 of RCRA. Therefore.
these standards serve not only to
regulate the operations of these TSD
facilities, but also to provide a basis for
evaluating the issuance of these parrr.its.
The Agency has promulgated thcsa
regulations in stages. On May 19, 1'K-iO
(45 FR 33221), the Agency issued ••
regulations establishing adrnin,<•.•:;:•.:..•
requirements for certain types of
hazardous waste management, ytnicrni
provisions for facility owners and
operators, p.ermitting procedures for
hazardous waste management facilities.
and procedures for State program
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday. December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46947
4authorization. On January 12.1981 (46
FR 2802), the Agency issued regulations
establishing technical standards and
permitting requirements for certain
storage and treatment facilities. On
January 23,1961 (46 FR 7678), and June
24,19S2 (47 FR 27515). the Agency issued
technical standards for hazardous waste
incinerators. On April 7.1982 (47 FR
15032), and April 16,1982 (47 FR 1G544),
tne A.gt.ncy issued regulations for
demonstrating financial responsibility.
On July 26, 1982 (47 FR 32274), the
Agency promulgated technical and
permitting standards for new and
existing TSD facilities on land, including
surface impoundments, waste piles, land
treatment units, and landfills. :
On July 15,1985 (50 FR 28702), the
Agency amended its hazardous waste
management rules to codify several
statutory changes required by the
Hazardous and Solid Wasto
Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). These
changes included revisions to the
technical requirements for land TSD
facilities, revisions to the permitting
requirements for all TSD facilities, and
limitations on the placement of
hazardous waste in salt-dome
formations, salt bed formations.
underground mines, and caves. In
addition, these amendments included
new rules that allow for the permitting
of certain research, development, and
demonstration facilities.
These standards are presented in
Table 1.
TABLE 1.—FEDERAL RULES PERTAINING TO THE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
RCRA Code
Description
40 CFR Part 260
40 CFR Part 261
40 CFR Part 262
40 CFR Part 263
40 CFR Part 264
40 CFR Part 265.
40 CFR Part 266
40 CFR Part 268.....
40 CFR Part 269
40 CFR Part 270
40 CFR Part 271
40 CFR'Part 124
Basic regulatory definitions of what is covered under these standards.
Definition of a hazardous waste.
Requirements for hazardous waste generators.
Requirements for hazardous waste transporters.
Establishes the permitting standards in the form of specific conditions for facility operation desiqn
performance, and location.
Establishes operational standards for existing facilities (on or before November 19, 1980) with "interim
standards" until the site has obtained a final permit or it loses its interim status because of the provisions
outlined under HSWA.
Establishes standards applicable to generators and transporters of materials used in a manner that
constitutes disposal. This also includes standards for disposal of specific hazardous wastes where
hazardous materials are used/recycled for recovery of heat, precious metals, and reclaimed batteries.
Sets treatment standards and schedules for prohibition of wastes for land disposal (including surface units,
injection wells, salt domes, salt beds, underground mines or caves, or concrete vaults or bunkers).
Establishes permitting standards for control and monitoring of air emissions at TSDs.
Outlines definitions and basic requirements for RCRA permits.
Sets out the guidelines for final approval of State hazardous waste programs that will be used instead of the
. Agency's program.
Establishes the permit process to be followed under several Agency programs.
B. Summary of the Need for Subpart X
Although the Agency has issued
regulations for the major hazardous
waste management technologies and
practice s. gaps still remain. To close the
gaps in the RCRA regulations and to
cover unregulated hazardous waste
management units, on November 7,1986,
the Agency proposed the Subpart X rule.
Subpart X covers miscellaneous units
and essentially completes the coverage
of hazardous waste management units.
Currently, promulgated regulations in
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 are the
primary regulations for many types of
hazardous waste management units as
ciL-fl-.ed in § 260.10. These include
: nr-tainers, tanks, surface
•"rir:!.:ndmcnts, waste piles, land
•rr:r;trnf:r;l units, landfills, and
•.nciiiRrators. Research, development.
arid demonstration facilities and
underground injection wells are
regulated under Part 270 and the
Underground Injection Control Program
of the Safe Drinking Water Act (40 CFR
Part 146), respectively.
The Agency is aware, however, that
certain existing and future hazardous
waste management practices and
technologies do not or may not fit the
description of any of the units covered
by the existing regulations. If they do
not fit these descriptions, then they
cannot be fully permitted and can only
operate as interim status facilities. This
is not desirable because it prevents the
construction of new units or expansion
of existing units. For example, thermal
treatment of hazardous waste in units
other than incinerators, boilers, or
industrial furnaces may not be fully
permitted because such units are not at
present covered by Part 264 or Part 266.
This means that existing units with
interim permit status under Part 265 may
not receive a full Part 264 RCPxA permit.
In addition, Part 264 permitting
standards provide better environmental
protection than the interim standards:
The Agency has received a number of
requests that standards be issued to
allow the construction of new hazardous
waste management units not previously
covered by Part 264. Furthermore, some
types of new units that cannot now be
constructed may reduce risks to human
health and the environment from the
management of hazardous waste.
Therefore, the Agency regards the
Subpart X rule as a means of allowing
flexibility for technological development
and innovation.
C. Genera! Approach and Scope of
Subpart X
This regulation covers miscellaneous
units not regulated under the standards
for specific types of treatment, storage,
and disposal units in Part 264 Subparts I
through O or Part 146 or Part 270.
Because these standards cover both
existing and future treatment, storage.
and disposal technologies, today's
approach is to promulgate a new set of
general standards that will cover
diverse technologies and units. The ,
Agency may develop specific technology
standards in the future, if the need
arises.
The Agency is regulating under
today's rule most of those units that are
not covered by a subpart under Part 264
or Part 146. For example, units that do
not fit the definition of any of the units
covered by the standards of Part 264 or
Part 146 would be regulated as
miscellaneous units. In addition,'unless
otherwise excluded, if a new type of unit
-------
46948 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 19o7 / Rules nncl Regulations
wur« developed that did not lit thi-
definition of lank, container, surface
impoundment, waste pile, land
treatment unit, landfill, incinerator,
boiler, industrial furnace, or
underground injection well, it would be
regulated under Subpart X. An example
of a miscellaneous unit would be a
thermal treatment unit such as a wet-air
oxidation device that is not an
•iji.i"»« .j'ui in a '.irk. A-; s'.ht-r i---.,!.r:):.-
.%,»• '.Ill [}>• .1 luJJJZ-tl.'IT.1. " "r:.'V.!'»!i' SM- :!•.;!>
SHU Sli-l! 's Hot .1 tHll't . '.-.'!«•:•' pi!i).
i.in if!!l. or o:hi?r Par! 2'K unit, or .-.'.i
underground injection vvull. An exumpii;
of a unit that will not be regulated under
Subpart X, as explained in III.D.2., is
optin burning of noncxplosive wastes.
Subpnrt X will not supersede or
replace any specific restrictions 0:1
activities contained in another subpurt
or provide a vehicle for escaping from
those restrictions. For example, 40 CI:R
264.175 stipulates that container s'orage
areas must have a secondary
containment system to drain and
remove leakage. This requirement may
not be evaded by seeking a pemil under
Subpart X.
Likewise, miscellaneous units
permitted under Subpart X that are also
defined by RCRA as "land disposal"
units (see final rule at 51 FR 40572) may
not avoid the Part 268 restrictions on'
land disposal of untreated or improperly
treated hazardous waste. For example.
although the use of an underground
mine, cave, or formation for the
placement of hazardous waste may.
under some circumstances, be
considered a miscellaneous unit, such a
unit would also be subject to the Part
268 land disposal restrictions, since it is
defined as "land disposal" by RCRA.
Therefore, any hazardous waste subject
to land disposal restrictions that is
placed into a miscellaneous "land
disposal" unit must be treated prior to
land disposal in compliance with a
treatment standard promulgated under
Part 208, unless the owner or operator
demonstrates, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, that there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents from the unit
for as long as the waste remains
hazardous.
D. Comments Racetvedon iha Prappsod
The 43 sets of public comments
received on the November 7, 193(5.
proposid generally favored the
implementation of Sufapart X. Thu
Agency considered ail the public
comments and categorized them into
three general areas to provide a
collective response:
• Specificity of Subpart X standards,
• Definition of "miscellaneous unii,"
and
• Redefinition of "landfill."
General responses to the first two
categories appear below. In addition,
the Agency discusses certain comments
more specifically in later sections of the
preamble.
Comments applicable to the
redefinition of "landfill" are discussed
In Suction IV.B of '.he pi-Mmble.
"I3€ii:«.jrcrjnd Dj;:i;rnen!: S:;i;r> H: X
h;; public comments that w>:ro
received in accordance with the n.";i;<'st
for comments in the proposal and Iho
Agency's response to these comments.
This document is available in the
Subpart X docket.
1. Specificity of Subpart X Standards
The Subpart X standards specify that
health and environmental safety must
he a primary concern during the
management of hazardous wastes in
miscellaneous units. The standards also
require that existing regulations become
an integral part of today's Subpart X
standards for "miscellaneous" units. The
Agency's intention of incorporating
existing regulations with general
Subpart X standards was the approach
generally welcomed by the commenters
The Agency has concluded that it is
best to develop generic standards, not
technology-specific standards, because
the gnneric standards can cover a set of
diverse technologies effoctn ely. Most
commenters have confirmed the need
for such an approach. If tha Agency
developed technology-basod standards,
the Subpart X rule would not differ from
ihe existing requirements in Parts 264
and 265. For most of the miscellaneous
units, insufficient information is
available to develop technology-based
standards at this time. Even for those
units for which there may be sufficient
information available to develop
technology-based standards, to do so
would result in a major delay in
permitting these units while standards
were developed, proposed, and
finalized. Therefore, tha Agency cbosr>
to develop generic standards after
considering the advantages and
disadvantages of other approaches.
including design and operating
standards, technical and environmental
performance standards, containment
standards, and facility-specific risk
assessment. Subpart X provides the
Agency with flexibility in regulating
miscellaneous units by providing generic
permitting standards under Subpart X.
The Subpart X rule allows the
hazardous waste management industry
flexibility in developing new
technologies or modifying existing
technologies. Public comir.ents h'j«:ws>i
that certain units, such as open biirsi1!^/1
open detonation (OB/OD), physical/
chemical/biological treatment units
(e.g., pyrolysis, stripping, and in-situ .
biodegradation), and land-based
hazardous waste disposal units (e.g.,
salt beds, salt domes, and underground
mines or caverns), may require
ucbno!i>i;y-spocific standards. Sonw >n
'
:• v. ::;'„
'V cx.-
be applicable However, tha Agen:;y
believes that the generic permitting
standards under Subpart X would !>..-
just as applicable to open bur.v."(j/-'": •
detonation, physical/chemical/ '
biological treatment units, and land-
based hazardous waste disposal units
as any other Subpart X unit. Monwr.
under Subpart X, the Agency has '•.'«
fle.xibilify to develop techno!:;gy-sp^i:;i,-
standards for these units on a pi?rrr.i!••*••,
permit basis when considering LUJ
technology-specific data submir.od '->
the applicant to develop the permit
conditions based on the environrnent.il
performance standards and to issue a
permit.
A significant number of comment?
were received discussing different
hazardous waste management
technologies that the commenters
considered should be eligible cand:-:.!1'"-
for Subpart X permits. For a few
technologies, extensive description--
were submitted as part of the comme-ii
For example, separate descriptions wi'r-..
submitted for each of these technoioj^.--*
wet air oxidation, abovegrour.d
engineered vaults, enclosed buildings.
in-situ biodegradation, in-situ
vitrification, and open burning/open
detonation of explosive wastes. The
information obtained from these
comments will be useful when the
technology becomes widely used. At
that time, the Agency will consider
developing guidance or specific
standards for those units included ..:,
miscellaneous units. As an ox.imp;:1. '.;•<•
Agency is developing permit guidano-
For open burning/open detonation of
explosive wastes.
A few eommenters objected to the
unlimited authority that Subpart X ;;• •••
a permit writer when permitting ,j \vi;;!
range of miscellaneous units. The\ s,jv,
(his authority as a possible hindr'amv :=:
(lie effective permitting of specific \tr,\'.-
The Agency agrees that there may hi?
some cases in which permit writers ir,v-
exercise some discretion. However, the
Agency is developing permit guidance
for certain types of units that will
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday, December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46959
provide assistance in the permitting
process. While this guidance will not be
binding on the Agency, and there still
may be some permit variations between
similar units, we believe that permit
guidance will reduce any such
variations by providing direction to
permit writers arid permit applicants.
with regard to specific Subpart X
• c.hric'.ogie'S. For example, the Agency is
..<".'L'!(;pins specific; Subpart X permit
•..;>:id;;nce for OB/OD and geologic:
repositories other than injection wells
This guidance will explain how to
mitigate emissions or releases from
these units and thus minimize long-term
health and environmental hazards. As
more experience is gained, the Agency
may develop guidances on other Subpart
X units. In addition, the Agency will use
the support of EPA's Permit Assistance
Teams (PAT) staff to promote
nationwide consistency in the issuance
of Subpart X permits.-f he PAT staff can
also help the individual permit writer
understand unfamiliar technologies.
Some commenters requested
clarification on when ground water and/
or surface water must be monitored a!
miscellaneous units. The Agency
requires that when applying for a
permit, the applicant must assess the
poter.liai for release or migration of
hazardous constituent(s) to each of the
media. Based upon this assessment, a
•-^termination will be made as to the
fype and frequency of monitoring that
will be necessary at any specific unit or
site.
-. neHriiiior. of "Miscellaneous Unit"
'Miscellaneous unii" is defined in tru:
.••*..; :..M:C; Subpart X rule; us a hazardous
•• .::-u- ra.'inagemen! unit that ;s used 10
:--:-t:i. store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes but thiit does not fit the current
f'CRA definition of container, tank.
surface impoundment, pile, land
ireatment unit, landfill, incinerator,
!:oiif:r, industrial furnace, or
....'i.'iLri-round injection well
Niobt of the commenters suggested
;ha; the: Agency should provide a list of
••ethnologies or units that can be
:.;:iegorizŁ:d as Suhpart X units. They
••••!•':','«•« this vvoulJ avo:c! r:orifi;j,i'):i
'-•cr •/.'!.:r:h units shov.id he prrT-.r'J^d
•" :•' : S J-^'.rl X. !f s.sf.h an i'ii-Sr.dur.iv.-
,,, ..-_.,,-,. pu!ilj-e>ipcl with '.•••(iiiv's r-.:'.i:.
':o'.\ever, it would become quickh
tmtdated because new technologies are
being developed frequently. In response
co commenters' requests, the Agency has
provided examples.of units in Section
III, B.I and 2.' that are covered and not
covered under today's rule. Since
Subpart X is a catchali category, the list
provided here is not all-inclusive and
comprehensive.
Commenters also indicated that a
definitive listing of all applicable units
would circumvent the need for requiring
two types of permits (e.g., a tank-like
unit would not need both a tank permit
and a Subpart X permit). They claimed
that obtaining two permits is very costly
and time consuming and often
duplicates efforts.The Agency does not
intend to require two permits for any
miscellaneous unit. Under the regulatory
approach selected today, a Subpart X
permit would be iss'ued for the
miscellaneous unit, which may include
. certain requirements that are specific to
other types of units. For example, for a
miscellaneous unit resembling a tank, a
Subpart X permit would be issued that
• would include certain of the Subpart}
tank standard requirements.
3. Redefinition of "Landfill"
Comments applicable to the
redefinition of "landfill" are discussed
in Section IV.B of the preamble.
III. The Agency's Approach
A. Alternative Approaches Considered
In preparing the proposed Subpart X
rule, the Agency considered a number of
regulatory approaches. The Agency
selected a combination approach since
no singular approach was best suited to
protect human health and the
environment while still providing
flexibility in addressing the diversity of
waste management units included in
Subpart X. Under this approach.
appropriate elements of design and
operating standards, technical
performance standards, containment
standards, facility-specific risk
assessment, and environmental
performance standards will be applied
to miscellaneous units on a case-by-case
basis. This approach will result in less
delay by providing permitting standards
for those miscellaneous units for which
sufficient data are not available to
develop more specific standards. The
alternative approaches considered were
design and operating standards,
technical performance standards,
containment standards, facility-specific
risk assessment, environmental
performance standards, and a
combination of these approaches.
1. Design and Operating Standards
Design and operating standards would
require the installation of specific
equipment or the use of particular
processes. These standards would be
process- and unit-specific.
' The majority of commenters favored
these standards, since many were
interested in obtaining specific
requirements for their units. The Agency
determined that preparing these
standards would be resource-intensive
because it would need to collect
extensive data on each specific type of
unit. In addition to collecting the data,
the Agency would need to develop a
proposed rule and promulgate a final
rule which would also greatly delay the
permitting of miscellaneous units.
Therefore, this approach would-be a
detriment to the development of
innovative technology, since owners or
operators would need to wait for EPA to
promulgate new rules before applying
for a permit.
Under today's approach, all
miscellaneous units will be permitted
under the general standards of Subpart
X. Nevertheless, in the future, the
Agency may develop specific design and
operating standards for the various
types of units, when there is a better
understanding of the technology,
process efficiency, and process safety
needs.
One commenter who disagreed with
the Agency, believed that the design and
operating standards (or technical
performance standards) for Subpart X
units would be easy to implement. In
contrast, another commenter agreed
with the Agency's decision not to
propose specific design and operating
standards for miscellaneous units. •
because it would be" impossible to
regulate a new technology by
predetermined design and operating
standards that may or may not be
appropriate for the individual unit in
question. In addition, he further claimed
that these predetermined standards
could be more or less stringent than
necessary to protect human health and
the environment.
The majority of the commenters were:
concerned about the lack of specific
design and operating standards for OB/
OD facilities. They feared that omitting
specific standards may lead to extensive
delays and considerable expense in the
permitting process. They were
concerned that they may not be able to
address completely the permit
reviewers' requirements and mav have
difficulty obtaining a permit.
After reviewing the comments, ''"'e
A':sncy believes that the pnirm:!'.:,'t!i
-------
•Tr>9:>0 Federal Register / Vol. o2. \'o. 237 / Thursday, December TO, 1987 / Rules and Regulations
( ,»D units. Even ii it had SM«JI
information, the process of developing,
proposing, and promulgating unit-
specific standards for these units would
cause major delays in issuing permits
for these units. At some later date, the .
Agency may decide to develop specific '
design and operating standards for these
units.
.itm .liluw !hn purmit upp[:t.am ;o
dir.'tslop a design or set'of ps.i, iii.-cs :u
achieve these objectives.
One commenter indicated that it is
difficult to define technical performance
standards, since the technologies and
associated "engineering objectives" will
be continually refined, /mother
commenter suggested "establishing
performance standards whereby a ,
treatment operator would be required to
demonstrate a degree of minimal
acceptable .variability in a treated
product with respect to constituents of
concern." A third commenter slated that
the Agency should determine
performance capabilities and establish
specific levels of performance for
thermal treatment devices (e.g.,
pyroly.sis, calcination, wet-air oxidation,
and microwave destruction). The
Agency agrees with the first communter
mentioned above and has decided not to
use this approach, because the
specificity of the engineering objectives
contained in technical performance
standards could make permitting
extremely difficult for miscellaneous
units involving innovative technologies.
In response to the second commenter,
the Agency agrees that certain technical
performance standards could be
developed to protect human health and
the environment, however, a single set .
of these standards in all likelihood may
not be suitable for all of the diverse
types of miscellaneous units. Second, .
other than for possibly one or two.
technologies, the development of all '
technology-inclusive technical
performance standards is not feasible
because of (a) the lack of adequate data
for setting standards and (h) the
continued development of new
technologies. In response lo both \hn
second and third communiTS, for thosi-
units for which there possibly is
sufficient information available to
develop technical performance
.standards, these units could be excluded
from the Subpart X rule. Hawitver. to dn
so would result in several years' delay
in permitting these units while the
standards are being developed,
proposed, and finalized. However, in tho
future, specific standards may be
developed for certain types oi u:iiij>
when adequate data become available.
One commenter proposed setting
waste-specific standards rather than
lochnical performance standards. The
Agency rejected this suggestion, since
waste-specific standards would create
(he same problems as discussed for the
technical standards for innovative
'.•rhnolotjifis. Moreuvrir. In^iffi-. :!-;••! J.y.-
•.•:',". -iv.iii.iL'.t' >o ..ii.'vKi-'p .--., ;.-••;. '..'.
i-e^umi'.s avaiabe. m\-:\i:r. :,>•
A^'.T.c.y may consider i::-V'-.'.;ii.":u '-.j:.,",
standards. •
3. Containment Standards
Another approach the Agoncy
considered was the development u!
performance standards requiring
containment of hazardous waste within
certain boundaries. While such an
approach may prevent environmental
contamination under some
hydrogeological conditions, the Agem.y
is concerned that it may only delay
contamination in others. In addition.
absolute containment in all media may
not always be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
The Agency did not receive any
support for this approach or any
suggestions as to how this approach
could be used for miscellaneous units.
On a case-by-case basis, however, some
permits issued under today's rule may ^
be based on containment (for example,
the containment features achieved by
the design and operating standards for
landfill units), such as liners and
barriers or a combination of
containment features and geological
siting considerations.
4. Facility-Specific Risk Assessment
The Agency's evolving policy is to
assess more explicitly the risks involved
in its permitting and regulatory
decisions. Under a facility-specific risk
assessment regulatory approach, the
permit applicant would be required to
perform fate and transport analyses and
human health and environmental risk
assessments based on the RCRA goal of
protecting human health and the
environment. However, since the costs
of risk analyses could be extremely high
for miscellaneous units, and since the
data available for estimating risks from
Subpart X units are limited, this
approach was not considered feasible as
.1 sole regulatory approach.
Three commenters responded to this
approach. They thought that facility-
specific risk assessment would be
expensive, time-consuming,
inconclusive, and difficult to implement.
In addition, they stated. that there may
not be enough data available to make
•. .ilid :isk assifiismunis. One cor.!n>-: :
suggested that a comprehensive .risk
analysis should be required only when
specific standards for other permitted •
operations or processes (e.g.,
wastewater discharges, air emissions ••
;sre unavailable.
The Agency agrees that using ri^
assessment as the sole approach is r.-/
^ijr.erjil way. Based on the ass' ,-:~T',
data submitted with a permit
application, specific design and
operating standards to mitigate 'r • -.;
specific risks could be identified :>;••:
incorporated during the permit tiny
process.
5. Environmental Performance
Standards
Environmental performance j>t.vy;.,- •
Mjt.-k to set ui'.her the numerical .Jiv.:1 :.'.
and environmental standards, or •.:.••
nonnumcrical performance requin-iV'-'-
necessary to protect human health ar.J
the environment. These standards may
take the form of numerical exposure
specifications (such as the allowably
concentration of a chemical at the niiir..-
of human exposure), pollutant
concentrations permitted to be n'!i'.;~i"
lo the environment, or general
objectives or goals to serve as a ^i:t:>
for protecting human health and th"
Hnvironment.
The Agency views environmental
performance standards as the mos:
important feature of today's rule for ,-•<•.-.
and existing miscellaneous wasti5
management units. For example.
existing environmental performance
standards for air and water may be
utilized, as appropriate, in permitting .:
facility. Section 3005 of RCRA require
that standards applicable to owners .):•;•
operators of treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities be those "neress;)-\ •:
protect human health and the
environment."
If this approach was selected as ;hc
sole approach, however, then it rni.uhT I,.
difficult for permit applicants of c»r'.j,:v
types of miscellaneous units to
consistently demonstrate complj.:".' ••
with those standards. For examp.i1. v. •
the open burning/open detonation
technology, emissions monitoring ,;> •;.,"•
feasible. Thus, it would be diffici:;* '•;
demonstrate compliance with an
established performance standard. F'i:
the same reason, enforcement of thosi?
standards for certain units might be
difficult. In addition, this approach was
not selected as the sole approach
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday. December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46951
'((.(•cause the existing performance
standards for air and water do not
address all constituents of concern
under RCRA Subtitle C.
One commenter questioned the need
for special performance evaluations
•.inder Subpart X. This commenter noted
'.hat air emissions and effluent
standards are now required for more
conventional technologies that could he
lipplic-d to most Subpart X thermal.
c.firrntca!. and biological treatment units.
with the exception of open burning/
open detonation of explosive wastes. In
addition, the commenter asserted that
treatment standards for the land
disposal restrictions will apply to
Subpart X units and. therefore, should
reduce requirements for special
operating and environmental standards.
The Agency disagrees with these
comments. EPA foresees the need for
special performance evaluations
because the existing air and water
standards, when applied to certain
Subpart X units, may provide
inadequate protection to human health
and the environment since they do not
address all constituents of concern
under RCRA Subtitle C. As stated
earlier, the existing applicable standards
and any additional requirements
specific to a given unit will minimize the
health and environmental risks.
Environmental performance standards
as a part of today's approach allow
flexibility in meeting goals for the
protection of human health and the
environment. The flexibility offered by
this approach is needed in Subpart X."
because of the variability of
miscellaneous units.
f. Combination of Approaches
This approach combines the
appropriate elements of all five
previously discussed alternatives, and
applies them on a case-by-case basis.
Several commenters supported this
approach as providing flexibility for
innovative technologies. One
commenter, however, stated that the
units included in Subpart X were so
diverse that one general rule may be
difficult to apply. But the Agency
Believes that the diversity of existing
-.tnits and the need to include potential
•'•.!•<.:•(• technologies necessitate a genera!
••.tic i::r!t can be applied or; a case-by -
...use basis.
B. Selected Appoach for Subpart X
Standards
After evaluating the various
alternatives, the Agency selected the
proposed combination approach without
modification for today's rule for
miscellaneous units. This approach is
based on appropriate elements of all
five alternatives discussed above and
will be applied to miscellaneous units •
on a case-by-case basis. Under this
approach, miscellaneous units will be
required to be located, designed.
constructed, operated, maintained, and
closed in a manner that will prevent any
release that may have adverse effects
on human health or the environment due
to migration of waste constituents into
the ground water or subsurface
environment: surface water, wetlands.
or soil surface: or air.
The Agency has decided to use
Subpart X standards to regulate all units
that are not currently included
elsewhere under RCRA. These include.
but are not limited to, (a) placement of
hazardous waste in geologic repositories
other than injection wells: (b) placement
of hazardous wastes in deactivated
missile silos, other than injection wells
or tanks: (c) thermal treatment units
other than incinerators, boilers, or
industrial furnaces: (d) units open
burning and open detonating explosive
wastes: and (e) certain chemical/
physical/biological treatment units. The
units that are excluded from Subpart X
include: (a) units currently regulated
under other portions of Part 264; (b)
units open burning nonexplosive
hazardous wastes; (c) units excluded
from permitting under Parts 264 and 270:
(d) certain mobile units; (f) enclosed
buildings for treatment, storage, or
disposal; (ej underground injection wells
(40 CFR146J: and (9J RD&D Units
covered under 270-65.
Units covered under today's rule will
comply with standards that provide
performance objectives for protection of
human health and the environment. The
performance objectives require permit
applicants to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of the unit or
facility and to demonstrate that any
releases from the unit will not adversely
affect human health or the environment.
For technologies where (1) a particular
hazardous waste management system
resembles another type of unit for which
EPA has promulgated standards and (2)
the permit applicant has identified the
differences between the potential effects
on human health and the environment
posed by the two units, the use of site-
specific design, operating, monitoring,
and cnnUiirimen' procedures modified to
account for the differences must be
developed and, therefore, will be
required parts of the facility permit.
Generally, these standards will be
drawn from existing regulatory
requirements and guidance documents.
as well as permit guidance being
developed for specific types of
miscellaneous units. For units that do
not resemble another type of unit, the
applicant must still address the unit's
effect on all media, and, where
appropriate, specific requirements
applicable to other types of units will be
added to the facility permit.
In the permitting process, selected
features of design and operation.
technical performance, containment.
and environmental performance
standards, as well as the risk-based
assessment, will be specified, so that the
overall objective of protecting human
health and the environment is achieved.
Determination of the appropriate
requirements will be made on a case-by-
case basis and the rationale for their
applicability will be provided in each
permit. In certain cases, the design and
operation of a Subpart X unit may
resemble that of a specific type of unit
now regulated under RCRA (e.g., a
landfill). To the extent that they are
similar, the appropriate requirements
under the existing unit-specific subparts
will be applied. For example, for some
units, liners may be specified.
The regulatory approach finalized
today by the Agency offers several
advantages. First, it allows the Agency
to address a full range of environmental
issues raised by any waste management
situation without waiting to establish
specific design and operating conditions
or other standards. By identifying
several sets of environmental
performance standards in today's rule.
the Agency allows development of
waste- and site-specific permits
responsive to various ground-water,
surface water, and air quality concerns.
as well as complex natural processes in
the surface and subsurface
environments that may arise at each
site. The Agency will also apply the
authority of section 3005(c)(3)
"omnibus" to other Part 264 hazardous
waste management units as necessary
to protect human health and the
environment.
Second, for those Subpart X units
requiring compliance with the standards
developed for a specific medium.
appropriate portions of the existing
standards will be incorporated into the
permit as required by today's rule. For
example, in regulating air emissions
from pyrolysis units, the Agency will
incorporate the applicable portions of
existing standards (e.g.. incineration
standards for meeting the air quality
standards).
The Agency has concluded that it is
not possible to set design and operating
standards for all of the potential Subpart
X units, since a variety of units will be
covered by today's rule. One set of
standards either will not be stringent
enough or will be excessively stringent
-------
46952 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
when applied to these diversified
technologies. Subpart X will cover a
number of technologies foe which little
or no information is available; hence;
the Agency's decision not to set
technology-based standards. However,.
the site and unit-specific information
submitted during the permitting process
for individual units will allow the
permit-issuing authority to tailor each
tvrnitt lo thp part'ciiiar risks and
rr*« 'imsi-.nf >lb i :.•»•*' on th.; n.i!isr '.•:•: v;;<:r: , -
l)!i:!:!.-.,4 or i;p>,:n ->i'(jn;i-.-;~ ,f :,,J---.
u.xpSosivob is covered in ',.?.-; S^ijp'ri:: .:
rule. When upgrading existing -justs or
permitting now units, the applicable
portions of Part 265 Subpart P standards
(e.g., minimum safe distances) will be
incorporated during issuance of Subpart
X permits. Because OB/OD is a
treatment process, it is not subject to the
land disposal restrictions imposed bv
sections 3004 (d) through (m) of RCRA.
e. Certain Chemical. Physical, and
Biological Treatment Units. Hazardous
waste management units that treat
hazardous waste by chemical. ph>;, ,s;-r,<:i.
or biological methods in units other th;;;1
tanks, surface impoundments, and land
treatment units during interim status are
covered under Sufapart Q of Part 265 The
Subpart X regulations of Part 264 and
the applicable portion of Subpart Q of
Part 265 will be considered in permittinp
these units. Under the land disposal
restrictions, no in-situ hazardous waste
treatment on land will be permitted
(without the prior use of a best
demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) for treatment). Therefore, none
of the in-situ treatment methods will bn
Subpart X units/technologies.
2. Examples of Units N'ot Covered or
Units for Which Subpart X Permits Will
Not Be Issued
a. Treatment, Storage, and Disposal in
Units Currently Regulated Under Port
264. Under today's rule, treatment,
storage, or disposal in units now
regulated under Part 264 may be
permitted only under the applicable
subparts of Part 264. For example.
placement of hazardous waste in a tank
or surface impoundment for treatment is
covered under Subpart J or Subpart K,
respectively, and disposal of hazardous
waste in a tank is covered under
Subpart N, and must be permitted i;>;r;s '
thosu standards.
b. Open Burning of Nonexplusive
Hazardous Waste. Although by its term*
Subpart X applies to ai! units not
covered under Part 264, including open
burning and open detonation of
nonexplosive hazardous waste, the
Agency has concluded that open burning
of such non-explosive waste cannot be
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday. December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
46953
.conducted in a manner that is protective
. of human health and the environment.
The Agency made this finding .iri 1980 in
promulgating the general ban on open
burning of nonexplosive hazardous
waste (40 CFR 265.382) and has no new
information to suggest this conclusion
should be revised. The Agency.
therefore, intends to deny any permit
applications it receives under Suhpart X
•or such-activities.
c. Unita Excluded from Permitting
L:nc!er Parts 264 and270. Certain units
<-ire specifically excluded from
permitting under the Part 264 and Part
-"0 standards. For example, publicly
owned treatment works and ocean "
disposal activities are not permitted
under Part 264 standards, since they are
covered by permits-by-rule (see 40 CFR
264.1 (c) and (e)). Another example is
operation of a wastewater treatment
unit (40 CFR 264.1(g)(6)). These units
continue to be excluded from Part 264
standards and would not be subject to
Subpart X.
d. Mobile Units. Mobile waste
management units are becoming
available and may be used for treatment
of hazardous wastes as part of a general
waste treatment strategy,or on a'short-
term basis to destroy specific wastes for
remedial site cleanup, spill control, and
cither types of emergency responses.
ihese units are presently regulated
under 40 CFR 264 and 270, and certain
cnanges to the permit requirements have
been proposed and are currently being
evaluated by the Agency. These units
may also be involved in research.
development, and demonstration
activities and, as such, may be covered
f'.v a research, development, and
demonstration permit.
Mobile units using technologies that
are covered under other subparts of Part
264, such as incineration or treatment in
containers, are excluded from Subpart
X. However, those units included in
Section IIIB.l., which are mobile, are
.covered under today's rule.
e. Placemen! of Hazardous Waste
Underground Thai Is.Current I v
Regulated Under Part 246. RCRA
Sulipart X permitting will not apply
'-vhore EPA has an existing permit
fT'Eram which addresses the particuiar
••ii7ardru.s v.-i-bU- m;'n;i«<-m.r;n! practice-.
'.' '-.'•• '.r--.;K ncr:e<.;-ar, to outline those
^•••fiste management practices currently
covered, by the underground injection'
control (UIC) program. Hazardous waste
injection is regulated under the
authorities and mandates of both the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and
RCRA. Wells must have authorization.
under both acts to operate.
Authorizetion-by-rule under 40 CFR
144.21 or a UIC permit under 40 CFR 144
Subpart D provides the SDWA
authorization for hazardous waste wells.
Interim status under 40 CFR 265,430 or a
RCRA permit-by-rule under 40 CFR
• 270.60(b) provides the RCRA
authorization. This permit system is in
place for the injection in bulk form of
liquids, slurries, and sludges. Technical
standards for these practices are in 40
CFR Part 140.
These current technical standards,
however, do not fully address some
potential disposal or storage practices
that may fall under EPA's regulatory
definition of well injection. EPA defines
"well injection" in 40 CFR 144.3 and
146.3 as the "subsurface emplacement of
fluids through a bored, drilled or driven
well;-or through a dug well, where the
depth is greater than the largest surface
dimension." EPA defines "fluids" in 40
CFR 144.3 and 146.3 as "material or
substance which flows or moves
whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge.
gas or any other form or state."
A broad reading of these definitions
might suggest that granular hazardous
waste poured into a salt dome, for
example, would be within the scope of
the UIC program. The very recent
opinion in NRDC v. EPA, Cons. Cases
No. 85-1915 and 86-1096 (1st Cir.. July
17,1987] contains language suggesting
extremely broad interpretations of the
scope of the UIC program. This opinion
remands regulations for the disposal of
high level radioactive waste, spent
nuclear fuel, and transuranic wastes at
40 CFR Part 191 which were
promulgated under the mandates of the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982
(N'WPA) and the authority of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1934. Some of the legal.
analysis, however, concerns
interpretations of "well injection" and
"fluids" under the SDWA. The opinion
suggests that containers or solids
lowered down a shaft would be "well
injection" of "fluids" if contaminants in
this material might ultimately "flow" or
move into the accessible environment
(Slip-Opinion at page 29]. The court was
particularly concerned that EPA had not
evaluated the relationship of the SDWA
and N'WPA.
We are currently evaluating the lega!
analysis in this opinion and will address
•he; specific issues of these definitions a:
d (me.; date'. However. EPA believes tha-
it can address the issue of RCRA
Subpart X and UIC permitting at this
time for the range of long-term
retrievable storage and disposal
practices. Part 146 technical standards
do not currently address practices other
than the injection of noncontainerized
liquids, slurries, and sludges. Other
management practices, such as the
placement of containerized wastes or
solids, would require standards on a
case-by-case basis. EPA intends the
environmental objective for these latter
practices to be the same, such as will
meet the requirements of the SDWA and
RCRA, whether a particular practice is
termed to be "underground injection" or
not. Specifically, in the context of this
regulation, the Agency intends to apply
the mandate of the SDWA to prevent '
the endangerment of underground
sources of drinking water, as is
consistent with RCRA's mandate to
protect human health and the
environment.
This final rule provides that the
Director apply standards for these
miscellaneous management practices
through the RCRA Subpart X permit.
RCRA permit procedures provide at
least as much public participation as the
UIC permit procedures and are thus, a
fully appropriate vehicle to impose
standards whether solely under the
authority of RCRA or under the
combined authority of RCRA and the
SDWA (See 40 CFR Part 124]. The final
rule, therefore, contains amendments to
40 CFR Part 144.31 which requires that a
Subpart X permit will constitute a UIC
permit for hazardous, waste well
injection for which current Part 146
technical standards are not generally
appropriate. In promulgating this
amendment to § 144.31, we are not
specifying that these miscellaneous
management practices constitute
underground injection, but rather, to the
extent any of these practices may be
determined to be underground injection
§ 144.21 will authorize a facility under
the SDWA if the unit has a RCRA
Subpart X permit.
The above permitting scheme does
not. in and of itself, remove the
restrictions on the placement of
noncontainerized or bulk liquid
hazardous waste in any salt dome
formation, salt bed formation,
underground mine, or cave under
section 3004(b)(l]. That provision
requires the Administrator to find, after
notice and opportunity for hearings on
the record in the affected areas, that
such placement is protective of human
health and the environment to remove
the- prohibition. "Fluids" under the UIC
program are "liquids" under § 30C)4(b)
when they do not pass the Paint Filter
Liquids Test contained in Method 9095
of the "Test Method for Evaluating Solid
Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods"
[EPA Publication No. SW-8461).
f. Enclosed Buildings Used for
Treatment, Storage, or Disposal. The
Agency is considering under separate
action the appropriate mechanism to
permit activities in enclosed buildings.
-------
•46954 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No; 237 / Thursday, Duuutnber 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
Wiiilu this (iocs not rule ant the
possibility that these units could be
permitted under Subpart X. no decision
has been made at this time:
g. Research, Development, and
Demonstration (RDR-D) Units Covered
Under § 270.65. The purpose of an RD&D
permit is to allow for testing and
demonstration of innovative and
rxporimnnlal technologies. including the;
' "
»• °'\U n-irmsi ui'.d'rr .-5 jr-'Uia. *,h.;n th;:t
. >>, .vil nsi! oi» dibble for a 3ul>p- ,-, .:••,' ••-;••: T
(',}',•:• :!u:i '.veil. : c,i •-. . • i.: *,••••
formation, a .sait boi! ioririS'inR. ::i- ,.••. •
or a mine.
In the proposed rule, the Agency
requested comments specific to the
ledefinitio'n of "landfill'1. Aft or a c;::-'j.'_:,'
review of all the comments, the Agency
decided not to significantly change the
previous "landfill" definition but rather
to clarify those units '.h.j.t are clas'sifi^d
as "landfill" facilities.
A significant number of cor.-.m';i'.s
were received on '.hn proposal to "•'.'• •->•
the existing "hmifiH" dofir::'ion: Thi.-
majority of these comments addi'^v-'i
the adequacy of the proposed goal to
identify more precisely the types of
waste management practices included
within this category. The Agency has
accomplished Ihis goal by listing
additional practices that are either
included in or excluded from the
definition.
A."disposal facility", as defined in
§ 260.10, means a facility used for
intentional placement, where waste will
remain after closure. This distinguishes
storage and treatment in tanks from
disposal i'acilities. However, it also
allows the placement of wastes in tanks
and vaults used for disposal provided
the unit meets the landfill standards.
The new "landfill" definition prov.de-
that piles are not landfills; When
"landfill" was defined in 1980. it '.vas
clearly the intent of the Agency to
exclude piles. By amending our landf;!!
definition to reflect this fact, we are
simply clarifying the scope of th.-
definition.
In the 1984 Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Congress
recognized salt dome formations, salt
bed formations, caves, and m,irv;s rts. ..
separate types of hazardous waste
facilities or units and in section 3004jb)
directed the Agency to develop
standards for these units. If these units
wore already covered by the lancifiii
standards, this would be unnecessary.
Similarly,, under section 3004(k) of
HSWA, the types of units covered by
the land ban are separately listed as
landfills, salt dome formations, salt bed
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday. December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46955
formations, underground mines, caves,
Stc. Clearly, Congress did not intend
that these units be covered by the term
"landfill."
"Landfill" will cover tanks or vaults
used for disposal of hazardous waste.
Suhpart J of Par! 264 only regulates
storage and treatment in tanks and the
Agency io daie has not developed
specific standards for disposal of
^r?.;:rrious waffi- ;r> tanks. However.
u.-.ti':! i'nutf'd circumstances, the
Siibjjrirt • standards do allow treatment
or storage t«>nks :h;:i cannot remove all
coniaminal:on at closure to close and to
perfonn post-closure care in accordance
with the closure and post-closure
requi;eu!prns for landfills. Disposal in
tanks will be rpgulated under the
Suhpart N standards as a landfill
because "landfills" and the disposal of
hazardous waste in tanks raises-similar
hcman health and environmental
concerns and because tanks are
similarly placed on or in the land. This
does not result in a change in the way
tanks used for disposal are regulated.
since previous to today's rule the landfill
category constituted a catchall category
for disposal units not regulated
eisewhere.
By changing the "landfill" definition,
the Agency has not changed the status
of those facilities that were previously
considered to be "landfills". Rather, the
change has clarified the previously
ri:;scribed scope of the definition."
Consequently, this change has not
reduced the scope of facilities covered
under either the land ban provisions of
section 3004{d) of HSVVA or the
rr.ir.in-.'im technology requirements of
Motion 0004.; o) of HSWA.
V. Amendments to Part 204: Subpart X
Regulatiou for Miscellaneous Units
The regulations promulgated today
;;r-de; 40 CFR Part 264 apply to
.T.'.sccllaneous waste management units
that are used to treat, store, or dispose
r,f hazardous waste. Conforming
; • .-p-.^es to accommodate the addition of
.S-ii-ipar; X nre provided for in Pa: t 264,
Su;jp«jns B, E, F. G. and H. These
rhang'is merely serve to make the
v-Tiers: ix-quir-aments of Par! 254
c.r.u r-.. 10
.";;' : J "1.;t.<.i'lian.Ł.(n:S uni's. la
addition, although the Agency made an
oversight in the proposed rule, under
\~-\:;\'?. fins! rule the corrective action
requirements of section 3004(u] that
were codified at 40 CFR 264.101
automatically apply to miscellaneous
units. The Subpart F ground-water
piotsctkin requirements will apply
somewhat differently to miscellaneous
units compared to the conventional
types of units. For miscellaneous units,
Subpart F requirements under § 284.101
for corrective sctiori will always apply.
However, the requirements under
§ 264.91 through 264.100 for monitoring
and response action programs apply
only to those units that have a potential
for contamination of ground water.
Thest- standards will apDJy on a case-
by-cus?- basis through the new § 254.002,
which is Kxpiained below.
It should be noted that the term
"Director" has bean substituted for •
"Regional Administrator." "Director"
means the Regional Administrator or the
State Director in an authorized State, as
the context requires. This change
conforms to the terminology selected for
use in other recent amendments to the
hazardous waste management
regulations.
The promulgated standards for
miscellaneous units are discussed
below, section by section.
A. Section 264.60O—Applicability
This section limits the applicability of
the regulations of Subpart X to owne'rs
and operators of miscellaneous
hazardous waste management units. By
using the term "miscellaneous," this
section incorporates the definition of
"miscellaneous unit" from § 260.10.
B. Section 264.601—Environmental
Performance Standards
The most important features of the
regulations for new and existing
miscellaneous waste management units
are the environmental performance
standards set forth in § 264.601. Section
3004 of RCRA requires that standards
applicable to owners and operators of
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities be those "necessary to protect
human health and the environment." In
§ 264.801. the Agency has translated this
overall goal info a set of objectives that
provide a guide for owners and
operators of miscellaneous units and fur
permit writers. Those objectives are to
protect ground water, surface water
(including wetlands), air quality, and
so'l. which yre the piincipai pathways
!o: rrr-'-^aor. of hazardous constituents
!r: r-'C--u'orp. While e=:r.h of thes-s
o1:?.'. '•-.•<", m-o '••:- 2d;i-?«.'ti ::i -r. •
I'M::'••.' <; ;i-j-.'i!:: :.\^y :;iH ne^ri to sn^.iiy
conditions thdt protect eaf,!-i of these
environmental media.
Most of the commenters suggested
that tiie environmental performance
standards, if made unit-specific, would
aid in protecting human health and the
environment from releases of
contaminants. Other commenters
objected to the requirement for detailed
ground-water, surface water, and air
quality assessments, especially for
facilities using technologies where it is
unlikely that the waste or its
constituents would come in contact with
water, soil, or air media. As stated in the
preceding paragraph, an assessment
must be conducted for each medium,
however, if the assessment shows that
there will be no impact on a given
mfjJium; 'hv permit n^ed not spncifv
conditions to protect that medium.
Another commenter said that these
standards are geared to toxic wastes.
The commenter further indicated that, iri
the case of explosive wastes, there will
be a poor fit between these regulatory
requirements and a particular unit. The
commenter stated that ground-water
migration is unlikely during open
burning of explosive wastes. The
performance standards require that an
assessment be conducted for each of the
media. If the assessment shows that, in
this case, ground water will not be
impacted, then the permit need not
specify conditions to protect the ground
water.
The Agency, however, does not feel
that it is appropriate to promulgate
specific environmental performance
standards at this time. Given that
miscellaneous units will be regulated by
issuing individual permits that are unit-
and site-specific, human health and the
environment can be protected without
being overiy stringent in some cases
and/or too lenient in others. It is
expected that the unit-specific
environmental performance standards
defined in Subparts 1 through O will
provide baseline, acceptable protection
and. at the same time, will aiiow
flexibility in issuing case-by-casc-
variation during the permitting under the
Subpart X regulation. In addition, the
Agency is developing unit-specific
guidance for certain units and may, in
the future, provide additional
technology-specific guidance, if
necessary.
The Agency does not view § 264.601
as a set of specifications, that will :
directly apply to all owners and
ope: ators of miscellaneous vinit.s. R;::!-,;-r.
s 264.03'i p::j\id»? •:: p^'.^rai ;.,?; of
.,: o; •),•?:.
-------
46956 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1987 / Rules and Regulations
supporting data and information on the
specific unit.
Detailed analysis of each factor in
§ 264.601 may not be necessary in a
permit application,.depending on its .
relevance to the type of unit under
consideration and the associated health
and environmental risks. For example,
certain completely enclosed biological.
physical, or chemical treatment units
may not require permit conditions
•^H'Stfit" numilorint" rcqturt nwnis fur
.«»: or tiratinu wttutr. On tlit; utni-r hand.
n»t wafic thornuil trwitmcnt units covered
under this suhpurl may require
extensive air monitoring. All of the
factors identified in § 264.601. however.
should be considered and their
relevance should be addressed in the
application.
B.'jsed on the information about the
environmental impacts, specific
conditions beyond those suggested by
the applicant may be included by the
Agency in the permit. Once issued, the
permit governs where a unit is to be
tocatnd and how it is to be designed.
constructed, operated, monitored.
maintained, and closed.
Few comments were received on each
environmental medium—e.g.. ground-
water migration, surface water and
soils, and air. The majority of
commenters elaborated on their
concerns related to the hazard
assessment and the need for controls
under the broad category of
environmental performance standards.
The commenters indicated that they
favored development of Subpart X
permitting standards because they
provide flexibility for developing unit-
and/or site-specific assessments of
contamination of specific media in the
permitting process.
The Agency below discusses what
factors should be considered by
applicants and permit writers in
assessing the potential for adverse
effects on each medium. These factors
include the type of waste managed, the
types of technologies, the types and
quantities of emissions or releases, and
the extent of migration or dispersion of
the waste in various media. The permit
applicant must submit information on
these assessments, which must be
included in the permit in order to be
considered as a complete permit
application. These assessments must be
in sufficient detail to support the
applicant's position in demonstrating
minimal impact and/or minimizing
•idverse impacts on each medium.
I. Ground-Water and Subsurface
Migration
Section 264.601(a) lists several factors
to be considered to prevent any release
that-may have adverse effects on human
health or the environment due to
migration of waste constituents in the
ground water or subsurface
environment. These factors must be
addressed to prevent ground-water
cbntamination and the subsurface
migration of hazardous waste from
miscellaneous units (e.g., geologic
repositories and hazardous waste
management units that are placed in or
on land I.
Tin; first fact(.>r inctudr-.s tru; v:ii':'"r','
conr.enlration. and physical and
chemical characteristics of the waste
placed in the unit. The volume and
concentration determine the maximum
amount and concentration of waste that
may enter the ground water. Physical
and chemical characteristics determine
(1J the toxicity of the waste; (2) the
ability of the waste to be contained.
immobilized, degraded, or attenuated or
to migrate in various soils and materials:
and (3) the probability of undesirable
reactions taking place among wastes or
between wastes and liners or other
containment structures.
The second, third, and fourth factors
are the hydrogeologic characteristics of
the site and surrounding land, the
existing ground-water quality, and the
quantity and direction of ground-water
flow, respectively. Because these three
factors affect the movement of waste
constituents in the subsurface
environment, they are crucial in
assessing the impact on human health
and the environment. The hydrogeologic
characteristics of the site determine the
effect of human activities in the area on
the ground water. The third factor
focuses on the existing ground-water
quality and sources of contamination
other than the miscellaneous unit. This
factor is relevant for predicting future
ground-water uses and the incremental
risk of the new unit. The fourth factor
assesses the rate and direction of
migration and the potential
contamination of the site.
The fifth factor is .{he proximity to and
withdrawal rates of current and
potential ground-water users. While
ground water as a source of drinking
water is a primary concern, agricultural
and industrial uses of ground water
should also be considered. Clearly.
water that is contaminated by
hazardous waste leachate may preset';
health risks. Information on State
ground-water planning and regulatory
efforts should also be considered. Also.
any changes in ground-water
withdrawal rates or patterns can alter
the rate of ground-water movement.
which influences the rate and direction
of migration of contaminants to
exposure points. This information is not
only necessary to identify potential
impacts to the ground water, but it also • •
can be used in determining monitoring
well locations, where necessary.
The sixth factor focuses on land-use
patterns. Land-use patterns can change
hydrogeologic characteristics and they
in turn can alter the rate and direction of
potential migration to and distribution of
wastes in ground water. This
wustc co n.fr !*;... en ;s ir. .U:e',r. :>«.,:„:'„' t: ................
This includes migration of waste!;:;
gaseous or vapor forms. Subsurface
migration of wastes is a type of •
environmental degradation apart' from
contamination of ground water. The
Love Canal incident provides1 a classic:
example of unsaturated zone migration.
There, waste constituents migrated from
a landfill into the basements of nearby
homes. The residents were directly
exposed through physical contact \\ '•.:••
waste and inhalation of \o;a;:it.- ; ,
con!u:ni:'.un;s. The poU;r.:,a! hU'^J--'
effects of subsurface mi gran on K v..,-.;.
constituents must be considered i:n
addition to any direct effects on surface-
water and ground water. The same
factors that influence ground-water
protection are significant when
considering subsurface rp.igraiiooi
Both the saturated and unsaturuud
zones must be considered in evafcii!-;*
the potential for subsurface rr.iyriit^n? • ........ < •••-
This requires knowledge of the
characteristics of the waste :n the ur,,:
and the hydrogeology of the sur?ciurdi"-j :
area. The patterns of land use in the
area, including proximity :o residence/
buildings, are particularly impo-ru,:1.;
here.
Also considered ir. factor sever, is the
migration of wastes to the soil root zone
of food-chain crops and other
vegetation. Phytotoxicity may occur as a
result, as in the case of heavy metals at
high concentrations. Even more
important, roots may absorb certain
hazardous constituents, which the plan:
may uptake and pass into ;he humus
food chain.
The eighth and ninth facto; s are the
potential adverse impacts that exposure
to waste constituents can have on
human health and on animal health1: , i: ....... , -:;
plants, and physical struci'.uv-i, :
respectively. This potential depends c>r.
many factors, including the
concentration, quantity, toxicit;,, and
transport of the waste conslitucr.ts.
One commenter agreed that the
factors listed in § 264.601 for ground
water were necessary to evaluate the
adequacy of protection provided by a
particular unit. Another commenter
-------
jederal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday, December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46957
suggested that the rule is unclear on
show the need for ground-water
monitoring wili be evaluated. One other
commenter questioned why ail units
must provide data on hydrogeologic
characteristics, land-use patterns,
ground-water quality, associated human
health effects, and animal and crop
'•xppsurs assessments. This commenter
!u:';hpr sud that ddta requirements
nt- t,!ii')r«id to (he specific type of unit.
• ••'• •'•• ;• i -,:;-.:•.;•: n!-T pointi-d out ih;i! it is
•-')! r.-,-.:!fh=;3/rip°n detonation units and
treatment ti-itc. such as
cannoi be controlled since ii is
impossible to operate these units under
totally enclosed conditions. Because of
this, it is essential that open burning/
open detonation (OB/OD) permit
applicants consider the volumes and
characteristics of the waste, as well as
. the meteorologic and topographic
conditions of the site location. However,
-------
46958 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday, December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
ones commenter suggested an alternative
technology for controlling air emissions
from open burning (not detonation] of
explosive wastes. This technology
effectively reduces emissions by using
an air scrubber. It may. therefore, be an
attractive option for some facilities that
open burn explosive wastes. In addition.
units that thermally treat hazardous
wastes can release hazardous air
omissions. While permits for these
?hi rrn.il trr-atmi-nt units may incorponsV
:n« v nl >hi; inciniM'iitur p;> forrrancc
M«imliirds under Part 1104. thcw;
standards may not bu sufficient or
applicable for Subpart X units: therefore.
these units must provide the assessment
of air quality factors.
One commenter observed that just as
a surface facility must consider and
guard against accidental contamination
of waters or soils, it must also consider
the possibility of contaminated air or
gas emissions. Therefore, (this
commenter suggested that the seven
factors included in § 264.60l(c) be fully
considered. In contrast, commenters
expressed concern over the use of the
word "any" release, viewing it as too
restrictive and not warranted for general
applicability to all units. Three
commenters noted that air emissions
resulting from OB/OD cannot be
controlled and, therefore, this
technology should be exempt from the
requirements of § 264.601(c).
By using the word "any," the Agency
does not necessarily mean "no"
releases. When a potential, exists for a
release (e.g., during OB/OD. where air
emissions are difficult to control), an
assessment must be made of all the
factors important in protecting air
quality.
There was also concern that if the unit
Js subject to evaluation and to
permitting requirements for stationary
sources under the Clean Air Act or
under State and local air pollution
control standards, such standards
should be implemented by these
authorities, as they are beyoad the
Agency's authority under RCRA in those
jurisdictions. The Agency does not agree
that its RCRA authority does not apply
to air emissions. Section 3004(n) clearly
requires EPA to control air emissions
from hazardous waste facilities. EPA
will attempt to minimize any duplication
of control by incorporating applicable-
standards from the Clean Air Act into
the RCRA permit. A permit may also
include additional necessary conditions
imposed under RCRA authorities. For
example, current standards under the
Clean Air Act may not address all types
of hazardous air emissions at treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities.
One commenter also objected to the
use of "hazardous constituent" in
§ 264.601. He preferred "hazardous
constituent of the waste." The Agency
did not change the wording "hazardous
constituent" because if the unit is only
monitored for hazardous constituents of
the waste, then hazardous constituents
of possible reaction products will go
undetected.
Another commenter suggested that
Ftnre most St;i,t,(: air pollution control
fog'.ikitiuns prohibit opt:.0, bii;niny hv1
provide an"firt!mption for explosive
waste, the RCRA permitting of open
burning should be limited to those
exemptions or waivers. The Agency
agrees with this commenter and has
restricted permitting of OB/OD to
explosive wastes.
One commenter indicated that a study
is being completed to identify and
characterize emissions generated at
military OB/OD facilities. This
commenter suggested that the Agency
consider the data, conclusions, and
recommendations from this study in
determining the type of monitoring
requirements for OB/OD disposal
activities. The Agency intends to use
this information in developing a permit
guidance document on OB/OD.
C. Section 264.602—Monitoring.
Analysis. Inspection, Response.
Reporting, and Corrective Action
Under-§ 264.602, each miscellaneous
waste management unit must have a
monitoring program that includes, where
appropriate, a'ground-water, surface
water, soils, and air quality monitoring
system. (Alternatives to ambient air
monitoring and analysis may include
analysis of waste, emissions
measurements, and periodic monitoring
with portable detectors.) A monitoring
program must include procedures for
sampling, analysis, and evaluation of
data, suitable response procedures, and
a regular inspection schedule. This
requirement is intended to ensure that
the permit specifies all monitoring,
inspection, and response activities and
the frequency with which these
activities are to be conducted. Including
these specifications in the permit will
require monitoring by the owner or
operator to prevent violation of permit
requirements and to prevent damage. It
will also enable the oversight agency,
through inspections and enforcement, to
assess whether the unit is in compliance
with the permit and, therefore, with the
requirements of § 264.601.
Since each miscellaneous unit covered
by this section may be distinctive in its
design, operation, and location, the
Agency is leaving the specifications as
well as the extent of the monitoring.
inspection, and response programed the
evaluation of the permitting official. At a
minimum, the monitoring program for a
miscellaneous unit should be capable of
determining the unit's impacts on ground
water in the uppermost aquifer, surfacp
water, air quality, and the extent of
surface and subsurface contaminant
migration, to ensure compliance with
§ 264.601.
The program should consider the
c!i:v;ct;s nijcussarv to ii .' , ..
representative samples gf tst-r.1-;1.: >•' -
in various media; (2) the cor.f>t:U.er.Ls ;<•
be monitored and the frequency of
monitoring; (3) procedures to maintain •
the integrity of monitoring devices!: (41
sample collection and preservation
procedures; (5) analytical methods used
for sampling and analysis; (6) applicable
procedures for the evaluation of data
from the monitoring program; arid :!~)
appropriate response procedures for
cases where the monitoring program
indicates that the unit is no; ir. i
compliance with § 264.601.
The monitoring, inspection, ar.c .
response program under a Subpart X
permit will include requirements linking
inspections and monitoring of the unit to
the appropriate response. The Agency
will incorporate the Part 264 Subpart F
standards for ground-water monitoring,
'protection, and corrective action for
establishing a ground-water monitur-i'na
program at appropriate Subpait X uniis.'
The owner or operator of each .
miscellaneous waste managemenUunii
covered by this section must comply
with the biennial reporting requirements.
specified under § 264.75. These
requirements are the same as those in
effect for all hazardous waste treatment.
storage, and disposal facilities that are
specifically regulated under Part 264.
Under RCRA authority contained in
sections 3004 (u) and (v), the Agency is
developing standards for corrective
action at facilities seeking a RCRA
permit. EPA has already codified the
general obligation to perform corrective
action for release from. Solid Was'e
Management Units (SWMUs) at
hazardous waste facilities (see 40 CFR
264.101). In the interim, EPA will make a
decision on appropriate corrective
actions for SWMUs on a case-by-cnpe
basis in individual permit proct'edsnys.
These standards, scheduled to be
proposed in late 1987, will be applicable
to hazardous waste management units
including Subpart X units to the extent
that they can be applied without
resulting in highly hazardous situations
or adverse cross-media contamination
and are technically feasible. Until these
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday. December 10, 1987. / Rules and Regulations 46959
new standards are finalized, the
, corrective action requirements in
§ 204.101 apply to Subpart X.
One commenter suggested that the
regulations relating to ground-water and
surface water .monitoring are necessary
but should be clarified. The commenter
further noted that for some operations
(e.g., OB/OU) only some of the factors
need to be addressed. Additionally, this
c:ornmenif>r sup^ested that the scope of
t'ie requirements shouiu be clarified
•.vhrn a morn extensive analysis is
indicated. In UMS conme:iter's opinion,
the requirement in § 270.23(bj is overly
broad and the information necessary for
detailed assessments often will not be
available. Thus, these assessments may
be prohibitively expensive if the
requirement is broadly interpreted.
Another commenter was concerned that
the Agency is leaving the specifications,
as well as the extent of the monitoring,
inspection, and response requirements,
to the evaluation of the permitting
official.
The Agency agrees to some extent
with these commentars. If the Agency
provides a comprehensive list of permit
requirements, it will be easier for both
permit applicants and permit writers in
addressing the informational
requirements. However, because of the
diversity of the types of miscellaneous
"units, it is impossible to identify specific
information requirements for individual
units. Where applicable, the Agency
prefers that a permit applicant provide
(a) detailed plans and engineering
reports: (fa) hydrologic, geologic,
atmospheric, and meteorologic
assessments: (.:} information on the
potential pathways of exposure of
nuinans or environmental receptors and
the extent of exposure: and (d) closure
and post-closure procedures. In
addition, because the nature of each unit
can vary a great deal, any steps taken to
meet the requirements of the Subpart X
environmental performance standards
must also be furnished.
One commenter was concerned that
the Subpart F standards for ground-
water monitoring are not mandated,
carte blanche, but are used where
appropriate. He noted [hat in some
sections it is dearly stated that
miscellaneous units nond not comply
with Subpart F requirements, and that
conversely, in other sections of the
rules, the Agency implies that the permit
applicant must comply with Subpart F
where ground-water monitoring is
deemed necessary. This commenter
suggested that these inconsistencies
.should be clarified to require permit
applicants to establish a ground-water
monitoring program where it is
necessary to protect human health and
the environment. The Agency agrees
and requires compliance with Subpart F
ground-water monitoring requirements
on a case-by-cafe determination when
necessary to protect human health and
the environment.
The monitoring, analysis, inspection,
response, and reporting requirements
described in this rule are designed to be
generic with the establishment of unit-
specific requirements during ihe
permitting process. By providing
'specifics for OB/OD units and geologic
repositories in permit guidance to be
developed, the Agency will identify unit-
specific monitoring and analysis needs.
D. Section 264.603—Post-Closure Care
In addition to complying with the
appropriate post-closure standards of
Subpart G of Part 264 during the post-
closure care period, owners and
operators of miscellaneous units
permitted under Subpart X that dispose
of hazardous wastes must continue to
meet the environmental performance
standards of § 264.601 that applied in
the operating period. This requirement is
included to ensure that units used for
disposal are maintained properly after
closure. It is also applicable to treatment
or storage units that cannot completely
remove or decontaminate soils or
ground water at closure.
Maintaining the unit during this period
must be based upon procedures that are
specified in a written post-closure plan,
as required in § 264.118. Where
appropriate, the post-closure plan must
include monitoring, response, and
maintenance procedures.
In response to post-closure
requirements, one commenter
recommended that the miscellaneous
unit concept also be. incorporated into
Part 265. He stated that this would allow
for the use of innovative technologies
during closure of facilities with interim
status. He also stated that often
materials present at sites regulated
under Part 265 must be treated as part of
ihe closure activity and that preparation
of a RCRA Part B permit application for
new activities at a facility can take up to
two years. He argued that some
regulatory mechanism should be
available for the amendment of a RCRA
Part A permit to allow for naw activities
related to the closure oi a site. Unless
the miscellaneous unit concept is
expanded to Part 265 and an expeditious
procedure is developed to amend Part A
permits, new technologies for treating
hazardous waste will be largely
unavailable to facilities closing under
interim statue.
The Agency recognizes the
commanter's concern related to
innovative technologies developed
under interim status. This commenter is
attempting to close a facility using an .
innovative technology. If the commenter
is developing a new technology to treat
hazardous waste at the facility being
closed, or if he is demonstrating the
application of a newly developed
technology to treat hazardous waste,
then this commenter may be able to use
a research, dr-vulopmont, and
demonstration permit under § 270.05.
assuming that he meets all of the
requirements of that section. The
purpose of RD&D permits is to allow for
testing and demonstration of innovative
and experimental technologies,
including the modification of existing
technologies, if the technology is
experimental or innovative and there
are no permit standards for the activity.
Cleanup of facilities may occur, incident
to testing and demonstration, under an
RD&D permit. If the activity does not
qualify for an RD&D permit, then the
facility owner or operator must apply for
a Subpart X permit.
The commenter stated that guidance
on what is meant by removing ail
"contamination," as well as other "how
clean is clean" issues, would be useful-
in closing Subpart X units. The Agency
agrees and is preparing a "clean
closure" guidance for release in the fall
of 1987 that will provide useful
information on one option for closure of
land-based units.
Another commenter suggested that
Subpart X should address closure of
miscellaneous units in a fashion similar
to that set forth in subparts relating to
tanks, landfills, waste piies, etc.
Specifically, § 264.110 should be
amended to reference Subpart X. A new
section in Subpart X should address-
closure and post-closure in language
similar to the analogous sections in
Subparts I through O.
The Agency disagrees with this
commenter. Because of the unique
characteristics of the miscellaneous
units, the specific requirements given in
Subparts I through O for closure and
post-closure are not necessarily
appropriate. Therefore, under § 204.CU3,
these units must continue to comply
with the appropriate post-closure
standards of Subpart G of Part 26-1 nn:j.
the environmental performance
standards of § 264.601 during the post-
closure care period. However, for a unit
that resembles, by definition, one of the
units in Subparts I through O, those
standards may provide a starting point
in developing closure and post-closure
requirements for the miscellaneous unit.
In one commenter's opinion, requiring
post-closure care if a facility cannot
-------
46960 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1987 / Rules and Regulations
"rnmove all contaminated soils or
ground water" at closure is unduly
restrictive and should be limited to toxic
and hazardous constituent; remaining at
the facility after closure at a level
determined to be a threat to human
health and the environment. In response
to this comment, the Agency, under a
separate action, is developing a clean
closure guidance. In addition, the
Asoncy in the preamble to the March 19.
V-.r, iNrt II. Fuderal Roaster ri-ts foi'.h
: if Kf "\A SuinJi.rds for "ch'.tn t U,s>:ru."
VI. Amendments to Part 270: Pi.rmit
Requirements
A. General Permit Requirements
Application and review requirements
for permitting hazardous waste
management facilities under RCRA arc
contained in Part 270. All owners and
operators of units that treat store, or
dispose of hazardous waste in
miscellaneous units must obtain permits
under Part 270 regulations. Subpart X
applicants must comply wish the general
application requirements, including Part
A permit requirements. Part B general
application requirements of § 270.10.
and Part B specific information
requirements. Part 270 regulations
specify what information owners and
operators of facilities must submit in
their permit applications to demonstrate
compliance with the Part 264 standards
(both the general standards in Subparts
A through E, G and H, F when required,
and the specific standards :;n Subpart X).
The general information requirements in
Part 270 apply to all owners and
operators of miscellaneous units.
Most of the comments specific to the
permit requirements indicated a need for
(1) standardization and acceleration of
the permitting process; (2) minimization
of the need for individual permits by
providing an industry-specific variance,
a class permit, or a special permit; and
(3) an individual analysis of the
applicability of permits and regulations
prior to the permitting process. Some
commenters were concerned that permit
writers will be too autonomous, and that
too much specialization will be required
to issue Subpart X permits effectively.
This could complicate the permitting
process by causing both a shortage of
qualified permit writers and increased
costs lo industry, as well as creating an
inconsistency iii the implementation of
the permit standards by the writers.
The Agency has attempted to alleviate
to some decree the commenters'
concerns over the diverse permit
requirements in today's rule by
providing a standard, generic permit
requirement for miscellaneous units.
This standard permit requirement
incorporates Part 284's individual
compliance standards required under
Subparts A through H. as well as the
specific standards in Subpart X. In the
Agency's- opinion, technical support
from the Permit Assistance Teams, any
technology-specific permit guidance,
and the availability of detailed
technology descriptions, engineering
reports, and information on monitoring.
operational features, as we!! as
f-«.Tti!t ;it'ri!i':ation should proviua (he
purmit writer with sulficierit ir.furrnat!<;r-,
to effectively develop permits on the
miscellaneous units.
One commenter suggested that the
Agency should incorporate standards
developed by other agencies, such as the
Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of Energy (DOE), and the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
Another commenter requested that a
generic permit application form for
Subpart X units be developed. Other
commenters preferred a specific
exemption for de minimi's quantities cf
waste processed by certain units
operated by the explosives industry.
Under RCRA, Small Quantity
Generators (SQG]s are provided
exemption from the permitting
requirement in § 261. However, none of
the treatment and disposal standards
contained in Part 254 provide exemption
from the permitting requirements for
managing da minimi's quantities and the
Agency has no authority to, nor does it
see any reason to exempt de minimis
quantities.
The Agency regards these comments
as very constructive and has
incorporated portions of them in the
development of today's rule. For
example, in cooperation with the
Department of the Army, the Agency is
developing a permit guidance for OB/
OD. The Agency also intends to review
DOE's and NRC's permitting standards
developed for the disposal of nuclear
wastes in salt domes and deactivated
missile silos. In the Agency's opinion,
existing Part B permit application forms
used for all other subparts of Part 264
are sufficient and provide adequate
detail. Hence, no specific permit
application form for Subpart X units is
warranted. Although the Ajzuncy is not
providing specific Subpart X permit
applications, it is identifying the specific
information requirements in the
following section.
Another commenter suggested that the
Agency should concentrate on
establishing an information system
capable of informing permit writers cf
miscellaneous units and providing up-to-
date information on what units have
been permitted in various States and
EPA regions. In his judgment.'this would
shorten the time spent "reinventing the .
wheel." The Agency welcomes this
suggestion and wants to point out that '•
the Hazardous Waste Data Management
System (HWDMS) data base, even .
though not seen as a perfect.informati.on
dissemination tool, does serve the
parnose of data transfer amor'* 'He,
T..o KV/DMS d..:«
Center (NCC), Research Triangle P ?.."!-
iN'orth Carolina, by the Headquarters. •
Regional, and State EPA officials or'
their approved contractors. This dc^n
base provides hazardous waste
generators and management facility-
specific information related to Parts A
and B permit status. For each type of
hazardous waste facility, detailed
information is coded. The inform.-":;j - •
includes Standard Ir.dus'ria! Codes'.
(SIC); the facility's r.arr.e sp.ri -.'.J•.::*• ••
the permit status; the quantities arvu
types of was.tes generated and nsir.c: jt-.'
the types of treatment, storage, and
disposal methods and their capacities;
and financial and ownership-status. The
data base is updated and revised
frequently.
Currently, such a status-reporting
mechanism is used by the Agency for
tracking research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) permits.
Similarly, the Agency may provide the
status of various Subpart X permits to
Permit Assistance Teams [PAT) staff
and permit writers. The intent of the .
Subpart X units' status reports is to
provide current information, such as (a)
the types of units for which permit
applications are submitted, (b) the unit's
permit status, and (cl a href description.
of the unit. This will allow various
permit writers and PAT staff in different
regions to permit similar units
consistently and efficiently.
B. Specific Information Requ;run;t'!;:s
for Miscellaneous U.iits In § 170.23
The specific information requirements
for miscellaneous units included in
§ 270.23 are intended to clarifv and
define the type of unit that is being
permitted. The applicant mu«t closer:1^.'
the unit, its physical c:virac:ti:r:.sl:i:?.
materials of construction, and
dimensions. The bulk of the app'iica'tijn ••
is expected to contain detailed pia'ris •
ar.d engineering reports describing hiv.v
the unit will be located, designed,
constructed, operated, maintained,
monitored, inspected, and closed to
comply with the requirements of
-------
ReS?ster / Vo)- .52- No- 237 / Thursday, Doecmbor 10, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46561
, 5 S 264 .001 and 2ii4.G02. The plan should
include a detailed process description.
In developing the application, each of
the environmental performance
standards must be assessed. When; this
assessment indicates that releases to
;:ir. surfifU: xsaltr. or ground water are
possible.^J-e applicant is expected to
provide detailed hydrologic, geologic,
••-•MI] mi>teor!.:!'.v.ji<- a^essmenSK and m.'ps
-•r ':'.-.' ri'^t in su'i-it.'isdinj: llu: $iu;.
Appih.Hions for disposal units must
• inUiin ;j description of She pbns to
• .imply \vith the posl-ciosurp
requirements of § 264.603.
The permit application must contain
information (;<) on the potential
pathways of exposure to humans or
environmental receptors of hazardous
waste or hazardous constituents and (b)
on the potential magnitude and nature of
such exposures. In addition, for each
treatment unit, any reports on
demonstrations of the effectiveness of
similar treatment based on laboratory,
bench-scale, pilot-scale, or field data*
jjutbered under an RD&D permit should
be submitted.
If the unit to be permitted involves an
innovative or experimental waste
treatment process or technology where
insufficient data are available to assess
its effectiveness, if i: is to be
demonstrated over a short period of
time, and if the technology will be
(,ur.J>jr.;ed in a unit that meets the. RDKD
oriseria.' an RB&D permit may be
necessary. For additional information on
RB&D permits, refer to § 270.65 and EPA
Publication No. KPA/530-SW-86-OOa
"Guidance Manual for Research.
i)evt.-lopr:;e:it, and Demonstration
Porn-.iN I'ni!r>r40 CFR Section 270.6.V ff
:ht> di:.iun.s:r.jiion is- to be long term
j:.e.. m.jy eventually be used as a
commercial-scale treatment process) or
ciocs not meet th--? RD&D criteria, a
permit may be obtained under Subpart
X. Under certain circumstances, an
RD&D permit may be necessary lo
u-ilrwr Hddiliop.js! d;;ta that mav be
r'!c;ui:..;d to fulfill Subpart X permi!-
i dated risk-assessment needs. To gather
such data the owner/operator can use
!'ie RD.S:D permit as a vehicle to
'ifin::)::?:!,-;;;,- ih" (•ff:-i:t:>.er.,'ss c.-f ;:
;:!)s<-;.:i; perrsiiMino opsions are
available. First, a single permit that
covers the entire demonstration could
be written. As revisions are needed to a
permit to reflect the outcome of
individual stages, permit modifications
could be requested under 40 CFR 270.41
and 270.42, provided the reason for
requesting a modification meets one of
'•bo criteria for modification in these
subparts. Alternatively, v\he:e the
outcome of one stage may radically
change the subsequent stages, a permit
could be obtained for this first stage. At
its completion, a permit could be issued
for the subsequent stages. Each permit
u'<;u!d terminate with the completion of
a stage, and a new permit would be
issued for the succeeding stage, based
'.:pon an evaluation of the results of the
i onduded stage. The ex..j<:l permitting
strategy to be used would be determined
l.y the permit writer, based upon the
type of treatment process and the
demonstration.
Under § 270.23, a detailed description
of the unit will be required specific to
the development of a unit's design,
construction, location, operation,
maintenance, inspection, and closure so
that it meets the requirements of the
environmental performance standards.
One commenter was concerned over
the information requirements on
potential pathways of exposure of
humans or environmental receptors to
hazardous wastes or constituents. He
suggested that knowledge of the
potential magnitude and nature of such
requirements for every miscellaneous
unit to be permitted under Subpart X
standards may be unnecessary in
certain cases. In his opinion.
development of such extensive data for
fale and transport studies would be
cost-prohibitive and time-consuming. He
further suggested that a petition process
could be instituted to demonstrate on a
case-by-case basis an exemption from
such an information requirement.
As mentioned previously, a detailed
risk assessment is not necessary.
However, at a minimum, the applicant
must identify the potential impacts of
hazardous constituents in different
media. If the preliminary assessment
conducted by the permit applicant
indicates that releases to each of the
media are possible, the permit applicant
must further evaluate whether releases
will occur and demonstrate ways to
minimize the potential releases" This
allows the permit writer to develop
specific monitoring, analysis. ;:rvj
reporting guidelines fur p,;cb p,i:<;::,.;.:;
Conforming changes are in other
sections of Part 270 to accommodate the
new Subpart X regulations. The Agency
is not proposing to make changes to the
Part 124 permit processing procedures.
Issuance of permits for miscellaneous
units would be subject to Part 124 in the
same manner as other hazardous waste
permits..
VII. Applicability to State Hazardous
Waste Management Programs
A. Applicability of Rules in Authorized
States
Under section 3000 of RCRA. the
Agency may authorize qualified States
to administer and enforce the RCRA
program within the State. (See 40 CFR
Part 271 for the, standards and
requirements fur authorization.)
Following authorization, the Agency
retains enforcement authority under
sections 3008, 700,3, and 30!3~of RCRA.
although authorized States have primary
enforcement responsibility.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). H
State with final authorization
administered its own hazardous waste
program, rather than the Agency
administering the federal program in
that State. The Federal requirements no
longer applied in the authorized State,
and the Agency could not issue permits,
for any facilities that the State was
authorized to permit. When new, more
stringent Federal requirements were
promulgated or enacted, the State was
obliged 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 3006(g) of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 0927, new requirements
and prohibitions imposed by HSWA
take effect in authorized States at the
same time that they take effect in
nonauthorized States. The Agency is
directed to carry out those requiremer:!!-
and prohibitions in authorized States.
including the issuance of permits, ur.lii
the State is granted authorization to do
so. While States must still adopt
HSWA-related provisions as State law
to retain final authorization. HSWA
applies in authorized States in the
interim.
3. Effect on SUi'c Authorizations
Today's announcement promulgates
standards that are not effective in
authorized States because the
requirements are not being iinposet.
'pursuant to HSVYA. Thus, the
ihos<; Siiiius that do n-.)l iiavu iky.'.:.-'::;- o:
final authorization. In authorized Std!i;i,
the requirements will not be applicable
until the State revises its program to
adopt equivalent requirements under
State law.
Under 40 CFR 271.21(e)(2), States that
have final authorization must modify
their programs to reflect equivalent -
requirements and by July 1,1989, must
submit the modifications to the Agency
-------
48962 Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday. December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
for approval. This deadline can be
extended in certain cases (40 CFR 271.
21(e)(3)). Once the Agency approves the
modification, the State requirements
become Subtitle C RCRA requirements.
States with authorized RCRA
programs may already have
requirements similar to those in today's
rule. These State regulations have not
been assessed a»ainst '.he federal
h»Hntj
'irt: today to
E!< 't rrr.ir.u whether thry mt;ft the lusts
fur tiuihomuitton. Thus, a Slate is not
authorized to entry out requirements in
lieu of the Agency until the State
program modification is submitted to the
Agency and approved. Of course. States
with existing standards may continue to
administer and enforce their standards
as a matter of State law.
States that submit their official
applications for final authorization less
than 12 months after the effective date
of these standards arc not required to
include equivalent standards in their
applications. However, they must
modify their programs by the deadlines
set forth in § 271.21(e). States that
submit official applications for final
authorization 12 months after the
effective date of these standards must
include standards equivalent to these
standards in their applications. The
requirements a State must meet when
submitting its final authorization
application are set forth in 40 CFR 271.3.
The Agency is precluded from issuing
permits to new units in States
authorized to implement RCRA in lieu of
the Agency. However. 40 CFR 264.1(f}(2)
provides an exception: the Agency may
issue permits in authorized States if the
unit was not regulated under RCRA at
the time of the State's authorization and
its standards for permitting the unit
were promulgated after the State
received final authorization. Thus.
according to this provision, the Agency
may issue a permit to a new facility
under Subpart X in an authorized State.
The Agency's permitting authority
would cease, however, once the State
modified its program, in accordance
wilh § 271.21(e), to reflect the Federal
Subpart X standards.
VHI. Effective Dates
Today's rule is effective 30 days from
date of publication (in compliance with
section SS3(d) of the Administrative
Procedures Act). EPA believes that it
has a sound basis for suspending the
statutory six-month effective date
{RCRA Section 3010{b]) for this
regulatory amendment. Section 3010(b)
provides that EPA may shorten the
effective date for good cause found and
published with the regulation. The
Agency believes that there is good cause
to suspend this six-month period
because of the demand by the regulated
community to apply for and obtain
Subpart X permits. Currendy, persons
are prohibited from building new
Subpart X facilities or expanding
existing interim status facilities that will
be covered under Subpart X. By
shortening the effective date of today's
rule to 30 days, the Agency enables such
pi.irsons to obtain tho necessary pi:rn;:c.s
e\pfU:Ut>u.s:y. Since such permits an;
not required to be obtained within the
six-month period, shortening the
effective date will not burden the
regulated community.
IX. Regulatory Analyses
A. Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order No. 12291. the
Agency must judge whether a regulation
is "major" and thus subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. The notice published today is
not major because the rule will not
result in an effect on the economy of
S100 million or more, will not result in
increased costs or prices, will not have
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment.
productivity, and innovation, and will
not significantly disrupt domestic or
export markets. Therefore, the Agency
has not prepared a Regulatory Impact
Analysis under the Executive Order.
This regulation was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for
review as required by Executive Order
No. 12291.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 el seq.) requires each Federal
agency to consider the effects of their
regulations on small entities and to
examine alternatives that may reduce
these effects. With respect to today's
rule, there is no means of anticipating
exactly how many miscellaneous units,
if any, will be owned and operated by
small entities. In general, the Agency
believes that the large amounts of
capital required and the technical
complexity necessary to establish safe
and secure miscellaneous units will
mean that larger entities will
predominate. Therefore, the Agency
certifies that this regulation will not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements contained in this rule have
been approved by the Office of - •
Management and Budget (OMB) under
- the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 el
seq. have been assigned OMB control
number 2050-0074.
X. Supporting Documents
In preparing the final rule, the Agency
has used the following major sources of
information. They have been placed in
the rulemaking docket at U.S. .
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
RCRA Docket fsub-basgrr.pnt]. 401 ^1
(.:.'.'.(. ('-, L;..'LT. ;:C!H j.'^j ii,;Ti. ',»*•< ,("- " "-'•
p.m.., Mcnday through Friday, e>«;,i;j; :'
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 237 / Thursday, December 10, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46963
PART 144—UNDERGROUND
EJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
1. The authority citation for Part 144
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Pub. L 93-523, as amended by
Pub. L. 95-190. Pub. L. 96-63. Pub. L. 96-502,
and Pub. L. 9S-339. 42 U.S.C. 3!)0f e! scq.
2. Section 144.33 (a) is amended by
adding the following sentence at the end
•;' I.''*3 pdra^Mph to ,-HHti as follows:
>" 1-4.31 Application for a permit;
authorization by permit.
('{} *.* ' A RCRA permit applying
the standards of Part 264 Subpart'x will
constitute a UiC permit.for hazardous
waste injection wells for which the
technical standards in Part 146 are not
generally appropriate.
PART 260—HAZARDOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL
3. The authority citation for Part 260 is
revised to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C 6905. 6912fa). 6921
through 6927. S'JW. 6934. 6935, 6937. 6938,
R93S. and 6974.
4. Section 260.10 is amended by
adding the definition "Miscellaneous
Unit" in alphabetical order and revising
the definition "Landfill" to read as
follows:
c 260.10 Definitions.
"Landfill" means a disposal facility or
part of a facility where hazardous waste
is placed in or on land and which is not
•j pii905, 6912[a), 6924", and
6925. ' ..
6. Section 264.10 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows: :
§ 264.10 Applicability.
• * w . *
(b) Section 264.18(b) applies only to
facilities subject to regulation und^r
Subparts 1 through O nnu Subp.in X of
this part.
7. Section 264.15 is amended by
revising the last sentence of paragraph
fb)(4) to read as follows:
§ 264.15 General inspection requirements.
*****
(b) - ' •
(4) * * * At a minimum, the
inspection schedule must include the
terms and frequencies called for in
§ § 264.174, 264.194, 264.226, 264.253,
264.254, 264.303, 264.347, and 264.602,
where applicable.
*****
8. Section 264.18 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b)(l}(ii) to read as follows:
§264.18 Location standards.
* w . 4 ft *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) For existing surface
impoundments, waste piles, land
treatment units, landfills, and
miscellaneous units, no adverse effects
on human health or the environment will
result if washout occurs, considering:
» » » w •
9. Section 264.73 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(6j to read as
follows:
§ 264.73 Operating record.
*****
fbj * • •
(6) -Monitoring, testing or analytical
data, and corrective action where
required by Subpart F and §§ 264.226,
264.253, 264.254, 264.276, 264.273, 264.280,
264.303, 264.309, 264.347. and 264.602;
'!0. Section 284.90 is asnfrndi-d !>v '
••:C.!d:r.;» a n<'\.v p;ir;jg;aph (d- to ret.'d ?:s
g 264.30 Applicability.
*****
(d) Regulations in this subpart may-
apply to miscellaneous units when
necessary to comply with §§ 264.601
through 264.603.
11. Section 264.111 is amended fay
revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
§ 264.111 Closure performance standard.
. (c) Complies with the closure
requirements of this subpart,.including,
but not limited to, the requirements of
§ § 264.178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258,
264.280. 264.310. 264.351, arid 264.601
through 264.603.
12'. Section 264.112 is amended by
revising paragrnph [:i\\Z] to read H.S
follows:
§ 264.112 Closure plan; amendment of
plan.
fa) * •' *
' (2) The Directors approval of the plan
must ensure that the approved closure
plan is consistent with §§ 264.111
through 264.115 and the applicable
requirements of §§ 264.90 etseq.,
264.178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258. 264.280.
264.310, 264.351, and 264.601. Until final
clsoure is completed and certified in
accordance with § 264.115, a copy of the
approved plan and all approved
revisions must be furnished to the
Director upon request, including request
by mail.
* * * + «
13. Section 264.114 is amended by
revising the first sentence to read as
follows:
§ 264.114 Disposal or decontamination of
equipment, structures, and soils.
During the partial and final closure
periods, all contaminated equipment,
structures, and- soils must be properly
disposed of sr decontaminated, unless
otherwise specified in §§ 264.228.
264.258, 264.280. or 264.300, or under the
authority of § 264.601 and i 264.603.
« * •
14. Section 264.117.is amended by
revising paragraphs fa)(l)(i) and
(a)(l)(ii) to read as follows: '
§ 264.117 Post-closure care and use of
property.
fa) (I)*''
(:) Monitoring end reporting in
accordance with the requirements of
Subparts F, K, L. M. N. and Xpf this
part: and
(iij Maintenance :i!:>j inoni'or.r.i.' of
vv;jh!(d con'jnnmcn; ;-\t.i*::r>s in
i;:;;::;; i;;ini t- v, '.:. :;;i ;••.\;-j•':•••.•;•,••.•.;- t-.:'
Siibp.-.nE F. K. L. M N. and X oi ;r-s
part.
*****
15/Section 264.118 is amended by
revising paragraphs (b)fl) and (b)(2](i)
and (b)(2)(ii) to read as follows:
§ 264.118 Post-closure plan; amendment
of plan.
-------
46964 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 237 / Thursday. December 10. 1987 / Rules and Regulations
(b)' • •
(1J A description of the planned
monitoring activities and frequencies at
which they will be performed to comply
with Subparts F, K, L. M. N, and X of
this part during the post-closure care
period; and
(2) * * '
(i) The integrity of the cap and final
cover or other containment systems in
ii'fordance with the requirements of
•=- ••• «im !•'. K. L. M. X. j.r.d X t,f ihtK
, . •; .r,«
• -.« The function of th« monitonnrj
v({Mipcnunt in accordance: with the
requirements of Subparts, F, K. L. M. N.
and X of this part; and
« * • • *
16. Section 264.142 is amended by
revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 264.142 Cost estimate for closure.
(a) The owner or operator must have a
tictniled written estimate, in current
tl'.ilars. of the cost of closing the facility
in 4.t>(>.: Murn-unng. dni-.KsiS. inspection.
response, repotting, and corrective
action.
264.603 Post-closure care.
264.604 through 264.999 [Reserved |.
Subpart X—Miscellaneous Units
§264.600 Applicability.
The requirements in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous waste in m'iscellanenous
units, except as § 264.1 provide
otherwise.
'§ 264.601 Environmental performance
standards.
A miscellaneous unit must be located.
designed, constructed, operated,
maintained, and closed in a manner that
will ensure protection of human health
and the environment. Permits for
•miscellaneous units are to contain such
terms and provisions as necessary to
protect human health and the
environment, including, but not limited
to. as appropriate, design and operating
requirements, detection and monitoring
requirements, and requirements for
responses to releases of hazardous
waste or hazardous constituents from
the unit. Permit terms and provisions
shall include those requirements of
Subparts 1 through 0 of this part, Part
270. and Part 146 that are appropriate for
the miscellaneous unit being permitted.
Protection of human health and the
environment includes, but is not limited
to:
(a) Prevention of any releases that
may have adverse effects on human •
heath or the environment due to
migration of waste constituents in the
ground water or subsurface
environment, considering:
(1) The volume and physical and
chemical characteristics of the waste in
the unit, including its potential for
migration through soil, liners, or other
containing structures;
(2) The hydrologic and geologic
characteristics of the unit and the
surrounding area:
(3) The existing quality of ground
water, including other sources of
contamination a-nd their cumulative
impact on the ground water;
(4) The quantity and direction of
ground-water flow;
(5) The proximity to and withdrawal
rates of current and potential ground-
water'users,, '
'(6) The patterns of land use in the
region:
f7]The potential for deposition, or
rn^(';.,'i"~ ';fv/;: = -f; '<;.--,::::..H.'.-.Sil:;:ii'.
(8; The potential for health risks'
caused by human exposure to waste
constituents; and' •
(9) The potential "or damage to
domestic animals, wildlife, crops, :
vegetation, and physical structures
caused-by exposure to waste
constituents;
(b) Prevention of'any releases that
may have adverse effects on human
health or the environment due to
migration of wests co~.3titi:er.ts ir.
surface wdcer. pr v.siiarids cr en the i-c'/l
surface considering:
(1) The volume ar.d-physicai and
chemical characteristics of the waste in
the unit:
(2) The effectiveness and reliability of
containing., confining, and collecting
systems and sen G,;-. res in preventing''
migration; ' .
(31 The hydrclojic characteristics of
the unit and the surrounding area,
toduding the topography of the land
around the unit:
(4) The patterns-of precipitation in the
region; •'•'.• ',
(5) The quantity, q.iality, and direction
of ground-water flow;
(6) The proximity-of the unit to surface
waters;
. (7) The current and potential uses of
nearby surface waters and any water
quality standards established for those
surface waters:
(8) The existing quality of surface
waters and surface soils, including other
sources of contamination and their
cumulative impact on surface waters
and surface soils; .
f9) The patterns of land use in the
region:
(10) The potential for health risks
caused by human exposure to waste1
constituents: and
(11) The potential for damage to
domestic animals, wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste
constituents.
(c) Prevention of any release that may
have adverse effects on human health or
the environment due to migration of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 23^ / Thursday, December 10, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 46985
wdsle constituents in the air.
considering:
ft) The volume and physical and
chemical characteristics of the waste in
the unit, including its potential for the
emission and dispersal ofgasos. .-
aerosols and participates:
[2] The effectiveness ar.d reliability of
sv stems and structures to reduce or '.
prevent emissions of hazardous
'•.onstiiurr.ts to the sir:
' i,1 ': :..• i,';.i':r.;::;iM r.har;:':!;.1.-;--;;;;.}, of thu
(}•' i ne urniusphpric. ir.eloroij-jic. and
tcinc.'jrapnic characteristics of the unit
an-J the surrounding area:
[5; Ti:2 existing quality of the air,
including olher- sources of contamination
ana 'heir cumulative impact on the air:
(6; The potential for health risks
caused by human exposure to waste
constituents: and
(?) The potential for damage to
domestic animals, wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to waste
constituents.
§ 264.602 Monitoring, analysis, inspection.
response, reporting, and corrective action.
Monitoring, testing, analytical data,
inspections, response, and reporting .
procedures and frequencies must ensure
compliance with §§ 264.601, 264.15,
254.33..204.75, 264.76, 264.77, and 264.101
as well as meet any additional
req-iirur.isnts needed to protect human
health and the environment us specified
in the permit.
§ 284.603. Post-closure care.
A miscellaneous unit that is a disposal
ur.ii must be maintained in a manner
th.it complies ivi.;h 8 2G4.601 during the
pust-u-,:5.:r<-/ r-ru period, hi addition, if a
treatment or storage unit has
contaminHitid soils or ground water that
rannot.be completely removed or
decontaminated during closure, thc-n
that unit must also meet the
r°qirremsnts of § 264.60? during post-
~:osMre "are. The post-o!osi;r« plan
: :C.->: $ 20.4.118 must sp&cifv the
procedures that will be ust,-d to-s,-;'isfy.
this requirement.
§§ 264.604 through 264.959. [Reserved]
PART 270—EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAMS: THE
HAZARDOUS. WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM
20. The authority citation for Part 270
is revised to Tfnti ;:.-; folioxvs:
Authority: -12 U.b.C. ti!K>.~). 1)012. iiH25, 6927,
691?). and 6974. '
• 21. Section 270.1-3 is-amendud by
• revising paragraphs (b)(5)-and (b)(13) to
read 'as follows:
§ 270.14 Contents of Part B: Genera!
requirements.
* * * » . .
(b) * * *
f-5) A copy of the general inspection
schedule required by § 2b4.l5(-b).
Include, where applicable, as part of the
inspection schedule, specific
requirements in §§ 264.174, 264.194,
264.226, 264.254, 264.273. 264.303. and
264.602.
(13) A copy of the closure plan and,
where applicable, the post-closure plan
required by §§ 264.112 and 264.118.
Include, where applicable, as part .of the
plans, specific requirements in
§§ 264:178, 264.197, 264.228, 264.258,
264.280, 264.310, 264.351. 264.601, and
264.603.
22. Part 270 is amended by adding a
new§ 270.23 to Subpart B to read as
follows:
§ 270.23 Specific Part B information
requirements for miscellaneous units.
Except as otherwise provided'in
§ 264.600. owners and operators of
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous waste in miscellaneous units
must provide the following additional
information:
(a) A detailed description of the unit
being used or proposed for use, •
including the following:
(1) Physical characteristics, materials
of construction, and dimensions of the
unit:
(2) Detailed plans and engineering
reports describing how the unit ivil! be
. located, designed, constructed, operated.
maintained, monitored, inspected, and
closed to comply with 'Jrvrpcrjir^m''!?1^
of S j 26-^.601 and 2M !>U2: arid
(3) For disposal units, a cyt<:i!f;d
description of the pianb to corr.ph wiih
the post-closure requirements of
§ 264.603.
{b) Detailed hydrologic, geologic, and
meteorologic assessments and land-use
maps for the region surrounding the site
that address and ensure compliance of
the unit with each factor in the
environmental performance standards
of § 264.601. If the applicant can
.demonstrate that he does not violate the
. environmental performance standards
of § 264.601 and the Director agrees with
such demonstration, preliminary
hydrologic, geologic, and meteorologic
assessments will suffice.
. (c) Information on the potential
pathways of exposure of humans or
environmental receptors to hazardous
waste or hazardous constituents and on
the potential magnitude and nature of
such exposures:
(d) For any treatment unit, a report on
a demonstration of the effectiveness of
the treatment based en laboratory or
field data.
(e) Any additional information
determined by the Director to be
•necessary for evaluation of compliance
of the unit with th:; environmental
performance sinrnirirtis of 5 204.601.
' (The inf-ji-nution .-fuiiiiumesits in thi-- -soc-tiun
hiive henr, app:oved by the Office of
M.inupement H'.id Br-di^i;! and assis;::«d O\'B
Control Number 2050-O074.)
§§ 270.24 through 270.29 [Reserved].
|FR Doc. 87-27*:- F:i«ij 1.2-9-87: 8:45 r.mj
BILLING CODE 65GO-50^M
-------
------- |