PB95-208930
530-R-95-021
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
FOR THE
CESQGRULE
U.S. EPA
MAY 1595
A Headquarters Library
-------
Outline '
I, 'Authority
II. "Background
' ' . -i
A. Current Solid Waste Controls .Under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
1. Non-Hazardous Waste Management:1 General
2. Non-Hazardous .Waste Management: Municipal Wastes
B. Small Quantity Generator Hazardous Waste Controls
C. .Sierra Club Lawsuit
D. RCRA Section 3001(d)(4) and Conditionally Exempt Small
Quantity Generators , .
E. Previous Activities to Address Industrial Facilities
that Manage Non-Hazardous Industrial Wastes
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Regulatory Approach
IV. Characterization of CESQG Waste, Industrial D Facilities
that May Receive CESQG Wastes, and Existing State Programs
Related to CESQG Disposal
A. CESQG Waste Volumes; Generators and Management
1. Number of CESQGs
2. Major CESQQ Waste Generating- Industries.
3.. CBSQQ Waste Volume
.. 4. Major CESQG Waste Types ,
5. CESQG Management Practices-
B. Facilities that "May Receive* CESQG Waste-
1. Manufacturing Industries with Oft-Site CESQG
Disposal-
-------
2.. Commercial.Off-Site Facilities '
.-. < 3; Construction and-Demolition Landfills
, C. .Existing State,Programs , i . .
1. State Requirements Pertaining to Management of
, , CESQG Hazardous Wastes . - .
* , * '
2, State Requirements for Construction ,and
'Demolition Facilities
> '
V. Discussion of Today's Regulatory Proposal ' '-
" A. Non-Municipal.Solid Waste Disposal Facilities that
" , . ' Receive CESQG Hazardous WasteH : . ' .. .
.B. Decision, to Impose or go Beyond the .Statutory Minimum
' " y
Components , ' . ' '
. N.
1. Construction and Demolition Waste Facilities
. . ' a) Construction and Demolition Leachate
. b) Construction and Demolition Damage Case
. Analysis
i ' '''* .''
c) Construction and Demolition Ground-Water
* i , * * '".' i *f
, , , Monitoring Data, . .
' . - .! . : d> Conclusions for Construction and Demolition
'. . .'', - : Facilities- '-..= ._ ':.'.' . '-'.'
'.. 2. Off-Site Commercial Landfills :
3. Request for Additional Data and Comments
' ' ' ."'''-'
Concerning Statutory Minimum or More
' ' '
Comprehensive Facility Requirements <
' C. Decision to Establish Facility Standards under Part 257
and Revisions to Part 261 , '
-------
D.' Re.queat for Comment on the Use of an Alternative
Regulatory Approach,in Today's Rule -
E. Highlights of Today's Statutory Minimum/Requirements-for
Non-Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities that May
Receive CESQG Hazardous Wastes
1. Applicability .
2. Specific Location Restrictions
a. Airport Safety ,
b. Floodplains ' ...
. . c. Wetlands .1 :
d. Fault Areas
e.'Seismic Impact Areas . _ ' -
f. Unstable Areas
'
Action Requirements
a. Applicability of Ground-water Monitoring
and Corrective Action Requirements
b. Overall Performance of the Ground-Water.
Monitoring System.
1 r - - ' * ' » "
c; Ground-water Sampling and Analysis
Requirements
d. Detection MonitoringProgram ,
e. Assessment Monitoring Program
f. Corrective Action Program: . :
4. Recordkeeping Requirements
F. Other Issues Relating to Today's Proposal .
-------
1. Owner/Operator Responsibility and Flexibility in
Approved States , ' .
2. CESQG's Responsibilities Relating to the
Revisions in Section 261.5, Paragraphs (f) and
, , ' , (g) - . - '
VI. Implementation and Enforcement
A. State Activities under Subtitle C
1. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to .RCRA
1 .2. Effect on State Authorizations.
r i
B. State Activities under Subtitle'D
-~. ^
C. Relationship Between Subtitle .C and D
- ;>D. Enforcement ,
' 1. Hazardous Waste- Enforcement
2. Subtitle D Enforcement. .
VII. Executive Order No. 12866 - Regulatory Impact Analysis
A.' Cost Impacts
1. Cost Impact to CESQGs with On-Site Disposal
2. Cost Impact to Commercial (Off-Site) Subtitle D
Industrial Waste. Facilities .
3. Coat Impact to Construction and Demolition Waste
Generators and Landfills
B. .Benefits- ' " - .. . ."'"..-.
VIII.. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. CESQGs with On-Site Disposal in Subtitle D Units
i - i
B. CESQGs with Off-Site Disposal in C&D Landfills
1. Construction Industry
-------
2. Wrecking and Demolition Industry - Lower Bound
3. Wrecking and Demolition Industry - Upper Bound
C. Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills
IX. Paperwork Reduction Act .
X. Environmental Justice
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
XII. References
' I .
I. Authority , '
These regulations are being proposed under the authority of
sections 1008, 2002 (general rulemaking authority), 3001(d)(4),
4004 and 4010 of RCRA, as amended. Section 3001(d)(4) authorizes
EPA to promulgate standards for generators who do not generate more
than 100 kilograms per. month of hazardous waste. Section 4010(c)
'
4004 for facilities that may - receive hazardous household wastes
(HHW) or small quantity generator (SQG) hazardous waste.
XX. Background ' .
A. Current Solid Waste Controls Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA} ...
1. Non-Hazardous Waste? Manaqgmente t General.. ...
Subtitle D of RCRA establishes a. general framework- for
Federal, States and local government cooperation in controlling the
management of: non-hazardous solid waste. The Federal role is to
establish the overall regulatory direction; to provide minimum
national standards for protecting human health and the environment,
and to provide: technical assistance to States for planning and
-------
developing environmentally sound waste management practices. The
actual planning and direct implementation of solid waste programs
under Subtitle D, however, remain State and local functions.
Under the authority of Sections 1008 (a) (3)' and 4004 (a) of
RCRA, EPA promulgated the "Criteria for Classification of Solid
' ' \ ' ,
Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" {40 CFR Part 257} in
September of 1979. EPA issued minor modifications to the Criteria
in September of 1981. ' These.sPart 257 Criteria establish minimum
J
national performance standards necessary to ensure that "no
^
reasonable probability of adverse effects oh health or the
environment" will result, from solid waste disposal facilities or
practices * A facility or practice that meets the Criteria is
considered a sanitary landfill; a facility or practice that'fails
»n '
to meet the Criteria is defined as an "open dump", subject to
v ' , ..
upgrading .through a compliance schedule or closure implemented by
the-State or through a citizen suit under Section 7002.
The current Part 257 Criteria include. general performance
standards addressing eight major areas of potential environmental
concern: floodplains, endangered species, surface water, ground
water, land application, disease/ air and safety., ,',..
2. Non-Hazardous Waste Management; fflyn.ici{.pal Wastes
As added by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of
1984, Section 4010 (a) of RCRA directs EPA to conduct a study of the
, extent to which existing RCRA guidelines and Criteria applicable to
solid non-hazardous waste management and disposal facilities (i.e.,
Part 257) are .adequate to protect human health and the environment
6
-------
from ground water contamination.
Section 4010(b) also requires that the Administrator submit a
Report to the Congress setting forth the results of the study
1 i
together with any recommendations made by the Administrator on the
basis of the study.
Lastly, Section 4010(c) requires that the Administrator,
revise the existing Part 257 Subtitle D Criteria used.to classify
facilities as sanitary landfills or open.dumps by March 31, 1988,
for facilities that may receive household hazardous waste or
hazardous waste from small quantity generators. The required
revisions are those necessary to protect human health and the
environment and which take into account the practicable capability
of such facilities. At a minimum, the revised Criteria must
include ground-water monitoring as necessary to detect
contamination, location restrictions, and provide for corrective
action, as appropriate.
The Agency issued the "Report: to Congress - Solid Waste
Disposal in' the united States", in October; 198a. The major
findings were" thatr the Subtitle D universe is large, and diverse,
including 11 billion tons of Subtitle D wastes generated each year,
and that each: different type of waste presents unique management
problems, and- risks. The report identified: adverse impacts
attributable to municipal solid waste landfills,- including, exposure
to ground-water contamination... The report concluded that the Part
257 Criteria should be revised for municipal solid waste landfills.
.The Report to Congress failed to draw a conclusion, relating to
-------
industrial Subtitle D facilities. EPA determined that the limited
.data on industrial Subtitle' D facilities indicated that "there may
be reason for concern and that further study was heeded.
?
The proposed '"Solid-Waste Disposal Facility Criteria"' (53 FR
333-14) were published on August- 30, 1988: The proposed rule was to
\
apply to all municipal solid waste landfills. EPA indicated that
a second phase, applying to industrial solid waste facilities that
receive SQG hazardous wastes, would be proposed at,such time as the
Agency had adequate data on which to base regulatory decisions.
On October 9, 1991, EPA promulgated "revised Criteria for Solid
Waste Disposal Facilities (see 56 FR 50978) accepting household
hazardous wastes. These revisions fulfilled the part of ,the
statutory mandate found in RCRA Section 4010 for all facilities
that receive household .hazardous wastes. (Any facility receiving
any household waste is subject to the revised Criteria, which were
relocated at 40 CFR Part 258 for purposes of clarity). Revisions
' " "-'
to the Part 257 Criteria for other Subtitle D disposal facilities
i ' ,
that may receive CESQG hazardous wast.es were delayed as the .Agency
had little information concerning^ the potential or actual impacts
f ' ' . - ; - '
that these types of facilities may have on. human health and: the
environment:. '''-' . .'. -
B. Small Quantity Generator Hazardous WasteControls
Today's- proposal would amend the special requirements that
have been established for conditionally exempt: small quantity
generator (CESQG) hazardous wastes. Regulations defining CESQG
hazardous wastes were promulgated in 1986 in 40 CFR Part 261.5,
8
-------
/ , '
with some minor revisions in 1988. CESQGs are those that generate
no more than 100 kilograms of hazardous waste or no more than one
kilogram of-acutely hazardous waste in a month and who accumulate
no more than 1000 kilograms of hazardous waste or no more than one
kilogram of acutely hazardous waste at one time. CESQGs are exempt
>
from manifesting, reporting, transport, and treatment and disposal
standards applicable to hazardous wastes under 40 CFR Parts 262
through 266, 268, 270, and 124 and the notification requirements of
Section 3010 of RCRA. A CESQG may mix CESQG waste with non-
hazardous waste and remain subject to the reduced requirements of
40 CFR Part 26;1.5 even though the resultant mixture exceeds the
quantity limitations identified above, unless the resultant mixture
meets any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste as identified
in 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart C. A CESQG may manage the CESQG
hazardous waste at hazardous waste facilities subject to Subtitle
C of RCRA, reuse or recycling facilities, or Subtitle D facilities
that have been permitted,," licensed, or registered by a State to
manage municipal or industrial waste. CESQGs who; do not comply
with, the reduced requirement a of 40 CFR Part 261.5 become, subject
..'-.. 1;- ' . .
to the full set of hazardous? waste regulations.,
C. SierraClubv.Lawsui.fr -.
After promulgation of the final Municipal Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Criteriar the Sierra^ Club filed a petition for review of
e , ' .
the revised Criteria with: the Halted States- Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. Sierra Club vs., EPA, 992 F. 2d
*\
337 (D.C. Cir.1993). The Sierra Club contended, that the EPA had
-------
v "
not fulfilled the Section 4010 requirement for revised regulations
because the Agency had not promulgated rules for nonmunicipal
. facilities that receive hazardous .wastes from small quantity
generators. The Sierra Club, claiming that' the EPA had missed a
statutory deadline, asked . the Court to place EPA on a Court-
supervised- schedule for issuing the rule', required. The Court
-. essentially agreed with the Sierra Club but directed it to the U.s'.
District Court as" the Court with jurisdiction to rule on a missed
statutory deadline. ' . '
On October 21, 1993, the Sierra Ciub .filed suit against the
1 , EPA in the United States . District Court for the District of
i i .
. .Columbia, once again seeking to compel the EPA to promulgate
- i ' - ...
revised Criteria for nonmunicipal facilities that may receive small
dHk quantity generator hazardous waste.
As a result of'the October 21, 1993 lawsuit,.the EPA and the
Sierra Club reached agreement on a schedule concerning revised
',' ' . i .
Criteria for. non-municipal facilities that may receive CESQG
wastes. This schedule requires that the EPA. Administrator sign: a
proposal by May 15, 1995 and a final rule by July 1, 1996.
D. RCRA Section 3001(d) (4> and Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
' . . \ ..-.'' ' ." .
Generators:: . ' , '
AS discussed above, RCRA Section 4010(c) requires EPA to
promulgate revisions to the Criteria in 40 CPR Part 257 for
facilities that, may receive hazardous household waste or "hazardous
waste from small quantity generators under Section 3001 (d)....." 42
U.S.C. section 6949a(c) . Congress enacted.,sections 3001(d) and
* ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' , 10 .'"'' - ' -
-------
4010(c)-with the-HSWA Amendments of 1984.
Prior to enactment of the HSWA Amendments, . EPA had
conditionally exempted generators who produced less than 1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per calendar month from Subtitle C
requirements. 45 FR 3310"3 - 33104 (May i9, 1980) . In enacting
Section 3001(d), however, Congress directed EPA to develop (by
March 31, 1986) a comprehensive set of standards which'would apply
to hazardous waste produced by small quantity generators of between
100 and 1000 -kilograms of hazardous waste in each calendar month
("kg/mo"). 42 U.S.C. -Section 6921(d)(l). EPA was further
authorized by Section 3001(d)(4)' to promulgate, standards for
generators of less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste
if the Administrator determines it is necessary to do so to protect
human health and the environment.
In response to this mandate, EPA promulgated a rule which
removed the conditional exemption from Subtitle C requirements for
generators of between 100 and 1000 kg/mo of hazardous waste. 56 FR
10146 (March 24, 19a«) _ The 100 to lOOa kg/mo small quantity
generators are now subject to a special set of standards under RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste requirements (40 CFR Parts 262, 263,
264, 265,. 266V and 270K Id. at 10149.
Howeviexv EPA has not removed the conditional exemption from
RCRA Subtitle C requirements for those generators who produce
hazardous waste in quantities less than 100- kg/mo as discussed
earlier in this preamble. .
Because EPA has already required those generators who produce
. 11 " . ' '
-------
between 10.0 and. 1000/ kg/mo of hazardous 'waste to comply ,with ;
> ' '
Subtitle C standards, there is no need to revise .the solid waste
disposal-facility Criteria in 40 CFR .Part 257 for the disposal of
'
such 'small quantity generator waste. Small quantity generator
hazardous waste from a 100 to 1000 kg/mo generator .may /not be
disposed of in a solid waste disposal facility covered by Part 257.
Instead, such waste must,be treated and disposed of in accordance
with requirements in Parts 262 through 266 and 270-
Thus, EPA's only remaining obligation under RCRA Section
4010(c) is to revise the open dumping Criteria for those facilities
which may receive . CESQ6 waste, i.e., hazardous . waste from
generators who produce less than 100 kg/mo in a calendar year. See
40 CFR 261.5(a). Today's proposed amendments to 40 CFR Parts 257
i '' - * '
and 261 respond directly to the Sierra Club challenge to EPA's
- ' " J
revised Criteria for MSWLFs.
S. Previous Activities to Address Industrial Facilities that Manage
Non-Hazardous Industrial Wastea .
. / " . ' : ,''...*
As referred to above, RCRA. Section 4010(d) requires that the
Agency study the extent, to which the existing Subtitle D Criteria
in 40 CFR Part. 257- are adequate. The Agency conducted the
"Screening Survey of Industrial Subtitle O Establishments1* in 1985.
Tljis Survey was designed to develop national and industry-specific
estimates of the amount of non-hazardous industrial waste that was
' v i ^,
managed in on-site management units along with a count of the '
. ' , ' s
number of on-site management units. . -'.._
' - l '
The Screening Survey established; at the national level, that
-------
an estimated 72,000 establishments managed Subtitle D industrial
waste in 1985 and an estimated 20% (or approximately 12., 000) of
those establishments used at least one of the on-site land-based,
management units -to manage waste. The Screening Survey further
identified, at the unit level, that in 1985:
- 2,760 landfills were used to manage 86.2 million tons of
Subtitle. D1industrial waste;
- 15,250 surface impoundments were used to manage 7.4 billiori
tons of Subtitle D industrial waste;
- 4,300 land application units were .used to manage .99.1
million tons of Subtitle D industrial waste; and
- 5,330 waste piles were used to manage 76.9 million metric
tons of Subtitle D industrial waste.
These data that were developed in 1985 continue to be the most
comprehensive . national data- concerning the generation and
management of Subtitle D industrial wastes.
The Agency has over the past several years done evaluations of
State industrial, waste programs, evaluated: the use of the Toxics
' ... " "
Release Inventory (TRIf to characterize manufacturing industries;
and extrapolated from> other existing' data to .better understand
industrial solid waste management. However, the Agency still must
rely on the 1985 data as its most comprehensive baseline
information.
III. Summary of Today's Proposed Regulatory Approaefe.
Section 4010 (c) requires^ that the Administrator revise the
existing Part 257 Criteria for facilities that may receive
13 ' ...''
-------
household hazardous wastes or CESQG hazardous waste. At a minimum,
1 \"
the .revised Criteria must include ground-water monitoring ' as
.necessary to detect contamination, location restrictions, and
corrective' action, as appropriate.
. , Today's proposal would add these statutory minimum
*
requirements for non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that
receive -CESQG hazardous waste. Any non-municipal ; solid waste
disposal facility that does not meet the proposed requirements may
not receive,CESQG hazardous waste. A hew Section 257.5 Is being
proposed to address.the facility standards for owners/operators of
. non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive CESQG
hazardous wastes. The requirements in Section 257.5 are
substantially the same as the statutory minimum requirements
' ' '
developed for 40 CFR Part 258. The location restrictions are
proposed to be effective 18 months after promulgation while the
ground-water monitoring and corrective action requirements are
proposed to be effective 24 months after, promulgation of this= rule.
The Agency decided to use the previously promulgated MSWLF
Criteria in Part 258 as-the basis for today's proposal for a number
of reasons.,, The Agency believes that the Part 258 Criteria are
being used- ast mandatory standards by some; States for non-municipal
solid waste disposal facilities. Furthermore,, additional States
are incorporating as mandatory requirements. standards that are
-. ' * '
substantially similar to the Part 25& Criteria.. The Agency also
believes that the. Part 258 Criteria, particularly the ground-water
, ' . ' " . '"* *
monitoring and. corrective action requirements, are an appropriate
/ - _ '
. , " -.-.-" :.. -14. ; . -.-.'' .
-------
set of performance standards and minimum requirements that can be
applied at non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that
receive CESQG hazardous waste . to protect human health and the
environment. In addition, EPA is requesting comment on an
alternative approach which is solely a performance standard without
the national minimum requirements in Part 258. .
Today's proposal also amends the existing language of Section x
261.5 clarifying acceptable Subtitle D management options for"
CESQGs. The existing language in Section 261.5, paragraphs (f)(3)
> ' ' ""* '
and (g) (3) allows, for a CESQG hazardous! waste to-be managed at a
**/
hazardous waste facility (either in interim status or permitted),
at a reuse or recycling facility, or at a Subtitle D facility that
is permitted, licensed, or registered by a State to .manage
_
allow CESQG waste to be managed at a hazardous waste facility or at
a reuse or recycling facility. Today's proposal, however, will
require that if CESQG waste is managed in a Subtitle D disposal
facility, it must be managed in a MSWLP that: is subject: to Part. 2 S &
or a non-municipal, solid.waste disposal facility that is subject to-
j
the facility standards^being proposed in Section 257.5.
A complete discussion: of the rationale of today's proposed
approach,, specifics of the proposed changes, and related issues is
presented in. Section V of today's proposal. ~ - -'
As previously discussed, today's proposal responda to both the
statutory language in RCRA Section 4010 (c) and to the Sierra. Club
lawsuit. In responding initially to the statutory .language of
15 ' .
-------
Section 4010(c), EPA elected to regulate municipal solid waste
landfills first, due to the comparatively higher risks presented by
these types of facilities. As will be discussed later in today's.
preamble, the subject of today's proposal -- non-municipal solid
waste disposal facilities.that receive (CESQG waste -- presents a
1 '
small risk relative to risks presented by other, environmental
conditions or situations. Given ,this lower risk, the Agency would
have elected not to issue this proposal at this time. In a time of
limited resources,, common sense dictates that we deal with higher
priorities first,., a' principle on which EPA, members of the
regulated community, and the public can agree. The Agency requests
comment from members of the public and regulated community on
whether they agree with the- Agency'a position that this rulemaking
is a low priority. ...,'.". = '
However, given the D.C Circuit's reading of RCRA section
4010(C), Sierra Club v. EPA. 992 F.2d3337, 347 (D.C. Cir. 1993),
and the schedule established as a result of the litigation
initiated by Sierr* Club in district court, the Agency believes* it
. - , '. ' .
must issue this proposal now (although there are higher priorities
within the Agency). Paced with: having to* issue'this proposal for
a class off facilities that, do not generally pose risks as high as
\'*«- ~ ,'"*
municipal; solid waste landfills, the Agency is proposing
alternatives^ that address only the statutory minimum requirements
in .an attempt to reduce the economic burden oa the regulated
community. .
XV. Characterization of CESQQ Waste, Industrial. D Facilities that
16 -..''
-------
May Receive CESQG Waste, and Existing State Programs Related to
CESQG,Disposal
A. CESQG Waste Volumes, Generators and Management
In preparation for this rulemaking, EPA sought to characterize
the CESQG universe. EPA examined several national, state, and
local studies that contained information on CESQGs, and summarized
this information . into five categories: (!) number of
establishments, (2) waste volumes, (3) major waste generating
industries, (4) major waste types, and (5) waste management
practices. -
Although EPA, believes that each of the studies reviewed
provides some relevant information, only the EPA "National Small
Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey" (1985) presents a jijk
.-'' W
comprehensive overview of the CESQG universe. This study was
national in scope and was based on a scientific survey of
approximately 50,000 establishments that were considered potential
generators of small quantities of hazardous waste. This study also
covered 12 S industries^ in both the manufacturing and non-
manufacturing sectors?. Moreover., this- study used, survey data to
extrapolate national, estimates for the total number-of CESQGs and
waste volume^ while providing: industry-specific detail on the types
of waste generated and methods of managing these wastes.
s . ' ' '
The National Survey,, however, has one major limitation: it is
based on data collected more. than, a decade ago~ Since then,
! ) '
several significant changes may have, occurred. First, changes in
manufacturing processes and.the growth- of new industries may have
' . 17 - '
-------
resulted in the generation of new waste types, while, other wastes
may no longer be generated. Second, changes in the methodology for
identifying ,characteristic wastes (i.e., the revised TCLP)' have
resulted in additional waste types entering the hazardous waste
regulatory system.' Third, Superfund liability concerns have become
i ''
a significant factor for generators to consider, when determining
waste management options. Finally, new regulatory activities, such
as reporting under the Toxic Release Inventory, have been catalysts
for generators to change their use of toxic chemicals .in the
manufacturing process and their management of resulting wastes.
The result of these changes is that the generation and management
of CESQG waste today may be substantially different from a decade
4 i ' i -
ago. The Agency, however, must continue to rely on the information
and conclusions developed in the "National Small.Quantity Hazardous
Haste Generator Survey," .
- '
Given this limitation, EPA examined several recent state and
local CESQG: studies to: assess, how the findings of the National
\
Survey may or. raayr not be supported. The. recent studies also
v. ',. . ' . "
provide valuable! insight: J nto-the current generation and. management
of wastes in several major CESQG industries- These studies,
however, are different from- the National Survey in two key areas.
First, they?? are? more narrow in scope. For example, each study
covers only a specific geographic location and not the nation as a
whole, and some; focus only on a limited, number of industries or one
sector, such, as manufacturing. Second;, these? studies do not
examine the same waste types as the National Survey. Some of these
' 18 '"';
-------
studies examined used motor oil, while the National Survey did not
i ^ ' - v
evaluate this waste type. In some cases, these differences
hindered a direct comparison between the National Survey and a
state or local study. ' ^ /
l. Number of CESOGs
The "National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey"
estimated that there are 455,000 establishments nationwide that
generate hazardous waste in quantities of less than 100 kilograms
per month (i.e., CESQGs}. The study extrapolated this estimate
from survey data collected from establishments in primary SICs (125
SICs were combined into 22 industry groups) that were believed to
include potential generators of small quantities of hazardous
waste. . -..-.. _r '
m
More recent state-specific CESQG estimates, however, suggest ^*
that this national estimate may be low. For example,, the State of
Massachusetts and the State of Washington currently estimate that
there are 13,500 and 43,000 CESQG establishments in these states,
respectively. Together^ . thesec two estimates account, for over ten
percent of the national estimate of 455,000.: EPA recognizes that
in comparing; these- estimates, two important: factors need to be
considered-. First, states: may use methods? different from the
National Survey to calculate the number of CESQGo- Second, because
1 ' - -
the National Survey was- conducted nearly a decade ago* its estimate ,r
does not account for growth in the. number: of CESQGs due to
increased economic activity or new* waste types entering ther
,hazardous waste system.
19 . - '
-------
2. Maior CESQG Waste Generating Industries -
The "National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey"
' . -.[,'
'combined the surveyed 125 SICs into 22 primary, industry groups for
comparison. Based on these groupings, the 'study found that
approximately 80 percent of CESQG establishments were'in the non-
' manufacturing sector, while the remaining 20 percent were in the
\ ' .
manufacturing sector. In terms of -waste volume, the National
Survey found that the non-manufacturing sector generated 88 percent
of CESQG waste, while the manufacturing sector generated the
remaining 12 percent. . , '
Specifically, the National Survey found that the largest CESQG.
non-manufacturing industry was vehicle maintenance, which accounted
' .' " - - . '".'.
for 71 percent of CESQG waste volume and 54 percent of CESQG
establishments for the 22 industry groups. Other major non-
v *
manufacturing industry groups included: dry cleaners (five percent
of waste volume and establishments); other services, such as
funeral services and building cleaning .and maintenance .(four
percent of waste volume- and five percent of' establishments)';
.-.-.' ''-.' -i'
construction (two percent of- waste- volume and four percent , of
establishments)* pesticide application services (two percent of
waste volume and three percent of establishments) f and photographic
services (two;, percent of waste volume, and three percent of
establishments);. The major manufacturing industries included:
metals manufacturing (six percent of waste volumer and' ten percent
of establishments), and printing/ceramics (five percent of waste
volume and eight percent of establishments).
'. /' * ' *
",'-,. .1 ' :
20
-------
State and local studies used a variety of methods to determine
major ,CESQG industries. Consequently, their findings are not
easily comparable to the National Survey. Nonetheless, several
state and local studies indicated that the .vehicle maintenance and
construction industries are significant CESQG industries for the
areas and industries covered by 'the studies.
1^_ CESOG Waste Volume
The "National Small. Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey"
estimated that CESQGs generated 201,600 tons of hazardous waste
yearly. Again, this estimate is based on an extrapolation of data
collected from a nationwide survey of 125 SICs combined into 22
primary industry groups. At the time of this survey, this volume
estimate represented, only 0.07 percent of the total quantity of
hazardous waste generated yearly by all hazardous waste generators
(conditionally-exempt, small quantity, and large quantity). -
Based on- a review of recent state and local studies, EPA
believes that this national waste volume estimate may be
understated. For- example, in 1989, the State of Washington
estimated that CESQGs: generated approximately 52,000 tons of CESQG
' - - 1. . . - .
hazardous waste- in, that.. State alone. Since- this single state
estimate represents, nearly one fourth of the national estimate, EPA
expects that the appropriate national amount of CESQG waste is
larger. ....
EPA recognizes that one important distinction between the
"National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey* estimate
and the Washington estimate is that the former- study aid not
V - - '' 21 - ' ' .
-------
include used motor oil as a CESQG waste type, while Washington did.
Used motor oil represented approximately one half of Washington's
CESQG waste stream. Even if the total amount of used motor oil
were excluded from Washington's waste stream, however, the
remaining volume of CESQG waste would be approximately 25,000 tons.
Even at this amount, EPA believes that the current national
*» '
estimate of 201,600 tons for the amount of CESQG waste is likely to
be ,low. ' . .
4_.__ Major CESQG Waste Types ,' ' ' . '
For the industries surveyed, the._"National Small Quantity
. " \
Hazardous Waste Generator Survey" found that used lead-acid
batteries comprised 61 percent of the CESQG waste stream. Other
major waste types included:' spent solvents/still bottoms (18
* . '
percent of CESQG waste stream), dry cleaning filtration residues
(five percent)., photographic wastes (four percent), .formaldehyde
' *
(three percent), and acids/alkalides (two percent) . The study also
found that,'with the.exception of spent solvents/still bottoms and
acids/alkalides, each of». the major'waste types were generated
primarily by one industry. For example, the; vehicle maintenance
industry was the primary generator of used'lead-acid batteries, dry
cleaners generated dry cleaning filtration, residues, photographic
services^ generated, photographic wastes, and funeral services
generated formaldehyde. A variety of industries, however,
generated spent solvents/still bottoms, and, acids/alkalides,
1 " ' '
including photographic services, printers and publishers, vehicle
maintenance, and pesticide application services.
.' ' ' ' " ' 22 ' ' -
-------
Recent state and local studies identified major CESQG waste
types that are comparable to those found by the National Survey.
For example, several studies found used lead-acid batteries to be
a major CESQG waste type, although only one found batteries to,
represent the largest portion of CESQG waste. The amount of lead-
acid batteries in the CESQG waste stream ranged from less*than one
. r
percent to 61 percent. This wide range of estimates is likely due
to whether a study included used lead-acid batteries in the vehicle
maintenance industry. Since RCRA regulations exclude these wastes
from generator waste amounts if the generator recycles or reuses
these wastes, some states' studies did not count lead-acid
batteries in their review of the vehicle maintenance, industry,
under the assumption that this industry recycles most batteries.
As a result, the relative significance of this waste type varied
i
among state and local studies.
Several state and local studies also supported the National
Survey's finding- that spent solvents/still bottoms were a
significant CESQG waste type. These studies- found this Waste type.
to represent between IS- to 25 percent of the waste stream, while
the National Survey found, the. portion to be Iff percent;. Moreover,
similar to>the National Survey results, these- studies found that1 a
variety ofe industries- generated, spent solvents/still bottoms.
- \ . . .
Other studies found photographic wastes to be significant, ranging
from four .to ten percent of. the CESQG waste stream, (the National
Survey estimated, four percent).
A key difference between the state and local studies and the
23 ..''.
-------
National Survey is the significance of used motor oil. Although
,'
the National Survey- did not examine the amount of used motor oil.
generated,, several state and local studies.found this waste to be
significant, if not the largest waste'type.- Some studies found
used motor oil to represent one half to two thirds of the CESQG
waste stream. In these state.and local studies, used motor oil.was
included in''the vehicle maintenance industry. As is the case with
"..'.' ''' ''':,.'
used lead-acid batteries, RCRA Subtitle C regulations do not count
used motor.oil toward generator total amounts if the used motor oil
i '
is recycled or reused. Used oil that, is. recycled and. is also
hazardous because it exhibits a hazardous characteristic is
regulated under 40 CFR Part 279. However, state and local studies
that excluded used motor oil from vehicle maintenance (because it
was .recycled) / still found the waste type to be significant. For
example, Montgomery County! Maryland, found that nine percent of
the CESQG waste stream was used motor oil, even after excluding it
front the vehicle maintenance industry. The County found that
photographic services, woodworkers/painters, general building: ,
contractors, and landscaping/pest control firms a3A generated used
motor oil.. . . : .
5.' . CESOS Management Practices
The "National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey11
reported 01*1 CESQG waste management practices for each of the 22.
primary" industry groups. Together, these 22 primary industries
. ' V .'.'.: ->:.-
generated 121,600 tons of the estimated 201,60& tons of total CESQG
' . *
waste generated by all industries nationwide in the survey year.
'' "' ' . 24 . ; ..'' " .
-------
The survey found that approximately 80 percent {95,226 tons/yr) of
the waste generated by the 22 industry groups was managed off-site,
.while the remainder (26,176 tons/yr) was managed on-site.
The predominant methods of off-site management for the 95,226
i - "
tons/yr included recycling (73 percent of-waste managed off-site or
69,000 tons), disposal 'at a solid waste landfill (ten percent or
9,300 tons), and disposal at a permitted Subtitle C landfill (two
percent or 2,000 tons). The survey did not distinguish between
management at a municipal or a nonmunieipal solid waste landfill
t
(e.g., industrial or construction and demolition landfills).. This
distinction is significant since the Agency has previously revised
criteria for municipal solid waste landfills and currently requires
these facilities to meet more stringent design and operating
criteria than nonmunieipal .facilities. In addition, the National.
Survey found that 13 percent of waste managed off-site is managed
in an "unknown* facility, as reported by those firms responding to
the survey. ,. .
The National Survey found that disposal, in. the sewer system or
septic system was the most common method of on-site management,
accounting^ for nearly 56 percent of CESQG; waste volume managed on-
site. Recycling and treatment of CESQG waste were other forms of
on-site management. Only two percent ($09 tons* of.the CESQG waste
managed on-site was disposed in a solid waste; landfill.
With regard to the major CESQG waste industries (vehicle
maintenance, metals manufacturing, laundries, printing/ceramics,
t
pesticide application services, construction,, and photographic
.' . .. \ . v .
, 25
-------
services), the "National Small Quantity'Hazardous Waste Generator
Survey" found that all dispose some amount of their CESQG waste in
an off-site solid waste landfill. Laundries managed the largest
amounfof their CESQG waste (45 percent) in an, off-site solid waste
landfill.- Only four, of the major CESQG. industries, (metals
manufacturing, laundries, pesticide application services, arid
' '
construction) disposed some portion of their CESQG'waste in an on-
site solid waste landfill. Of the industries accounted for in this
) i
survey, the construction industry.managed the largest portion of
its CESQG waste (ten percent) in an on-sate solid waste landfill.
.In developing these figures, EPA cautions that the National Survey
did not define an off-site or an on-site solid waste landfill.'
Like the "National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator
Survey", more recent state and local studies found that
approximately four-fifths of .CESQG waste was managed- off-site,
while the remainder was managed on-site. In addition, these state.
and local studies found that the. predominant off-site management
methods were recycling and-disposal in a solid waste or permitted
Subtitle C landfill. The portion of waste managed in these
facilities, however, varied across the: studies- and: differed from
the finding*, of: the National Survey.. This may =.be due to the
availability of specific waste management options in the area
covered by the state and local study, but may also,be caused by a
'. * \ _. >
vbetter understanding of potential liability posed by the hazardous
, wastes. -.' . "' . -. '..-" ' '
<.
In contrast to the National Survey, Montgomery County,
'' ' , .', 2S '-.-'''
-------
Maryland and the State of Washington found that none of their
CESQGs disposed of their hazardous waste'in an on-site solid waste
j >
landfill. This finding, based on recent data, suggests that CESQGs
have changed their management practices with regard .to on-site
disposal in landfills since the 1983-84 National Survey was
conducted. Specific on-site disposal methods included in these
*
studies were disposal in sewer, dumping on ground, and evaporation.
Only ffontgomery County, Maryland, identified specific off-site
waste management practices associated with the major CESQG
industries. Similar to the National Survey. the County found that
photographic services and general building contractors managed a
/
portion of their CESQG waste in an off-site solid waste landfill. .
Unlike the National Survey, however, none of the waste from the
vehicle maintenance .industry and laundries was managed in an off-
site solid waste landfill. CESQG wastes front these industries were
recycled or sent to a permitted Subtitle C landfill.
, ' ' i
In presenting information on CESQG waste volumes,, generators,
'''
and management: practices- using its "National Small' Quantity
Hazardous Waste Generator Survey" and more recent studies performed
by State and local governments f the Agency is: requesting that
commenterscf. submit data on. the amount of CESQS waste that is
potentially subject to this rulemaking. Furthermore, the Agency is
interested- ia receiving data" on the current management practices
for CESQG wastes likely to be covered by this rulemaking.
B. Facilities chat May Receive CESQG Waste
1. Manufacturing. Industries with On-Site CESQG Disposal-
27
-------
The first type of facility that may receive CESQG waste is a
manufacturing facility that co-disposes its .industrial non-
hazardous process waste ,on-site with its CESQG hazardous wastes.
As mentioned previously, the Agency used the 1985 "Telephone
Screening Survey" to identify the number of establishments that
operated land-based units for their industrial non-hazardous waste.
, J- V
This .Screening Survey also captured information on CESQGs. The
Telephone Screening Survey identified 12,000 establishments that
managed industrial non-hazardous waste on-site .in land-based units.
Of these 12,000 establishments, an estimated 3,742 establishments
generated CESQG waste in-1985. Of the 3,742 establishments that
were CESQGs, nearly 60% were in the Stone, Clay, Glass & Concrete
and the Food and Kindred Products Industries.
i '"'-. " . '
For the 3,742 establishments that generated CESQG wastes in
i . ' . '
1985, only $05 establishments managed their CESQG waste on-site in
a land-based unit (605 establishments represents approximately 5%
of the total 12,000 establishments that managed industrial waste
on-site in land-based, units). These 605 establishments used
'..""' . - i ,*'-,
surface impoundments* (303),: waste piles (135}, land: application
units (91) and landfills (69>. Five industries, were identified as
having a significant number of the total 605 establishments that
""*'. ~\- . '
managed CESQG; wastes on-site in land-based units. These 5
industries^ and their percentage of. the total 605 establishments
were.: . ' - . .... '. .
Stone, Clay,.Glass, and Concrete (26%)
' ' "
Food and. Kindred Products (22%)
' . '
28 ' - '' '" .'
-------
Primary Iron and Steel (8%) ,
Textile Manufacturing (8%)
Pulp and Paper (7%)
The Agency has conducted meetings and conference calls with some of
these industries to ascertain the current status of CESQG hazardous
waste generation and management. ,
The Agency held a conference call, on May 5, '1994, with
representatives of the Stone, Clay, Glass and Concrete Industry.
Representatives of the Glass Packaging Institute, American Portland
Cement Alliance, Marble Institute of_ America and the Brick
Institute of America were asked to provide recent information on
CESQG'waste types and management practices. The Glass Packaging
Institute stated that typical CESQG hazardous wastes generated
within their segment of the industry were lubricants that were
picked-up-by vendors and transported off-site for disposal. The
American Portland Cement Alliance stated that their typical CESQG
hazardous wastes, (i.e., lubricants.or solvents) were also sent off-
site for disposal or burned in on-site cement kilna. The Marble
Institute of America, stated that they produce no CESQG hazardous
, wastes and that non-hazardous- dusts collected are typically sent to
a landfill for use as daily cover. Lastly,; the Brick Institute of
America stated-that CESQG hazardous wastes, in the form of cleaning
solvents, are collected by vendors and transported of f-site. The
Agency concluded front this conference call that, while facilities
within the Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete- Industry may still
produce small amounts of CESQG hazardous wastes, most facilities
'*. '
.29 ' '
-------
within the industry generally appear to no longer manage their
CESQG waste in on-site disposal units.
The Agency held a separate meeting, on January 11, 1994, with
20 representatives from the food industry, specifically the Food
Industry Environmental Forum, a working "group - addressing
environmental issues affecting the.food industry.- The views of the
Forum were that.'.the food industry generates 'little, if any, CESQG
hazardous wastes. The food industry avoids the use of hazardous
materials - since they are .manufacturing products for human
consumption.
-------
waste off-site to a municipal landfill, a hazardous waste landfill
or -off-site for treatment or recycling. These options would be
cheaper for industrial waste facilities vs. continuation of CESQG
on-site disposal and compliance with today's proposed standards
{i.e., ground-water monitoring and corrective action).. ,.
The Agency wishes to emphasize that this proposal ;does not
change the manner in which waste is determined-to be hazardous.
t
Generators of wastes have an obligation to determine through
testing or .their knowledge of the waste if a waste is a hazardous
waste (40 CFR 262.11). .The generator must then determine if any
' ' v , '
hazardous waste he generates is regulated hazardous .waste, or
conditionally exempt, small quantity generator hazardous waste {40
CFR 261.5). , .
The Agency is requesting comment on the prevalence of
manufacturing industries that manage CESQG hazardous wastes on-site
along with volume estimates. The Agency is also interested in
obtaining comments on the Agency's assumption that:on-site disposal
of CESQG hazardous^ waste at. industrial waste facilities has
decreased overall and. will not continue in the future.
2 . Commercial Of £-3lfc» Facilities --.-.
'*''..' '
The second type of facility that in some cases receives CESQG
waste is-; a^: commercial of t- site facility that dispose* of only
industrial non-hazardous wastes with some amount of CESQG hazardous
wastes being cd-,disposed at the facility. Based on... information
from the groups listed.below, the Agency estimates that there are
only 10 - 20 commercial off-site facilities that receive only non-
'31.
-------
hazardous industrial wastes. (Off-site-commercial- facilities that
' .
receive household hazardous waste are subject to the Part 258
Criteria.); However, in meetings with the.Environmental Industry
Associations (EIA) (formerly known as the National Solid Waste
Management Association) and Browning Ferris Industries, the Agency
was told that as a general matter CESQG disposal is prohibited at
these 10 -20 facilities as a result of permitting conditions and
i ' ' .
due to decisions at the corporate level of the "individual companies*
not to accept CESQG waste.. ' __
3^ Construction and Demolition Landfills
The last group of facilities that receive CESQG wastes are
construction and demolition waste .landfills. The Solid Waste
.''' i
Association of North America (SWANA) published the "Construction
* " .
Waste and Demolition Debris Recycling ... A Primer11 that estimated
that approximately 1800 construction and demolition landfills
. ^
existed in early 1992. The Agency's list of construction and
demolition waste landfill a developed ,in 1994 estimated
.approximately 190Q facilities;. These construction and demolition
landfills dispose of construction waste and demolition debris
(which generally refers> to waste materials generated as a result of
\
construction*, renovation; or demolition}. Many types of wastes are
disposed- of ia construction- and demolition landfills, such as
metals, woody concrete; dry wall, asphalt, rocks,, soil, plastics,
pipes and glass. Construction and demolition landfills'may also
receive CESQG hazardous waste materials, which could include things
such as paints, adhesivesy and roofing cements. Although the
"'.'. ' ' 32
-------
general term "construction and demolition waste" is used to
describe all wastes generated in construction, .renovation, and
demolition activities, the specific types of waste generated are a
direct result of the type of project. Construction of a new house,
demolition of old buildings as part of a restoration of a downtown
area, renovation of an old office building, and new highway
construction all result in different types of construction and
demolition waste materials being.generated. ',
The report entitled "Construction Waste and Demolition Debris
Recycling ... A Primer" divided construction and demolition waste
activities into five categories. These five categories and.the
typical construction and'demolition waste materials associated with
each category are presented below:
Roadwork Material: mostly asphalt, concrete (with or
^
without reinforcing bar), and dirt
Excavated Material: Mostly dirt, sand, stonea (sometimes
contaminated with site clearance wood
waste and buried pipes) , .
Building Demolition: Mainly mixed rubble, concrete, steel
beamsv pipes, brick timber and other
wastes: from fittings and- fixtures
Construction/Renovation: Mixed waste including wood,
roofing, wall board, insulation: .
materials, pieces, of duct, work and
plumbing .,
Site Clearance: - Mostly trees and dirt with the
' V - .. 33 " ' ' " '
-------
potential for some concrete,
.rubble, sand and,steel.
Some construction and demolition waste facilities may be
subject to the requirements being proposed today. Construction .and
demolition waste facilities that receive wastes that are CESQG
hazardous wastes will have to comply with the proposed changes to
Part 257.5. , ...-"" ,
.CESQG hazardous wastes generated in construction, renovation,
and demolition are most likely to be specific chemicals or products
used in these activities. Listed below are typical examples of
wastes generated by construction and demolition activities'that may
be CESQG wastes, if the wastes are hazardous, and are generated
under the CESQG limits {<100 kg per month, or less than l kg per
month of acute hazardous waste):
o . Excess materials used in construction, and their
containers. Examples: adhesives and adhesive containers,
leftover paint, and paint containers, excess roofing
cement and. roofing'cement cans;. .
o Waste oils, grease, and fluids. Examplesi machinery
lubricants> brake fluids,, engine oils.:
o .Waste solvents or other chemicals* that would fail a
- characteristic or that are- listed as a: hazardoua waste
.that are removed from a building prior to demolition
" '
/ (e.g., ignitable spent solvents, spent acids or bases,
listed spent solvents (F001 - POOSX ^ or listed unused
commercial chemical products that are tor be- discarded).
'3* '-.-.'
-------
General construction and demolition debris (e.g., rubble from
building demolition) would typically be hazardous waste only if it
exhibits one of the four characteristics of hazardous waste:
ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (see Subpart C
of ^Q CFR Part 261) . To determine if such debris ,is hazardous, the
generator should use knowledge of the waste or test to determine if
a representative sample of the waste exhibits any of the
characteristics. See 40 CFR 262.11. See also Chapter nine of
"Test Methods for Evaluating Solid -Waste, Physical/Chemical
Methods" (SW-846), Third Edition, on.how to develop a sampling
' .j
program. As an example, if a building is demolished, the generator
should use his knowledge concerning the building debris, or'test a
representative sample of the building debris, to see if the
building debris exhibits a characteristic of hazardous waste.
Prior to demolishing a building, the owner or the demolition
company may choose to remove components of the building that
contain concentrated constituents of concern such as lead pipe,
lead flashing, mercury containing* thermostats- and switches, or.
mercury-containing:, lamps? (light bulbs). Thi» may be done for
purposes of avoiding: concern that the entire demolition rubble may
exhibit the characteristic: of toxicity, for recycling and resource
conservation, or as required by state or local law..' For purposes
of resource: conservation, the Agency encourages: removal, of items
that may be cost-effectively recycled or: reused. It should be
noted that any removed items should be managed irt compliance with
applicable requirements, including, if the: items exhibit
35 . " . -' '
-------
characteristics, the requirements for CESQGs or .the full hazardous
waste regulations. Also note that spme''such items may be, in the
future, covered under streamlined "universal waste" regulations
that would minimize the applicable regulatory requirements. (See
the .final "universal waste, rule," F% , May 11, 1995.)
Literature that was evaluated by the Agency and summarized in
Chapter 2 of the Agency's report "Construction and Demolition Waste
Landfills", identify a number of wastes that are referred to using
such terms as "hazardous," "excluded," J]unacceptable, " "problem,"
* * - , """" * - ''"*-.
"potentially toxic," or "'illegal." It is not necessarily true that
' . t . . '
all of these wastes meet the definition of "hazardous": under
Subtitle C of RCRA, but they provide an indication of the types of
wastes that may be present in the construction and demolition waste
stream that are considered by others to be; a potential problem.
A construction and demolition waste generator should contact
their State Solid Waste Program for their guidance, or rules
concerning the types, of construction and demolition wastes that the
";' ':-. . . .' j - .-;-.; - . \
State considers to be hazardous. ;
, ''-''"'*,- ^ ' .'.-- '
C. Existing State Programs^ - . . . ;
3_ m State Requirements Pertaining to, Hflnfl'TClTOTlit *?£ CBSQG Hazardous
Wastes. .':'".'.... l '"'.."'
Since? the existing controls governing the disposal of CESQ6
waste are under, the Subtitle C program (i.e., §261.5), State
requirements must: be at least as stringent as the. Federal
requirements. States may however establish more stringent controls
for CESQGs within their jurisdiction. Some States require that
' .' ' ' ' '36 . ' '
-------
CESQGs obtain a hazardous waste ,ID number while other" States
require CESQGs to use a manifest for off-site transportation. Some
States require that all or some portion {e.g., those with liquid
industrial and ignitable wastes) of CESQG waste be managed at only
permitted Subtitle C .facilities. States that require that CESQG
waste be managed at,only Subtitle C facilities would prohibit CESQG
disposal in a municipal, non-hazardous industrial, or construction
and demolition waste landfill.
2. State Requirements for Construction-and Demolition Facilities
EPA conducted a study to determine the current regulatory
standards for construction and demolition facilities that are
applicable on a State level. State regulatory standards for
construction and demolition facilities vary State-by-State and are
generally not as detailed nor environmentally stringent as State
standards for municipal solid waste landfills. Furthermore, States
apply standards, more frequently to off-site construction and
demolition waste facilities vs. on-site construction and demolition
waste facilities. In generalr the EPA study focussed. on the. number
of State program* that had requirements for the statutory minimum
i ' *'-* .. .
components specified:: in: RCRK Section 4010 (e). 'The. numbers,
discussed- below, correspond to the number of States that impose the
requirement or standard on off-site construction and demolition
waste facilities. Generally, a smaller' number of States impose
requirements on on*site facilities..
The most common location restrictions that States apply to C&D
facilities relate to airports and^ bird hazards, wetlands and
* . ;
' ' ' . ' 37 .'. . '
-------
floodplains. A majority of the' States (35) have restrictions
applicable to,construction and. demolition facilities being located
/
within the 100-yr. flopdplain.. . Twenty-five (25) States have
/ - " ._ ' !
location restrictions pertaining to construction and .demolition
" - s
disposal facilities in wetlands. Similarly, 21 States - have
location restrictions for-some or all construction, and demolition
facilities pertaining to airports and bird hazards. Fewer States
' .
have adopted location restrictions pertaining to seismic;impact
r ' s ' * '
zones, fault areas, or unstable areas. ' .
With regard to ground-water monitoring and corrective action,
29 States require some or . all construction and demolition
facilities to monitor ground-water and 22 States have corrective
- . " ' ''' , ,'.-*' '. '
action requirements. -For those States that impose ground-water
monitoring requirements, most States have requirements that are
"* " '
substantially less stringent than the Municipal Solid Waste
.'-',. , ' .
Landfill Criteria (Part 258). With regard to those States that
impose corrective action requirements, States-usually require that
* . . T
either the permit:': applicant: submit a corrective.action, plan with
J ".' . ' _
the permit or require the: facility owner/operator to submit a plan
after a release to: ground water is; detected. ; .: !
' , '. - i " ~ ' "' . '
V. Discussion of Today's Regulatory Propoaai
A. Won-Munfcipal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities that Receive CESQG
Hazardous Waste* ,..'
This rule applies to non-municipal, solid' waste disposal
facilities, that receive CESQG hazardous waste-, and. the rule would
provide that only such facilities which meet, the requirements in
t \ . ' ' l - - ' ^
' ' ' r .. ' . 38 " ' . - - "
-------
Section 257.5 "may receive" CESQG waste, as required by RCRA
Section 4010 (c). Any non-municipal solid waste disposal facility
t
that does not meet the proposed requirements may not receive CESQG
hazardous waste. The non-municipal units that are subject to this
rule are surface impoundments, landfills, land application units
and waste piles that receive CESQG waste for storage, treatment, or
F .
disposal. This is based on the existing applicability of Part 257
to all solid waste disposal facilities (40 CFR 257.l(c)). Disposal
\ - '
is defined at 257.2 to mean-"'the' discharge, deposit, injection,
dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or
hazardous waste into or on any land or .water so that such solid
waste or hazardous waste or any.constituent thereof may.enter the
environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any
' " ' ' ' - '
waster, including ground waters.* This is also the statutory
definition of "disposal" in RCRA Section io04(3). The definition
covers any placement of waste on the land whether it is intended, to
" f . - ' * * \ .
be temporary or permanent .~
The Agency believes that, two types of facilities are
potentially subject to this: rule. The first type would be a
facility'where a CESQOr co-disposea industrial non-hazardous waste
and CESQG hazardous waste on-site. The Agency believe* that only
a very few CESQG facilities currently continue on-site disposal of
CESQG waste. For purposes of. the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA),
the Agency assumes these facilities will cease that practice to
avoid the cost of compliance with, this proposed rule. However,
should CESQGs continue to dispose of their hazardous waste on-site
39 . ' ' . . ,
-------
they must comply with these revised.facility standards. The Agency
believes that generators who meet the conditions of the exemption
in 261.5 and choose to send their waste off-site to an acceptable
/
facility (as specified in proposed sections'261.5 (f) (3) and (g) (3))
would not be subject to the new 40 CFR 257.5 standards, for1 any
continued on-site disposal of only non-hazardous waste.
The other type of facility subject to today's rule is a non-
-,' !
municipal solid waste disposal facility that receives wastes
generated off-site that includes CESQG hazardous' wastes. Such
' " ' '
facilities include construction and demolition waste disposal
facilities and commercial industrial solid waste disposal
facilities. .
.Some interested parties have suggested that revised facility
i , *>
standards promulgated under the authority of RCRA section 4010 (c)
should be." applicable to all on-site and off-site industrial non-
hazardous waste disposal. This interpretation would impose
standards for CESQG disposal on all industrial solid waste:
regardless of whether or not there was. any likelihood that. CESQG
waste might, bet- present. The Agency believes that, this
interpretation.- is* overly^ broad.. If Congress^ had intended to
authorize. EPA to revise disposal standards, for all non-municipal
solid wastes the Agency believesthat the statute- would have- stated
that. Instead, the language of section 4010(c). clearly ties
i
revised criteria to solid waste facilities that may receive small
quantity generator waste (CESQG hazardous wastes under current
. '." - ' /'
Subtitle C regulations) and not to those facilities receiving non-
40 ," . .
-------
hazardous solid wastes.,
facilities that are uncertain about their status because of
the restricted nature of the wastes that they accept are encouraged
to consult with their approved State to determine whether they are
subject to the new 257.5 criteria.
B. Decision to Impose or Go Beyond the Statutory Minimum Components
RCRA Section 4010 (c)' requires that these revised Criteria must
.at a minimum include location restrictions, ground-water monitoring
as necessary to detect contamination, -and corrective action, as
appropriate,. The Part 258 Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria
went beyond the statutory minimum requirements (see 56 FS 50977)
' f .
and included'the following, additional requirements: operational
requirements, design, standards, closure and post-closure care
requirements and financial assurance standards. The Municipal
t .
Solid Waste Landfill Criteria went beyond the statutory minimum.
components for a variety of reasons. Some o£ these reasons
included: , - . '
163 case studies that revealed ground-water contamination at
146 MSWLFs, along with 73 MSWLPs that had documented cases of
surface water contamination^
- 2 9v documented cases of uncontrolled methane releases at
MSWLFS causing fires and explosions at 20 of the 29
facilities, . / ' .
.-a high percentage of National Priority List (NPL) sites were
MSWLFs (184 sites out of 850 as of May 1986), and
- a belief, based on risk modelling-, that some MSWLFs
41
-------
presented unacceptable risks to human health . .
Taken together, these problems demonstrated a pattern of
/ ,.''. ' , -
recurring problems and potential hazards associated with MSWLFs
best addressed by requiring a comprehensive set of facility
standards. -
Today's proposal imposes, only the statutory minimum components
for non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive
,CESQG. hazardous wastes. Based on the data reviewed below, the
Agency believes that these facilities do not pose risks that would
warrant more comprehensive facility standards.
I/Construction and Demolition Waste Facilities , .,
', The Agency analyzed existing leachate and ground-water
monitoring data, and,damage cases associated with construction and
demolition waste management to assess potential risks associated
with construction and demolition waste disposal facilities.
Landfill leachate sampling data, and ground-water monitoring data
were collected from; states and from general literature provided to
the Agency by the: National. Association, of Demolition Contractors'
-' (NADC)'... '". -.. '-..'//' ."-.'-.'- -"'.''' ^ -- .';
a. Construction:' find DefflQli.ti.on LeaehateW-- -, -". - ' . v
EPA. evaluated representative construction and demolition waste
leachate values* ("Construction and Demolition:-.Waste Landfills"?.
, .{This data-, was complied by NADC). Leachate sampling data for 3OS-
parameters sampled for at one or more, of 21- construction and
demolition landfills were compiled into a-database.
Of the 3 OS parameters sampled, for, 93 were detected at least
' '' ' ' . ''"42 ' " . '.
-------
once. The highest detected concentrations of these parameters were
compared to regulatory or 'health-based "benchmarks,"- or concern
levels, identified for each parameter. Safe Drinking Water Act
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Levels (SMCLs) were used as the benchmarks if available.
Otherwise, health-based benchmarks for a leachate ingestion
scenario were identified; these .were either reference doses (RfDs)
for non-carcinogens, or' 1Q"S risk-specific doses , (RSDs) for
carcinogens. Benchmarks were unavailable for many parameters
''.'''
because they have not been studied sufficiently.
Of the 93 parameters detected in C&D landfill leachate, 25 had
i
at least one measured value above the regulatory or health-based
benchmark. For each of these 25 parameters, the median leachate
- - . ' '
concentration was calculated and compared to its benchmark. The
median value was first calculated among the samples taken at each
landfill, and then across all landfills at which the parameter was
detected. Due to anomalies and inconsistencies among the sampling
equipment used at different times and at different landfills, non-'
detects were not considered: in.determining median values; i.e., the
r i . ' ' f"
non-detects were discarded before calculating both individual
landfill concentration medians and medians across- landfills. Thus,
- ,. \' . .
the median: leachate concentrations represent the median among the
i x
detected values, rather than the median among, all values. The
median concentration among all values would in most cases have been
lower than those calculated here.
Based on (1) the number of landfills at which the benchmark
..' - ' 43.' ' . '"''.
-------
was exceeded and (2)' a comparison between the median detected
concentration and the benchmark, seven parameters emerge.as being
potentially problematic. The Agency identified this- list of 7
potentially problematic parameters by eliminating from the original.
list of 25 parameters any parameter that was only detected at one
landfill' (this was determined to be not representative) and,
furthermore, eliminating any parameter whose median concentration
did not exceed the benchmark value for that parameter. The 7
potentially problematic parameters are as follows: ;
1,2-Dichloroethane - ..
Methylene chloride
\ ' '
Cadmium ' . ,
-. ., '. _ Iron. ' ' ' - ' ' . ,
* ' '.
Lead .', . ,
< - Manganese.-' . '...' ' ' '
Total dissolved solids
The benchmark values for three; of the parameters (total-
dissolved solidsy ironV and manganeseV are secondary MCLa (SMCLsK
Secondary MCLsr ar«v.s'et£ tou protectwater* supplies*- for: aesthetic
reasons, e. g^. tasteit rather:; than for- health-baaed reasons^:. ,.The-
remainings?:4,conatituentar their calculated.median*, and health--
based benchmark: value* are a» follows: .. ;
Const i tuenfc;:" . Median, . Health-Baaed Valueav
Concentration^ Valuer ' ^ouyce-.
1,2-Dichloroethanet 1» ug/1 5 ug/t MCE.
Methylene chloride ' 15.2 ug/1 . 5 ug/r 10'« RSD
-------
Cadmium , ' - 10.5 ug/1 .5 ug/1 MCL
Lead , 55 ug/1 15 ug/1 Action Level
The next step in evaluating the . significance of these
constituent concentrations is to apply an exposure model to. develop
a relationship between the constituent concentration in the
' N
environment at an assumed exposure point and the constituent
concentration in the waste. This is because constituents released
from a waste undergo a variety of environmental fate and transport
processes that result in exposure point concentrations that are
lower than levels in the waste stream oe- in leachate.
The Agency assumed a dilution attenuation factor (OAF) of 100
for the fate and transport analysis. The value of 100 was selected
based on the development of the Toxicity Characteristic (40 CPR
261.24)., The DAP is an estimate of the factor by which the
concentration is expected to decrease between the waste management
! : .x .
facility and a hypothetical downgradient drinking water well.
A multiplier of 100 corresponds to a cumulative frequency close to
' / ' " t
the 85th percent He from the EPACML simulations used to support the
TC rule. In other words, in this exposure scenario,, an estimated
15 percent of the. drinking water Wells; closest to unlined municipal
landfills-could have contaminated concentrations above MCLs.
Dividing the calculated/median concentration by the DAP of 100 and
comparing- the new concentration allows: for aa estimate as to
whether the new concentration will exceed the health^based value at
an exposure point. in using the DAP of lOfri the resulting-new
concentrations are all below their respective health-based values.
45 ' - ' ' \ '
-------
The resulting concentrations as compared to the health-based values
are presented in the table below. ;.
Constituent Median Concentration Health-Based Value
Divided by DAF of 100
1,2-Dichloroethane .19 ug/1 5 ug/1
Methylene chloride .152.ug/1 . , .- . 5 ug/1
.Cadmium ' .105 ug/1 5 ug/1
" . *".'.,
Lead , - -55 ug/1 ' '. 15 ug/1,
1 * A i
b. Construction and Demolition Damage Caae Analysis
EPA conducted .a study ("Damage^Cases: Construction and
Demolition Waste Landfills?) to determine whether the disposal of
C&D debris in C&D landfills has led to the contamination of ground
or surface water or damages to ecological resources. All of the
j
damage case information EPA evaluated came from existing
information in State files and literature sources. EPA was able to
\
identify .only 11 C&D landfills with evidence of ground water or
surface water contamination-. EPA found no documented evidence of
existing human healths risks or ecosystem, damages at construction
and demolition landfills and little documented evidence of of f-site-
% - ,
contamination^ . ; ,
- Whenesthev Agency reviewed- existing sources? of data for- C&D
damage caseff, the Agency reviewed existing Superfund databases
(NPL),. contacted EPft regional representatives^.. 32 States, county
environmental Agencies, and existing studies or- reports providing
background information on C&D facilities; and damages.
When EPA searched for C&D damage cases-, several, criteria were
1 . : ' 46..-''' V . ' : ' -
-------
used to identify where the damages could reasonably be associated
with construction and demolition facilities and construction .and
demolition waste disposal. First and foremost, the Agency sought
to identify C&D facilities that accepted predominately C&D wastes.
Landfills that had received significant quantities of municipal
waste, non-hazardous industrial waste, or hazardous waste in the
past were excluded from consideration. Additionally construction
and demolition sites located near other facilities ' or. leaking
underground storage tanks that could reasonably be the source of
contamination were excluded as possible C&D damage cases. Lastly,
there needed to be documented evidence of contamination at the C&D
site.
The 11 damage cases that the Agency has identified are from
New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Virginia and Wisconsin have
required groundwater monitoring since 1988 at C&D facilities. The
facilities in New York were among 9 C&D sites investigated due to
i.
public concerns about possible . hazardous waste disposal and
potential human health and environmental impacts.
A study of the 11. C&D sites revealed on-site ground-water
contamination, at all of the facilities and surface water
contamination-at 6 of the 11... sites, with the main contaminants
being metals and other inorganics. At 3 of the 11 facilities,
sediment contamination was also detected. Although most of the
contamination associated with these damage cases occurred on-site,
2 of the eleven facilities did have off-site contamination (both
facilities had sediments and surface water contamination occurring
- 47 ' .
-------
off-site). '
' Although most of the'11 sites were monitored for a wide range .
of ., organic. and " inorganic constituents, virtually all of the
contamination was associated with inorganics. Constituents that
exceeded ' State ground-water protection standards or Federal
' . \
drinking water criteria most frequently- were, manganese (9 sites),
iron (8 sites), total dissolved solids (6 sites), lead (5 sites),'
magnesium (4 sites) , sodium {4 sites) , Ph (3 sites) and sulfate (3
sites). The other 8 constituents that were detected in ground
water at these 11 sites were detected at only one or two sites.
For the 6 sites that had surface water contamination, the
constituents that exceeded State surface water standards or Federal
Ambient Water Quality Criteria most frequently were iron (4 sites),
/
zinc (3 sites), lead (2 sites), and copper (2 sites). The other. 5
constituents that were detected in surface water at these 6 sites
were detected only once. No fish kills or other observable impacts
on aquatic life were reported in. any of: the- references that the
Agency reviewed^' ' . i / . V ,'. V ' ..
A look at the most? frequently detected^ constituents in ground
water or surface wat«p reveals-that of the 10 constituent »r~ 7 are
a concern^d&e* to SMCLsjr only lead, magnesium* and. sodium are not.
Magnesiunfc was* found to exceed only an. applicable State standard by
a factor of 4 times, while sodium was found to exceed an applicable
State standard by a factor of 14, Lead? was found in ground water
to exceed the Federal action level at the tap (15ug/l) by a factor
of 6. Lead waa also found in surface water to exceed the
'. . . ' ' ' . . ':'.':
.' ' 48 .'.''
-------
established Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria by a factor of
16 to 300 (although for'the higher factor the reported value of
lead in the surface 'water was "estimated").
c. Construction and Demolition Ground-Water Monitoring Data'
Limited ground-water monitoring data'suggests that a similar
t , .
set of parameters that are detected in C&D leachate and that appear
' - i
in damage cases associated with C&D facilities are also detected, in-
ground water. Based on the limited ground-water data,.only 19 ,
/ ' "
parameters had a maximum value exceeding: a health-based benchmark.
Of these 19 parameters, 8 exceeded, a secondary MCL (TDS, sulfates,
Ph, manganese, chlorides, iron, copper, and aluminum). For the
remaining 11 parameters, 5 are organics (Bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate, methylene chloride, tetrachloroethene, 1,2,4- iflfc
trichlorobenzene, and 1,1,1-trichloroethane), 5 are inorganics
(arsenic, cadmium, lead, mercury, and' nickel), and 1 is a
conventional parameter (nitrate). Only one constituent (cadmium)
exceeded its health-based value, by an order of magnitude. Some .
constituents had a maximum ground-water vaj.ue just exceeding its
health-based value.. It.is important to remember that when looking
at the limited ground-water monitoring data what is being discussed
in this, paragraph are- maximum levels; additional sampling events
for these constituents resulted in lower levels or non-detects.
d. Conclusions for" Construction a,nfl Demolition. Facilities-'
While 'the data on construction and demolition waste
\
landfills are limited, the Agency has reached some conclusions.:
Based on evaluation of the data analyzed above; individual
'-,''- ' 49 '- ' " .
-------
construction and demolition waste facilities may have caused
i ' *
limited damage to ground water and' surface water and potentially,
may pose a risk to human health and the environment. .Individual
C&D facilities may also affect usability of drinking water due to
aesthetic impacts. However, the Agency . believes that C&D
facilities, in general, do not currently pose significant risks and
that individual damage cases are limited in occurrence. The small
s ' ,- '
number of damage cases and the leachate concentration data reviewed
above support , these conclusions. Ground-water monitoring and
corrective .action at these facilities will ensure that any releases
and potential risks at individual facilities will be identified and
corrected in a timely fashion to protect human health and the
environment. Location restrictions will ensure that non-municipal
solid waste disposal facilities that receive CESQG waste will be
located in acceptable areas, thereby, providing'further protection
of human health and the environment. Because construction and
demolition waste facilities,: in general, do not currently pose
significant risk>.'the? Agency ha* concluded'-that:, the. statutory-
minimum requirements, will' ensure protection of human health and the
environment^ ~A ' ;-^v "''" ."'" '""' ;'-;, .'-'.'' ' :--'-'." ' -. ..'"-..- .''
2. Off-Sit« Commercial Landfills' "" '
A» f^Ctte: aa- 20 commercial off* site facilities that accept
only industrial wastesy the Agency understands, that corporate:
policy has been ta subject these types* of facilities* to stringent
environmental controls. In addition. State-regulations also apply
to these typesr of facilities. A facility of this type generally
: . -.,' 50- ..-'
-------
employs a liner, has closure and post-closure care requirements and
financial assurance standards. These State and corporate controls
go beyond the statutory minimum controls and therefore' the Agency'
believes that there is no need, on the Federal level, to impose
additional standards beyond the - -
statutory minimum.-
3. Request for Additional Data and Comments Concerning^statutory
Minimum or More Comprehensive Facility Requirements
The Agency .solicits comments on the two reports referenced
above "Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills" and "Damage
Cases: Construction .and Demolition Landfills" The leachate and
ground-water monitoring data and the damage cases analyzed above
represent a small number of facilities relative to the construction
and demolition' facility universe. The Agency solicits any
additional data concerning C&D facilities to further assess the
potential risks they may pose,, as well as additional data on
commercial industrial solid waste facilities or other types of
facilities that may her subject to today's proposal.
The Agency also" requests comment on whether: the requirements
being proposed today should go beyond the statutory minimum
components^ Requirements beyond the- statutory minimum components
could include all or any of the following components r operational
criteria, design standards,, closure and post-closure care
requirements, and financial assurance standards. The Agency,is
requesting that commentors document the need to go beyond the
statutory minimum components. The Agency ia also requesting that
. " 51 . '
. A-
-------
commentors be' specific as to whether any additional controls should
be identical to the Part 258 Criteria for municipal landfills or
should require a different standard and what that standard should
be. ' ' ' ' '
C. Decision to Establish Facility Standards Under Part 257 and
Revisions to Part 261
The Agency proposes today to establish facility standards, in
Part 257, for-non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that
receive CESQG hazardous wastes. Section 4010(c) states that the
Agency should revise the existing Part 257 Criteria for facilities
that "may receive" CESQG waste. Clearly today's proposal responds
i. ' .
to the statutory language. The Agency is proposing to establish
i ' ' '
facility standards, in a separate section in Part 257, for non-
municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive: CESQG
hazardous waste. By providing that only those, facilities meeting
i . "
the new standards "may receive? CESQG waste, the Agency believes it
will satisfy the statutory mandate of RCRft Section, 4010 (c).
The Agency i» also proposing revi&ionsttxr the language: inx
Section 261.5 (Special; requirement a for hazardous waste generated
by conditionally- exempt small .quantitygenerators!. These-
revisions*will clarify/ the types of acceptable treatment, storage;
or disposal facilities that, can be used, to manage CESQG hazardous
waste while making it:'clear that CESQGs are responsible for
' . ' /
ensuring that their CESQG hazardous wastes destined for storage,,
treatment, or disposal are sent to acceptable facilities. This
will help ensure that CESQG waste is not sent ta facilities that do
: 52 , " >.. '-"
-------
not meet the new Part 257 regulations (i.e., to facilities that
.> \ ~ '
"may not receive" CESQG wastes. . : ' - '
( Acceptable facilities are either interim status^or permitted
Subtitle-C facilities; municipal facilities permitted, licensed, or
registered by a State, and subject to Part 258 or an approved State
program;-non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that are
permitted, licensed, or registered by a State and subject to Part
257.5 or an approved State program; or solid waste management
facilities that are permitted, licensed, or registered by a State
(i.e., municipal solid waste combustor). EPA encourages CESQGs to
consult with their State solid waste agency to determine . which
facilities are acceptable. Today's proposed changes to Section
, , ' . ^
261.5 make no changes to the provisions allowing CESQGs to send
their hazardous waste for beneficial use, reuse, legitimate
recycling or reclamation.
i .
D. Request for Comment on the Use of -an Alternative. Regulatory
Approach in Today's Rule- ~ . ' . .
The Agency previously discussed its proposed approach to
impose only the statutory minimum requirement si OR non-municipal
solid waste: facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste. The
Agency has? identified two options for writing the statutory minimum
./
components-. One. option is to use the Part 258 Criteria as the
baseline for* these requirements. The second option would be to
specify general performance, standards to be met. by facility
owners/operators as they implement the standards as well as to
i
guide States in designing hew regulatory programs (or revising
; 53 ' '" .
-------
existing regulatory programs)
there are several reasons why the Agency is considering using
the Part 258 Criteria. 1) Part 258" Criteria provide sufficient
detail so that an individual owner/operator can self-implement them
without State interaction in those instances where .States do riot
seek approval ..of their permitting program as required in RCRA
Section 4005(c). 2) EPA believes that- the national minimum
requirements, are necessary to collect reliable and consistent
ground-water monitoring data and'to respond to contamination from
the unit. 3) They contain a substantial-^amount of flexibility that
allows approved States to tailor standards to individual and
classes of facilities. Also, EPA and State success in
accomplishing 42 State program approvals demonstrates that a
, variety of State approaches are consistent with the Part 258
Criteria. As an example. States have established different design
standards based on. State-specific or site-specific factors that
comply with the Part 258 criteria. The Agency, expects; States to
likewise use this- same flexibility in tailoring; their ground-water:
monitoring programs^ 4 few Some States have expressed: strong support
for using 25& standard* as^ the baseline for solid;:waste disposal:
facilities:: that, receive- CESQG; hazardous waste. 5} While some:
1 ^ - ' * c". . - ; - . " - .
States havet standards for non-municipai facilities that are not
identical to tfa«- 258- standards, the Agency believes there is- a
strong likelihood that many state programs would betapprovable.
Reasons cited: in support of using;, the: general, performance
standard approach include? 1) Although the Part 258: standards
1 - ' ' ' "' 54- -...'-. -"'.--
-------
contain substantial flexibility for States to tailor 'the programs
to their, conditions, the Part 258 standards put certain limits "on
State flexibility to design a program tailored to local conditions;
, 2) 'The Part 258 standards also include certain national minimum
i
requirements (which States can not modify) ,that EPA promulgated
because of the risks posed by MSWLPs. However, since EPA has. found
that facilities that receive GESQG waste may pose substantially
less risk than MSWLFs, these national minimum standards may be
* overly stringent at certain facilities; 3) .In the absence of a
significant Federal program, over half of -the States have adopted
location standards, ground-water monitoring requirements, and
corrective action requirements that are significantly less
extensive than the Part: 258 standards. If a State believes that
its existing program satisfies the general RCRA performance
standard -- protects human health and the' environment, taking into
account the practicable capability of these facilities -- it could
/ * ' . ,
seek approval of their existing programs and. avoid substantial
regulatory or legislative changes; and 4) a general performance
standard would provide- the maximum flexibility for States and
owners to adopt,new methodologies and technologies (e.g., detecting,
groundwatejr contamination from the surface, hot front wells) to meet
. the standard at the lowest possible cost.
In order to give the regulated community-a better idea of how
the ground-water .monitoring and. corrective: action requirements
could be written using a general performance standard approach, the
Agency has developed the following examples of: general performance
'""'"'" '55 . ' ''''
-------
language for each of the main elements of a ground-Water and
corrective action program.
r> '
For section 257.5-2.2, ground-water monitoring systems, the
/regulatory language for the, general , performance approach could
require that the owner/operator install a ground-water monitoring
system capable of detecting contamination that would consist of a
sufficient number of wells, installed at appropriate locations and
depths, to yield ground-water monitoring samples from the uppermost
aquifer that represent both the quality of background .ground-water
and the 'quality of ground-water'passing the point of compliance.
i - . ' ' - - . -
However, this section would not specify how the monitoring wells
should be cased or the proper depth and spacing of the wells.
The Part 258 approach establishes the point of compliance for units
i %
under today's proposed rulemaking to no more than ISO meters from
the edge of a unit, boundary. However, a general, performance
standard could be written, to allow states to set the point of
compliance at other protective locations. The Agency specifically
requests comment on, whether a flexible approach, to establishing the
point of compliance, is particularly well:' suitedt to- low-risk,.
facilities such as-tho«e> addressed by this rulemaking, and if so,
which factors^ should bev considered in making: at- determination at -
'. these facilities. " ' .' ' .- -"/'; ,..::-' '. . -
- ~ ~* f» ~ *** " * * '
The- Agency also^is currently evaluating: a.- performance-based
I approach to locating;, the: point of compliance?? forb clean-up of
releases in the hazardous waste program as part of; the corrective
action rule development in subpart S of: 40. CFH* part 26*. The
. ' -"'».-_.-
- . '''" * ' ' ' - - ~ «
' . : ' '. ... ' 56 ' - :" '''"-.
-------
states are participating in -the subpart S rulemakirig as co-
regulators. .Point of compliance options under consideration
' ' '
include: the unit boundary, the facility, boundary, use of a buffer
zone and anywhere in.the plume of contamination beyond the unit
boundary. We are contemplating that the subpart S approach could
provide a basis for flexible, site-specific decision making for
waste management facilities covered by today's rule.
"i
For section 257.5-2.3, ground-water sampling and analysis
requirements, the regulatory language for the general performance
language could require that the owner/operator establish a ground-'
' i
water monitoring program that includes consistent sampling and
i . -~
analysis procedures that,ensure monitoring results that provide an
accurate representation of background ground-water quality and ^k
down-gradient ground-water quality. The Agency would also state
that the sampling and analysis procedures should also ensure that
appropriate sampling and analytical methods are used and that
ground-water quality data is based: on- appropriate statistical
procedures. However,, the regulatory language, would hot. require
that any specific statistical test be -used nor would the regulatory
language require that general performance! standards be met as a^
condition; of using ah alternative statistical test.. ,; .
For section. 257.5-2.4, detection monitoring1 program, the
regulatory language for the general performance language could
require that the owner/operator establish a list of indicator or
N
detection parameters that are monitored for and that enable the
i
owner/operator to detect contamination., The Agency-would also
1 i, ... ^ ,
, . . 57 : - '". -. -."
-------
state- that the monitoring frequency should be .determined based oh
site specific . factors ^ and that the, owner/operator must also
, . J i
establish a process for assessing, any potential contamination,
* ' t
based on the statistical procedures established in section
/ ,
257.5-2.3. However, -EPA's regulatory language would .not specify
any factors that ah owner/operator should consider in selecting
his/her indicator/detection monitoring parameters nor would the
regulatory language specify the site-specific factors that would
need to be evaluated by the owner/operator in determining, the
frequency of monitoring.
For section 257.5-2.5, assessment monitoring program, the
regulatory language for the general performance standard approach
could require that .the owner/operator establish a process for
assessing any potential contamination based on l) additional
monitoring for hazardous-" constituents that are expected to be
present at the facility and 2) the establishment .of background
5 - , ' i, ' ' ' _ , ' i ' ' * *
standards and health-baaed standards for,, the constituents that are
monitored. The Agency would also state that the process must allow
for a comparison, basedlon the statistical: procedures established
in sectiott 257.S-2v3^[.o£ those background anct health-based
standardsfvin order to* determine when a health-based standard has
been: exceeded^ and to allow- for the assessment of corrective
measures when it is determined that: an exceedance has occurred.
However, the regulatory language would: not specify any steps that
must be complied with aa part of the process in assessing the
,monitoring program^
', i fj*,'1-
- 58 ' ' > " ' '
-------
For .section 257.5-2.6, assessment of corrective action, the
regulatory language for .the general performance standard approach
could require that the owner/operator assess the potential range of
corrective measures that could be. used to meet the performance
standard established in section 257.5-2.7. However, the regulatory
language would not list, any factors that should be considered by
the owner/operator in assessing any potential remedy. It may allow.
the States flexibility to use different^riski assumptions than those
in Part 258 to establish triggers for corrective action.
For section 257.5-2.7, selection of remedy, the regulatory
language for the general performance standard approach could
require that the owner/operator select the most,appropriate remedy
that' 1) controls the source of releases to the maximum extent
possible, 2) attains the health-based standard(a) developed in the
assessment monitoring program, and 3) protects human health and the
environment. The Agency would also state that the owner/operator
would also heed to establish a time period for initiating and
completing the selected; remedy. However, the regulatory 'language ,
would not list any factors that an owner/operator should consider
in selecting the remedy, in establishing a schedule for initiating
and completing the remedy, or in deciding that remediation is not
necessary. ,- '.'. . _' , '
For section 257.5-2.8, implementation of the corrective action
program/ the regulatory language for the general performance:
standard approach could require that the owner/operator implement
the selected remedy, based on the schedule 'established in section
' , ' ' ' 59
-------
257.5-2.7, and attain compliance with the health-based standards
established in section 257.5-215. The Agency would also state that
the implementation of the corrective action program should include
' a consideration of interim measures that may need to be considered
during corrective action and a consideration of alternative
corrective measures if, after implementation of the selected
remedy, the health-based standards in section 257.5-2.5 are not
being achieved. However, the regulatory language would not list
any factors that an owner/operator should consider in developing
\ ' "
interim measures or in the selection of^an alternative remedy.
. The Agency believes that the general performance standard
approach has some advantages. The approach would offer more
flexibility to States to determine how best to run their State
.program for non-municipal, solid waste facilities that receive CESQG
hazardous waste, while allowing States to tailor .regulations based.
on anticipated risks- In. the absence o£ a State program^
owners/operators'would: have: to determine how ta comply- based on
.risk.. However*, the Agency is> concerned that, suchi a performance:
standard approach; . rna^i result in> greater1 uncertainty for;
Whilom th«K Agency hase not;; proposed* the- general performance
standard- approach in today' a proposal, the Agency believes that the
* '"'"" '-vr - " . - -' . ' " . " ' '
performance* * standards approach; provides^ some? interesting^
options/advantages?- for: owhera/operatora and State.agencies..
Therefore, the Agency: is requesting comments; on the use o£ general.
performance standards^ in lieu, of* the approach: used, in today's
-------
proposal. - . . ' "
E. Highlights of Today'.s Statutory Minimum Requirements for Non-
Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Facilities that Receive CESQG
Hazardous Waste .. .
For today's proposed regulatory language, the Agency has used
the Part 258 Criteria as a baseline. The highlights of the Part
258 requirements are presented in the next section of today's
preamble. The flexibility that was developed for the Part 258
Criteria has been, incorporated into "today's proposal for the
location restrictions and the ground-water monitoring and
corrective action requirements. The Agency solicits comments from
the regulated community on whether these standards would provide
sufficient flexibility for construction and demolition waste
facilities. Commentors are requested to review the .proposal with
an eye towards identifying those areas in the proposal that they
believe do not contain sufficient flexibility and would unduly
hinder or place unnecessary burdens on construction, and demolition
waste facilities or other.facilities potentially affected by the
rule. The Agency requests^ that if commentors identify a provision
that is lacking ia flexibility, that the commentors clearly,
.' " A .'-.'. ..
identify alternative rule language that provides* the necessary
flexibility. . .. ' -..''.'
Today's proposal requires; that non-municipal: - solid waste
disposal facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste are subject
to the requirements being proposed-, in §257.5. Any non-municipal
.solid waste disposal facility that does not meet the proposed
' ' .- . 61 " '
* «. -
\ . .. " ,
-------
requirements may not receive CESQG hazardous waste. Section 257.5
specifies location restrictions, ground-water monitoring and
corrective action standards that are .substantially the same as'the
statutory minimum standards that were developed under 40 CFR'Part
258. A ^complete summary, of. the 'statutory minimum standards
developed under Part 258 can be -found in the MSWLF Criteria. See
56 FR 50977. A general discussion of the - requirements being
i* ' '
proposed under §257.5 is provided below. A discussion is also
provided in those instances where a requirement being proposed in
§257.5 has been slightly modified from the requirement in Part. 258.
. \ - -
1. Applicability
Today's proposal establishes a separate section/ in Part 257
x ' t '
(i.e., Section 257.5) that applies to any non-municipal solid waste
* - " / ' _
disposal facility that receives CESQG hazardous wastes.
Owners/operators of non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities
\ ,..'*. - "
that receive CESQG hazardous waste after the effective date (i.e.,
/ . , '
18 months after the. date of promulgation in the1FEDERAL REGISTER)
must comply with the requirements. in Section 257.5. -Today's
proposal does not apply to municipal, solid waste landfills subject
to Part 258 or hazardous waste facilities subject to regulations
under Subtitle- C of RCRA. . ->-..' .-:.'.
»".'' i .. - i _ . -
/Owners/operators of non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities- whose facilities do not meet-the'proposed requirements
may not receive CESQG hazardous waste. : Owners'/operators of such.
facilities would continue to be subject to the- requirements in
Sections 257.1 - 257.4.
*
- ' 'x ' 62 -.-
-------
Owners/operators of non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste and become subject to
the separate requirements in Section 257.5 continue to be subject
to several, existing requirements in Sections 257.1 - 257.4. The
v /
existing requirements in Sections 257.1 - 257.4 that continue to be
* '
'applicable include: §§257.3-2 (Endangered Species), 257.3-3
(Surface Water) , 257.3r5 (Application to food-chain crops) ,'257.3-6
(Disease), 257.3-7 (Air), and 257.3-8 (a), (b), and (d) (Safety).
A non-municipal solid waste disposal facility that.becomes subject
to the CESQG requirements in Section 257.5 would no longer be
subject to the following existing requirement in Section 257.1 -
's '
257.4: §§257.3-1 (Floodplains), 257.3-4 (Ground water), .and 257.3- .
8(c) .(bird hazards to aircraft) because Section 257.5 would contain
- ' ' - -'
separate , standards in each of the areas. Today's proposal
establishes new requirements pertaining to ground-water monitoring,
corrective action/ and location restrictions (airports and
floodplains) for non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that
receive CESQG hazardous waste.
Certain facilities may implement screening procedures to
effectively eliminate the receipt of CESQG hazardous wastes. If an
*'"."* -f
owner/operator has a question concerning applicability of the rule,
> -. . *
he/she is encouraged to contact his/her State Agency to determine
that the screening procedure ensures that the facility does not
receive CESQG hazardous waste. ,
2. Specific Location Restrictions .'_'.
The requirements in §257.5-1 will establish location
, 63 .-'"" '
-------
restrictions for any non-municipal solid -waste disposal facility
that receives CESQG hazardous wastes. The location restrictions
are for airport safety, floodplains, wetlands, fault areas, seismic
impact zones, and unstable areas.\ the location restrictions being
proposed today for non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities
that receive CESQG hazardous wastes are based on the location
i. '
restrictions that were promulgated under Part 258 for, municipal
solid waste landfills. A. detailed discussion of these location
restrictions can be found in the MSWLF Criteria (See 56 FR 51042 -
' v-
51049) . A summary of each.location restriction is presented below..
a. Airport Safety
' ' ' *'
Existing Criteria under Part 257 ' '
Non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities are currently
subject* to an airport safety provision, in the existing Part 257
Criteria (.i.e, Section 257.3-8 (c)). Section 257.3-8(c), requires
that a facility disposing of putrescible wastes that may attract
birds and which, occurs within 10,000 feet of - any: airport - runway
used by turbojet aircraft or within 5000 feet1 of any airport runway
used by only piston-type?: aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard to
aircraft.'. '-.,,.. . _ ".' - : -:' .. .""'.-'* ; ',-.'-
MSWLF Criteria under Part 258 (Section 258.10)
The Criteria apply to new, existing, and; lateral expansions- of
existing MSWLPa and establish that MSWLF owners/operators, located
within the same distance specifications as in. Part: 257 place a
demonstration in the operating,record that the facility does- not
pose a bird hazard to aircraft. New MSWLFs and lateral expansions
- . '.''.'; 64 - . , . -
-------
of existing MSWLFs located-within a five-mile radius of any runway'
must notify the affected ,. airport . and the Federal Aviation
Administration {FAA). '"''.
Today's Proposed Language Regarding Airport Safety (§257.5-1.1)
'' ' '
Today's .proposal uses the identical airport safety language
that was .established for MSWLFs. Today's proposal will require
that new, existing, and lateral expansions of non-municipal solid
waste disposal . facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste
demonstrate- that the facility does not pose a bird hazard to
aircraft. For existing facilities that~become subject to today's
rule only, the demonstration requirement is. different from t'he
current airport safety standard in Section 257.3-8(c). The
demonstration requirement is being proposed because today's airport
safety requirement is written to be self-implementing and the
demonstration documents compliance and may protect the
owner/operator from a citizen suit. For new and lateral expansions
of non-municipai.,so.lid waste disposal facilities, the notification
to the FAA and affected airport is a new provision. This provision
is being proposed, in order for the Agency to be consistent with
existing FAA Order #5200.5A. This- FAA Order establishes that any
disposal site; that attracts or sustains hazardous: bird movements
from feeding-, watering:- or roosting areas may be incompatible with
-. *
airport operations. .
Jb. Floodplaina . ^
Existing Criteria under Part 257 ->'.'
Non-municipal solid waste disposal, facilities are currently
'.'' 65 .' ' . ' '
-------
subject .to a floodplain 'provision in the existing Part 257 (i.e.,
Section 257.3-1). .Section 257.3-1 requires that facilities' not
restrict the 'flow, of the base flood, reduce the temporary water
- ' . . ~ ,/ .
storage capacity of the floodplain, or; result in washout of solid
waste, so" as to pose a hazard to human life, wildlife, or land or
- i
water resources. ( .
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.11)
. The Criteria apply to new, existing, and lateral expansions of
.' . '
MSWLFs and establish that MSWLF owners /operators located within the
e .
.100 -year floodplain demonstrate that the MSWLF will not restrict
the flow of the .100-year flood, reduce the temporary water storage
. . i
capacity of the floodplain or result in washout of solid waste so
i
as to pose a hazard to human health and the environment.
-. . j
Today's Proposed Language Regarding Floodplains (Section 257.5-1.2)
t
Today's proposal uses the identical language from the MSWLF
Criteria. The demonstration requirement for new,/ existing, and
x- _
lateral expansions of non- municipal solid waste disposal facilities
is the only change to the existing Part 257 language and as stated
above the demonstration: requirement is being proposed due to the/
self -implement ing nature: of; today's proposal and to document
compliance^ ptt -the. part of the owner/operator.:
Bxiatino Criteria under Part 257 , ,. ;- "
Non-municipal solid, waste disposal facilities currently are
not subject to any provisions regarding, wetland protection;
MSWLP Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.12). , , !
66-
-------
.The Criteria apply to new and lateral expansions of MSWLFs and
establish that. MSWLFs locating . in - a wetland ensure that if the
MSWLF must be constructed in a wetland location, the MSWLF will not
cause or contribute to violations of any, applicable State water
quality standards,' will not cause or contribute to the degradation.
of a wetland, and lastly that steps have been taken to offset any
unavoidable impacts on the wetland. Siting of a MSWLF in a wetland
location is only allowed to be ^approved by the Director of an
approved State program after a successful demonstration by an
owner/operator. ,
Today's Proposed Language Regarding Wetlands (Section 257.5-1.3)
Today's proposal establishes requirements applicable for new
and lateral expansions of non-municipal solid .waste disposal
facilities regarding the siting in wetland locations.. these
i , , ' ---...
requirements are identical to the requirements , established for
MSWLFs. The Agency has determined that new and lateral expansions
of non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities, similar to
MSWLFs, may be sited in wetlands; only under very certain
conditions. Therefore, the comprehensive demonstration
requirements that are in the MSWLF Criteria are being proposed
today. These demonstration requirements will ensure that if a non-
. c * " - . '
municipal solid waste disposal facility needs to be located in a
wetland, protection of State water quality standards and protection
of the wetland,will be achieved. Furthermore, today* s proposal is
consistent with the Agency's goal of achieving no net loss of the
nation's wetlands. / - . . s
67 .''
-------
d. Fault. Areas '-.'.,-,
Existina--Criteria under Part 257
v "s \ ' . . .
Non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities currently are .
not subject to any provision regarding fault areas.
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.13) ' "
'The Criteria established for MSWLFs locating in a fault^area
apply only to new or lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs. The
~ '
intent of the MSWLF Criteria is to prohibit siting within 200 feet
of an active fault. The 200 foot limit- was chosen because it is
.generally believed that the structural integrity of a MSWLF cannot
be unconditionally guaranteed when they are built within 200 feet
of a fault that is likely toN move. Flexibility is provided for
owners/operators in an approved State to be located within 200 feet
of av fault' area if the owner/operator, makes the necessary
demonstration.
Today* s Proposed Language Regarding Fault Areas
Today's . proposal for non-municipal solid, waste disposal
* . - '
facilities .that receive- CEFQG hazardous waste4 contains a location.
',.'''-' - * ' -
restriction, regarding, fault areas. Today's proposal bans the
siting of new non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities or
lateral, expansions- of these facilities in areas that are'-
, susceptible- to faulting (i.e., areas located within. 200 feet of a
fault that:, has had displacement in recent times):. The Agency;
believes .that locating a new facility or lateral expansion in a
location that has experienced faulting hash inherent dangers. If a
' ' . ' .
facility is located near a fault and displacement occurs, release
'-\ '.' . * ' * .
....'.' 68 . > ' ; ".-"', -
-------
of solid waste and hazardous constituents will occur. The Agency,.
however, believes that some flexibility should be incorporated -into
the proposal for approved States and, as such, today's proposal
allows approved States to site a new non-municipal solid waste
disposal facility or lateral expansion within 200 feet of an active
fault if the owner/operator demonstrates that such an action will
be protective of human health and the environment. Existing non-
municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive CESQG
hazardous wastes would not be subject -to today's proposed fault
area restriction. . ~ ' , : .
The Agency requests comments on the necessity of requiring a
fault area restriction for new non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities or lateral expansions of these types of facilities that
f \ .
receive CESQG hazardous waste.
e. Seismic Impact Zones -
Existing Criteria under Part 257 . - . .
Non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities currently are
i ~ ..,'*- .. ... - -
not subject to any provision^ regarding* seismic impact zones..
MSWLP Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.141
The Criteria established for MSWLFs locating in a, seismic
impact zone* apply only to new or lateral expansions of existing
MSWLFs. The intent of the MSWLP Criteria is to prohibit the siting
^ . .
of new MSWLFs or lateral expansions of tthese types of facilities in
k ' J /
seismic impact zones. If, however, the'owner/operator demonstrates.
to the Director-of an approved State that all containment
structures, including liners,- leachate collection, systems, and
* ' " ' ' ' " ". 69 '-..' '''.'
-------
, surface water control systems are designed to resist the maximum
horizontal acceleration in lithified earth material, a'new MSWLF or
lateral expansion may be located within a seismic impact zone.
Today's Proposed Language Regarding Seismic Impact Zones
Today's proposal for non-municipal solid' waste disposal "
facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste contains a location
restriction regarding seismic impact zones. Today's proposal bans
' the siting of new non-municipalvsolid waste disposal facilities or '
lateral'expansions of these facilities^in seismic impact zones.
Existing non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that
receive CESQG hazardous wastes would not be subject to today's
proposed seismic . zone restriction. Seismic activity manifests
itself in the form of ground shaking and fracturing. These
activities can, like faulting, result in the release of solid waste
and hazardous constituents. The Agency has incorporated the
flexibility found in the MSWLF Criteria in, today's proposal. As ,
such/if owners/operators of new non-municipal solid waste disposal
, facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste or lateral expansions
of such facilities can demonstrate to the Director of an approved
State that the facility and any containment devices .used in the
construction of the facility are designed, to withstand, the effects
of seismic activity, then such a facility may be located in a
seismic impact zone. : ,
.it f. Unstable Areas. .
Existincr Criteria under* Part 257^' v ' '. .
Non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities currently are
70 ' ' , - . "" ' '
-------
not subject to any provision regarding unstable areas.
' ' . '
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.15)
The.Criteria.established for MSWLFs locating in an unstable
area apply to 'new MSWLFs, lateral expansions of existing MSWLFs,
and existing MSWLFs. The intent of the MSWLF Criteria again
focuses on the ability of engineering, measures to compensate for
unstable location conditions and a demonstration' that these
engineering measures will ensure the integrity of the* structural
components of the MSWLF.
Today* 3 Proposed Language Regarding Unstable Areas
Today's proposal for non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste contains a location
restriction regarding unstable areas. Today's proposal applies to
existing non-municipal solid waste facilities, new non-municipal
solid waste facilities, and lateral expansions of these types of
facilities. These facilities that receive CESQG waste must
demonstrate that engineering measures have been incorporated into
the facility design to ensure that the integrity of the structural
components will not be disrupted. The rationale: for- requiring this
location restriction is. the same as that provided for fault areas
and seismic activity zones r waste placed in locations Susceptible
to mass movement or placed in areas with poor foundation conditions
can result in the release of solid waste and hazardous
constituents.^ The Agency, therefore, believes that these unstable
areas should be avoided and locating in an unstable area should
* i . " * * '
only be allowed after a successful demonstration by ,thel
1 . 71 . " l ' . .
-------
owner/operator that the structural integrity 'of the facility will
\ *
not be disrupted. '
In summary, six location restrictions are being proposed:
i
airport-safety, floodplains, wetlands, fault areas, seismic impact
zones,, and .unstable areas. Existing non-municipal solid waste
disposal facilities that receive CESQG hazardous wastes are only
H . / .
X
required to, comply with the airport .safety, floodplain, and
unstable area location restrictions., New or lateral expansions of
non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive CESQG
hazardous wastes must comply with all "six location restrictions
prior to accepting waste for disposal..
/
SPA is proposing that existing non-municipal solid waste
disposal facilities that cannot make the required demonstrations
- - " ' J
pertaining to airports, floodplains, or unstable areas by 18 months
after the final rule, is promulgated must stop receiving CESQG
hazardous wastes. This 18-month period is much, shorter than the 5-
year period that was given to MSWLFs under. 40 CFR 258.16. .EPA
provided, five years* to MSWLPs,because there- was concern about.
capacity shortages it existing owners/operators of MSWLFs had to
close in the short ternti For this proposal, existing non-municipal
solid waste; disposal facilities-only have to comply with three
location restrictions; airport safety,, floodplains, and unstable
'i * . ' ' -,
areas. Two' of these three restrictions being., proposed are
technically identical to the existing Part 257 standards that
existing non-municipal solid waste disposal, facilities have been
subject to since 1979 .(i.e., airport safety and floodplains). The
' .""«,.
72 '...'"
-------
new requirements for these two location restrictions are the
. i
demonstrations documenting compliance with these provisions and a
11 ' ^ , '
notification to the FAA if a new or lateral expansion of an
existing non-municipal solid waste disposal facility .wants to site
within a 'five-mile radius of an airport runway end. The last
location restriction applicable to existing facilities is the
\
unstable area restriction. The Agency believes that 18 months is
sufficient time for a owner/operator to ' demonstrate ' that the
integrity of the facility will not be disrupted. Furthermore, the
Agency does hot believe .that capacity concerns apply to the types
\ '
of facilities that may potentially become subject to today's
proposal. , - '
With the effective date IS months after the date of
' ' . ' .
promulgation, existing non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities that receive CESQG hazardous waste will need to make the
necessary demonstrations prior to this 18-month period. In the
event that an existing non-municipal solid waste facility can not
make the demonstrations^ the^existing- -facility may'., not., receive
CESQG hazardous wastes after this 18-month period* If the existing
non-municipal solid;: waste; disposal facility fails to make the
necessary- demonstrations: within 18 months- and thereafter stops
receiving CESQCJ hazardous waste-, it can continue to stay open and
operate; however, it must comply with the existing standards in
§§257.1 -257.4 vs. the requirements being: proposed today under
§257.5. ' ' ' . '-: ".. / ^ -.,
3. Sipecific Ground-Water Monitoring and Corrective: Action
, y . ' '
. 73 ' .''"'
-------
Requirements , , '. - -. .
The requirements in .§§257.5-2.1 .-. 257.5-2.8 will establish
ground-water monitoring and corrective action requirements for any
x non-municipal solid waste disposal facility that receives CESQG
hazardous wastes. Section 257.5-2 establishes the criteria for
determining an acceptable ground-water monitoring system, the
procedures for sampling and .analyzing ground-water samples,'the
steps and .factors to be used in proceeding from an .initial
detection monitoring phase, up to, and including corrective action
for clean-up of contaminated ground water.
The ground-water,monitoring and corrective action requirements
being proposed today for non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities that receive CESQG hazardous wastes are based on the
ground-water monitoring and corrective action requirements that
were promulgated under Part 258 for municipal solid waste
landfills. As such the areas of flexibility that exist within the
MSWLF Criteria will: also, apply to non-municipal solid waste
disposal facilities* that receive CESQG hazardous- waste. A detailed
discussion of the MSWLF Criteria regarding ground-water monitoring
and corrective action requirements can: be found at 56. FJL 51061 -
51093 and base been made part of this- rulemaking record.
Todays; proposal ia subatantively identical to the Part 258
', " ' *
MSWLF Criteria- The two areas of difference concern when the.
ground-water and corrective action requirements become- effective
and the time period during which ground-water monitoring must be
conducted after the active life of the facility. A summary of the
-."' ' . 74
-------
applicability of the ground-water monitoring and corrective action
requirements and each provision is presented below.
:. ' i <
. The Agency has two reasons for adopting the ground-water
monitoring and .corrective x action provisions from the MSWLF
Criteria,. First, the MSWLF Criteria > provides sufficient
specificity for owners/operators to .develop an acceptable ground-
water monitoring _and corrective action program,. Secondly, State
solid waste program implementers have expressed strong support for
adopting the MSWLF requirements with the flexibility available in
, ' i . S "' ' '
the MSWLF Criteria. Defining ' a ground-water standard with
> '
different language and substantially different requirements would.
unnecessarily complicate and confuse implementation of the ground-
water monitoring requirements. The flexibility available to
approved States will, allow the States to tailor requirements to a
particular.facility subject to today's proposed requirements.
a. Applicability of Ground-water and Corrective Action Requirements
.' - ' ' ,.'-"' ' ' ' ; .
Existing Criteria Under pa.it 257: - , . .
Part 257 currently states that any facility- or^practice shall
not contaminate an, underground drinkingr water source beyond the
}. ' . ' . ~ '
solid waste boundary ozr beyond an alternative boundary as
.'"'." /: ' ; . .
determined^ based on a series of factors (40 CFR 257.3-4>. No
procedural steps or components of the ground-water monitoring
program are required. Contamination o£ an underground drinking
water source is defined to be an exceedance of an MCL as currently
in Appendix I of Part 257. or any additional, increase in
*.
concentration for a constituent that has a concentration already in.
'..'.,' 75 . ' .
-------
exceedance of its MCL. No procedural requirements are specified
for corrective action-.
MSWLF Criteria Under Part '258 (Suboart EV
The Criteria establish ground-water monitoring and corrective
action requirements for MSWLFs that receive only household wastes
or household waste together with other types of wastes, including
industrial and CESQG wastes. Existing MSWLFs are required to .have
ground-water monitoring in place 3 to 5 years after'the date of
.promulgation, of the MSWLF Criteria based on proximity to the
nearest drinking water intake. The Director of an approved State
' * '
has the discretion to establish an, alternative schedule for when
existing MSWLFs must .have ground-water monitoring in place. The
ground-water monitoring requirements ,for MSWLFs must be conducted
through the active life plus post-closure which is 30 years. The
Director of an approved State can reduce the length of the post-
closure-care period. The MSWLF Criteria also allow the Director of
an approved State program to suspend .the ground-water monitoring
requirements if, the owner/operator can demonstrate that, there is no
potential for migration of hazardous constituents from the unit ta
the uppermost., aquifer during the active life. Hazardous
constituents can be found in Appendix VIII to Part 261.
Today* s Proposed' L^iigfnage Reoardiiyr' APPlicub/ilitv 'of. the Ground"
Water Monitoring and Corrective Action Requirements:
^^MMABi^M^HAMMMA^l^MM^ta^^M^b^HOTM^B^eAA^hM^^^MOT^feMA^BMMAM^lOTM^l^HHMMM^M' - ../
Today's proposal establishes ground-water monitoring and
corrective action requirements, (discussed separately; below) for
.. f ' '
non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that- receive CESQG
o
'' 76
-------
hazardous wastes. Existing non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities subject to this rule must be' in compliance with the
ground-water monitoring requirements within 2 years after the date
of promulgation of this rule. The Agency is proposing a shorter
effective date for today's proposal than for the MSWLF Criteria
i
because these ground-water requirements can. be phased-in over a
much-shorter time frame.
The MSWLF Criteria were phased in over, a three to 'five year
period based on a lack of qualified weir drillers. The Agency has
decided on a two. year effective date for a variety of reasons.
First, 24 States prohibit hazardous waste ,from being managed in a
construction/demolition waste facility (see Chapter 4 of,the EPA
reference Construction and Demolition Waste. Landfills).
Construction and demolition waste disposal facilities in these 24
States will not be impacted because they, under State law, cannot
receive hazardous waste. These 24 States, account ,for 1060 of the
approximate total, of 1900; construction and demolition wast^
landfills. Further-*.& States require ground-water monitoring and
corrective action that ia similar to Part 258. These 8 States
account for an additional 111- construction and demolition
t* ' ~ * ' '
facilities^ Therefore, 3. total of 1,171 construction and
' ' s.
demolition: waste facilities in 32 States will not be affected by
* . j
this proposal. A total of 718 construction and demolition waste
landfills in 17 States (New Hampshire has no construction and
demolition landfills), will be affected after this proposal is
\ . '
finalized. Some States from the remaining 17 States have; existing
' ' ' . . . .77- . . ."'.- '
-------
State regulations that allow thereto impose ground-water monitoring
requirements on a case-by-case basis,, There are a total of 5
»
States that may impose ground-water monitoring requirements at
their construction and demolition .waste landfills (a total of 84
construction arid demolition landfills exist in these 5 States). If
only 718 construction and demolition waste owners/operators may
have to have ground-water monitoring. wells installe^d, the Agency
believes that there are a sufficient number of. firms that are
qualified to install wells within 2 years. '
The Agency is concerned that some~ States (3 States have a
* -.
total of 491 construction and demolition waste landfills out of the,,-
718 total that may be affected) may have difficulty in .ensuring
that all existing non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities
that may receive CESQG waste have ground-water monitoring in place
within 2 years and has allowed a one-year extension for an approved ;
State! In an approved State, the Director can establish an
alternative schedule that allows 50% of existing non-municipal
.solid waste disposal,facilities, to be ia compliance within 2 years
and all land-based non,-municipal solid waste- facilities that
receive CESQG. waste? to be in compliance with the ground-water
monitoring- requirements within 3 years... Similar to the MSWLF ',
Criteria,.'today's proposal list a series of factors;, that the
Director of an approved State should consider in establishing an
alternative schedule. .
Today's proposal establishes that the ground-water monitoring. .
program must be conducted through, the active life' of the facility
78 '"'"-,' . ',' ' .
-------
plus 30 years. Today's proposal does not. contain provisions" beyond
the statutory minimum components and, therefore, no closure or
post-closure care standards are being proposed. The Agency
believes, however, that ground-water contamination resulting from
the operation of a facility may not appear until after the active
life of the facility. The Agency is therefore concerned that
ground-water monitoring be conducted for some.period of time after
1 , ' \
the active life of the facility. As such, today's proposal
establishes the requirement , that ground-water monitoring be
conducted for 30 years after the active life. The term active life
has also been changed from the definition in the:MSWLF Criteria.
/ '
Today's proposal defines active life to be the period of operation
'
final receipt of. solid waste. In the MSWLF Criteria the term
active life was defined to mean the period of operation beginning
r- x " ' - "
with the initial receipt of solid waste and ending at completion of
closure activities'in accordance with §258.6Qr (i.e., closure and
post-closure care activities},, The change in. the definition of the
term active life wasr necessary to reflect the fact: that, today's
proposal, .does, not; contain, closure orr post-closure care
'-'' ' " '
requirements?. .
The Agency selected the- 30 year continuance of ground-Water
monitoring after the final receipt of waste because 30 years is
consistent with the period of time that ground-water monitoring is
done after the final receipt of waste at MSHLFs. Following the
approach that was selected for MSWLFs, the Agency has allowed the
' - . ' , '79'- ' - .
-------
Director of an approved State to decrease or increase the 30 year
period of time that ground-water monitoring must be done after the
final receipt of waste. Any reduction in the period of time may be
granted only after a demonstration by the owner/operator that a
shorter period of time is sufficient to protect human health and
the environment and the Director of an approved State approves such
a demonstration. . , . '
The Agency requests comments on the 2-year effective date and
the 30-year period of time after the active life that ground-water
monitoring must be conducted. Commentors should submit data that
supports a shorter or longer effective date and data concerning the
necessity of the 30-year ground-water monitoring period.
' ' ~ *.
The flexibility that an. approved State/Tribal Director has in
suspending the ground-water monitoring requirements for MSWLFs has
been provided for non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities
' ' . . - '
that receive .CESQG hazardous waste in today's proposal. The
provision is proposed for the same reason that, it was finalized in
the MSWLP Criteria^ The Agency believe* that certain
hydrpgeologic. settinga may - preclude the. migration of hazardous
constituents' from the non-municipal solid waste disposal facility
to the ground-water. This provision is in the; applicability
J '
section of: today's ground-water monitoring requirements.
The Agency is also proposing to provide to approved States the
flexibility to determine alternative ground-water monitoring
/ - ' f "
requirements for small, dry non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities that receive CESQG: waste. The Agency had previously
. ' ' ' .- 80 ' '
-------
Issued an exemption to small, dry municipal solid waste landfills
from some of the requirements in, the MSWLF .Criteria. (See 56 FR
50978, October ,9, ;1991). Although the D.C. Circuit vacated this.
exemption in the Sierra Club v. EPA opinion, 992 f.2d at 345, the
Court left it to the Agency's discretion'to allow for alternative
, v _
types of ground-water, monitoring based upon factors such as size,
location, and climate. Concurrent with this proposal, the Agency
is proposing that approved States be ' allowed to determine
alternative ground-water monitoring requirements for small, dry
-' ,;
^ ' "
MSWLFs. x The Agency sees no reason to limit this.flexibility to
! - , ' ,
MSWLFs and, therefore, is proposing that approved States may allow '
' ' ; ' ' '
alternative monitoring requirements for small, dry non-municipal
solid waste disposal facilities that are receiving CESQG waste if
the facilities meet the definition of small and dry proposed in
§257.5-2.1(i). Additional information concerning the alternative
ground-water monitoring requirements for MSWLFs: will be published
soon in a FR notice. . . .
In order to. be considered small r. the non-municipal solid waste
disposal facility- must dispose of less- than 20 tons of non-
municipal waste daily* The 20 tons per day is proposed in order to
'.,""- < ' ..*-,
be consistent: with the small landfill exemption under the municipal
solid wastevlandfill Criteria. However, the Agency recognizes that
the size distribution, potential risks, practical capability, and
other factors differ for .these facilities. The Agency is accepting
comments on whether this number should be different for non-
. municipal, solid.waste facilities., ,
81
-------
Jb. Overall Performance of the Ground-Water Monitoring System
Existing Criteria 'in Part 257 - .
The existing Criteria in £art 257 do not specify any
i " , ' '
particular technical components of the monitoring system.
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.51)
The MSWLF Criteria states that _ the ground-water monitoring
/
system must consist of a sufficient number of wells at 'appropriate
locations and.depths to yield ground-water samples that represent
background quality and the quality of the ground water passing the
' * .. * - '
relevant point of> compliance. The Criteria contain requirements
t( .,.'
pertaining to the casing _of the monitoring wells. The Criteria
,also allow flexibility in that the Director of an Approved Sate
program ; may allow, for an alternative ground-water monitoring
v, f
boundary (point of compliance) as opposed to the waste management
boundary and for multi-unit ground-water monitoring.
Today* s Proposed Language Regarding Ground-Water Monitoring Systems
The level of; specificity concerning the groundrwater
monitoring system requirements- in the Part: 258? Criteria are
incorporated into* ' today's- proposal to < givei affected
owners/operators the; requirements to develop an acceptable ground-
water monitoring programv Today's proposal, contains the same
i ' ' *
/
performance/ language in the MSWLF Criteria and, as such, will
provide owners and operators: a performance-based approach to
establishment of a monitoring system that will, ensure detection of
contamination.
Today's proposal continues to allow State Directors the
' E'
, ' ' -82 . ' ' '-
-------
discretion to establish an alternative monitoring boundary and
i
multi-unit monitoring. The establishment of an alternative
boundary provides flexibility to owners/operators and in some cases
can serve to reduce corrective action costs by allowing, the
. . \ , ^
.owner/operator the advantage of a limited dilution and attenuation
zone. The establishment of multi-unit monitoring allows for'local
conditions, to' be taken into account where individual monitoring
systems cannot be established. / . .
c. Ground-Water Sampling and Analysis Requirements
Existing Requirements in Part 257 ". ' .
The existing Criteria in Part 257 do not specify any sampling
or analysis procedures. '
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.53>
'
.
wells and methods of statistical analysis designed to ensure
consistent monitoring results and accurate representation of
ground-water quality. , .
Today's Proposed Language Regarding Sampling and- Analysis ." '
Today's proposal contains the same sampling, anil analysis
procedures that are* irr thaMSWLP Criteria^. The/Agency believes ,
that the samplingr and analysis procedures in the MSWLF Criteria are
necessary for today's proposal. The sampling: and analysis
requirements ensure accurate ground-water monitoring results and
allow for an accurate representation of both the background ground*
water quality and. the quality of ground water at the monitoring .
wells placed downgradient from the facility. Owners/operators need
- .- - . " 83 '-'''
-------
to ensure that consistent sampling and analysis procedures are in
place in order to determine if a statistically significant increase
in., the level of a constituent has 'occurred indicating the
possibility of ground-water contamination. . -
In the promulgated Criteria for municipal solid waste
landfills, the Agency required that ground-water samples not be.
'field-filtered prior to laboratory analysis. .(See §258.53 (b)) . The '
preamble discussion for this requirement can be found at 56 FR
51074, October 9, 1991. The Agency hast been actively working on
* ' ' l
the issue-of sample filtration due to concerns expressed by some
members of the scientific community. The Agency expects to issue,
t ' '
in the near future, a proposal addressing additional flexibility on
this issue. This proposal would.include any potential revision to
the prohibition on field filtering as specified in proposed section
257.5-2.3. Thus, any mile language change to the Part 258 Criteria
* ' . N '
on this issue will be addressed in the final rule language for non-
municipal solid waste facilitiea that receive CESQG wastes.
d. Detection Monitoring?. Program .
Existing Requirements "in Part 257 .'' . - - . ' " :
The existing; Criteria in Part. 257 do hot specify any phases of
the ground water monitoring program. .. ... "','
MSWLP Cjriteria trndgy Part 258 (Section 258.54)
The MSWLF Criteria establish an initial phase o£ ground-water
monitoring called:detection monitoring. The purpose- of detection
monitoring; is to obtain an early warning- that contamination is
possibly occurring prior, to doing an assessment of the situation.
84 . -
-------
The MSWLF Criteria establish, that as a first step, background'
concentrations and semi-annual monitoring'for a set of detection
monitoring, indicator parameters be performed. These indicator
parameters include '47 volatile organic compounds and 15 metals.
The Director of ,,an approved State may delete any of these indicator
parameters if it can be shown that the.parameter is not reasonably
expected to be in the waste or derived.from the waste in the unit.
This flexibility allows an approved State to potentially waive the
organic constituents (some or all) _ and some of the metal
constituents for a non-municipal solid waste disposal facility, that
receives CESQG wastes if the State'believes that those parameters
are not expected to be in the waste. Furthermore, the Director of
an approved State can establish an alternative list of parameters
(i.e.,. geochemical parameters) for some or all of the metals. The
Director .of an approved State, program can also specify an
alternative frequency for repeat ground-water monitoring, during the'
detection monitoring phase..
Today's Propoaeit*-. Language Regarding- Detection- Monitoring
Requirements ...
Today's proposal establishes the- same series- of steps for
ground-waters monitoring-.. The, Agency believes that, monitoring for-
a limited; set of parameters and determining if there is a
\ , *
statistically significant increase for any of these parameters is
an essential first step in evaluating the possibility of a release
from a non-municipal solid waste disposal facility that receives
CESQG wastes, i Today's proposed, detection monitoring program
( - /. . as ' .
-------
contains the same areas of flexibility that exist within-the MSWLF
Criteria. This flexibility can "be used by the,Director of an
i
approved State to delete any parameter from Appendix I {Appendix I
'of Part 258) where the Director believes that the constituent is
not expected to be in or derived from the waste1 in the unit.
Furthermore, the Director of an approved State can establish, an
alternative list of inorganic indicator parameters for the metals
in Appendix I of Part: 258. . Also, today's proposal allows the
Director of l;-^'
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Section 258.55)
. The MSWLF Criteria establish a secondary phase of ground-water
monitor ing .called assessment monitoring. Assessment monitoring is
designed to determine thev extent of any suspected ground-water
contamination that, has* been detected during detection monitoring.
Assessment monitoring includes a more complete sampling program;.
designed: to capture constituents from. Appendix* II that were not
previously monitored for in detection monitoring. Assessment
,'*."' J ' - '
monitoring also includes the establishment. _ of ground-water
protection standards. The ground-water protection standard is
. established for Appendix II constituents, that have been shown to
' . -.'..,-.- - - .' '86 ': '......' .. '
-------
have a statistically significant increase 'in their concentration
' " ' ' ' "
levels. The ground-water protection standard represents the
acceptable constituent concentration that remedies are to achieve
and are based on health-based concerns. -
Assessment monitoring has the same areas of flexibility that
exist,with detection .monitoring. The Director of an.approved State
may modify -the list of constituents (Appendix II) that are
/
monitored ' for during assessment monitoring, the frequency of
monitoring and the number of ground-water monitoring wells that are
sampled for during assessment monitoring. The Director of an
approved State program may also approve an alternative ground-water
, . \ ' i
protection standard. ,
Requirements
Today's proposal establishes the same assessment monitoring
/
program as in the MSWLF Criteria. .The assessment monitoring
program is essential la that an owner/operator must determine what
constituents have; entered the- ground water: and: understand the
extent of the contaminated plume to develop an efficient and
effective corrective actionr program. The purpose of assessment
monitor ing?, is- toevaluate, rather than detect, contamination.' The
Agency believes that a second phase of monitoring, is essential for
evaluating the nature and extent, of contamination. The Agency also
believes that the flexibility that exists in the MSWLF Criteria is
, ' , *
sufficient to deal with the types of non-municipal, facilities that
receive CESQG hazardous waste and has, therefore, retained all of
, .' ' -
' ' ' 87 . ' - - '* ' ' '
-------
the flexibility in today's proposal.
f. Corrective Action Program
Existing Requirements in Part 257
The existing. Criteria in- Part 257 do not specify any
corrective action requirements. .'"".
MSWLF Criteria Under Part 258 (Sections 258.56 - 258.58)
The MSWLF Criteria establish a third and final phase of
monitoring called corrective action. Corrective action is designed
to evaluate, select an appropriate remedy, and lastly, implement
the corrective action remedy that was selected. The first step in
the corrective action program includes . an evaluation of the
effectiveness, of any potential remedy. The next step includes a
selection of a remedy based on a series of factors, that are
specified in the MSWLF Criteria. Lastly, there .is the
implementation of the selected remedy. The selected remedy must be
protective of human health and the environment and reduce the
concentration of constituents in the ground-water back to
acceptable health-based levelsv After reducing the levels in the
"* - . /
ground-water 'to an acceptable level over a three year! period,
implementation of the corrective measure is considered'complete.
As with detection and assessment monitoring, areas of, flexibility
exist within the .corrective action program. Owners/operators are
allowed to select an alternative corrective action remedy if the
, '. *i
first remedy selected does not achieve compliance with the health-
based standards-;. Furthermore, the Director of an, approved State
' **" ' ' "
may select an alternative to the three year.period of time before
'' :..'.. 88 . '
-------
the corrective measure 'is considered complete.
Today's Proposed Language Regarding Corrective Action Program
Today's proposal; establishes the same corrective action steps
as in the MSWLF Criteria. The steps that have been proposed today
\
are those that are necessary for a successful corrective -action
program. Today's proposal Callows the owner/operator to.
successfully remediate a ground-water contamination problem in a
swift manner yet provides flexibility for selecting and
implementing the corrective remedy. The-proposed language'contains
' .'
performance objectives that must be considered in the evaluation,
selection, and implementation of a remedy. The Agency also
believes that the flexibility that exists in the MSWLF Criteria is
sufficient to deal with the types of non-municipal facilities that
.receive CESQG hazardous waste and has, therefore, retained all of
the flexibility; in today's proposal.
t "
4. Recordkeeoincr requirements .
Similar to the recordkeeping requirement: contained in the
MSWLF Criteria, today's proposal requires, that: owners/operators of
non-municipal, solid waste disposal facilities that receive CESQG
waste maintain- a historical record of the facility. EPA is
proposingc this; requirement to ensure the availability of basic
information that will demonstrate compliance with; the remainder of
today's proposed requirements-. Owners/operators would be required
to maintain location restriction demonstrations and ground-water;
monitoring demonstrations, certifications, findings, reports, test.
results and analytical data in today's proposed operating record.
-------
The goal of today's proposal is to have the owner/operator
maintain such demonstrations in a single location that is easily
accessible. The Director .of an approved State has the flexibility
to establish alternative locations for recordkeeping and
alternative schedules for recordkeeping and notification
requirements. ' .
F. Other Issues Relating to Today's Proposal
1. Owner/Operator Responsibility-and Flexibility in Approved States
The regulatory: structure of the Part. 258 MSWLF Criteria is
based on an owner/operator achieving compliance through self-
""' r
implementation with the various requirements while allowing
approved States the flexibility, to consider local conditions in
setting appropriate alternative standards that still achieve
compliance with the basic goal of the Part 258 Criteria. This
flexibility that exists for approved States under Part 258 has been
retained in today's proposal and can be used by approved States in
determining: facility specific requirements* Individual areas of
flexibility hav«t been discussed in. the. previous section detailing
today's ground-water monitoring and corrective action requirements.
Owners/operators/ due to the self-implement ing- nature of this
' . , ~ ' ' - '
proposal, would be , required to comply with the promulgated
* -' /
standards^- as of the appropriate effective date, regardless of the.
status of the-States approval determination.. If an. owner/operator
is located in a State that has not been approved under Subtitle D,
then the owner/operator would have to comply with the: promulgated
standards/ without: the benefit of the flexibility allowed to be
'"".-, -90 ' -
-------
granted by the Director of an approved State. Owners/operators-of
non-municipal solid waste disposal! facilities located in approved
States, that become subject to today's proposed requirements when
finalized, may be subject to alternate requirements based on the
approved State standards. .,- ,
2. CESOG's Responsibilities Relating to the Revisions in Section
261.5. Paragraphs (f) and (a) -
. As stated previously, the Agency is proposing revisions to
Section 261.5, paragraphs (f) (3) and (g.)_(3) clarifying "acceptable
js
Subtitle D disposal options for CESQGs-r Today's proposal would
require that CESQG waste go to either a hazardous waste facility,
t
a municipal, solid waste landfill subject to Part 258, a non-
municipal solid waste disposal facility that is subject to the
requirements being proposed in Section 257.S, or a solid waste
management facility that is permitted, licensed, or registered by
a State to manage municipal or non-municipal waste. The Agency
believes that it is appropriate to establish, facility standards for
non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities that receive CESQ&
waste while at the, same, time specifying. acceptable disposal options
that are available to CESQG* in order to ensure that their waste is
, . * ' i
properlyr managed- The Agency' believes- that proposing, both
regulatory change* together clarifies the- obligations of both
CESQGs and owners/operators of disposal facilities to ensure proper
management, of CESQG hazardous waste and will lead to better
management of these wastes. By regulating- the generators, as well
.as the receiving facilities, today's proposal also helps to fulfill
5 ' . ' '
.-: - 91 .
-------
the statutory mandate that only facilities meeting the location,
ground-water monitoring,-and corrective action requirements (i.e.,
the Part 257.5 standards) "may receive" CESQG waste.' (See RCRA
Section 4010 (c))... ,\
The Agency does not believe that today's proposed.change to.
Section 261.5 will result in a larger obligation for any CESQG.
The Agency knows that the majority of CESQG waste is managed-off-
i \ ' \
site. For the CESQG waste managed off-site, recycling is( the
predominant form of management. The Agency assumes that for the
small amount of CESQG waste that is currently being sent off-site.
to a MSWLF, no additional obligation would be imposed on a CESQG by
today's proposal because the MSWLF where the CESQG waste is being
"N . '
sent is subject to Fart 258. For construction and demolition waste
generators who wish to send their CESQG waste to a non-municipal
solid waste disposal facility subject to the proposed requirements
in Section 257.5, the only additional obligation would be that
associated with a phone call to the appropriate State Agency to
determine if the non-municipal solid .waste disposal facility is-
, . . ~ "v ,
subject to the Part 257.b standards and thus could legally accept
CESQG waste. Furthermore * as stated previously,- some States
.-* . -,-**
require that disposal of. CESQG waste occur only at. permitted
-'-.'.' ' '
Subtitle C facilities and CESQGs in these States would not face- any
burden as an result of this rule due to the more stringent State
standard that the CESQG is currently subject to. Today's proposal
.does not change the generator's obligation to first determine if
the waste is hazardous and, secondly, to determine if the waste is
'/',' ' .
92 . '
-------
beiow'the quantity-levels established for a CESQG. If a generator
is a CESQG, today's proposal continues an existing obligation on
the generator to ensure that acceptable management of the CESQG
hazardous waste occurs. '
A CESQG may,elect to screen-out or segregate out the CESQG
hazardous wastes from his non-hazardous waste and then manage the
CESQG hazardous portion in a facility meeting the requirements of
proposed §261.5(f) (3) and (g) (3) . The remaining non-hazardous
waste is not subject to.today's proposed^Sectipn 257.5; however, it
must be managed in a facility that complies with either the'Part
258 Criteria or the existing Criteria in Part 257.1- 257.4.
On the other hand, a CESQG may elect not 'to screen-put or
segregate the CESQG hazardous waste preferring instead to leave it
mixed with the mass of non-hazardous waste. If the CESQG elects
this option, the entire mass of material must be managed in a
Subtitle C facility or a Subtitle D facility that is subject to
Part 258 or the proposed requirements in Section 257.5.
- - t ' ' ' , -
VI. Iopl«m«ntatiott and nforcenmtr
A. State Activities Utider Subtitle C
1. Hazardous' and Solid1'- Waste- Amendments to RCRA-;
. ' . - ~
Today's-;proposal changes- the existing requirements" in Section
261.5, paragraphs (f}(3) and (g)(3) pertaining to the special
requirements^ .for CESQGs. Under Section 3006 of~ RCRA, EPA. may
authorize qualified States to administer .and enforcer the RCRA
program within-the State. (See 40 CFR Part: 271. for the standards
and requirements for authorization). Following authorization, EPA
, s
93 ''
-------
retains enforcement authority under Sections 3008, 7003 and 3013 of
RCRA, although authorized States have primary enforcement
responsibilities.
Prior to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, of. 1984
(HSWA), a State with final authorization administered its hazardous
waste program entirely in. lieu of EPA administering the -Federal
program in that State. The Federal requirements no longer applied
in the authorized'State, and EPA could not issue permits for any
facility which 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
i i!
law. . - - ' '-
In .contrast, under Section 3006 (g) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6926(g),
new requirements and prohibitions imposed by HSWA take effect in
authorized States at .the same time they take effect, in unauthorized
States. EPA is directed to c?rry out these; requirements and
prohibitions,: in previously authorized States, including- the
issuance of permits1 and primary enforcement^ until the State is
granted HSWA authorization to do so. While States must still adopt
.HSWA-related'provisions as State law to retain final authorization,
i
the HSWA provisions apply in authorized States in the interim.
The amendments to: §261.5, paragraphs, (f) (3) and (g) (3), are
x ' .
proposed pursuant, to Section 3001 (d) (4), of RCRA^ which is a
provision added by HSWA. Therefore, the Agency is proposing-to add
;..... ' 94 ' . - -
-------
the requirement to Table 1 in §271.1(j) which' identifies the
Federal program requirements that are promulgated pursuant to HSWA
and that take effect in all States, regardless of their
authorization status. States may apply for either interim or final
authorization for the HSWA provisions identified in Table 1,' as
discussed in the following section of the preamble. '
2. Effect on State Authorizations .,
As noted above, EPA .will implement today's rule in authorized
States until they modify their programs. J;o adopt the Section 261.5
rule change and the modification is approved by EPA. Because the
rule is proposed pursuant to HSWA, a State submitting a program
modification may apply to receive either interim or final
authorization under Section 3006 (g) (2) or 3006 (b), respectively, on
the basis of requirements that .are substantially equivalent or
equivalent to EPA's. The procedures and schedule for State program
modifications for. either interim or final authorization are
described in 40 CPU 271.21. it should be noted that all HSWA
interim authorizations will expire January 1, 2003. (See
§271.24{c> and 57 EK 6012* (December 18, 1992)).
40 CFR; 271.21(e>(2) provides- that States that have final
authorization?must modify their programs to reflect Federal program
changes, and must, subsequently submit the modifications to EPA for
approval. The deadline by which the' State must submit its
application for'approval for this proposed regulation xwi 11 be
determined by the date of promulgation of the final rule in
f ' * '.".-"
accordance with §271.21{e>. These deadlines can be extended in
' ' - ' 95 '..-.
-------
certain cases (40 CFR 271.21 (e) .(3) )'. Once EPA approves- the
modification, the State requirements become Subtitle C RCRA
requirements. ... ' '
EPA is aware that a number of States .have more stringent
requirements for the disposal of waste generated by CESQGs. In '
particular,some States do not/allow the disposal of this waste
.''."'''
into any Subtitle D landfill. .For these States, today's proposed
rule would clearly be considered less stringent .than the applicable
provisions in these States' authorized programs. Section 3009 of
RCRA allows States to adopt or retain ^provisions that are more
stringent than the Federal provisions. Therefore, regarding
today's proposed rule, EPA believes that States which do not allow
the disposal of wastes generated by CESQGs into Subtitle D
landfills under their existing authorized^Subtitle C program would,
not be required to revise their programs and obtain authorization
for today's proposed, rule. Of course this situation would only
apply in those cases where a State is not changing its regulatory-
language. Further> the authorized State requirements in such
States, since they would be more stringent than, today's proposed
rule, would continue to apply in that State, even.though, today's
rule is proposed pursuant to HSWA authority. . -',-
For a State to not be required to submit an authorization
' u . . * ^
revision application for today's proposed rule, the State must have
' * f'
provisions that are authorized by EPA and that are more stringent ,
than all the provisions in the new Federal rule. . For those States
* . ' ' ' ' ' '
that would not be required to revise their authorization, EPA
"' - '96 '.."..'.
-------
strongly encourages the State to inform their EPA Regional Office
" ' ' ' .
by letter ^that for this proposed rule, it is not required to submit
a revision application pursuant to<40 CFR-; 271.21 (e)., because, in
accordance with RCRA Section 3009 the authorized State provision
currently in effect is more stringent than the requirement
", /
contained in today's proposed rule. Otherwise, EPA would conclude
.that a revised authorization application is required.
Other.States with authorized RCRA programs may already have
>
adopted requirements under State law similar to those in today's
proposal. These State regulations have-not been assessed against
the Federal regulations being proposed today to determine whether
they meet the tests for authorization. Thus, a State is not
authorized to implement these requirements in lieu of EPA until the
^ »
State program modification is approved. Although revisions to 40
CFR 257 and 261 are being, proposed, for the purpose of
authorization under Subtitle C, only the proposed changes to §261.5
would be assessed against: the Federal program. Of course. States
with existing standards: may continue to administer and enforce
/ . *
their standards as a matter of State law.. In implementing the
Federal program->EPftr will work, with States under cooperative
agreement* to minimize duplication of efforts- In many cases EPA
J i
will be able; to defer to the States in their efforts to implement
their programs, rather than take separate actions under Federal
* -
authority.
States that submit their official applications for final
: . ' '. '...'-.
authorization less than 12 months after the effective date of these
.. - . -.' 97 ' . -'
-------
standards are not required to include .standards equivalent to these
standards in their application. However, the State must modify its
program 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-. 40 CFR 271.3
sets.forth the requirements a State must meet when submitting its
final authorization application. _
*.
B. State Activities Under Subtitle D
i -.
States are the lead Agencies in implementing: Subtitle D rules.
The Agency intends to maintain the State's lead in implementing the
Subtitle D program. RCRA requires States to adopt and implement,
within 18 months of the promulgation of a final rule, a permit
program or other system of prior approval and conditions to ensure
that non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities comply with
today's standards. EPA* is required to, determine whether States
have developed adequate programs. States will need to review their
existing programs to determine where their programs need to be
upgraded and to complete program changes, if changes are necessary. ,
''-'-..-..' ° ;. ' . . ' . /
The process that, the Agency will use in evaluating the adequacy of
State programs will, bet set/ forth in a separate ruleraaking, the
State/Tribal Permit Program: Determination of Adequacy. For the
/ - . .
purpose of determining adequacy and granting approval under
» -
Subtitle D, only the proposed technical changes ia §257.5 will be
evaluated by the Agency. The State will need; to meet other
procedural and administrative requirements' identified in the '
' ' ' 98* ' '"-'/ .
-------
State/Tribal Permit Program .Determination of Adequacy.' The
approval process to be used for non-municipal solid waste disposal
facilities 'is the same process that the Agency used for determining
the adequacy of State programs for the Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Criteria. . In States already .approved for the Part 258
MSWLF Criteria, changes required by this rulemaking will constitute
a program revision. ~
The Agency believes that for many approved States, changes
required by'this rulemaking will affect the technical Criteria only
and should warrant limited changes to the approved application.
For example, if non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities
subject to this rule are already subject to an approved State MSWLF
program (i.e., the non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities
are currently subject , to. the Part 258 location restrictions,
. . " . ' . -, <
ground-water monitoring, and corrective action), the State may only
be required to submit | documentation that the non-municipal solid
waste disposal facilities-are subject to their approved program.
States are encouraged* ta contact their appropriate EPA .Regional
office to determine the specifics of the approval, process.
In States* that have not been approved for the MSWLF Criteria,
these revision* can be incorporated into-an application for overall
program approval of Part 25S and Section 257.5. States that
currently restrict CESQG disposal to Subtitle C facilities (and
States that may choose to adopt that restriction); or approved
States which: currently restrict' CESQQ disposal to Part 258
*, .
municipal solid waste landfills will not need to seek further EPA
.' ' ; ''' >
. ' ' ' 99 - .. -
-------
approval of their Subtitle D program. RCRA Section 4005(c)(l).(B)
''
requires States to adopt and implement permit programs to ensure
that facilities which receive CESQG waste will comply with the
revised Criteria promulgated under Section 4010(c). However, the
Agency sees no need for approved States that already require CESQG
waste. to be disposed of in either Subtitle C facilities or
facilities subject to the Part 258 MSWLF Criteria to adopt and
implement, a permit program based.upon the standards being proposed
today. ' .. ~
RCRA Section 7004 (b) (1) requires the Administrator and the
*>
States to encourage and provide for public participation in the
development, revision, implementation, and enforcement of this
. t ' \ i ,
regulation;> and once it is promulgated, the. State programs
implemented to enforce it. EPA provides for public participation
by seeking public comment on this proposal and its decisions on
whether State ' programs - are adequate under RCRA Section
4005(c) (!) (c) . In developing and implementing: permit programs,'
States must provider for public participation in accordance with .the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 256> Subpart G. .
"~ " > '
C. Relationship Between Subtitle C and D
Today's proposal has an effective date of 18 months for the
location restrictions with the ground-water , monitoring; and
corrective action requirements becoming effective 2 years after the
date of promulgation.: The Agency is proposing that, the revisions
' ^
to §261.5 (f) (3) and (g) (3> have the same effective date as the
proposed changes in §257.S (i.e., 18 months after the date of
\ ' .
- ' ' . . . ' ' 100 ' , ' '
-------
promulgation). Owners/operators of facilities that receive CESQG
hazardous waste will be subject to the requirements in Section
257.5. CESQGs will be subject to the proposed requirements .in'
/' . ' --'-''
Section 261.5. Today'a proposed 18-month effective date coincides'
with the period of time that States have, under Subtitle D, to
adopt and implement a program to ensure that owners/operators are
n
in compliance with the proposed changes to Section 25.7.5.,
D. Enforcement ' , ' ,
1. Hazardous Waste Enforcement . ,~
Today's proposal amends Section.261.5, paragraphs (f)(3) and
(g)(3), and as .such any CESQG who mismanages.their CESQG hazardous
waste on-site or delivers the CESQG hazardous waste to an
inappropriate Subtitle D facility becomes subject to the full set ,
of Subtitle C hazardous waste regulations.
>{, subtitle D Enforcement ' ' '
\ - '
States that, adopt programs meeting the standards in Section
257.5 may enforce them in accordance.with State authorities. Under
RCRA Section. 7002, citizens may seelc enforcement of the standards
' ' '> ' ' . . : ' '
in section. 257.5 independent of any Stater enforcement program;
Section 7002 provides^ that: any person may commence^ a civil action
ii '
on his ow» behalf against any person who is alleged, to be in
violation; of any permit, standard, - regulation, condition, ,
requirement, prohibition, or order that has become effective
pursuant to RCRA~ Once the self-implementing provisions in Section
257.5 become effective, they Constitute the basis for~ citizen
enforcement. Federal enforcement by EPA can be done only in States
. ' ^ ' i ' '
-.-' ~ 'ioi ' '
-------
that EPA has determined have inadequate programs. EPA has no
enforcement authorities under Section 4005 in approved States. EPA
does, however, retain enforcement authority under Section 7003 to
protect against imminent and substantial endangerment to health and
the environment in all States. A more complete discussion of the
t
Subtitle D enforcement issue can be found in the MSWLF Criteria (56
FR 50994- 50995).
VII. Executive Order No. 12866 - Regulatory Impacts Analysis
Under Executive.Order No. 12866, EP.A must determine whether
f
a new regulation "is significant. A significant regulatory action
is defined as an action likely to result in a rule that may:
1. Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more or adversely affect in - a material way the
economy, a sector;) of the economy, 'productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
1 . v "*
safety,.' or state, local, or tribal governments or
.- . communities,- '..' .- -'-V'. -"' '' -':'.-.. " '
* ' ' >, . ' - '
2. Create/aseribua inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with aa; action taken, or planned by anothe^ agency,*
3. Materially alter the budgetary impact: of entitlements,
grantsv user fee*;, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations-of recipients thereof-f or
4. Raise novel .legal or policy^ issues, arising .out of
legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set. forth in Executive Order; 12866.
A. Cost Impacts " > .
: ' /
"'.'. - . 102. ' x
-------
The Agency has estimated the total annual costs to the economy
resulting from today's rule and because of the estimated annual
f
costs has determined that" today's rule is not a significant
regulatory action. ' . .
The Agency,estimates that of the total 1900 construction and
demolition waste facilities, 718 would be potentially affected,
- ' *
The national annual low-end cost is. estimated to be $10-: OM. This
low-end cost assumes that all CESQG hazardous waste is separated at
\ .
the point of generation for the construction industry. It.assumes
i ' . . ' _
there will be no CESQG waste generated by the demolition industry.
The CESQG portion is disposed of at hazardous waste facilities
/ . .
while the remaining non-hazardous waste portion is disposed of in.
non-upgraded construction and demolition waste facilities. The
.costs include the separation costs at the point of generation,
" ' ' i i
costs of transporting/disposing the hazardous portion, at a Subtitle
C facility, and the costs of screening incoming wastes at all of,
the construction and. demolition waste facilities- There are
* ' ' '
hundreds of thousands, of construction and demolition sites active
in the U.S. each year,.. EPA. assumes that demolition rubble will not
be CESQG waste and affected by this rule. Therefore, separation
costs are- likely to occur only at construction sites and the 3,742
industrial facilities with on-site non-hazardous waste landfills.
The Agency requests comment on the labor and capital necessary to
conduct separation; at these facilities. The Agency also requests
comment on how frequently CESQG hazardous waste isr currently being
separated at construction sites at these industrial facilities. In
:. '-/.-, .. -. 103 ' -v : , . " '
-------
addition, the Agency requests comment on the. - transportation costs
to bring small amounts of hazardous wastes from construction sites ,
to a treatment, and disposal.facility. \
.The national annual high-end cost is estimated to be $47.OM. ,
This high-end cost assumes "that generators will not separate out
CESQG waste from 30% of construction and demolition wastes and that
this fraction will be sent to upgraded construction and demolition
waste facilities that elect to comply, with today's proposed
.requirements. Under this scenario, thei Agency assumed that most
medium to large size construction'and demolition waste facilities
{162} will upgrade. The costs include separation costs at the
point of generation for waste not going to an upgraded landfill,
costs of screening incoming wastes at 80% of the affected
construction and demolition waste facilities which do not upgrade,
and costs for 20% of the affected construction and demolition ,
wastes facilities to upgrade. Upgrade costs include ground-water
monitoring, arid corrective action. '--.; . .
This rule allows States and individual owners/operators to
choose among compliance options. States arid owners/operators may
determine that facility screening is a successful method; to prevent
the receipt of- CESQG. hazardous wastes. -Other States arid
owners /operators may determine that upgrading is necessary or there
is a market for upgraded landfill capacity for generators and, as
such, some facilities may upgrade. If .more States and
owners/operators elect to use screening, then the estimated cost of
this proposal would be closer to the lower-bound estimate. .
104 '''.
-------
The .full analysis that, was used to determine the range of
costs for this rulemaking is presented in the Cost and Economic
Impact Analysis of the CESQG Rule. ,
S. Benefits ; , '
The Agency believes that the requirements being proposed for
non-municipal solid waste disposal facilities will result in more
'i
Subtitle D facilities providing protection against ground-water
contamination from the disposal of small amounts of hazardous
waste. Today's action will force some~non-municipal .solid waste
disposal facilities to either upgrade ~and install ground-water
monitoring and perform corrective action if contamination is
detected, or stop accepting hazardous waste. Today's action will
also cause some generators of CESQG wastes to separate out these
small quantities of hazardous waste and send them to more heavily
regulated facilities (i.e., Subtitle C facilities or MSWLPs).
These are the direct benefits of today'a proposal, however,
additional benefits, will be realized due toVthis proposal.
- \ - " ' '
Today's proposal:- 'will ensure, that any ground-water
contamination: that ia- occurring at facilities that continue to
accept small quantities of hazardous waste will be quickly detected
* - /* . 'i,
t ' r ' \
.and corrective action can be initiated sooner. .
To the extent that existing non-municipal facilities-that
receive CESQG hazardous; waste upgrade their facilities to include
'',- ;' ' , /'.-..-
ground-water monitoring and to the extent that new facilities will
be sited in acceptable areas with ground-water monitoring, public
confidence in these types of facilities will .be increased. Having
. : - .' 105 '"''
-------
public confidence increased would result in these types of
facilities being .easier to site in the future.
VIII. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 requires Federal
agencies to consider "small entities" throughout- the regulatory
process. Section 603 of the RFA requires an initial screening
- ' - . ' "
analysis to be performed to determine whether small entities will
be adversely affected by the regulation. If affected small
entities are identified, regulatory alternatives must be considered
to mitigate the potential impacts* The Agency believes that it is
unlikely that.any industry will face significant impacts under the
low-end scenario.
To help mitigate these impacts, EPA is proposing the minimum
regulatory requirements allowed under the statute (which are still
protective of human health and the environment). As a result, EPA
believes .that the lower-bound scenario,, where demolition firms
separate-out their CESQG waste and continue to send the non-
.-- 1- O . v,l. , -^r ' ~
hazardous portion to landfills, not subject to the: revised Part 257
standards, is the most likely scenario and that small entities will
not bet significantly impacted.
The; Agency's full, analysis, of the impacts- on small entities
can be found,in the Cost: and Economic Impact Analysis of the CESQG
Rule. '' ' - / . '. ' -.-.' - - "
XX. Paperwork Reduction Act. . . '
The information collection requirements in today's proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management
' ..'"'
106
-------
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 ,
et seq. Submit comments 'on these requirements to the Office of
.Information and Regulatory, Affairs, OMB; 726 Jackson Place, NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503, marked "Attention: Desk Officer for EPA."
f '
The final rule will, respond to any OMB comments or public comments
on the information collection requirements.'
X. Environmental Justice Issues
Executive Order -12898 requires Federal Agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable, to " identify and. address
' '. 1"> '
disproportionately high adverse human health or environmental
effects of its activities on minority and, low-income populations.
The Agency does not currently have data on the demographics of
populations surrounding the facilities affected by today's proposal
(i.e., construction and demolition landfills). The Agency does not
* * '/-.
believe, however, that today's proposed rule will adversely impact
minority or low-income populations. The facilities affected by the
proposal currently pose; limited risk to surrounding populations^ '
(see section V.B.1.<$. ofi today* si preamble):. la addition, today's
proposal would further; reduce thisr risk by; requiring/ the affected
facilities^ to either stop accepting CBSQG-hazardous^ waste or to
begin, ground-water monitoring and, if applicable, corrective
action. - ~ ''" - . ''_'.
' ' '. " ^ ' .
Thus; today's proposal would further reduce.the already low
risk for populations surrounding construction: and demolition
landfills, regardless of the population's ethnicity or income
level. Minority and low-income populations* would not be adversely
. .. '' . 107, . ' . . -. . ' ;
-------
affected. -
XI. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
, Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
r. - . ' <
(-the Act) , P.L. 104-4, which was sighed into law on March 22, 1995,
EPA generally must prepare a'written statement for rules with
Federal mandates that may result in estimated costs to State,
local,-and tribal governments in the aggregate,.or to the private
sector, of $100 million or, more in any one year. When such a
statement is required for EPA rules, under section 205 of the Act
EPA must identify and consider alternatives, including the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. EPA must select that-
\ '
alternative; unless the Administrator explains in the final rule
why it was not selected or it is inconsistent with law. Before EPA
s. " -
establishes regulatory requirements- that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must develop under section 203 of the Act a small government agency
plan. The plan must, provide for notifying;, potentially affected
. * ' ', '
small governments, giving them meaningful and timely input, in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates', and infprmingv educating; and advising.
them on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that the proposal discussed in this notice
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
' " "..., t
costs of $100 -million or more to State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, in any one
'.'.'.>".' i '..
108 :
-------
year. EPA has estimated that the annual costs of the proposed rule
on generators of CESQG wastes and those entities which own or
.operate CESQG disposal facilities, - including the private sector,
j
States) local or tribal governments, range from $10.OM to $47.OM.
In addition to compliance costs for those who own or operate
CESQG facilities, States will have a cost of developing permit
programs or other systems of prior approval to ensure that CESQG
facilities comply, with the proposal, once it is promulgated.
Adoption and implementation of such State permit programs . is
required under RCRA section 4005{c}(!)(B). 42 USC 6945 (c)(l)(B).
i . ,f *
Forty-two states already have adopted and implemented permit
programs to ensure compliance with the MSWLF rule (40 CFR Part 258)
that the costs for a state to develop an application for approval .
><'' . - , *
' , '
of an MSWLF permit program to be approximately $15,000. Because
* , ' "
these state permit, programs already contain, ground water
monitoring, corrective action, and' location standards for MSWLFs
that are quite similar to thout. in. this proposal, EPA believes that
the additional costs- for states to revise their permit programs to
reflect the,CESQG requirements are not expected to,be significant. ,
Also, because of the reduced level of regulatory requirements
contained in this- CESQG proposal as compared to the MSWLF Part 258
criteria, state costs for preparing applications for approval of a
CESQG permit program should be considerably less than that $15,000
figure.
\ ' ' ' "« -'
Indian tribes are. not required to develop permit programs for
109 - . ' v '
-------
approval by EPA, but the Agency believes tribal governments are
authorized to development such permit programs and have them
approved by EPA. EPA has estimated that it will cost a tribal
government approximately $7,000 to prepare an, application for
approval of a MSWLF. program. Because of the reduced regulatory
provisions of the CESQG proposal, EPA expects that the costs which
a:tribal government might: face in developing a permit program for
CESQG facilities should be less than $7,000.
: EPA is ;also proposing to revise the requirements for
generators of CESQG hazardous waste. These amendments to 40 CFR
Part 261.5 (f)(3) and (g)(3) are proposed pursuant to RCRA Section
3001 ~.(d) (4), .which is a provision added by HSWA. . The 261.5
amendments are also more stringent than current Federal hazardous
waste regulations. Subtitle C regulatory .changes carried but under
s " -^ . '
HSWA authority become effective in all states at the same time and
i '
are implemented fay EPA until states revise their programs. States
are obligated to revise their hazardous waste programs and seek EPA
authorization of these: program revisions, unless their programs
already incorporate more stringent provisions. The Agency believes
approximately 24 statea already have more stringent CESQG hazardous
waste provisions- and would not have/to take action because of. these
regulatory changes. About 26 states would have to revise their
hazardous waste programs and seek authorization. States generally
incorporate a number of hazardous waste, program revisions and seek
authorization for them at one time. The Agency estimates the State
costs associated with Subtitle C program revision/authorization
110
-------
activity are approximately $7,320 per state. Since .this .estimate
covers several separate program components at one- time, the cost
for revisions only-to. Section 261.5 in the remaining 26 States
v
would be substantially lower.
As to section 203 of the Act, EPA has determined that the
requirements being proposed today will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments.
EPA recognizes that small governments~ may own or operate solid
waste disposal facilities that receive CESQG waste.. However, EPA
currently estimates that the majority of construction and
demolition landfills, which are the primary, facilities.likely to be
subject to any final rule, are owned by the . private sector.
Moreover, EPA is aware that a number of States already require
owners/operators of C&D landfills to meet regulatory standards that
are similar to those being proposed today. Thus> EPA believes that
the proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
EPA has, however, sought, meaningful, and!: timely input; from the
private sector, statesv and small governments on- the development! of
this, notice-- . Prior to issuing this proposed rule, EPA met .with-
members o£ the private sector as discussed earlier in the preamble.
In addition^ EPA met twice with. an. "Industrial. D* Steering
Committee of the Association of State and Territorial Solid.Haste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to discuss the contents of, today's
proposal. The Agency provided a draft, of the proposed rule to the
ASTSWMO Steering Committee and incorporated comments that were
-------
received. x ,
Finally, included in this proposal is a provision that would
allow certain small GESQG landfills, which are located in either'
' /
arid or remote locations and which service small communities to
utilize alternative methods of ground water monitoring. Prior to
developing this provision, which is also being proposed in a
separate notice applicable to small MSWLP- facilities that are in
arid or remote locations,. EPA held a series of public meetings.
These meetings were held in June 1994 in Texas, Utah, Alaska, and
- s ' ~~ * '
Washington, D.C.. EPA received comment from a variety of parties,
i * -
including States arid small governments. Through these meetings and
publication of this notice, EPA expects that any applicable
requirements of section 203 of the Act will, have been satisfied
f " ' ' ' .
prior to promulgating a final rule.
XII. Reference* . % . ' . .
, 1} Screening. Survey of Industrial Subtitle O Establishments/
Draft Final Report, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste, Prepared
by Westat, December 29; 1987. ,
2) National Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Survey,
U.S. EPAV Office of Solid Waste, Prepared by Abt Associates,
Inc., February 1985. "....- / ..-..
3) Damage Cases: Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills,
U.S.. SPA, Office of Solid Waste, Prepared by ICF, XXXXX
- '1995-.' ' - . ' '' ".
4} Construction and Demolition' Waste Landfills, U.S. EPA,
Of f ice of Solid Waste, Prepared by ICF,* XXXXX, 1995.
-, . ' *
- ' ' 112. '
-------
5) List, of Industrial Waste Landfills and Construction and
'Demolition Waste Landfills, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste,
Prepared by Eastern Research Group, September 30, 1994.
6) Generation and Management of CESQG Waste, U.S.'EPA, Office'
of Solid Waste, Prepared by ICF, July 1994..
7) Construction Waste and Demolition Debris Recycling... A
Primer, The Solid Waste Association of North America {SWANA},
October 1993, Publication #: GR-REC 300
8) Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria, 56 FR 50977, .
October 9, 1991 ' ' -. ' .
9) Cost and Economic Impact Analysis of the CESQG Rule,
Prepared by ICF, May 1995
113
------- |