DI ff»~r.'ve •*' -."-3
December 10, l«.«5 .
DRAFT
GUIDANCE ON CERCLA COMPLIANCE
WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
(RCRA Requirements)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Policy Analysis Staff v
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
December 10, 1985
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive *
December 10, 1985
NOTE
This draft addresses only one group of Federal
requirements that potentially may be applicable or relevant
and appropriate for CERCLA response actions -- the
requirements established by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). Potentially applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements of other Federal public health
and environmental statutes will be addressed in subsequent
drafts of this guidance.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive
10, 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION [[[ i
1. CERCLA COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL PUBLIC HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES ......................................... 1-1
1.1 Overview of CERCLA Provisions Concerning Compliance
With Other Statutes ................................ '. .......... 1-1
1.2 Overview of National Contingency Plan Requirements ............ 1-1
1.3 Overview of Preamble to National Contingency Plan ............. 1-7
1.4 Overview of Memorandum on CERCLA Compliance With Other
Environmental Statutes (Compliance Policy) .................... 1-9
»
• i
2. DETERMINING IF REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
AND USE OF EXCEPTIONS .............................................. 2-1
2.1 Determining if Requirement is Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate ............................................... 2-1
2.1.1 Definitions in NCP and Compliance Policy ............... 2-2
2.1.2 Discussion in Preamble to NCP .......................... 2-3
2.1.3 General Procedures for Determining if a Requirement
is Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate .............. 2-4
2.2 Exceptional Circumstances That Allow Remedies That Do Not Fully
Attain Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements ..... 2-14
3. CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS ............................. 3-1
3.1 Closure of a Site With Hazardous Substances In Place ......... 3-1
3.2 Cleanup of a Site by Removal of the Hazardous Substances ..... 3-2
3.3 Management of the Hazardous Substances On-Site ............ . ... 3-6
3.4 Management of Area-wide Contamination ......................... 3-9
3.5 Combinations of Remedial Activities and Requirements .......... 3-9
4. GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
-------
'uZR D_j.tw-i*/e 92.-H..L-3,
December 10, 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Pace
4.1 Consolidation of Wastes 4-3
4.1.1 General Procedure for Waste Consolidation 4-4
4.1.2 Crystal Chemical Decision on Waste Consolidation 4-6
4.1.3 ROD Decisions on Consolidation 4-7
4.2 Soil Cleanup Levels 4-9
4.2.1 Crystal Chemical Decision on Soil Cleanup Levels 4-10
4.2.2 ROD Decisions on Soil Cleanup Levels 4-10
4.2.3 Use of SOCEM to Determine Soil Cleanup Levels 4-14
4.3 Handling and Management of Wastes Before On-Site Containment.. 4-14
4.3.1 ROD Decisions on Handling and Management 4-17
4.4 Requirements for Ground-Water Protection 4-18
4.4.1 MCLs . 4-27
4.4.2 ACLs 4-27
4.5 Requirements for Site Closure 4-37
4.6 Requirements for Post-Closure/Operation and Maintenance 4-38
5. GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR
SITE CLEANUP BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES 5-1
5.1 Identifying the Area of Contamination and Waste Types 5-3
5.2 Excavation of Wastes and Contaminated Soils 5-5
5.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements for Excavation 5-6
5.2.2 Selected RODs 5-7
5.3 Selecting an Off-Site Waste Management Technology 5-16
5.4 Selecting an Off-Site RCRA Facility 5-19
5.5 Other Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 5-20
6. GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
FOR MANAGEMENT OF SUBSTANCES ON-SITE 6-1
6.1 Delisting 6-1
6.2 Location Guidance ->-5
6.3 Ppf.-ii-irnnu of Hazardous Waste Management 6-9
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive 923*.0-3
December 10, 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
6.4 New Containment: Constructing and Operating New Landfill 6-10
6.5 On-site Storage and Treatment 6-14
6.5.1 Storage of Hazardous Substances in Containers
and Tanks 6-14
6.5.2 Land Treatment 6-15
6.5.3 On-Site Waste Treatment 6-17
6.5.4 Incineration 6-18
6.6 Underground Injection 6-20
7. GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROP*TATF REQUIREMENTS
FOR MANAGEMENT OF AREAWIDE GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION 7-1
7.1 Potentially Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements 7-1
7.2 ROD Decision on Area-wide Contamination 7-3
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT
AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS 'A-l
A.I Office of Solid Waste A-l
A. 1.1 Overview of RCRA A-l
A. 1.2 Regulations A-3
[Additional requirements to be described in subsequent phases]
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Dlifcv-wive 923-».3-3
December 10,
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
1-1 Potentially Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements... 1-12
1-2 Other Federal Criteria, Advisories, Guidance and State
Standards To Be Considered 1-15
2-1 General Procedure for Determining if Requirement is Applicable.... 2-6
2-2 General Procedure for Determining if Requirement is Relevant
and Appropriate 2-12
2-3 General Procedure for Use of Exceptions 2-17
2-4 Factors To Be Considered In Developing Basis for Exception 2--21
3-1 Checklist of RCRA Requirements: Closure in Place 3-3
3-2 Checklist of RCRA Requirements: Cleanup by Removal 3-7
3-2 Checklist of RCRA Requirements: On-Site Management 3-10
4-1 Selected Records of Decision - Soil Cleanup Levels for CERCLA
Remedial Actions 4-12
4-2 SOIL Contaminant Evaluation Methodology 4-15
4-3 RCRA Technical Requirements for Ground-Water Protection 4-20
4-4 Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs) 4-28
4-5 CERCLA Approach to Ground-Water Protection 4-31
4-6 RCRA Requirements Used to Set Concentration Limits 4-34
4-7 Definition of Point of Compliance and Waste Management Area
Under RCRA 4-36
4-8 RCRA Technical Requirements for Closure of a Facility 4-39
4-9 Selected Records of Decision - Closure -f-*-»
4-10 RCRA Post-Closure Requirements 4-45
4-11 Selected Records of Decision - Oper°r-r"i and Maintenance -*--»8
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER
December 10,
LIST OF EXHIBITS
(Continued)
Page
5-1 Selected Records of Decision - Standards for Cleanup by Removal... 5-9
6-1 Location Guidance Criteria for Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility.. 6-6
6-2 Selected Records of Decision - On-Site Landfilling Adopted 6-12
6-3 Selected Records of Decision - On-Site Landfilling Rejected 6-13
6-4 Selected Records of Decision - Land Treatment 6-16
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
UijW£.K Directive 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
INTRODUCTION
This guidance document describes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
policy on compliance of CERCLA remedial actions with the requirements1 of
other Federal environmental and public health statutes. It discusses how to
determine when a particular requirement is "applicable or relevant and
appropriate," as those terms are defined in Section 300.6 of the revised
National Contingency Plan (NCP) 50 FR 47912, November 20, 1985, and it
describes how Federal requirements have been used in previous CERCLA remedial
actions.
•
This guidance document is intended, in particular, to assist in
implementing CERCLA remedial actions at several critical points: (1) during
the scoping phase of the Remedial Investigation; (2) when a range of remedial
alternatives is arrayed and initially screened; (3) when the alternatives are
analyzed in the Feasibility Study; and (4) when a particular alternative is
selected from the range as the cost-effective alternative to be undertaken.
This guidance document therefore supplements both the Guidance on Remedial
Investigations Under CERCLA and the Guidance on Feasib-n-ity Studies Under
CERCLA. particularly chapters two and four; the policy memorandum on "CERCLA
Compliance With Other Environmental Statutes," October 2, 1985, (the Compliance
1 The word "requirements" is used to indicate that all applicable or
relevant and appropriate statutory and regulatory requirements are included,
regardless of whether they may be classified as "standards," "criteria,"
"levels," "limits," or given some other designation.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSUER Directive *_.>->. 3-3,
December 10, 1985 ''
ii
Policy) (puDilshed as an appendix to the Preamble to the revised National
Contingency Plan); and the discussion of CERCLA compiler* w
-------
Directive 923-*.0-3
10, 1985
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the requirements in CERCLA, the
National Contingency Plan (NCP), and other guidance material concerning the
requirements for compliance with other Federal public health and environmental
statutes. In general, Section 105(3) of CERCLA requires EPA to include in -hp
NCP "methods and criteria for determining the appropriate extent" of T-pm»»Hifl]
actions. The NCP, the Preamble to the NCP, and the Compliance Policy
therefore establish a basic mandate for attaining or exceeding the
requirements of other Federal environmental statutes in CERCLA actions as the
appropriate extent of cleanup. The Compliance Policy lists: (1) Federal
requirements that are potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate, and
(2) other Federal criteria, advisories, guidance, and State standards that
to be considered and these lists are provided at the end of Chapter 1.
Chapter 2 discusses how to determine whether particular requirements
are applicable or relevant and appropriate for a particular CERCLA site.
NCP and the Compliance Policy present definitions of "applicable or
relevantand appropriate".2 The Preamble to the NCP also discusses how those
definitions are intended to be used. Chapter 2 combines information in the
NCP, the Preamble to the NCP, and the Compliance Policy, and presents a
step-by-step process for identifying particular requirements from the list in
the Compliance Policy that are applicable or relevant and appropriate for a
particular site. In addition to defining applicable and relevant and
2 See 40 CFR 300.6. The NCP defines "applicable requirements"
separately from "relevant and appropriate requirements." However, potentially
applicable or relevant and appropriate '•pnivf'-^^^ constitute one list in fV
Compliance Policy and should be analyzed at «•>»«• same time for applicability or
relevance and appropriateness.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive 9?3-'. 0-3,
December 10, 1.985
iv
appropriate, the NCP presents five situations in which such requirements may
not be required to be attained. Chapter 2 also discusses the operation of
those exceptions.
Chapter 3 and subsequent chapters change the focus of the guidance from
the analysis of requirements to the analysis of specific activities at CERCLA
sites. Chapter 3 provides an outline, in general terms, of particular types
of activities that may take place at a CERCLA remedial site and links them to
potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements. Thp
types of activities addressed are: closure of a site with hazardous substances
in place; cleanup of a site by removal of the hazardous substances; management
of the hazardous substances on-site; actions to address area-wide ground-wpte-r
contamination; and combinations of activities with applicable requirements.
The information in Chapter 3 linking the L»asic activities listed above to the
most important statutory requirements likely to be applicable or relevant and
appropriate to those activities is presented in matrix format to enable
Chapter 3 to be used as a quick reference tool.
Chapters 4 through 7 address selected aspects of the activities described
in Chapter 3 and provide more detailed guidance on those applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements that are likely to be involved in
particular types of activities at CERCLA sites. Chapter 4 addresses
cleanup where hazardous substances remain on-site. Chapter 5 addresses
cleanup by removal. Chapter 6 addresses issues arising out of on-site
hazardous waste management. Chapter 7 addresses applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements for remedying area-wide ground-water contamination.
Each of these chapters describes previous uses of the requirements that have
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
UbhtK Directive *_.}->.0-3
December 10,
been described in Records of Decision (RODs) and other action documents Cu
establish special interpretations of some of the requirements in the context
of CERCLA actions.
Appendix A presents an overview and summary of some of the the most
often used potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements --
those requirements created under the authority of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). The statute is described in terms of its relevant
sections and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it. For those persons
unfamiliar with RCRA, this chapter provides a basic introduction to the
statutory structure and requirements. The chapter can be used for an
screening of potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate
of RCRA. but it is not designed to substitute for detailed consideration of
the statutory provisions themselves. In subsequent drafts of this guidance
document, requirements promulgated'pursuant to other statutes will also be
presented.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 923^.0-3
December 10, 1985
1-1
CHAPTER 1
CERCLA REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER
PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
This chapter describes statutory requirements in CERCLA for compliance
with other public health and environmental statutes. It also describes those
requirements established in the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the Preamble
to the NCP, and policy statements such as the memorandum on "CERCLA Compliance
with Other Environmental Laws" (the Compliance Policy), which is published as
an appendix to the preamble.
1.1 OVERVIEW OF CERCLA PROVISIONS CONCERNING
COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER STATUTES
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA) establishes basic procedures and a fund (the Superfund) for
conducting and financing the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Section 105 of the Act, which authorizes EPA to prepare the NCP for hazardous
substance response, addresses the issue of standards for cleanup. Section
105(3) provides that the NCP shall include "methods and criteria for
determining the appropriate extent of removal, remedy, and other measures
authorized by this Act[.]" EPA therefore has included in the NCP and in
related materials an extensive discussion of how CERCLA actions shall comply
with the requirements of other public health and environmental statutes.
1.2 OVERVIEW OF NCP REQUIREMENTS
EPA has the authority and responsibility for implementing the basic
provisions of CERCLA. Section 105 of the Act requires EPA to modify -h«» NCP,
to establish basic policies that direct response to potential or actual
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 9234.3-3
December 10, 1985
1-2
releases of hazardous substances, set response priorities', and develop methods
and criteria for distinguishing between removal and remedial actions. The NCP
revised to address hazardous substances (by the addition of Subpart F), was
prepared by EPA and promulgated on July 16, 1982, in 47 FR 31160 as 40 CFR
Part 300. The NCP was most recently revised on November 20, 1985, 50 FR
47912. Subpart F of the NCP (40 CFR §§300.61-300.71) now determines the
appropriate extent of response to releases of hazardous substances.
The NCP addresses both the compliance of CERCLA removal and remedial
actions with other public health and environmental statutes. This guidance,
however, is limited to remedial actions.
In general, the NCP requires consideration of potentially applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements in other Federal statutes at several
points in the remedial action process, ranging from initial scoping to final
remedy selection. The balance of this section describes those NCP provisions.
The revised NCP contains definitions of "applicable requirements" and
"relevant and appropriate requirements." According to §300.6 of the NCP:
Applicable requirements means those Federal requirements
that would be legally applicable, whether directly, or as
incorporated by a Federally authorized State program, if
the response actions were not undertaken pursuant to CERCLA .
section 104 or 106.
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those Federal
requirements that, while-not "applicable," *TP designed to
apply to problems sufficiently similar to those encountered
at. CERCLA.sites that chair application is appropriate.
Requirements may be relevant and appropriate if they would
•
be "applicable" but for jurisdictional restrictions
associated with the requirement.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
C5WER Directive 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
1-3
The NCP then specifies some points in the remedial process at which
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements must be identified and/or
implemented.
First, in §300.68(e), the NCP requires the initial analysis in the
scoping of response actions at the beginning of the Remedial Investigation,
"as appropriate, [to] provide a preliminary determination of the extent to
which Federal environmental and public health requirements are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the specific site, and the extent to which other
Federal criteria, advisories, and guidance and State standards are to be
considered in developing the remedy." In determining what type of remedial
actions will be evaluated, §300.68(e) of the NCP requires the assessment, "as
appropriate," of a number of factors, including:
(xii) The extent to which Federal environmental and public
health requirements are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to the specific site, and the extent -to which
other Federal criteria, advisories, and guidances and State
standards are to be considered in developing the remedy;
[and]
(xiii) The extent to which contamination levels exceed
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal requirements
or other Federal criteria, advisories, and guidances and
State standards.
Second, the NCP provides in §300.68(f) that in the Feasibility Study, to
the extent that it is both possible and appropriate, at least one remedial
alternative shall be developed in each of several categories, including:
(i) Alternatives for treatment or disposal at an off-site
facility, as appropriate;
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER D_*ective 923-».3-3
December 10, 1985
1-4
(ii) Alternatives that attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health or environmental
requirements;
(iii) As appropriate, alternatives that exceed applicable
or relevant and appropriate Federal public health or
environmental requirements;
(iv) As appropriate, alternatives that do not attain
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public
health or environmental requirements but will reduce the
likelihood of present or future threat from the hazardous
substances and that provide significant protection to
public health, welfare, and the environment. This must
include an alternative that closely approaches the level of
protection provided by the applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards.
(v) No action alternative.
Third. §300.68(g) of the NCP requires initial screening of alternatives
by three broad criteria: cost, acceptable engineering practices, and
effectiveness. The cost criterion provides that an alternative that "far
exceeds" the costs of other alternatives and does not provide substantially
greater public health or environmental protection usually is excluded from
further consideration. For purposes of this criterion, however, the NCP
fiii-fhpr provides that an alternative, that "meets applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health or environmental requirements" will be
considered to prov'Hp substantially greater public h*>«ii-h or environmental
protection than alternatives that do not.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 923*.0-3
December 10, 1985
1-5
Fourth. §300.68(h) of the NCP requires a detailed analysis of the extent
to which each alternative remaining after the initial screening is expected to
effectively prevent, mitigate, or minimize threats to, and provide adequate
protection of, public health, welfare, and the environment. This detailed
analysis must include an evaluation
"of the extent to which the alternative attains or exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public
health or environmental requirements. Where the analysis
determines that Federal public health or environmental
standards are not applicable or relevant and appropriate,
the analysis shall, as appropriate, evaluate the risks of
the various exposure levels projected or remaining after
implementation of the alternative under discussion."
Fifth, in selecting a remedy, the NCP in §300.68(i) provides that the
appropriate extent of remedy:
(1) . . . shall be determined by the lead agency's
selection of a cost-effective remedial alternative that
effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and provides
adequate protection of public health, welfare and the
environment. Except as provided in §300.68(i)(5), this
will require selection of a remedy that attains or exceeds
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public
health or environmental standards that have b*»»n identified
for the specific site.
TM.«t paragraph of -h* NCP continues with two other requirements for
selection of a remedy that also involve applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements:
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 923*. >3
December 10, 1985
1-6
(3) If there are no applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal public health or environmental requirements, the
lead agency will select that cost-effective alternative
that effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to and
provides adequate protection of public health, welfare, and
the environment, considering cost, technology, and the
reliability of the remedy.1
(4) Pertinent other Federal criteria, advisories, and
guidances and State standards will be considered and may be
used in developing alternatives, with adjustments for
site-specific circumstances.
Finally, §300.68(i)(5) of the NCP establishes that a remedy that does not
meet applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public health or
environmental requirements may be selected in any of five circumstances: (1)
the alternative is not the final remedy (i.e., interim remedy); (2) Fund
balancing; (3) compliance would be technically impractical; (4) compliance
would result in significant adverse environmental impacts; or (5) the remedy
is to be carried out pursuant to Federal action under CERCLA section 106, the
Fund is unavailable, there is a strong public interest in expedited cleanup,
and litigation probably would not result in the desired remedy. Additional
discussion of the definitions of applicable or relevant and appropriate and
the details of the five exceptions are provided in Chapter 3 of this guidance.
1 If there are no applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
-he results of a risk assessment would be jsed to select the alternative that
effectively mitigates and minimizes threats to public health and the
•
environment under §300.68(h) of the NCP.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
1-7
1.3 OVERVIEW OF PREAMBLE TO NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
The Preamble to the Final Rule revising the NCP, 50 FR 47912, describes
and expands upon all of the revisions to the NCP. The Preamble also discusses
six important aspects of the revisions requiring CERCLA compliance with other
statutes:
(1) Identification and Implementation of Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements;
(2) Exceptions to Compliance with Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements;
(3) Relationship of Compliance Policy to Statutory
Requirements for Cost-Effectiveness;
(4) Relationship of Compliance Policy to Specific
Requirements of Other Statutes;
(5) Compliance with State Requirements; and
(6) Other Specific Concerns with Respect to the Compliance
Policy.
An important function of the Preamble to the NCP is to describe and
interpret the requirements of the NCP and relate them to the EPA Compliance
Policy (see below). Therefore, the NCP, the Preamble, and the Compliance
Policy must be considered together.
The Preamble emphasizes several important points concerning identification
and implementation of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
First, because of the varied and unpredictable characteristics of CERCLA
sites, EPA cannot specify, by regulation, which Federal requirements are
always applicable or relevant and appropriate. Such a determination must oe
made on a case-by-case basis. The Compliance Policy, however, does provide a
list of Federal requirements that are potentially applicable or relevant and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 923-».>3
December 10, 1985
1-8
appropriate. During the RI/FS process a determination must be made concerning
their applicability. This determination should be made objectively.
According to the Preamble, "if, because of the nature of the CERCLA site, the
requirement would apply but for the implied repeal of other environmental and
public health requirements contained in CERCLA, it is "'applicable'."
Furthermore, "[o]nce a requirement is determined to be applicable, it will be
applied in the same manner as it would be applied otherwise."2
The Preamble also specifies that relevant and appropriate requirements
should be used only when they are appropriate to the CERCLA site. When such
requirements are used, they are intended to have the same weight and
consideration as applicable requirements. EPA has not attempted to provide
enumerated criteria defining "relevant and appropriate," however, because the
decision "can only be made on a site-by-site basis." The Preamble stresses
that certain characteristics of requirements, such as effective dates, will "
never be grounds for determining that a requirement is not* relevant and
appropriate, such characteristics are, however, grounds for determining
whether requirements are applicable.
The basic consideration in determining whether a requirement is relevant
and appropriate is whether the requirement is designed to apply to problems
sufficiently similar to those problems encountered at the particular CERCLA
3 The Agency has concluded, based on the text and the legislative
history of CERCLA, that Congress did not intend the requirements of
Federal environmental and public health statutes to apply as a matter of law
at CERCLA sites, except in those cases when such compliance is made an
explicit provision of CERCLA. However, if a requirement is determined to be
applicable, it will be applied strictly, as if it were a legal requirement.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
ObrtiK Directive 913-k.O-3
December 10, 1985
1-9
site where the remedial action is being conducted. The determination of
whatrequirenents are relevant and appropriate will require the exercise of the
lead agency's best professional judgment. The lead agency, according to the
Preamble, should consider "the objectives of other statutes and their
variances" in determining whether a requirement under that statute is i-pi«»vant
and appropriate. These considerations are addressed more fully in Chapter 3
of this guidance.
1.4 OVERVIEW OF MEMORANDUM ON CERCLA COMPLIANCE
WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
The policy memorandum "CERCLA Compliance with Other Environmental
Statutes" (the Compliance Policy), effective October 2, 1985, and published as
an appendix to the Preamble to the NCP, sets forth the general policy of EPA
on compliance with the requirements of other statutes in actions taken
pursuant to sections 104 and 106 of CERCLA. For remedial actions, the
Compliance Policy provides the following:
• EPA's policy is to pursue remedies that attain or
exceed applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of other Federal public health and
environmental laws, unless five limited circumstances
that qualify as exceptions exist.
• Application for and receipt of permits is not
required for on-site response actions taken under the
Fund-financed or enforcement authorities of CERCLA.
However, CERCLA procedural and administrative
requirements will be modified to provide safeguards
similar to those provided under other laws.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSV»ER Directive 923*.0-3
December 10, 1985
1-10
• CERCLA remedial activities that involve the removal
of hazardous subi»i*u<.teC from a CERCLA site to off-site
facilities for storage, treatment or disposal must be
in compliance with all applicable or relevant and
appropriate standards of Federal environmental and
public health statutes for the portion of the remedial
action that is conducted off-site.
• Off-site facilities that are used for storage,
treatment, or disposal of Superfund wastes must have
all appropriate permits or authorizations as specified
in EPA's off-site policy memorandum "Procedures for
Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions,"
May 1985.
• Remedial alternatives must, to the extent that it is
both possible and appropriate, be developed that
attain and exceed applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health or environmental
requirements.
The Compliance Policy does not apply to Records of Decision signed before
February 12, 1985. It is applicable to two situations:
(1) Sites at which a site-specific Feasibility Study has
not yet been initiated. In this case the Feasibility
Study must comply fully with the Compliance Policy.
(2) Sites at which the Feasibility Study has been
initiated, but the remedy has not yet been selected.
In this situation the requirements of the Compliance
*
Policy shall be incorporated into the Feasibility
Study and Record of Decision as practicable.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 923^.0-3
December 10, 1985
1-11
In addition to establishing basic policy, the Compliance Policy also
provides a list of Federal requirements that are potentially applicable or
relevant and appropriate. Exhibit 1-1 presents a copy of the list. Finally,
the Compliance Policy also specifies other Federal criteria, advisories,
guidance, and State standards to be considered. These materials are presented
in Exhibit 1-2.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
1. omce of Solid Waste
o Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901)
a.
a. Incineration at sea requirements (40 CFR Parts 220-??*. 227, 228). See also 40 CFR 125.120-125.124. £ £
B »
3. orrice or Pesticides and Toxic Substances & „
n> O
o Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. 2601)
•
a. PCB Requirements Generally: 40 CFR Part 761; Manufacturing Processing, Distribution In Commerce, and Use or PCBs and
PCB Items (40 CFR 761.20-761.30); Marking or PCBs and PCB Items (40 CFR 761.40-761.45); Storage and Disposal
*-
c>
I
CJ
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
(Continued)
POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
ri
3 So
c. The Shipyard and Longshore Standards (29 CFR Parts 1915, 1918). % o
M H
d. Recordkeeplng, reporting, and related regulations (29 CFR Part 1901). ,_. £
o Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C. 161). - |J
f <
o National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 170. Compliance with NEPA required pursuant to 7 CFR Part 650. Protection *° »
or At ideological Resources: Uniform Regulations -- Department of befense (32 CFR Part 229, ?"°. 1), Department of the 21 ^
Interior (13 CFR Part 7, 7.1). M
O
o Department of Transportation Rules Tor the Transportation or Hazardous Materials, 19 CFR Parts 107, 171.1-171.500.
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
(Continued)
POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
o Regulation of activities In or affecting waters of the United States pursuant to 33 CFR Parts *'0-329.
o Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. 1531. (Generally, 50 CFR Parts 81, 225, 102).
o Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 16 U.S.C 1271. Compliance with NEPA required pursuant to 36 CFR Part 297.
o Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C. 661 note.
o Fish and Wildlife Improvement Act of 1978, and Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, 16 U.S.C. 7U2a note.
o Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980. 16 U.S.C. 2901. (Generally, 50 CFR Part 83).
o Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. 1151. (Generally, 15 CFR Part 930 and 15 CFR «?* M5 for Air and Water
Pol I ut I on Control Requirements).
to en
O f
«> m
a TO
t- <
VO fO
OO
tn vr-
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
OTHER FEDERAL CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. GUIDANCE. AND STATE STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED
Federal Criteria- Advisories and Procedures
o Health Effects Assessments (HEAs)
o Recommended Max I MUM Concentration Limits (RMCLs)
o Federal Water Qua I Ity Criteria (1976, 1980. 198«»).
Note: Federal Water Quality criteria are not legally enforceable. State water quality standards are legally
enforceable, developed using appropriate aspects of Federal water quality criteria. In many cases. State water quality
standards do not Include specific numerical limitations on a large number of priority pollutants. When neither State
standards nor MCL's exist for a given pollutant. Federal water quality criteria are pertinent and therefore are to be
considered.
o Pesticide registrations.
o Pesticide and Food additive tolerances and action levels.
Note: Germane portions of tolerances and action levels May be pertinent and therefore to be considered in certain
situations.
o Waste load allocation procedures, EPA Office of Water.
o Federal Sole Source Aquifer requirements.
o Public health basis for the decision to list pollutants as hazardous under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. M
in
o EPA1s Groundwater Protection Strategy.
o New Source Performance Standards for Storage Vessels for Petroleum Liquids.
o Pesticide registration data.
o i&i>A chemical advisories (2 or 3 Issued to date).
o Advisories Issued by FWS and NWFS under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. J, ^
o f
o Executive Orders related to Floodplalns (11988) and Wetlands (11990) as Implemented by EPA's August 6, 1985, Policy on g £J
Floodplalns and Wetlands Assessments Tor CERCLA Actions. §-
A LJ
o TSCA Compliance Program Policy. M ^
, »-• (B
o OSHA health and safety standards that may be used to protect public health (non-workplace). p £
o Health Advisories, EPA Office of Water. >-* <
vo n>
OO
State Standards 01 *c
N.'
o State Requirements on Disposal and Transport of Radioactive wastes. V
o State Approval of Water Supply System Additions or Developments. f
u>
o State Ground Water Withdrawal Approvals.
o Requirements of authorized (Subtitle c of RCRA) State hazardous waste programs.
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
( Com I nued )
OTHER FEDERAL CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. GUIDANCE. AND STATE STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED
o State I up lamentation Plans and Delegated Programs Under The Clean Air Act.
o All other state requirements, not delegated through EPA authority.
o Approved state NPDES programs under the Clean Water Act.
o Approved State UIC programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Note: Many other State and local requirements could be pertinent. Forthcoming guidance will Include a more
comprehensive list.
3. USEPA RCRA Guidance Documents
o Draft Alternate Concentration Limits (ACL) Guidance
A. EPA's RCRA Design Guidelines
1. Surface Impoundments, Liners Systems, Final Cover and Freeboard Control.
2. Waste Pile Design - Liner Systems.
3. Land Treatment Units.
(|. Landfill Design - Liner Systems and Final Cover. V
»-•
B. Permitting. Guidance Manuals **
1. Permit Applicant's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage, Disposal Facilities.
2. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Land Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
3. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Subpart F.
i|. Permit Applicants Guidance Manual for the General Facility Standards.
(BC/ he
5. Waste Analysis Plan Guidance Manual. or.
n> r*i
6. Permit Writer's Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Tanks. cr ^ B"
rt> O *•
7. Model Permit Application for Existing Incinerators. . * £
>-• »
8. Guidance Manual for Evaluating Permit Applications for the Operation of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units. J-1 ^
*-
9. A Guide for Preparing RCRA Permit Applications for Existing Storage Facilities. ^<
o>
10. Guidance Manual on closure and post-closure Interim Status Standards. "• **>
C. Technical Resource Documents (TROs)
t-
1) Evaluating Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste *?
u>
2} Hydrologlc Simulation of Solid Waste Disposal Sites
3) ^^nrill and Surface Impoundment Performance Evaluation
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
(Continued)
OTHER FEDERAL CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. GUIDANCE AND STATE STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED
t|) Lining or Water Impoundment and Disposal Facilities
5) Management of Hazardous Waste Leachate
6) Culde to the Disposal or Chemically Stabilized and So I Id I red Waste
7) Closure or Hazardous Haste Surface Impoundments
8) Hazardous Waste Land Treatment
9) Soil Properties, Classification, and Hydraulic Conductivity Testing
D. Test Methods Tor Evaluating Solid Waste
1) Solid Waste 'Leach Ing Procedure Manual
2) Methods for the Prediction of Leachate Plume Migration and Mlxl.ng
3) Hydrologlc Evaluation or Landrill Per romance (HELP) Mode
Hydrologlc Simulation on Solid Waste Disposal Sites
1) Procedures ror Modeling Flow Through Clay Liners to Determine Requled Liner Thickness
5) Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes Y
t-j
6) A Method ror Determining the Compatibility of Hazardous Wastes -j
7) Guidance Manual on Hazardous Waste Compatibility
i». USEPA Office or Water Guidance Documents
A. Pretreatment Guidance Documents
1) 30>l(g) Guidance Document Revised Pretreatment Guidelines ((3) Volumes)
u o
B. Water Quality Guidance Documents » w
1) Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material Into Ocean Waters (1977) 9 »
cr
2) Technical Support Manual: Waterbody Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability Analyses (1983) * ?
3) Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129
M) Water Quality Standards Handbook (1983) _. %
to n>
5) Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. gj ^
ro
C. NPOES Guidance Documents <-J
t I-
1) NPDES Best Management Practices Guidance Manual (June 1981) o
2) Case studies on ID ii •:. reduction evaluation (May 1983).
3) Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants (1979) on
- r»
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2
(Continued)
OTHER FEDERAL CRITERIA. ADVISORIES. GUIDANCE. AND STATE STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED
D. Ground Water/UIC Guidance Document
1) Designation of a USDW
2) Elements of Aquifer Identification
3) Interim guidance for public participation
H) Definition of Mjor facilities
5) Corrective action requirements
6) Requirements applicable to wells Injectlve Into, through or above an aquifer which has been exempted pursuant to
7) Guidance for ulC Implementation on Indian lands.
5. USE PA Manuals from the Office of Research and Development
1) EW 8M6 methods - laboratory analytic methods
2) Lab protocols developed pursuant to Clean Water Act §30U(h).
i
»-•
oo
ID C/
O f
n n
3 >
cr
t •
00
l/l v£>
K;
i-
c
r~
-------
OSVER Dirp-rive 923*.0-3
December 10, 1985
CHAPTER 2
DETERMINING IF REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE AND USE OF EXCEPTIONS
EPA policy is to attain or exceed applicable or relevant and appropriate
Federal environmental and public health requirements in CIRCLA response
actions except in five limited circumstances. In particular situations,
however, it may not be clear whether a requirement is applicable or relevant
and appropriate in the context of the site, the substances, the proposed
remedial actions, or other aspects of the problem. In other situations,
although a requirement is clearly applicable or relevant and appropriate, one
of the five circumstances may be present in which an alternative may be chosen
that does not attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements.
This chapter discusses general procedures for determining if a particular
requirement is applicable or relevant and appropriate.1 It also presents
general procedures for applying the five exceptions.
2.1 DETERMINING IF A REQUIREMENT IS APPLICABLE OR
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
This section describes a general procedure for determining if a
requirement is applicable or relevant and appropriate. It is divided into
1 As noted in the Introduction, Chapter 2 must be considered in
conjunction with Chapters 3 through 7. The former chapter provides a
procedure for determining if a requirement is applicable or relevant and
appropriate; the latter chapters provide information concerning potential
action alternatives and the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
that may be associated with them. Thus, Chapter 2 and Chapters 3 through 7
are intended to serve as complements to each other.
-------
OSWER Directive'923-».0-3 •,
December 10, 1985
2-2
three parts: the first presents the definitions in the NCP and the Compliance
Policy for the terms "applicable requirements" and "relevant and appropriate
requirements;" the second outlines important considerations listed in the
Preamble to the NCP concerning the process of classifying requirements; the
third provides a general procedure for determining when a requirement is
applicable or relevant and appropriate.
2.1.1 Definitions in NCP and Compliance Policy
The National Contingency Plan and the Compliance Policy each establish the
following as the definitions for "applicable requirements" and "relevant and
appropriate requirements":2
• Applicable requirements means those Federal
requirements that would be legally applicable, whether
directly, or as incorporated by a Federally authorized
State program, if the response actions were not
undertaken pursuant to CERCLA section 104 or 106.
• Relevant and appropriate requirements are those
Federal requirements that, while not "applicable," are
designed to apply to problems suxticiently similar to
those encountered at CERCLA sites that their
application is appropriate. Requirements may be
relevant and appropriate if they would be "applicable"
but for jurisdictional restrictions associated with
the requirement.
2 Although defined separately in the above discussion, the requirements
appear on the same list in the Compliance Policy.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
2-3
The NCP does not describe how the definitions should be used with respect
to a particular CERCLA site. The Compliance Policy provides the following
examples:
• The RCRA 40 CFR Subpart F Ground-water Protection
Standards would be applicable to the management of
hazardous wastes in ground water from hazardous waste
management facilities if such actions were not taken
pursuant to CERCLA sections 104 or 106.
• RCRA Subtitle C regulations, while not applicable to
hazardous wastes disposed of prior to the November 19,
• 1980, effective date of those regulations, could be
relevant to CERCLA response actions regardless of when
the wastes were disposed of or managed.
2.1.2 Discussion in Preamble to NCP
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Preamble to the NCP provides several
additional important points concerning the identification and implementation
of applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements. For potentially
applicable requirements these general principles-include the following:
• EPA cannot specify, by regulation, which Federal
requirements are applicable for every site because of
the varied and unpredictable situations at CERCLA
sites. Applicable requirements must be identified in '
connection with the characteristics of the particular
site;
• Applicability, -h^rp^re, aust be determined on a
case-by-case basis during the RI/FS process;
• Applicability must be determined objectively, based
on the legal prerequisites of the requirements; and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive-92j-».C
December 10, 1985
2-4
• Applicable requirements will be applied in the same
manner as if they were legally binding.
Similarly, the Preamble amplifies the NCP on how relevant and appropriate
requirements are to be identified and used:
• Relevant and appropriate requirements should be used
only when they are appropriate to the CERCLA site;
• When such requirements are used, they are intended
to have the same weight and consideration as
applicable requirements;
• Relevant and appropriate requirements can only be
determined on a site-by-site basis;
• Certain characteristics of requirements, such as
effective dates or jurisdictional requirements, will
generally not be grounds for determining that a
requirement is not relevant and appropriate;
• The key inquiry is whether the requirement is
designed to apply to problems sufficiently similar to
those problems encountered at the particular CERCLA
site where the remedial action is being conducted;
• Analysis of the cost-effectiveness of alternatives
is not part of the process of determining which
requirements are applicable or relevant and
appropriate. Only after the lead agency has analyzed
arrange of remedial alternatives (determined by the
selection of applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements that adequate protection of public health
*
and welfare and the environment) will be achieved, is
it appropriate to consider cost-effectiveness.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Ub-»tK Directive *_.>-». 0-3
December 10, 1985
2-5
• A key determination in most remedial actions will be
the determination of what requirements or portions
thereof are appropriate. This is somewhat subjective
and will require the exercise of the lead agency's
best professional judgment; and
• The lead agency should consider the objectives of
other statutes and their variances in determining
whether a requirement under that statute is relevant
and appropriate.
2.1.3 General Procedures for Determining if a Requirement
is Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Because of the varied and unpredictable characteristics at CERCLA sites
and the large variety of jurisdictional prerequisites for Federal public
health and environmental statutes, this guidance cannot include detailed lists
of requirements that are considered applicable or relevant and appropriate in
all cases. Instead, this chapter provides general procedures for determining
applicability or relevance and appropriateness in the context of site-specific
circumstances at particular CERCLA remedial sites.
General Procedure for Determining When Requirement is Applicable. The
basic criterion for an applicable requirement is that it would be legally
applicable except for the fact that the action is being taken under CERCLA
Sections 104 or 106. Legal applicability is established by the terms of the
laws and regulations establishing the requirements being analyzed. Thus, to
determine whether a particular requirement would be legally applicable, it is
necessary to examine the following terms of the law or regulation:
• who is listed by the law or regulation as subject to
its authority;
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
QSVER Directive a_
December 10, 1985
2-6
• the types of activities the statute or regulation
requires or prohibit,
• the types of substances it lists as falling within
the authority that it establishes; and
• the time period in which it is effective.
These jurisdictional prerequisites must then be compared to the relevant
facts about the CERCLA site. This procedure oust be undertaken, furthermore,
for each potentially applicable requirement, since different requirements,
even those within the same general group of regulations, may have different
jurisdictional prerequisites. If a particular requirement is not applicable,
consider whether it is relevant and appropriate.
Exhibit 2-1 provides a flow diagram of the general procedure for
determining if a particular requirement is applicable.
The following example indicates how the procedure outlined would operate.
In determining whether RCRA Ground-water Protection Standards in 40 CFR Part
264, Subpart F, are "applicable" to a site that presents the problem of
ground-water contamination caused by hazardous substances, it will be
necessary to consider whether the substances are "hazardous wastes" or
"constituents" under RCRA; whether they reached the groundwater from a
facility that treated, stored, or disposed of hazardous waste in a storage
impoundment, waste pile, land treatment unit, or landfill, as they are defined
under RCRA; and whether the facility or waste management unit received
hazardous waste after the effective date of the Subpart F regulations. All
those factors are critical to determining the legal applicability of the
Subpart F requirements. If the substance is a hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituent from a facility whose owner or operator accepted hazardous
*
waste after the effective date of the requirements, then the requirement
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2-7
OSWER Directive 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
Exhibit 2-1
General Procedure for Determining
If Requirement is Applicable
Is
Response
Remedial
Action
See Guidance on
Compliance of Removal
Actions >Mtn Other
Identify Relevant Facts Concerning
Situation at Site:
• Type of Site
• Type of Substances
• When Placed at Site
• Other Characteristics n
Review List of Potentially
Applicable Requirements
in Compliance Policy
Eliminate All
Requirements
That Are Clearly
Not Applicable
or Relevant and
Appropriate
Superfund
Assessment
Manual
Are Any
Requirements
Potentially Relevant
or Appropriate
Is
Requirement
Potentially
Applicable
Go to
Procedure
to be Considered
Review Each Potentially Applicable Requirement
and Determine Junsdicuonal Prerequisites
Requirement a Prerequisites:
Substances Covered
Time Period Covered
Types of Facilities Covered
Persons Covered
Actions Covered
Other Prerequisites I""!
b.c . .
etc
b.c
Compare Relevant Facts in Step A to Prerequisites in
Step a.b,c,..n for Response Action or Operable Unit at Each Site
No
Apply
Requirement
a
u ^
f
J
\ '
Yes
r
Apply
Requirement
b
/
i
S 1
Yes
r
Apply
Requirement
c
No
f
^
\ -i
Yes
r
Apply
Requirement
n
No
Go to Procedure
for Determining
if Rpninrprn.»T-r
is Reve ait
-------
OSWER Directive *__*.::
December 10, 1985 '
2-8
clearly is applicable, since it would be legally enforceable except for the
fact that the action being taken is under Section 104 or 106 of CERCLA. If
the Subpart F requirements are not applicable, the next step is to consider if
they are relevant and appropriate.
General Procedure for Determining If a Requirement is Relevant and
Appropriate. A particular requirement could still be "relevant and
appropriate" even if it is not "applicable." The basic criterion is whether
the requirement is "designed to apply to problems sufficiently similar to
those encountered at CERCLA sites that [its] application is appropriate."
Analyzing whether "problems sufficiently similar" are present first requires
comparison and contrast of the basic elements of the situation that the
requirements address. Among the considerations that should go into this
comparison and contrast are (1) factors relating to the design (i.e., the
origin and objective) of the requirement; (2) factors relating to the problems
that the requirement was intended to address and their similarity to problems
at CERCLA sites; and (3) factors relating to the appropriateness of the
application.
Among the factors in these three categories are the following:
Factors Relating to Origin and Objective of the Requirement
• The objectives of the regulation and the statute
under which the requirement was promulgated;
• The stated purpose of the requirement;
• • The type of harm, danger or potentially dangerous
activity addressed by the requirement;
• The place of the requirement in the broader scope of
statute or regulation to which it belongs; and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 923-.0-3
December 10, 1985
2-9
• Any variance or exception provisions included in the
requirement.
Factors Relating to Similarity of Problems Addressed by the
Requirement with Problems at CERCLA Sites
• The substances involved at the CERCLA site;
• The environmental media involved at the CERCLA site;
• The potential effect on public health of the problem
at the CERCLA site;
• The activity being conducted at the CERCLA site; and
• The responsible parties involved.
Factors Relating to Propriety of Implementation
• Factors outside the scope of the requirement itself,
such as the intended use of affected natural resources
that are protected by the requirement
• The permanence of the remedy that will be obtained;
• What precedent might be set for the meaning of the
requirement in the context of the situation to which
it normally applies; and
• The flexibility that use of the requirement will
provide for the design of the CERCLA remedial action
alternatives.
The relative importance of these factors will vary from site to site
depending on specific conditions at the site.
The Preamble to the NCF provides several examples of the relationship of
the compliance policy to specific requirements of other statutes that help to
illustrate how the determination that a requirement is relevant and
»
appropriate should be made (See SO FR 47918 • 47919, November 20, 1985).
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 32.-k.0-
December 10, 1965
2-10
RCRA ground-water protection standards in 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F, for
example, are intended to advance the basic purpose of RCRA, which is
protection of human health and the environment from harms caused by the
management of hazardous waste, by requiring attainment of concentration limits
in the ground water. Hazardous waste management facilities must monitor at
the waste management area boundary (the compliance point) to determine whether
concentration limits are exceeded. If the limits are exceeded, corrective
action must be taken. The concentration limits under RCRA requirements may be
set either at maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established in the regulations
(40 CFR §264.94); at background; or at an alternate concentration limit (ACL)
that EPA determines mill not pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health and the environment.
As the Preamble to the NCP points out, RCRA ground-water protection
standards are designed to prevent contamination of ground water from discrete
hazardous waste facilities. Therefore, they are not applicable to a CERCLA
site, unless that site was also a RCRA facility. However, the problem of
ground-water contamination addressed by the RCRA requirement is sufficiently
similar to ground-water contamination problems at a CERCLA site that '•h*
requirements are likely to be relevant and appropriate at most CERCLA sites
where ground water is contaminated. In both cases ground-water contamination
is being addressed for the basic purpose of protecting human health and the
environment; the threat is caused by hazardous substances; ground-water
ptotection and cleanup occupies a central place in the activities undertaken
pursuant to both RCRA and CERCLA; and no variances in RCRA indicate any direct
exclusion of the CERCLA situation to which the RCRA requirements would be
relevant and appropriate. The RCRA requirements are also relevant and
appropriate to the CERCLA situation in the sense that they are especially
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
G3WER Direct.ve JL34.G-
December 10, 1985
2-11
suitable or compatible. Therefore, the RCRA requirements appear to satisfy
the definition of relevant and appropriate for a site with ground water
contamination from a specific source. In contrast, however, these
requirements might not be relevant and appropriate to address a CERCLA site of
area-wide ground-water contamination from unknown sources.
As Exhibit 2-2 demonstrates, the initial step in determining if a
requirement is relevant and appropriate is to consider whether it is
relevant. If the requirement would have been applicable, but for elective
dates and other technical prerequisites, it would be relevant. The next step
is to determine if it is appropriate. This step, in particular, requires a
consideration of the factors identified above relating to the origin and
objectives of the requirement and the similarity of the problem it is designed
to address to the problems encountered at the CERCLA site. Determination of
appropriateness «111 in part depend on an exercise of professional judgment.
Particular relevant and appropriate requirements should be used flexibly
rather than mechanically and may be combined into action alternatives for
response to site-specific conditions at the CERCLA site. Combinations might
include several relevant and appropriate requirements. In the case of RCRA
ground-water protection requirements, for example, MCLs could be used as the
cleanup standard for certain contaminants and ACLs established for other
contaminants. Levels, furthermore, could be established on the basis of the
intended use of the groundwater. Where the Aquifer is a potential source of
drinking water, ACLs could be set on the basis of drinking water standards.
If, on the other hand, consumption of the groundwater could be restricted by
institutional controls or if the aquifer was not intended to be used for
drinking water, it would be appropriate to establish ACLs at less stringent
levels, taking into account the effects of the controls or the alternative
uses.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
2-12
Exhibit 2-2
OSWER Directive 923*.0-3
December 10, 1985
General Procedure for Determining
If Requirement is Relevant
and Appropriate
Use General Procedure In
Exnioit 3-1 to
Determine if
Requirement is Applicable
Identification Stage
If Requirement Is Not Applicable,
Determine
Whether Requirement
is Revelant
Identification Stage
Given the Revelant
Facts Indeniified for the
Site, and the Jurisdictional
Prerequisites for the Potentially Applicable
Requirement, Would the
^Requirement Have Been Applicable
But for Legal Technicalities
and Effective Dates?
No
Requirement
is not
Relevant
,Yes
Requirement is Relevant:
Determine Appropriateness
-------
2-13
Exhibit 2-2 (continued)
Determining Appropriateness
i
OSWER Direct.ve
Dece-oer 10, 1985
Review D«"-i<;ion-Making Factors to
Determine if CERCLA Problem
Situation is Sufficiently Similar to
the Problem that the Requirement in
Question is Designed to Remedy
or Address i—
Factors
of the
nc» to Origin and Objective
-------
2-14
Exhibit 2-2 (continued)
Mixing and Matching
OSUER Directive 923-*. 3-3
December 10, 1985
Clean Closure Requirements
• Level of Cleanup Onsite
and Offsite
I
Yes
Requirement Or Portion Thereof
Relevant and Appropriate
Mix With \
Other I
Relevant/ I
Appropriate /
Requirements /
^*/
Mixing And Matching:
Resolve Inconsistent
or Conflicting Applicable/
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements into One Remedv
Implementation Stage
List Requirements that are
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements for
Closure as Disposal Facility
• Waste Handling
• Capping
• Ground-Water Monitoring
and Corrective Action
Requirements for
Delisung
Process for Determining
Safe Cleanup Level
-------
2-15
Exhibit 2-2 (continued)
Remedying Conflicts
OSWER D_rective 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
Determine v^nich
RpoiMrpmpm*
Conflict and List Them
using Best Professional
Judgement Seek
to Remedy Conflicts
Combine Requirements Into Flexible
Remedial Action Alternative
• Consolidation of Off-Site Waste witnin
Waste Management Area
» Capping of Waste Onsite
• Soil Cleanup Offsite
• Ground - Water Verification Monitoring
• Delisting Analysis for Determining Safe Soil
Cleanup LEvel
-------
-j5»v»i.R Directive 91^^.1-
December 10, 1985
2-16
The second example of relevant and appropriate requirements provided by
the Preamble to the NCP involves RCRA closure requirements. Under 40 CFR Fa^L
264, Subparts G and K, for example, a surface impoundment containing hazardous
waste can be closed either (1) by the removal or decontamination of all waste
residues, contaminated containment system components, and contaminated
subsoils, structures, and equipment or (2) by stabilization and capping of the
wastes and long-term maintenance of the final cover, leak detection system,
ground-water monitoring system, and other post-closure requirements. Although
these requirements would be applicable only to CERCLA sites that had
previously been RCRA disposal facilities, they probably would be relevant and
appropriate requirements for remedial actions.
A combination of these requirements could be used to structure a flexible
CERCLA approach to soil contamination and closure of a site. Soil
contamination could be removed to a safe level, based on a site-specific
limited risk-assessment. It would be approriate to use the RCRA delisting
process, and the assessment could be based on either media-specific
environmental standards (such as water quality standards) or on health-based
limits (such as acceptable daily intakes or public health advisories). The
combination of these actions would be analogous to the "clean closure"
requirement of RCRA. The contaminated soils could be placed in a setting
whereby the risks from various routes of exposure (direct contact, air,
• surface water, ground water, and bioaccumulation) are reduced to levels that
protect human health and ^Vi*» environment. "Hii" action would be an appropriprp
use of the closure and post-closure care requirement of RCRA for facilities
from which wastes <"-p m*- removed at closure.
Because of the need for flexib-*"1 "'ty in ~Ke use of ^fipvant and appropriate
requirements and the site-specific basis on which they should be identified,
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive
December 10, 1985
2-17
no precise decision rule can be given for determining when a
requirement w^11 be included. Instead, the procedure described in Exhibit
2-2 and the use of best professional judgment will be necessary.
2.2 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAY AUTHORIZE AN EXCEPTION TO
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
The National Contingency Plan provides that an alternative that does not
meet applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal public health or
environmental requirements may be chosen for a remedial action in one of five
limited circumstances:
(a) Interim Remedy - Where the selected alternative is
not the final remedy and will become part of a more
comprehensive remedy;
(b) Fund-balancing - For Fund financed responses onlv,
where the need for protection of public health,
welfare and the environment at the facility under
consideration for all of the alternatives that attain
or exceed applicable or '•pipvant and appropriate
Federal requirements is, considering the amount of
money available in the Fund, outweighed by the need
for action at other sites that may present a threat to
public health, welfare of the environment. In the
event of Fund-balancing, the lead agency is required
to select the alternative that most closely approaches
the level of protection provided by applicable or
relevant and appropriate Federal requirements,
considering the specific Fund-balanced sum of money
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CSV»ER Directive 923->.0-3
December 10,
2-18
available for the immediate facility. Fund-balancing
is an exception for fund-financed actions only.
(c) Technical Impracticality - Where no alternative
that attains or exceeds applicable or relevant and
appropriate Federal public health or environmental
requirements is technically practical to implement,
the alternative shall be selected that most closely
approaches the level of protection provided by the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements,
and which is reasonable to implement from an
• engineering perspective;
(d) Unacceptable Environmental Impacts - Where all the
alternatives that attain or exceed Federal public
health or environmental requirements, if implemented,
will result in significant adverse environmental
impacts, the alternative shall be selected that most
closely approaches the level of protection provided by
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements,
without resulting in significant adverse environmental
impacts; or
(e) Overriding Public Interest - Where the remedy is to
be carried out pursuant to CERCLA section 106, the
Fund is unavailable, there is a strong public interest
in expeditsd cleanup, and litigation probably will not
result in the desired remedy, the alternative shall be
selected that most closely approaches applicable or
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
irt D t*r- ve y_
December 10, 1985
2-19
relevant and appropriate Federal public health and
environmental statutes in light of the need to invoke
the exception.
Exhibit 2*3 provides a schematic diagram of how the exceptions fit into
the RI/FS process. ThpSe *-
-------
2-20
Exhibit 2-3
Review Requirement for Exceptions
OSWER Directive 9234.0-3
December 10, 1985
Analyze
Requirement
Exceptions
(See Text
For Criteria)
Public
interest in
dited Clean
Technical
Impractical!:
?
vYes
Do not Apply
Requirement
Include Requirement a
in Remedial Alternatives
Prepare
Justification
for Exception
Off-site Alternative
(as Appropriate)
Alternative (s) that
Attain Requirements
Alternatives that
Exceed
(as
-------
Directive y23-».G-3
December 10, 1985
2-21
EXHIBIT 2-4
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN
DEVELOPING BASIS FOR EXCEPTION
Fiuid Balancing
Current size of the Fund
Estimated Cost of Complying with the Requirement
Estimated Cost of Alternatives
Estimated Cost of Other Remedial Actions
Timing
Priority Assigned to Site
Urgency of Other Remedial Actions
Cleanup Achieved by the Fund Balancing Alternative
Technical Impracticality
Technical Results Expected from Complying With the Requirement
Cost of Compliance
Availability of Alternative Technology
Reliability of Remedy
Unacceptable Environmental Impacts-
Environmental Medium or Media Affected
Type of Impact
Degree of Impact
Strong Public Interest in Expedited Cleanup
Compliance would lead to Prolonged Litigation
Interim Remedy
Interval until Final Remedy
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive 9
December 10, 1985
3-1
CHAPTER 3
CERCLA ACTION ALTERNATIVES AND POTENTIALLY
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
This chapter describes some typical activities that may constitute a CERCLA
remedial action, either individually or in combination, and links them to RCRA
regulatory requirements that may typically be applicable or relevant and
appropriate for such actions. The five basic types of activities addressed are:
(1) Closure of a site with hazardous substances in place;
(2) Cleanup of a site by removal of the hazardous substances;
(3) Management of the hazardous substances on-site;
(4) Action to address area-wide ground-water contamination; and
(5) Combinations of remedial activities and requirements.
For the initial three alternatives, this chapter provides a short
description of the activity and a matrix linking that activity to applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements in RCRA.1
1 The requirements cited in this chapter are examples of regulations
that may be applicable or relevant and appropriate in the context of
particular types of actions at a CERCLA site. The procedures outlined in
Chapter 2 are intended to provide guidance on how to determine which
regulations are applicable or relevant and appropriate to particular
site-specific circumstances. Thus, the descriptions in this and the following
chapters may be used to link particular types of actions to requirements that
may be applicable or relevant and appropriate, but additional analysis
following the procedures outlined in Chapter 2 will frequently be necessary to
determine if the requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate in
the context of the particular site-specific ccnditions.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSwtK Directive i*
December 10, 1985
3-2
3.1 CLOSURE OF A SITE WITH HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES IN PLACE
Closure of a site with hazardous substances in place may require such
activities as consolidation of the substances in one location; capping and
covering the hazardous substances, grading the cover and providing for
suitable vegetation; providing for surface water diversion and collection;
controlling air emissions from the place where the hazardous substances are
located; and monitoring for and controlling ground-water contamination.2
These activities are likely to be subject to a number of applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements under other Federal statutas, as
demonstrated in Exhibit 3-1. A detailed discussion of those activities and
requirements- is presented in Chapter 4 of this guidance. That chapter
provides additional information concerning activities that are likely to be
conducted if hazardous substances are contained in place at a site, and
describes in detail the applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
under RCRA that will iiKely be involved in such a remedial alternative.1
Records of Decision (RODs) that describe decisions made in connection with
remedial actions are described.
2 Application for and receipt of permits is not required for on-site
response actions taken under Fund-financed or enforcement authorities of
CERCLA.
1 The requirements are cited in Chapter 4 as examples of requirements
that may be applicable or relevant and appropriate to a hypothetical (or
CERCLA site. Chapter 2 is intended to provide guidance and how to determine
which requirements P^P applicable or ^f»l*>vant and appropriate for- "11 sites.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
rXAMPLfS OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA CLOSURE IN PLACE
Tvolcallv aool(cable or relevant and aDproprlate
to closure of a site with hazardous substances In olace
REMEDIAL ACTION
SURFACE CONTROLS
-Capping, Grading
Revegetatlon
REQUIREMENT
When closing a landfill, or when closing a surface
impoundment or waste pile as a landfill, cap the
facility with a cover designed and constructed to:
o Provide long-term minimization of Migration or
liquids through the closed landfill
o Function with Minimum maintenance;
o Promote drainage and minimize erosion or
abrasion of the cover;
o Accommodate settling and subsidence so that
the cover's Integrity is maintained; and
o Have a permeability less than or equal to the
permeability of any bottom liner system or
natural subsoils present.
Eliminate free liquids, stabilize wastes before
capping (surface Impoundments).
Restrict post-closure use of property as necessary to
to prevent damage to the cover.
Prevent run-on and run-off from damaging cover.
Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks used to locate
waste cells (landfills, waste piles).
Establish vegetative cover over land treatment
facilities that will not significantly Impede
degradation of wastes.
-Surface water diversion
and col lection
Prevent run-on and control and col lent run-off
from a 2H-hour 25-year storm (waste piles, land
treatment facilities, landfills)
Prevent over-topping of surface impoundment
CITE
MOCFR 26M.228(a)
(Surface Impoundments)
MOCFR 26H.258(b)
(Waste Piles)
HO CFR 26M.3tO(a)
(Landfills)
MO CFR 2614.228(8)
>IO CFR 26M.117(c)
HO CFR 26M.228(b)
MO CFR 26H.310(b)
MO CFR 26M.310(b)
HO CFR 26M.280(a)
Evaluating Cover
Svstems for Sol id
and Hazardous Waste
EPA ISW-bb/
CPO 0055-000-009**-'
HO CFR 26M.251(c|.(d)
HO CFR 26H.273(c),(d)
HO CFR 26H.301(r),(d)
MO CFR
UJ
u>
O O
PI
B »
cr
» a
M H-
M
»-• n>
O O
» n
VO (V
00
l/i tO
N>
CO
*>
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION
-control or air emissions
GROUND WATER CONTROLS:
-ApplI cab 11Ity
-Level or control
-Ground water Monitoring
EXHIBIT 3-1
(Continued)
EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA CLOSURE IN PLACE
Tvplcallv applicable or relevant and appropriate
to closure of a site with hazardous substances In place
REQUIREMENT
Cover on control facility to control wind dispersal
of partlculates
RCRA ground-water protection standards apply to
surface Impoundments, landfills, waste piles, and
land treatment units. Recent RCRA amendments eliminate
most previous exemptions from ground-water protection
requirements, which effectively prevent existing
facilities fro* obtaining a waiver.
Concentration Limits. Concentration limits for hazard-
ous constituents In the ground water are either (1) the
background level, (2) maximum concentration limits (HCLs)
set ror 11 specified hazardous constituents If the back-
ground levels are below these limits, or (3) alternate
concentration limits (ACLs) set by the RCRA at levels
sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
Several factors to consider when establishing ACLs are
specified; these factors should be used for reTerence
In determining the appropriate level of cleanup at
CERCLA sites. The constituents and their concentration
limits should be specified In the RI/FS.
Compliance Point. Concentration Units apply at the
compliance point, which Is the hydraullcly down-gradient
edge of the waste management area on which wastes are
placed during the life of the unit. A broad, interpreta-
tion of this definition may be necessary for CERCLA
actions.
A land disposal facility that receives hazardous
waste after January 26, 1983 Is subject to monitoring
requirements. A CERCLA response action that Involves
on-slte hazardous waste management should comply with
these requirements regardless of the date that the waste
was received. The RI/FS should specify the number and
location of wells, background levels, and Indicator
parameters to be monitored, based on general RCRA
requirements covering well placement and design,
establishing background concentrations, and statistical
methods Tor determining variations.
CUE
HO CFR 261.251(f)
10 CFR 261.373(f)
HO CFR 2611.90
HO CFR 261.91
10 CFR 261.95
10 CFR 261.97
» tsi
o f.
a> M
3 X)
cr
a> a
»- IB
_ r
rf
\o a
oo
Ul \O
w
CJ
o
t
LJ
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
(Continued)
EXAMPIES OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA CLOSURE IN PLACE
TvDlcallv applicable or relevant and approorlate
to closure or a site with hazardous substances In place
REMEDIAL ACTION
-Ground water containment/
treatment (corrective
action)
REQUIREMENT
Detection monitoring. Semi-annual monitoring Is required
to detect statistically significant Increases In the con-
centration of hazardous constituents In the ground
water. Monitoring Is required during the compliance
period (defined as the number or years equal to the
active lire or the facility). This definition or
compliance period nay not be applicable to CERCLA actions.
Compliance monitoring. Detection or a significant
Increase in constituent concentrations triggers quarterly
compliance monitoring to determine whether ground water
protection standards are exceeded.
Whenever the ground water protection standard Is exceeded
at or downgradlent from the point or compliance, corrective
action must be taken to bring the facility back Into
compliance. Corrective action Includes removal or
treatment Jn situ or any hazardous constituents that exceed
the standards. Containment (e.g., slurry walls) Is not
mentioned as a corrective action option.
CITE
«40 CFR 26»4.98
o
n
a
cr
ID
u
(ft
tn
•1
rr
CD
vO
t J
t-J
o
-------
-irective ';
December 10, 1985
3-6
3.2 CLEANUP OF A SITE BY REMOVAL OF THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
To close a CERCLA site by removing hazardous substances off-site to a RCRA
treatment and disposal facility involves application of the RCRA requirement
that all hazardous wastes must be removed in order close the site as a surface
requirement and to avoid closing the site as a land disposal facility. The
RCRA interpretation of "all hazardous wastes" has been that hazardous
constituents must be returned to background levels. CERCLA policy has
established, however, that constituent levels above background can be left
behind without triggering RCRA requirements for capping the site and other
closure and post-closure measures. Either the delisting process or a
site-specific exposure and risk modeling methodology may be used in setting
these higher levels.
CERCLA "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response
Actions," Hay 6, 1985, apply to selection of an off-site RCRA facility to
receive wastes removed from a CERCLA site. This policy requires that the
facility must be RCRA-permitted and without significant RCRA violations or
other environmental conditions that affect satisfactory operation of the
facility.
Cleanup of a site by removal of the hazardous substances may require such
activities as identification of the contamination area and waste types;
excavation of the hazardous substances and decontamination or removal of
contaminated equipment, structures, soils, and ground water; and selection of
an off-site waste management technology and disposal facility. Exhibit 3-2
presents an overview of the requirements that such activities would be
required to acn-i-al^, and Chapter 5 of this guidance describes those
requirements and other relevant policy in detail.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA CLEANUP BY REMOVAL
Tvoicallv Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate for Site
Cleanuo bv Removal of Hazardous Substances
REMEDIAL ACTION
CLEANUP BY REMOVAL
-Excavation
-Off-Site Treatment,
Storage, or Disposal
of Hazardous Waste
REQUIREMENT
Extent of excavation. RCRA requires that unless all
hazardous wastes are removed from the site, the facility
must be capped and post-closure care provided, as for a
landfill, a/
Off-Site treatment or disposal must be considered as a
remedial alternative
Transportation requirements. If an off-site option Is
chosen, a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for
transportation of the hazardous waste must be used.
Facllltv Requirements. Off-site treatment storage, or
disposal of hazardous substances must take place at a
facility regulated under RCRA that has no significant
RCRA violations or other environmental conditions that
could affect the satisfactory operation of the facility.
The OSC or RPM is responsible for evaluating the
adequacy of the RCRA facility.
Wastes may only be sent to facilities that have
undergone RCRA compliance inspections within the last 6
months and have had no significant violations that could
affect the facilities' performance. Unless adequate
monitoring data are available at an Interim status facility
to assess potential threats to ground water, wastes from
CERCLA response actions should be sent to facilities with
final RCRA permits. All fund-financed response actions
Involving off-site disposal of hazardous substances must
use facilities in compliance with minimum RCRA technical
standards, (e.g., liners, leachate col lection). Single-
lined units may only be used if shown to adequately
protect public health and the environment.
CITE
HO CFR 264.178
40 CFR 264.197
40 CFR 264 '•>»
40 CFR 264.258
40 CFR 264.310
40 CFR 264.331
40 CFR 300.68(f)
40 CFR 262;
49 FR 1049;
Procedures for Planning
and Implementing Off-
site Response Actions
(May 6, 1985)
ui
-j
Procedures for
Planning and
Implementing
Off-site Response
Actions
(May 6, 1985)
e o
(V in
o *:
d> PI
a »
o-
^ rt>
O O
• It
a/ CERCLA policy permits above-background hazardous substance levels. See text for details.
Oo
In
K>
to
O
I
CO
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2
(Continued)
EXAMPLE: OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA CLEANUP BY REMOVAL
Tvolcaliy Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate for Site
Cleanuo bv Removal of Hazardous Substances
REMEDIAL AU ION
REQUIREMENT
CITE
-Restrictions on Land
Disposal of Certain
Substances
No bulk or non-containerized hazardous waste
or free Moulds contained in hazardous waste may
be disposed of In landfills.
Containers holding Tree liquids nay not be
placed In a landfill unless the liquid Is
•Ixed with an absorbent or solidified. RCRA
amendments require stricter regulation of
containerized liquid waste; regulations must
be published by February 8, 1986.
RCRA amendments specify a schedule for
banning landfill Ing of certain specific
wastes. CERCLA actions are exempt from most
of these specific bank until November 8, 1988.
HO CFR 2611.3 Hi
1984 RCRA Amendments
§201
U»
I
o>
n in
o *:
§M
50
er
» o
n »-•
H
I— (D
o o
- r»
VO IV
00
in vO
10
-------
OSWER Directive *_j-».0-3
December 10, 1985
3-9
3.3 MANAGEMENT OF THE HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES ON-SITE
In addition to closing a site with hazardous substances in place, as
described in Section 3.1, on-site management of hazardous substances also may
involve a number of other management options. These options include:
• new containment (landfilling);
• land treatment;
• incineration;
• waste treatment; and
• underground injection.
Three fundamental issues regarding on-site management must be considered
for each of these options: waste delisting, location guidance for on-site
activities, and the definition of what constitutes waste management. The
delisting procedure may be used to determine whether particular RCRA
requirements will be applicable, or it may provide a means of determining an
appropriate level of cleanup for a site. On-site management may be precluded
in locations that cannot satisfy the applicable or relevant and appropriate
RCRA requirements concerning the acceptability of certain locations for waste
management. Finally, certain technical requirements may not be applicable or
relevant and appropriate if on-site activities do not fall within the
definition of waste management. Applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements for on-site management activities are described in Exhibit 3-3,
and in Chapter 6 of this guidance.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
EXAMPIE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvolcallv Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Hanaqement or Hazardous Substances On-SIte
REMEDIAL ACTION
HAZARDOUS HASTE MANAGEMENT
IN LANDFIIIS
REQUIREMENT
RCRA requires the owner or operator of a new landfill to:
o Install two liners, a top liner that prevents
waste Migration Into the liner, and a bottom
liner that prevents waste Migration through the
IIner.
o Install leachate collection systems above and
between the liners.
o Waivers fron the liner and leachate collection
requirements nay be obtained If alternate
systems will be as effective In preventing
Migration.
o Construct run-on and run-off control systeMS
capable of handling the peak discharge of a
25-year storm.
o Control wind dispersal of partlculates.
o Inspect l.ines and covers during and after
Installatlon.
o Inspect facility weekly and after stores to
detect Malfunction of control systems or the
presence of liquids In the leachate collection
and leak detection systems.
o Maintain records of the exact location,
dimensions, and contents of waste cells.
o Close each cell with a final cover after the
last waste has been received.
o Maintain cover, leak detection system, leachate
control system, and gound water Monitoring
system throughout the post-closure period.
CITE
HO CFR 26*4.300
198*4 RCRA Amendments
§202
l<0 CFR 26(4.301
I
J-.
o
MO CFR 26U.303
HO CFR 26«4.30l»
HO CFR 264.310
O O
CD to
PI
a
or
o o
VO 10
CD
tn \o
to
UJ
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvplcallv Aopl(cable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Manaqement of Hazardous Substances On-Site
REMEDIAL ACTION
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
REQUIREMENT
RCRA design and operating requirements for new
surface impoundments Include the following:
o Use two liners; a top liner that prevents waste
Migration Into the lines and a bottom liner that
prevents wast Migration through the liner
through the post-closure period.
o Design liners to prevent failure due to
pressure gradients, contact with the waste,
climatic conditions, and the stress of
Installation and dally operations.
o Provide leachate collection systen between the two
IIners.
o Use leak detection system that will detect leaks
at the earliest possible tine must be used.
o Design and operate facility to prevent overtopping
from overfilling; wind and wave action; rainfall;
run-on; malfunctions of level controllers, alarms,
and other equipment; and human error.
o Construct dikes with sufficient strength to
prevent massive failure.
o Inspected liners and cover systems during and
after construction.
o Inspect weekly for proper operation and
Integrity of the containment devices Is required.
o Remove surface Impandment must be from
operation If the dike leaks or there Is a
sudden drop in liquid level.
o At closure, remove or decontaminate all waste
residues and contaminated materials. Otherwise,
free liquids must be removed, the remaining
wastes stabilized, and the facility closed In
the same manner as a land fill.
Manage Ignltable or reactive wastes In a way
that It is protected from materials or
conditions that may cause it to ignite or react.
CITE
MO CF1
19B r/
O *
n> p
3 >
or
m t
Closure of Hazardous
Waste Surface
Impoundments
EPA #SW-8?3
Guide to the Disposal »-• ro
of Chemically Stabilized _° °,
and oot tdi I ted Wfiip " ,'.'
EPA *SW-67^ ^ «•
10 CfR 261.?'>n
10 CFR
00
Ol
I
i,
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvplcallv Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Management of Hazardous Substances On-Slte
REMEDIAL ACTION
For Land Disposal:
-Capping, Grading
Hevegetatlon
-Surface water diversion
and col I err Ion
REQUIREMENT
When closing a landfill, or when closing a surface
impoundment or waste pile as a landfill, cap the
facility with a cover designed and constructed to:
o Provide long-term minimization of migration of
liquids through the closed landfill
o Function with minimum maintenance;
o Promote drainage and minimize erosion or
abrasion of the cover;
o Accommodate settling and subsidence so that
the cover's integrity Is maintained; and
o Have a permeability less than or equal to the
permeability of any bottom liner system or
natural subsoils present.
Eliminate free liquids, stabilize wastes before
capping (surface Impoundments)..
Restrict post-closure use of property as necessary to
to prevent damage to the cover.
Prevent run-on and run-off from damaging cover.
Protect and maintain surveyed benchmarks used to locate
waste cells (landfills, waste piles).
Establish vegetative cover over land treatment
facilities that will not significantly impede
degredatlon of wastes.
Prevent run-on and control and collect run-off
from a 2ii-hour 23-year storm (waste piles, land
treatment facilities, landfills)
Prevent over-topping of surface Impoundment
CITE
40CFR 264.228(8)
(Surface Impoundments)
tiOCFR 264.258(b)
(Waste Piles)
40 CFR 264.3t0(a)
(LandfilIs)
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvplcallv Apol(cable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Management or Hazardous Substances On-Slte
REMEDIAL ACTION
Control or Air Emissions:
Ground Water Controls:
-ApplIcabl11ty
-Level or control
-Ground water monitoring
REQUIREMENT
Cover on control Facility to control wind dispersal
or partlculates
RCRA ground water protection standards apply to
surFace Impoundments, landfills, waste piles, and
land treatment units. Recent RCRA amendments eliminate
most previous exemptions From ground water protection
requirements, which effectively prevent existing
facilities rrom obtaining a waiver.
Hazardous Constituents. The Regional Administrator
Is empowered to set concentration standards For hazardous
constituents listed In Appendix VIII oF 40 CFR 261. No
standards need be set For constituents not capable oF
posing a substantial potential hazard to human health
and the environment, based on expected Impacts on ground
and surFace water.
Concentration Limits. Concentration limits For hazard-
ous constituents in the ground water are either (1) the
background level, (2) maximum concentration limits (MCLs)
set by the SDWA For 11 specified hazardous constituents
IF the background levels are below these limits, or (3)
alternate concentration limits (ACLs) set at levels
sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
Several Factors to consider when establishing ACLs are
specified; these factors should be used for reference
In determining the appropriate level or cleanup at
CERCLA sites. The constituents and their concentration
limits should be specmed In the RI/FS.
Compliance Point. Concentration limits apply at the
compliance point, which Is the hydraulicly down-gradient
edge oF area on which wastes are placed during the
lire oF the unit. A broad interpretation oF this
definition may be neressary for CERCLA actions.
A land disposal Facility that receives hazardous
waste after January 26, 1983 Is subject to monitoring
requirements. A CERCLA response action that involves
on-slte hazardous waste management should comply with
these requirements. The hi/f^ should specify the
number and location of we!!i, background levels, and
Indicator parameters to be monitored, based on general
RCRA requirements covering well placement and design,
establishing background concentrations, and «• •: ! <: •'• 11
methods Tor determining variation1;
CITE
HO CFR 264.251(0
It0 CFR 261.373(F)
1*0 CFR 261.90
40 CFR 261.93
llO CFR
U)
M
U)
HO CFR 261.93
10 CFR 261.97
U 0
(* I/)
o r:
m m
9 to
o-
fl> O
1-1 H-
<-i
t-' n>
o o
>-* <
\O (0
CD
l/i \0
O
I
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvplcallv Aool(cable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Management of Hazardous Substances On-Slte
REMEDIAL ACTION
REQUIREMENT
Detection monltorlnq. Semi-annual monitoring Is
required to detect statistically significant Increases
In the concentration of hazardous constituents In the
ground water. Monitoring Is required during the
compliance period (defined as the number of years equal
to the active life of the facility). This definition
of compliance period may not be applicable to CERCLA
actions.
CITE
HO CFR 264.98
-Ground water containment/
treatment (corrective
action)
Compliance monitoring. Detection of a significant
increase In constituent concentrations triggers
quarterly compliance monitoring to determine whether
ground water protection standards are exceeded.
Whenever the ground water protection standard Is exceeded
at or downgradient from the point of compliance, corrective
action must be taken to bring the facility back Into
compliance. Corrective action Includes removal or
treatment iq situ any hazardous constituents that exceed
the standards. Containment (e.g., slurry walls) Is not
mentioned as a corrective action option.
TREATMENT RE-USE. OR RECYCLING
- On-Slte Treatment
It Is EPA's policy to pursue response actions that
use treatment, reuse, or recycling over land disposal
to the greatest extent practicable, consistent with CERCLA
requirements for cost-effective remedial actions. Such
alterations must be considered for all Fund-financed and
private party response actions.
In general, any CERCLA action that Involves construction
of a new process for treating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous wastes should comply with RCRA design and
operating standards for permitted facilities.
MO CFR 261.97
Management of Hazardous
Waste Leachate (fc7.
Monitoring)
EPA JSW-871
GPO #055-000-00"*-'
l|0 CFR 261.100
Management of Hazard-
ous Waste Leachate
Leachate Treatment
Technologies and §6
Leachate Treatment
Process Selection)
Procedures for Planning
and Implementing
Off-Site Response
Actions (May 6,
l»0 CFR 300.68(h)
a>
o
f.
HO CFR 26U
3 »
cr
o
n K
i-i
>-• to
o o
I- <
V£> (D-
OO
K)
1.0
o'
I
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvplcallv ADD)(cable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Management or Hazardous Substances On-Slte
REMEDIAL ACTION
Siting:
REQUIREMENT
A new hazardous waste management facility must '
not be located within 200 feet of a fault line. Facilities
located In a 100-year flood plain must be maintained to
prevent washout of hazardous waste.
Site Characterization
Security
Protected Lands
Archaeological/Historic Places
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966
Endangered/Treatened Species
Endangered Species Act of 1971;
Parks, Monuments and Rivers
Organic Act of 1916
Wetlands
Section (|0i4. ?'P(«i)
10 CFR 261.310(8)
10 CFR 261.?'1(d)
c/i
o *:
a> tn
3 50
cr
«> o
* p-
>-t
>-• (6
VO (0
CD
CM VO
N>
UJ
4-
O
I
LO
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvolcallv ADO!(cable or Relevant and Aoproorlate for
Manaaement of Hazardous Substances On-Site
REMEDIAL ACTION
Securit.v:
REQUIREMENT
Specific Part B Information
requirement for surface Impoundments
Specific Part B Information
requirements for waste piles
Specific Part B Information
requirements for landfills
AblIItv to Monitor
Monitoring requirements
Ground-water Protection Standard
General groundwater monitoring requirements
Detection monitoring program
Compliance monitoring program
Groundwater Vulnerability
HSWA of 198>l
The facility owner or operator (lead agency)
must prevent the unknowing entry, and minimize the
possibility for unauthorized entry, of persons or livestock
onto the "active portion" of the facility. Acceptable
security would be either (1) a 21-hour surveillance system
that continuously monitors and controls access, or (2) a
barrier surrounding the facility that Includes locking gate
or other means to control access. In addition, warning
signs must be posted. Security requirements also apply
through the post-closure period.
CITE
dO CFR 270.17(b)
UO CFR 270.18(c)
l|0 CFR 270.20(c)J
110 CFR 270.11(C)
>IO CFR 261.92
10 CFR 261.97
10 CFR 261.98(e)
10 CFR 261.99(e)
P I 98-616, 12 USC
6901 §1 seq.
10 CFR 261.11
10 CFR 261.117
U O
(B C/>
O f.
m m
3 »
cr
n> o
M »-••
i-t
•-• (B
O O
- rf
(-••
•-• < *
V~l IU
00
l/> \O
N>
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvolcallv Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Tor
Management of Hazardous Substances On-Siie
REMEDIAL ACTION
REQUIREMENT
CITE
CONTAINER STORAGE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTES
ON-Silt
Empty containers are not regulated
Containers of hazardous waste must be; '
o Maintained In good condition;
o Compatible with hazardous waste to be stored;
and
o Closed during storage (except to add or remove
waste)
Inspect container storage areas weekly for deterioration.
Place containers on a sloped, crack-Tree base, and
protect from contact with accumulated liquid. Provide
containment system with a capacity of 10% of the volume
of containers of free liquids.
Remove spilled or leaked waste In a timely manner to
prevent overflow of the containment system.
Keep containers of Ignltable or reactive waste at least
50 feet from the facility's property line.
Keep Incompatible materials separate. Separate Incom-
patible materials stored near each other by a dike or
other barrier.
At closure, remove all hazardous waste and residues
from the containment system, and decontaminate or
remove all containers, liners, etc.
10 CFR 264.170
ilO CFR 261.171
HO CFR 26H.172
HO CFR 26H.173
HO CFR 26H.17H
HO CFR 26H.175
HO CFR ?«fJ 17fi
HO CFR 'fill. 117
HO CFR 26H.178
U)
U u
n> in
o f.
a> m
a x
or
VD (ft
00
Ol \O
to
to
O
I
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvolcallv Aopl(cable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Manaaement or Hazardous Substances On-Slte
REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIREMENT C TE
TANK STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS RCRA design and operating standards for storage of iiO CFR 26'i.190
WASTE ON-SITE hazardous waste In tanks Include:
o Tanks must have sufficient shell strength IiO CFR 2614.191
(thickness) and, for closed tanks, pressure
controls, to assure that they do not collapse
or rupture.
o Waste must not be Incomputable with the tank iiO CFR 26-1.192
Material unless the tank Is protected by a
liner or by other means.
o Provide tanks with controls to prevent
overHiiing, and maintained sufficient
freeboard In open tanks to prevent
overtopping by wave action or precipitation.
o Inspect dally: overfilling control «iO CFR 26ii.l9
o Inspect weekly: above-ground portions of m
tanks, (to assess their structural integrity)
and the area surrounding the tank (to
Identify signs of leakage).
o Inspect periodically: the tanks' condition.
o Repair any corrosion, crack, or leak.
o At closure, remove all hazardous waste and -•
prevent the waste from Igniting or reacting. ,_ *jj
Ignitable or reaction wastes In covered tanks " _ ,,
must comply with buffer zone requirements In - <-•
"Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code," ^ £
Tables 2-1 through 2-6 (National Fire vo n>
Protection Association, 1976 or 1981). JJJ ^
NJ
U)
*-'
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3
(Continued)
EXAMPLE OF POSSIBLE RCRA REQUIREMENTS FOR CERCLA ON-SITE MANAGEMENT
Tvolcallv Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate for
Manaqement of Hazardous Substances On-S!to
REMEDIAL ACTION REQUIREMENT CITE
ON-SITE INCINERATION OF All hazardous waste Incinerators must: 10 CFR 261.310
HAZARDOUS WASTE
o Analyze the waste feed. 10 CFR 261.311
o Remove all hazardous waste and residues 10 CFR 261.351
including ash, scrubber water, and scrubber
sludge from the site.
No further requirements apply to incinerators that 10 CFR 261.310
only burn wastes listed as hazardous solely by virtue
of their Ignltab!11ty, corroslvlty, or reactivity, or
some combination, and If the waste analysis shows that
no Appendix VIII constituent is present that might
reasonably be expected to be present.
Performance standards for Incinerators Include: 10 CFR 261.313
o Achieve a destruction and removal efficiency 10 CFR 361.312 "
of 99.99% for each principal organic hazardous ,L
constituent In the waste feed. vo
o Reduce hydrogen chloride emissions to 1.8 kg/hr
or 1% of the HCI In the stack gasses before
entering any pollution control devices.
Monitoring of various parameters during operation of 10 CFR 261.317
the Incinerator Is required. These parameters
IncIude:
o Combustion temperature
o Waste feed rate
o An indicator of combustion gas velocity
o Carbon monoxide
fl> V)
o *:
rt* c*i
. B W
cr
n o
•1 H-
M
i -j n
- rt
H-
I-' <
vo n>
oo
1/1 vo
I-J
CO
o
I
CO
-------
Jiractive aTj-;C-
December 10, 1985
3-20
3.4 MANAGEMENT OF AREA-WIDE CONTAMINATION
At some CERCLA sites, contamination of ground water resulting from an
unknown source or numerous intermingled sources may exist over an extensive
area. Requirements in RCRA, which apply to discrete hazardous waste
management facilities, would not be applicable to such area-wide contamination
situations, although certain requirements, such as MCLs or ACLs, could be
relevant and appropriate in particular cases. Actions at sites with area-wide
ground-water contamination may include source control; actions on-site or
off-site to control migration of identifiable plumes; -ground-water recovery,
treatment, and re-injection or use; provision of alternative sources of water;
and institutional controls. Chapter 7 addresses these alternatives.
3.5 COMBINATIONS OF REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES AND REQUIREMENTS
As discussed in connection with the question of determining what are
relevant and appropriate requirements in Chapter 2, the activities and
requirements described in the previous sections of this chapter can be
combined to form action alternatives that may not be included specifically
among the requirements of any other public health or environmental statute in
precisely that form. Thus, for example, relevant and appropriate RCRA
requirements involving closure (both for a storage and for a disposal
facility) and waste delisting could be combined to create a hybrid alternative
designed to address the problem at a particular CERCLA site. The requirements
of other statutes relevant and appropriate to such CERCLA action alternatives
cannot be specified in advance, since they must be developed in response to
the particular situation at a particular CERCLA site.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
USswhK
December 10, 1985
4-1
CHAPTER 4
GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR CLOSING SITE WITH WASTE IN PLACE
This chapter elaborates upon the activities described in Chapter 3 that
are Hkpiy to be conducted if hazardous substances are contained in place at a
site, and the potentially applicable or T-pipvpni- and appropriate T-pmi-irpmpnr*
in RCRA that may be involved in such a remedial alternative. The following
options may be involved with closing a site with waste in place:
• consolidation of wastes that have migrated from a
site;
• determination of soil cleanup levels;
• handling and management of hazardous substances
before on-site closure;
• ground-water protection and corrective action for
hazardous constituents in ground water;
• closure requirements; and
• post-closure activities.
Potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are noted for
each option discussed.
Specifically this chapter describes Records of Decision (RODs) and other
policy memoranda that incorporate important decisions that have been made in
connection with previous remedial actions regarding the closure of sites «' ?!
wastes in place. Whereas Chapters 1-3 concentrated on the identification of
applicable or rpipv,a«t and appropriate *-prmi'Tpnipr.-«- the RODs and sppr-^i
policies in Chapter 4 illustrate the use of applicable or relevant and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
)4..0-5
December 10, 1985 '
4-2
As outlined in Chapter 3, closure of a site with hazardous substances in
place is likely to involve several applicable or relevant and appropriate RCRA
requirements. If the site contains hazardous substances that potentially pose
a threat to public health and the environment, then an appropriate remedy may
be closing the site as a land disposal facility. The following activities may
be involved in capping the site as a land disposal facility:
• consolidation of the substances in one location;
• handling or management of the substances, including
grading within the waste management area, excavation
of contaminated soils for slurry walls or installation
of a leachate control system, and stabilization,
solidification, or treatment of wastes before in-site
containment;
• covering or capping the hazardous substances,
grading the cover and providing for suitable
vegetation;
• providing for surface water diversion and collection;
• controlling air emissions from the location where
hazardous substances are placed;
• monitoring for and controlling ground-water
contamination, including corrective action for
contaminated ground water outside the capped area; and
• implementing long-term post-closure care, including
ground-water mo*"'—ring, cap maintenance, land use
restrictions, corrective action, and/or water use
restrictions fni contaminated ground w*«. «••>
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
10, 1985
4-3
Some of these activities are relatively straightforward; others, such as
consolidation and handling or management of hazardous substances and
controlling or correcting ground-water contamination, present important issues
that are addressed in this chapter.
This chapter is divided into six sections. Potentially applicable or
relevant and appropriate RCRA Tpmii*-pinpT>t«; are described in each section for
those activities that may be involved if hazardous substances pr* contained in
place at a CERCLA site.1 Requirements for the consolidation of wastes that
have migrated from a site are presented in Section 4.1". Section 4.2 describes
an approach for determining contaminated soil cleanup levels (when consolida-
tion is a part of the closure in place), and presents decisions made at seve^i
CERCLA sites. Requiraments that potentially may be applicable or relevant and
appropriate for handling and management of wastes before on-site closure pr*
described in Section 4.3. Section 4.4 presents requirements for ground-water
protection and corrective action for hazardous constituents in the ground
water. Section 4.5 describes general closure requirements. Finally, Section
4.6 describes requirements for post-closure care, in the context of CERCLA
operation and maintenance requirements.
4.1 CONSOLIDATION OF WASTES
Consolidation of an area with significant concentrations of hazardous
substances involves excavating and moving the material to an area that is to
reason that this guidance manual cannot categorically state ''«-
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements involved if hazardous
substances p** contained in ^]TO at a CERCLA - t- is "hrf *.Hp r*pr*»rr"'T1PT--ir
of what is applicable or relevp^r and appropriate is only made on a sim ~y-
site basis. Different circumstances at different sites mill determine what
requirements are applicable or relevant and appropriate.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10, 1985 '
4-4
be closed and managed on-site. The hazardous substances that are to be
cleaned up may have contaminated a broad area within the waste management
boundaries of the site. All such hazardous substances could be capped, but
instead such substances might be picked up and consolidated into a smaller
capped area (i.e., a smaller waste management area). Consolidation of an prca
with significant concentrations of hazardous substances thus involves
excavating and moving the material to an area that is to be closed and managed
on site. Such consolidation as part of a remedial action meets applicable or
relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements.
RCRA technical requirements for land disposal would be relevant to such
consolidation. These requirements could include a new on-site facility
meeting all RCRA technical and design requirements, such as double liner and
leachate collection systems and location requirements. However, in the
site-specific circumstances of a Superfund cleanup, compliance with these
requirements might not be appropriate.2
4.1.1 General Procedure for Meeting Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements for Waste Consolidation
The methodology to be employed in determining whether consolidation can be
used as a containment remedy that meets applicable or relevant and appropriate
* HSVA Section 201 requires EPA to review hazardous wastes to determine
whether certain methods of land disposal should be prohibited for particular
wastes. Section 202 establishes minimum technological standards for new
landfills and surface impoundments, which «r«» required to be extended in -be
future to existing surface'impoundments by Section 215. Thus, over time, land
disposal •npi'f'Tvj RCRA Tprm-'i-prnpnte; can fce expected to become more costly and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
^K D''•PI-rive
Decenber 10, 1985
4-5
RCRA requirements is to: (1) define thp areal extent of significant contarnin:
tion, (2) determine whether the area can be capped, and (3) determine whether
smaller areas can be capped or picked up and returned to the site. If the
smaller contaminated areas have been caused by releases from the larger waste
management unit, then the following criteria must be evaluated to -Worn---'™?
whether consolidation should be con^i'HprpH as an option:
• Are the materials that are to be consolidated (brought
back on site), and disposed of compatible with rh«>
substances that are not being moved? TKp-rp should be
no threat to public health or the environment due to
. chemical reactions that may occur due to the mixing of
substances.
• Are the materials that are to be consolidated more
concentrated or more hazardous than the substances not
being moved? If so, consolidation may not be an
appropriate action.
• Did the materials originate from the site? If the
materials did originate from the site, consolidation
may be appropriate.
In several situations the consolidation of hazardous substances within a
waste management boundary may not be possible. These include:
• situations in which substances are spread for
several miles along a highway or right of way;
• very large sites such as mining sites;
• situations involving releases to streams or other
situations in which hazardous substances migrate
•
l rn-iip*! f-r-im ',.* .,'. 'H' bi_n; and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
S-»iR Directive 9_j-*.u-3-
December 10, 1985 '
4-6
• cases involving redisposal of hazardous substances
on site in areas that were not originally contaminated.
The characteristics and quantity of the hazardous substances and other
physical constraints may make consolidation and other on-site response actions
impractical for the above situations.
4.1.2 Crystal Chemical Decision on Waste Consolidation
A recent EPA policy decision in connection with the Crystal Chemical site
is that contaminated soil may be excavated and deposited in a consolidated
waste management area prior to capping and closure. This action was deemed to
be compliant with applicable or relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements.
The Crystal Chemical Company produced arsenic-based herbicides and the site
has extensive contamination within the original facility boundaries and
limited soil contamination outside the facility. Ground water is contaminated
within the property boundary and is also contaminated outside the property for
several hundred yards. The remedial objective identified for the site
includes the elimination of the possibility of direct contact with any soils
and sediments with arsenic concentrations greater than 100 ppm. This level
has been determined by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) of the Centers for Disease Control to be a safe level at Crystal
Chemical based on direct ingest ion of the contaminated soil by children.
Verification monitoring will be used to ensure that residuals in the soil wxli
not result in unsafe levels in ground water.
This procedure, in which soil contamination may be excavated and placed in
a smeller contaminated area prior to capping and closure, is considered to
satisfy relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements for "clean closure".
Relevant and appropi--J/trp portions of -b*» "clean or storage closure" ronrir-*-
then combiner* *ii.lj, rplpva™- and appropriate portions of r,b«» "-i.cr.-i-.-i
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
in, 1985
4-7
closure" requirements wb«"-p areas of contamination in this circumstance wf"-P a
result of a release from the waste management unit to which the contamination
is being returned. Waste consolidation in this situation satisfies the
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements of RCRA because the
consolidation is judged not to constitute hazardous waste management.
4.1.3 ROD Decisions on Consolidation
Waste consolidation has recently been used at several CERCLA sites,
including Whitehouse, FL, Sinclair H?fin*ryf NY; and Baird and McGuire, MA *
The Whitehouse Waste Oil Pits were constructed to dispose of waste oil
sludge and acid from an oil reclamation process. Unlined pits contain an
estimated 240,000 cu yd of contaminated material. Major contaminants •jnrli'Hp
arsenic, chromium, lead, phenols, and benzene. The site has extensive soil.
surface water, and ground-water contamination.
The remedial objective identified for the site includes elimination of -b*>
possibility of direct contact with contaminated materials, leachate, and
leachate contaminated ground and surface water. The on-site containment
alternative includes: construction of a slurry wall around the entire site
keyed into an aquitard to isolate wastes; recovery and treatment of
contaminated ground-water within the walled area; removal of contaminated
sediments from a nearby creek and placing them within the isolation area; and
capping of the entire site to reduce water entry into the walled area.
4 The ROD for the Baird and McGuire site is not yet available. The
discovery of dioxins at the site has delayed signature of the ROD *Lile
additional studies are being conducted. ROD signature is expected in the 3rd
Quarter of FY !bb. In the discussion of RODs throughout this guidance, -1»-
rations IP for determining that a particular action complied with applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements is given whenever possible.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER D
-------
December 10, iy&5
4-9
This procedure in which contaminated soil may be excavated and deposit til
in a layer area prior to capping and closure, is considered to satisfy
relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements for closing the site as a i*»nrn-i i I
in combination with other remedial activities bpi'ng undertaken at the site.
4.2 SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS
As discussed below in the context of the Crystal Chemical site (Section
4.2.1), EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has adopted
an exposure or risk-based approach to soil cleanup: substances above
background levels may be left without a cap, provided an analysis is conducted
that indicates materials will not migrate to contaminate ground water in
excess of ground-water protection standards established for the site and
direct contact through ingest ion or inhalation does not result in a risk to
health.
RCRA closure requirements (discussed in Section 4.5) provide that two
acceptable alternatives are available for remediating contaminated soils
beneath and around waste management areas or on the surface of sites. Those
alternatives are "disposal closure," which means to close the site as a
landfill (capping, post-closure maintenance and monitoring, etc.) or "removal
and decontaminate," which means to close the site as a storage surface
impoundment or waste pile. The regulation governing removal or
decontamination states that all waste residues and contaminated liners and
soils .be removed or decontaminated. The guidance interpreted this to require
removal of all contamination down to background levels, or to remove waste to
practical levels and cap the residuals and close as a landfill. This
interpretation was found to be impractical.
It is not -iprnssary and usually is not cost pf'fprf've to rlp«"> up
contaminated soils within a broad waste management area to background levels.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10, 1985
4-10
The issues that must be considered when determining what safe levels of
contamination that can be left in the soil include:
• depth of contamination;
• lateral extent of contamination;
• potential need for further action following cleanup; and
• necessary treatment levels of soil/waste.
4.2.1 Crystal Chemical Decision on Soil Cleanup Levels
A policy decision was made in connection with the Crystal Chemical site
that the soil cleanup alternative attained relevant and appropriate RCRA
requirements with cleanup to a safe level. Contamination at a level grpator
than background levels can be left without triggering a requirement under
RCRA that the contamination be capped, when a risk analysis is used to show
that the residuals IP-ft in place do not pose a threat to public health and the
environment.
Two mechanisms were evaluated for the Crystal site in selecting an "action
level" greater than background. The first involved demonstrating that the
residual contaminated soil is not a hazardous waste by going through the
hazardous waste delisting process set by 40 CFR §261.3. The second mechanism
involved using site-specific exposure/risk modeling to demonstrate -Lm. -h*»
residual contamination poses no threat to health or the environment through
any route of exposure (ground water, surface water, or direct contact). T^P
limited risk assessment approach using a model determined the safe level of
contamination to be left in the soil. This procedure resulted in the chosen
cleanup level.
4.2.2 ROD Decisions on Soil Clean-up Levels
This section describes .»ev«"-fl Records of Decision regarding soil cleanup
levels that meet applicable or relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10,
4-11
Exhibit 4-1 present-! the major issues of concern at the CERCLA sites, and
the decisions and rationale for the soil cleanup levels selected for those
sites. The exhibit can be used as a quick reference to the decisions made
regarding soil cleanup levels at CERCLA sites. A derailed discussion of
decision made at each site is included below. The problems at the site,
technology selected for site cleanup, the criteria used in selecting the
technology, and any additional considerations evaluated in determining soil
cleanup levels are described for each ROD.
Triangle Chemical Company. The recommended alternative for the Triangle
Chemical Company site (Region 6) includes mechanical aeration of contaminated
soils. The alternative selected would decontaminate the soil to background
levels and effectively mitigate the potential for further ground-water
contamination as a result of soil releases. The alternative selected is
consistent with 40 CFR 264.178, which requires soils containing hazardous
wastes and waste residues at a container storage facility to be removed or
decontaminated. The RCRA Permit Applicants Guidance Manual for hazardous
waste land treatment, storage, and disposal facilities establishes criteria
for soil cleanup levels. The Agency considers contamination to be removed
when the concentrations of hazardous constituents in the soil <"•? at
background levels.
McKin. The major contamination problem at the McKin site (Region 1), is
on-site soil contamination in specific areas, which serve as a source for
off-site ground-water contamination. The remedial alternative selected for
the on-site soil contamination is on-blue aeration of soils in areas of
identified hazardous substance contamination to achieve soil quality levels
protective of ^ubliu heali.li, wpl'-rj» and the PTWironment.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING SOIL CLEANUP LEVELS
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
SITE
(1) Triangle Chemical, TX
(2) McKIn Site, HE
(3) Old Inger, LA
SITUATION AND ISSUES
Soil contanI nation restricted to on-slte drum and
tank storage areas; levels of metals In background
range, but extensive area or VOC contamination In
excess of 500 ppm.
Current potential health and environmental risks
associated with exposure to contaminated ground
water; exposure to other contaminated media judged
to involve insignificant risks based on comparison
of level* to relevant criteria and from risk assess-
ment performed as part of FS; Ingestlon of 10 grams
of the most contaminated soil would result in ict
exposure below acute toxlclty levels and risk from
chronic Ingestlon not significant based on limited
exposures to site and soil levels; dermal contact
risks also Insignificant based on soil concentra-
tions, volatility of substances, and toxic levels.
Abandoned site used as an oil refinery and oil reclama-
tion facility. Shallow aquifer underlying the site is
slightly contaminated.
DECISION AND RATIONALE
Mechanical aeration of contaminated
soils; decontamination to background
levels effectively mitigates the
potential for future ground water
contamination.
Residual soil contamination level after
aeration that is protective of human
health and environment Is 0.1 ppm ILL,
level determined by site-specific fate
and transport modeling with concurrence
by CDC that level posed no hazard from
soil ingestion, partlculate inhalation,
dermal contact, or ingestion of contami-
nated ground water (safe level In ground
water 28 ppb for TCE based on 10-5
lifetime cancer risk).
Land treatment for heavily contaminated
soils and sludges, limits future risks of
migration of contaminated ground water.
o s:
n PI
3 »
cr
0> O
HI H-
H
>- (B
o o
- r»
H-
H* <
VO 0>
oo
tn \o
ro
o
i
-------
'_L_t/e 913-*._-3
0, 1985
4-13
The proposed aeration process meets the intent and technical
of general RCRA closure standards( 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart G), and the
specific closure standards of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart K, for surface
impoundments. The surface impoundment standards, and specifically 40 CFR
§264.228, rh<> applicable closure standard, require the removal or
decontamination of all waste residues and contaminated subsoils. Based on a
limited risk assessment a cleanup goal of 0.1 ppm TCE was established.
Old Inger. The Old Inger site (Region 6) was used as an oil rpfinpry and
oil reclamation plant for refinery wastes until the site was abandoned in
1980. Hazardous substances on the site include: heavily contaminated soils
and sludges; slightly contaminated soils; heavily contaminated surface water
in tanks and lagoons; and slightly contaminated surface water.
The shallow aquifer underlying the site contains ten million gallons of
slightly contaminated ground water.
The remedial alternative selected includes land'treatment for Lecvil^
contaminated soils and sludges. The land treatment option as discussed in <-hp
ROD is in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart N. Any
material transported off-site would be in compliance with manifesting
requirements for generators (40 CFR Part 262, Subpart B) and transporter
regulations (40 CFR Part 263, Subpart B).
The excavated areas on-site will be covered with a relatively impermeable
clay cap (minimum permeability 1 x 10 cm/sec). A vegetative soil cover
will overlie the clay cap. The cap will meet the technical requirement of 40
CFR ^04.310 and «_il eliminate the threat of direct contact wi-h contaminctac
soils and sludges and will reduce infiltration, providing adequate protection
to public health and the environment.
The land treatment system process Mill take from two to four years,
depending on climatic conditions. After treatment operations have
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive ^io*'-0-3
nPrpm-,er 10, 1985
4-14
successfully concluded, further activities will be implemented.
activities include:
• ground-water monitoring;
• remedying any heavy metal overload;
• preparation of a final surface; and
• vegetative covering of the land treatment area.
4.2.3 Use of SOCEM to Determine Soil Cleanup Levels
A soil cleanup evaluation guidance document is being prepared, and should
be available in the latter half of 1986. In addition,*a Superfund approach to
evaluating safe levels of residual soil contamination to protect ground-water
receptors is currently being developed. The soil cleanup approach is referred
to as the Soil Contaminant Evaluation Methodology (SOCEM). SOCEM evaluates
ground water fate and transport models that can be used to determine soil
cleanup levels. These models can be used to indicate the concentration of
contaminants that reach the ground water' as a result of a predetermined
concentration of contaminants in the soil. Exhibit 4-2 is a flow diagram of
the CERCLA approach for establishing soil cleanup levels. Both soil cleanup
guidance and SOCEM are expected to be compatible with applicable or relevant
and appropriate requires in federal public health and environmental laws.
SOCEM is currently being evaluated as a tool for setting soil cleanup targets
by assessing the extent of soil contamination and threat to ground water. The
written version of SOCEM is in the preliminary draft stage.
4.3 HANDLING AND MANAGEMENT OF WASTES BEFORE CLOSURE
Closing a site with hazardous substances in place may involve excavation
of materials from the site in order to build slurry wail* or install a
*
leachate control system, and the stabilisation or solidification of the wastes
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
4-15
Ot.wb-4
t ____ /e
10, -"
.C-3
Exhibit 4-2: Flow Diagram
Soil Contaminant Evaluation
Methodology (SOCEM)
Select
Indicator
Compound
Select Model
for Simulation of
Ground-Water
Contamination
Input
Soil Contaminant
Source
Concentration
Ground-Water
Fate/Transport
Model
Ground-Water
Quality at
Receptors
Met?
Set
Preliminary
Soil Cleanup
Level
Reduce
Source
Concentration
-------
ih D •H JQ *
cj. 10, 1985
4-16
before placing them back in the area to be capped. Such handling might be
defined as hazardous waste management, and interpreted to require such wastes
to be disposed of in a RCRA facility that meets all current RCRA technical
standards. In connection with the analysis of the Crystal Chemical site, an
EPA policy decision was made that the handling and management of wastes in *hp
process of capping satisfies the applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements of RCRA.
Slurry walls are the most commonly used subsurface barrier installed below
ground to contain, capture, or redirect ground -water fj.ow in the vicinity of a
site. Slurry walls are constructed in a vertical trench that is excavated
under a slurry. The design of a slurry wall for source control at a site must
consider how the wall fits into overall measures for upgrading a site.
Additional measures could include surface infiltration barriers, extraction
wells, or drains.
Slurry walls can be placed upgradient, downgradient or completely
surrounding the waste site. Circumferential installation reduces the amount
of uncontaminated ground water entering the site from upgradient, thus
reducing the volume of leachate generated. When this configuration is used in
conjunction with an infiltration barrier (cap) and a leachate collection
system, the hydraulic gradient can be maintained in an inward direction, thus
preventing leachate escape.
As passive measures, slurry walls require little operation and
maintenance. Maintenance of the dessication cap on top of the wall is the
only requirement specific to the mall itself. Maintenance of additional
measures such as caps and leachate collection systems is important to the
«]i"-ry wall as p"1"*" of 1"*1p Pnt-ir»» rpmpH\ . Slurry wall monitoring usually
•
involves tracking ground-water levels •in^'He and outside the wall to
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CSWZR Dj.j.t-uwe 923+.C-3
December 10, 1985
4-17
that design head levels are not exceeded. Ground-water quality monitoring can
be used to determine the effsctiveness of the barrier system.
The remedial alternative selected for implementation at the Vhitehouse
Waste Oil Pits (Region 4), includes the construction of a slurry wall around
the entire site keyed into the underlying aquitard. Thf» slurry w-11 will be
ellective in isolating the wastes from the horizontal movement of area ground
water.
4.3.1 ROD Decisions on Handling and Management
The following RODs were evaluated for EPA policy decisions on waste
solidification and liquids in landfill bans and their applicability for
closing CERCLA sites with waste in place.
Sylvester. The Sylvester hazardous waste dump site (Region 1) had
originally been used as a sand borrow pit. After much of the sand had been
removed, the operator of the pit began accepting household refuse, demolition
materials, chemical sludges, and hazardous liquid chemicals.
Ground-water testing and monitoring indicated high concentrations of heavy
metals and volatile and extractable organics in the ground water under the
site. The remedial action plan selected for Sylvester includes the
•installation of a 20 acre ^li^Ty wr-'l1 and surface cap with -rpat-nipinr of jr->vTH
water within the cap and placement of treated ground water in leaching
ditches. The recycling process is designed to continue for at least two years.
Mountain View Mobile Home Estates. The Mountain View Mobile Home Estates
site (Region 9) was a residential subdivision of approximately 130 people that
wcu> built on graded as>Lestos tailings and contaminated soil at the site of ••
defunct Metate Asbestos Company mill. Residents of the Mountain View Estates
WPTP exposed to asbestos fibers frr** -HP cou-aiuluautd soil of the
and potentially frorn the fiber piles of an adjacent asbestos mil-.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
-K D-itttive 9 2 3*-. 1-3.
December 10,
4-18
The recommended alternative included clearing the entire site, and
demolishing and burying all of the homes and the sewage treatment plant. It
was determined to be less expensive to bury the mobile homes than to ettsmpt
to decontaminate them. Following the home burial, a non-woven filter fabric
was placed over the entire site and the filter media covered by two *>ff of
compacted earth fill. The surface of the earth was sloped to drain, and
seeded with native grasses. Periodic inspection and maintenance of the cap is
required.
Bio-Ecology Systems Inc. . The Bio-Ecology Systems Inc. site (Region 6)
was a Texas Class I industrial solid waste management facility. Thp-rp are
approximately 40,000 cubic yards of wastes and highly contaminated soils
remaining at the site. The alternative selected for implementation at the
Bio-Ecology site is to stabilize and consolidate wastes in an onsite
synthetic/clay lined cell with a leachate collection system (a RCRA-approved
facility) .
The alternative complies with RCRA requirements for a hazardous waste
landfill and also would include ground-water monitoring to determine if *h«>rp
is contamination that has already migrated from the site. If ground-water
contamination above background or health based levels is detected beyond wl-p
waste management boundaries of the landfill, RCRA requires either the
implementation of a corrective action program or the establishment of an
exposure based ACL. The ROD indicates that the lined landfill with a leachate
collection and cap system would have a high degree of reliability for
containing -he wastes plprpH in the 1 •..,,:•.- ;ii
4.4 REQUIREMENTS FOR GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
#
Ground-water protection requirements in' RCRA technically apply only to
land disposal facilities. Although the Subpart F ground-water requirements
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSW;.R Directive 92^4.0-3
DerpmKer 10, 1985
4-19
are not applicable to Superfund cleanup situations, however, they may be
useable in certain site-specific circumstances.
EPA has prepared performance criteria that apply to most forms of land
disposal, including dumps, landfills, pits, ponds and lagoons, and
landspreading of wastewater and sludge. TV siting, design and operating
specifications developed for landfills and other hazardous waste facilities
require that the facility owner or operator employ engineering design or
natural geologic features and waste management practices that minimize adverse
effects on ground water. The basic purposes of the requirements P™ to
minimize the production of leachate and to avoid situations that could
compromise the integrity of the facility liner and final cover (landfills), or
its ability to ameliorate waste migration (land treatment facilities).
RCRA ground-water monitoring regulations and guidance outline procedures
for:
• installing ground-water monitoring systems;
• preparing a ground-water quality assessment plan; and
• developing a ground-water sampling and analysis" program.
Regulations in 40 CFR Part 264 establish design and operating standards
for permitted RCRA facilities. These standards apply to such areas as i^r"-
design and operating practices, such as ground-water monitoring and cleanup.
In particular, 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart F, creates broad ground-water
protection requirements under RCRA. These requirements include both
concentration standards and monitoring requirements. Exhibit 4-3 lists RCRA
Technical Standards that are designed to ensure ground-water protection in ~->e
uppermost aquifer underlying the waste management area beyond the point of
compliance during the compliance period if the release of hazardous
•
constituents occurs.
t
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT H-3
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
Requirement
Ground-water
Protection
Facility
Tvoe
Surface Im-
poundments
Landfills,
Waste PIles,
and Land
Treatment Units
Description of Renulrement
(1) RCRA ground-water protection standards
apply to surface Impoundments, landfjlls,
waste piles and land treatment units.
Recent RCRA amendments prevent existing
facilities from obtaining exemptions from
ground water protection requirements.
o The monitoring system must consist of
a sufficient number of wells.
Installed at appropriate locations
and depths to yield ground-water
samples from the uppermost aquifer
that:
represent quality of background
water not affected by leakage from
the unit.
represent quality of ground water
passing the point of compliance.
o Separate ground-water monitoring
systems are not required for
facilities that contain more than one
unit If sampling In the uppermost
aquifer will enable detection and
measurement at the compliance point
of hazardous constituents from
regulated units that have entered the
uppermost aquifer.
o Monitoring wells must be cased so as
to maintain the Integrity of the
monI toring-well bore hole.
o The ground-water monitoring program
In OfcH (GWMP) must Include procedures
and techniques for:
Cite
§26(1.90
1964 RCRA Amendments
§203
*»
i
K)
O
~
n v)
o f.
(0 M
a to
n> o
O O
I- <
VO (D
OO
in vo
U)
-------
EXHIBIT 4-3
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
(Continued)
Requlrenent
Ground-water
(•rOlui.li.jM
FaclIIty
TVDO
Surface Im-
poundments
Landfills,
Waste Piles,
and Land
Treatment Units
Description of Requirement
- sample collection, preservation,
and shipment
- analytical procedures
- chain of custody control
o The GWMP must Include sampling and
analytical methods appropriate for
ground-water sampling, that
accurately measure hazardous
constituents In ground-water samples.
o The GWMP must Include a determination
of the ground-water surface elevation
each time ground water is sampled.
o The GWMP must establish background
ground-water quality for each of the
hazardous constituents or monitoring
parameters.
- background ground-water quality
measurement In the detection
monitoring program must be based
on data from quarterly sampling of
wells upgradient from the waste
management area for one year.
- background ground-water quality
measurement in the compliance
monitoring program must be based
on data from upgradient wells.
- background ground-water quality may
be based on sampling of wells that
are not upgradient from the waste
management area If hydrogeologlc
conditions do not allow for the
determination of what wells are
upgradient, or if sampling at other
wells will provide an Indication
of background ground-water quality
that Is representative or more
representative than that provided
by the upgradient well*.
Cite
§ 26U.90
19814 RCRA Amendments
i 203
§26(1.98
52611.99
r> o
o> w
o y.
n t*i
a »
-------
EXHIBIT 4-3
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
(Continued)
Requlcement
Ground-water
Protection
Facility
Tvpe
Surface Im-
poundments
Landfills,
waste Piles,
and Land
Treatment Units
Description of Requirement
- a minimum of one sample from each
well and a minimum of four samples
from the entire system must be
taken to determine background
ground-water quality each time the
system Is sampled.
o A statistical procedure Is followed to
determine whether background values
or concentration limits have been
exceeded. Statistical methods for
determining variances are described
In the regulations.
(2) A detection monitoring program must:
o Monitor for Indicator parameters that
provide a reliable indication of the
presence of hazardous constituents in
ground water. Parameters or
constituents to be monitored will be
specified after considering:
Cite
§261.97
§261.98 M(h)
§261.98
i
KJ
K>
- types, quantities, and
concentrations of constituents
wastes
In
mobility, stability, and
persistence of waste constituents
or their reaction products In the
unsaturated zone beneath the waste
management area
the detectabl11ty of Indicator
parameters, waste constituents,
and reaction products In ground
water
the concentration or values and
coefficients of. variation of
proposed monitoring parameters or
constituents In the ground-water
background.
00
v/l VO
-------
EXHIBIT l|-3
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND-WATER PROTFCTION
(Continued)
Requf remont
Ground-water
Hroiet-liui.
Facility
Tvoe
Surface Im-
pountments
Landfills,
Waste Piles,
and Land
Treatment Units
Description of Requirement
o A ground-water monitoring system must
be Installed at the compliance point.
o A background value for each monitoring
parameter or constituent must be
establI shed.
- a data base used to determine
background values must be developed
- background values should be
expressed In a form necessary for
the determination of statistically
significant increases
the ground-water monitoring system
used must comply with the regula-
tions.
o Semi-annual monitoring Is required to
detect statistically significant
Increases in the concentration of
hazardous constituents In the ground
water.
o The ground-water flow rate and
direction in the uppermost aquifer
must be determined at least annually.
o Procedures and methods for samp I Ing
and analysis must meet requirements.
o It must be determined whether there
Is a statistically significant
increase over background values/for
any parameter or constituent each time
ground water quality at the compliance
point Is determined.
(3) A party required to establish a
compliance monitoring program must:
o Monitor the ground water to determine
whether regulated units are In
compliance with the ground-wat-er
protection «stniri,
-------
EXHIBIT
the effect Iveness of the corrective *>.
action program.
O o
to tn
O <
ID tn
a »
to o
n H-
H
I-* (0
O O
• r»
H-
f <
\O (D
00
Ul \O
o
10
-------
UbhtK ;i»-p--iv«» 9
Dprp-her 10,_ 1985
4-25
The EPA Regional Administrator is authorized by 40 CFR 264.93 to set
concentration standards for designated hazardous constituents in the ground
water. According to §264.94(a), these standards will be based on (1) the
background level of each constituent in the ground water at the time the 1 '•<••'
is specified in the permit, (2) maximum concentration limits (MCLs) set for 14
specified hazardous constituents if background levels are below these
standards, or (3) an "alternate concentration limit" (ACL) can be set by the
Regional Administrator if he or she determines that less stringent standards
will still protect the public health and environment. The factors that should
be used to grant an ACL are outlined in 40 CFR 264.94(b).* For CERCLA
actions, equivalent decisions will be made in the Record of Decision. Th«>
CERCLA programs differentiates between two types of ACLs. The health based
ACL (KBACL) is a concentration limit set for a constituent if the ground water
is used for drinking water. The exposure based ACL (EBACL) allows for f»t*
and transport modeling in ground water, and is set from the point of
contamination to some future exposure point.
Although Subpart F establishes a three-phase ground-water monitoring
program for permitted land disposal facilities, which in addition to
concentration standards al^o includes a detection monitoring program -• ' a
compliance monitoring program that must be established (for RCRA facilities)
when hazardous constituents are detected, the most likely application of
Subpart F in the context of CERCLA actions is the establishment of concentra-
tion levels, such as ACLs, to be used as the basis of corrective action.
Ground-water protection standards *r<* applicable at the first exposure
point of the facility's waste management area for a time period equal to
* The factors pr* listed on p. 5-29.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER
December 10, 1985
4-26
full active life plus the closure period for the waste manage^p^- prpa of *>
facility. Where possible, the ground-water protection standard is based on
environmental performance standards that establish numerical hazardous
constituent concentration limits for individual contaminants. Thprp are
ways in which hazardous constituent concentration limits may be specified:
(1) not to exceed background levels of the constituent in ground water; (2)
not to exceed specific limits for constituents that are maximum contaminant
levels (MCLs); or (3) not to exceed alternate concentration limits.
Specifically, the establishment of ground-water protection standards have
relied on the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standards (NIPDVS) based
on the 1962 Public Health Service Regulations under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA), to establish maximum contaminant limits for a particular set of
toxic metals and pesticides.
Standards under the SDWA are promulgated as maximum contaminant levels.
An MCL represents the allowable lifetime exposure to the contaminant for a 70
Kg (154 pound) adult who is presumed to consume 2 liters (0.53 gallons) of
water per day. (Draft Public Health Assessment Manual, ICF Inc., December 6,
1985.) In addition to health factors, an MCL is required to reflect the
technological and economic **"sib-""' ity of removing the contaminant from ~h3
water supply. The limit set must be feasible given the best available
technology and treatment techniques.
EPA is now in the process of developing recommended maximum contaminant
levels (RMCLs), which will be entirely health based, to serve as guidance for
establishing drinking wa^e* MCLs. "^P Uttice of D'-nk-Tig Water has o"i-] •i'-pH
the first two steps of a plan to set recommended health-based standards for
dill types ^1 cOiiwuiuiiiaii-t,. TJ-P first phase im*nivtc proposal of standarcs ' •
•
eight volatile synthetic organic chemicals, including carbon tetrachlo^-
-------
Directive 923->.0-3
ci 10, 1985
4-27
vinyl chloride. Phase two involves proposal of levels for 37 chemical
contaminants and two byproducts, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
aldicarb and other pesticides, and inorganics such as lead, mercury and
arsenic. Monitoring requirements for 51 other volatile organic chemicals for
which no recommended standards exist will also be set. The addition of -^P
proposed RMCLs would more than triple the number of standards that have been
approved by EPA to date.
RMCLs are non-enforceable health goals for public water systems whereas
MCLs are the enforceable standards. MCLs must be set as close to RMCLs as is
feasible, where feasible means with the use of best available technology,
treatment techniques, and other means.
4.4.1 Maximum Contaminant Limits (MCLs)
The RCRA ground-water protection standards, which are likely to be
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for CERCLA responses,
adopted 14 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDVA) Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs) as ground water contaminant limits (Maximum Constituent Concentrations;
40 CFR 264.94). The ground-water protection standards require that
contaminant levels in the ground water at the compliance point, generally the
waste management boundary (40 CFR 264.95), be at or below background levels,
Maximum Constituent Concentrations, or Alternative Concentration Limits (ACLs)
based on the Maximum Constituent Concentrations and approved by EPA.
Exhibit 4-4 presents the Maximum Concentration of Constituents for
ground-water protection under RCRA. The constituents listed must not exceed
the g-lvp" values if -be background Tevtl of tbe constituent is below -he given
value.
4.4.2 Alternate Concentration Limit (ACLs)
40 CFR §264.94 Tennises a 'HI -j permit to specify concentration i-i«n--«;
in the ground water for hazardous constituents established under §264.93.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
U6WI.K lit ve
Df.-Pirhor 10,
4-28
EXHIBIT 4-4
MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LIMITS (MCLs)
Constituent Concentration (mg/1)
Arsenic 0.05
Barium 1.0
Cadmium 0.01
Chromium 0.05
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Selenium 0.01
Silver 0.05
Endrin 0.0002
Fluoride 1.4-2.4
Lindane 0.004
Methoxychlor 0.1
Niurate (as N) 10.0
Toxaphene 0.005
2,4-D 0.1
2,4,5-TP 0.01
Total Trihalomethanes* 0.1
* Total trihalomethanes refers to the sum
concentration of chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and bromoform.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
P •!•--• jx :
10, 1985
4-29
concentration of a hazardous constituent must not exceed the background level
of the constituent, Maximum Constituent Concentrations, or oust not exceed an
alternate limit established by the Regional Administrator. RCRA has prov'HoH
a mechanism for allowing the establishment of alternative concentration limit*
above background levels for hazardous constituents covered by the ground-water
protection standard (administrative requirement). Th*» Regional Administrator
will establish an alternate concentration limit for a hazardous constituent if
he or she finds that the constituent will not pose a substantial present or
potential hazard to human health or the environment as long as the alternate
concentration limit is not exceeded.
RCRA Requirements for Obtaining ACL. To obtain an ACL for a particular
substance, an applicant must successfully demonstrate that the proposed ground
water concentration of the constituent will not adversely affact human health
or the environment. Consideration of the following ten factors is required.
• The Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the
Particular Vaste Constituent.
• The Hydrogeologic Characteristics of thp
Area.
The Qyant'ti-y of Ground Water and -h» Dirpr-ipii of
Ground Water Flow.
The Regional Precipitation Patterns.
The Proximity of Ground Vater and Surface Water
Users.
TVp P iT-rpnt ar-* ViifrrP Uses of "SrpunH Wf ~PT" anr*
Surface Water in fhp Area.
Existing j*ull-y of
Water. Including ^hpr Sources of Contamination.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
10, 1985
4-30
• The Potential for Human Health Risks.
• The Potential for Damage to Wildlife. Vegetation.
Agriculture, and Physical Structures.
• The Persistence of the Contaminant and Ppi-mpnpnre of
Potential Adverse Effects.
Because the ACL approach is site-specific, data on each of these factors
are not always required. The type and amount of information needed for an ACL
demonstration are also dependent on whether the applicant attempts to
demonstrate that there will be no exposure to contaminants or that the
exposure will not pose a substantial hazard to human health and the
environment. -Although these demonstrations are not applicable to a CERCLA
site, they may provide an appropriate approach for determining site-specific
concentration levels at some sites.
CERCLA Approach for Protecting Ground Water. For CERCLA on-site response
actions requiring ground-water cleanup, RCRA MCLs or ACL-setting procedures
may be relevant and appropriate. The initial step in determining the level of
cleanup to be achieved will be determination of the ground-water protection
standard (Exhibit 4-5 presents a diagram of the full series of steps
required). THP standard may involve an MCL or a Spal-v--based ACL (or HBACL in
the exhibit), developed to achieve an appropriate health advisory level,
acceptable daily intake, or unit cancer risk at 10~ .
A Nov. 19, 1984 memorandum issued for the International Paper Facility, MO
(Region 7) from Lee Thomas to Morris Kay (RA - Region 7), discusses and
interprets the regulatory requirements for esc^l^'shing a1-pi-"/»rp
concentration, limits (ACLs) under RCRA and their applicability to CERCLA sites.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Diracrive 9224.3-2
December 10, 1985
EXHIBIT 4-5
CERCLA APPROACH TO GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
DETERMINE GROUND WATER PROTECTION
STANDARDS (OIJECTIVCS)
> CONSIDERATIONS:
• MCt
• MIACL (CARCINOGEN TARGET OP 10'*
ADI THRESHOLD)
. OTHER FACTORS:
• GW STRATEGY
• AREA.WIOB WATER USE PLAN
• HIGH BACKGROUND LEVELS
REVISE OBJECTIVES,
IP REQUIRED
SELECT REMEDY FOR MEETING OBJECTIVE
OPTIONS:
. MO ACTON (NATURAL CLMHMiai
. UMTTfO TWUTMIMT . I
. AOOMMVI TfttATIMNT (R**UtCTieM)
FACTORS:
IMn.IMINT
ran s TO i TUMI
FtHWIM
•VAUIATKW ITVOY
-------
OSWER Directive ^
December 10, 1985
4-32
The memorandum lists the factors that should be considered in determining
•4 -8
an acceptable risk level to any exposed individual within the 10 to 10
range:'
• other environmental health factors borne by the
affected population; are they already exposed to known
air, water, or other pollutants such that they have a
high risk load;
• level of uncertainty in the data base and models
used in the risk analysis;
• expected effectiveness and reliability of man-made
systems affecting exposure (e.g., slurry walls,
pumping wells, and the likelihood that off-site wells
will alter ground-water flow patterns);
• current and expected future use of the affected
resource; and
• impacts upon the environment (ie. receiving
ecosystem) at any surface water to which the plume
will discharge.
Tfcp document states that it is useful to determine the total population
that is currently exposed or likely to be exposed in the future, and the cost
or cost effectiveness of the corrective action or engineered solution.
Acceptable individual risk levels for non-threshold compounds must be
established on a site-by-site basis. When applying the risk management
factors to an ACL demonstration, both the current and potential impacts
-4
—4 — 7
RI/FS guidance establishes a range of 10 to 10
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10,
4-33
be considered. It is also necessary to consider the above factors in rhp
context of criteria in 40 CFR § 264.94(b). Exhibit 4-6 lists those criteria
applicable to ACls and ground-water protection.
Records of Decision. Site conditions at the International Paper (IP)
facility are similar to the Re-Miy TPT Supe^^n^H site in St. Lo-lo p/»i-V_ MM
(Region 5). Both facilities WPI-P wood preserving plants that operated for
more than 50 years. The facilities used a creosote preserving process.
Chemical compounds associated with the process are polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH) and phenolics. At both sites, PAHs have entered shallow
aquifers. The drinking water aquifer at the Reilly Tar site is contaminated,
and the drinking water aquifer at the IP facility is threatened.
The selected remedy at the Reilly Tar Pit Superfund site allowed a risk
level of 10 in determining acceptable concentrations of carcinogenic
compounds in water used as drinking water. The concentration level in the
absence of any applicable or relevant and appropriate standards, was selected
on the basis that it was effective in protecting public health and the
environment.
One difference between RCRA ACLs and CERCLA risk levels may be the
physical poi«t at which they •-<» established. ACLs are established at «-
waste management boundary (point of compliance). Exhibit 4-7 lists
descriptions of the waste management area and point of compliance. For CERCLA
responses, the risk levels may also be determined at the point of use. The
point of compliance is at the waste management boundary but special attention
may be £_~ of "«?e (e.g., •Ofprnprp water supplies). ~hp
allowable concentration of carcinogenic compounds at the designated point of
'-f would not be exppi—pH to be arrepHpH as long as ~hp ACL at ~*>P pni^T of
compliance is not exceeded (EBACL). The designated point of use where
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT U-6
RCRA REQUIREMENTS USED TO SET
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
Requlrenent
Ground-water
Protection
FeeIIIty
Tvpe
Surface Im-
poundments
Landfills,
Waste PIles,
and Land
Treatment Units
Descriotloh of Requirement
(1) Concentration limits for hazardous
constituents In ground water are either
the background level, maximum
concentration limits (MCLs) for 14
specified hazardous constituents If the
background levels are below these
limits, or alternate concentration
levels (ACLs) set at levels to protect
human health and the environment.
(2) The Administrator will specify the concen-
tration standards for hazardous
constituents to which the ground-water
protection standards apply. Standards
are set only for constituents capable of
posing a substantial potential hazard to
human health and the environment based on
expected impacts on ground and surface
water.
o Potential adverse effects on ground
water quality considering:
- physical and chemical characteris-
tics of the waste in the unit, and
potential migration
- hydrogeologlcal characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land
- quantity of ground water and
direction of ground-water flow
- current and future uses of ground
water In the area
- existing quality of ground water,
including other sources of
contamination and their cumulative
impact on ground-water quality
potential for health risks caused
by human exposure to constituents
potential damage to wildlife, cops,
vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to constituents
persistence and permanence of the
potential advert
Cite
§261.91
!26U.9 o
M »-
'^j ;>
- o
vo d>
OD
Ln vr
-------
EXHIBIT U-6
RCRA REQUIREMENTS USED TO SET
CONCENTRATION LIMITS
(Continued)
Requlrerant
Croimd-water
! li'li
Facility
Tvpe
Surface Im-
poundments
Landfills,
Waste PIles,
and Land
Treatment Units
Description or Requirement.
(3) Potential adverse effects on
hydraulicaIly-connected surface water
quality, considering:
- volume and physical and chemical
characteristics of the waste In the
unit
- hydrogeoIogIcaI characteristics of
the facility and surrounding land
- quantity and quality of ground water,
and the direction of flow
- patterns of rainfall In the region
- proximity of regulated unit to
surface waters
- current and future uses of surface
water In the area, and water quality
standards established for those waters
- existing quality of surface water,
including other sources of contamina-
tion and cumulative Impacts on
surface-water quality
' potential for health risks caused by
human exposure to constituents
- potential damage to wildlife, crops,
vegetation, and physical structures
caused by exposure to constituents
- persistence and permanence of the
potential adverse effects
Cite
§261.94(6)<2)
U)
in
rt> (/
O r
(B f!
a »
cr
o
•-i H
t-* <
VO (t>
CO
to
i
o
to
-------
L
December 10, 1985
4-36
EXHIBIT 4-7
DEFINITION OF POINT OF COMPLIANCE
AND WASTE MANAGEMENT AREA UNDER RCRA
RCRA Cite
Point of Compliance §264.95(a)
The point of compliance is specified in the facility
permit at which the ground-water protection standard
applies and at which monitoring must be conducted.
o The point of compliance is a vertical surface
located at the hydraulically downgradient limit of
the waste management area that extends into the
uppermost aquifer underlying the regulated units.
o Concentration limits apply at the compliance
points.
Waste Management Area §264.95(b)(l) (2)
o The waste management area is the limit projected
in the horizontal plane of the area on which waste
will be placed during the active life of the
regulated limit.
- the waste management area includes horizontal
space taken up by any liner, dike, or other
barrier designed to contain waste in a
regulated unit.
if the facility contains more than one unit,
the waste management area is described by an
imaginary line circumscribing the several
regulated units.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
ub-»e.K r i, - . ti_ 'J2J+.U-3
Deceirber 10,
4-37
potential exposure may occur is at any point downgradient of the property
boundary unless there are controls beyond the present boundary that *:11
prevent use of the affected resource. If no such controls exist, the
potential exposure point is at or within the property boundary of the site.
However, in o'-Hpr to designate the property boundary as the point of expos_u.t,
there must be permanent prohibitions on *h«» use of onsite ground water as a
source of drinking water or for any other use that would not be protective of
public health and the environment. The restrictions must apply to any future
owners or users of the site.
4.5 REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE CLOSURE
RCRA Subpart G creates technical and procedural standards for closure and
post-closure care of hazardous waste management facilities that are i->Vpiy to
be applicable or relevant and appropriate for a remedial action at a site that
involves closing the site with waste in place. A number of tbe«c requirements
were discussed in previous sections of this chapter. This section prov'Hps a
summary of the requirements and examples of RODs involving closure decisions.
40 CFR 264.111 requires that the owner or operator close the facility in a
manner that "oininiz.es tha «eeH for f^r-*»;»r maintenance" and "controls,
minimizes, or eliminates ... post-closure escape of hazardous waste, leachate,
contaminated rainfall, or waste decomposition products" to the environment.
Process-specific closure requirements for surface impoundments and waste
piles, in particular (see 40 CFR 264.228 and' 264.258, respectively), sper-s.fy
-li-i- =>n contaminated soils nust be "P"rved at closure .to avoid closing -i*t.
facility as a land disposal facility (i.e., with a final cap and 30 years of
post-closure r«rp) As .u-.r»H above, however^ : •- poliu/ decisions asso—
Miuh the Ci/aual Chemical site have determined that removal of all soil
contamination down to background levels may not be required in all cases.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive *_.}*. 0-3
December 10, 1985' '
4-38
Exhibit 4-8 lists the RCRA Technical Standards that must be followed
during closure activities at a facility.
Several RODs were evaluated to determine the range of closure activities
that are being proposed for implementation at CERCLA sites. Exhibit 4-9 lists
the conditions and situations at several CERCLA sites, and the decision and
rationale proposed in the ROD for cleanup activities at those sites. Closet
activities described in these RODs typically include removal of contaminants
from the site, regrading, bringing in clean fill, capping the area,
vegetating, and monitoring. The closure alternatives were selected to
decrease the potential for further contamination at the site.
4.6 REQUIREMENTS FOR POST-CLOSURE/OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
40 CFR 264.117 states that monitoring and reporting requirements
established for the specific facility types under Subparts K, L, M, and N must
continue for 30 years following closure. The Regional Administrator may extend
or reduce the length of the period based on cause. The owner or operator or
the public may petition the Regional Administrator at any time during the post-
closure care period to alter the length of the period. 40 CFR 264.118 requires
the owner or operator to prepare a written post-closure plan describing
planned monitoring and maintenance activities. The post-closure care plan is
subject to the same public participation requirements as the closure plan.
Exhibit 4-10 lists the post-closure standards for RCRA facilities.
Post-closure care is a term associated with RCRA facilities. Activities
associated * •' 1. long r«T! •nrni'tnr-i™ at CERCLA sites «"•«» TP^P^TPH to as
Operation and Maintenance (O&M). O&M activities are conducted to evaluate and
pntiiTp «-hp pf'Fpr^ivpTipss of ons-itp --pinpfHai actions . In addition,
*
activities provi'Hp assurance of the long tp*v integrity of selected
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Requlrement
Closure
Standards
Fac111ty
Tvpe
Surface
Impoundment
EXHIBIT M-8
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR CLOSURE OF A FACILITY
Description of Requirement
(t) The party closing the site must:
o Remove or decontaminate all
waste residues, contaminated
containment system components,
contaminated subsoilb, acid
structures and equipment
contaminated with waste and
leachate, and manage them
as hazardous waste.
o Eliminate Tree liquids by
removing liquid wastes or
so 1 1 d I f y I ng the rema I n I ng
wastes and waste residues
o Stabilize remaining wastes to
a bearing capacity sufficient
to support final cover.
o Cover the surface Impoundment
with a final cover, designed
and constructed to:
- minimize the migration of
liquids through the closed
impoundment
• function with minimum
maintenance
- promote drainage and minimize
erosion or abrasion of the
final cover
- accommodate settling, and
subsidence so that the
cover's integ-ity Is
maintained
- have a permeability less
than or equal to the perme-
ability of any bottom liner
or natural subsoils
Cite
§26(1.228
>tO CFR Subpart K
*>.
i
u>
10
<
ID C/
o *
n t
a >
cr
to o
It H-
n
^ m
o o
vo (B
CD
Oi <£.
(2) If some w»«st-«» residues or
contaminated materials are left
In place at final rlo-surp the
party rinsing the •!;«- im'*t-
-------
EXHIBIT t|-8
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIRCHENTS
FOR CLOSURE OF A FACILITY
(Continued)
Facility
Requirement Tvpe Description of Reaulrement Cite
(Closure
standards)
o Maintain the Integrity of the §261.222
final cover Including making
repairs to the cap to correct
the effects of settling, sub-
sidence, erosion, or other events
o Maintain and monitor the leak
detection system where the system
is present between double liner
systems
o Maintain and monitor the ground
water monitoring system and comply
with all other applicable require-
ments of Subpart F.
o Present run-on and run-off from
eroding or otherwise damaging
the final cover.
*.
Landfills At final closure, the landfill or cell being §2614.310 ^
closed must be covered with a final cover o
designed and constructed to:
o minimize migration of liquids through
the closed landfill.
o function with minimum maintenance.
o promote drainage and minimize erosion
or abrasion of the cover. i '
(0 C/;
o accommodate settling and subsidence so r
Integrity of the cover is maintained. g. *•'
n> o
o have a permeability less than or equal *t H-
to the permeability of any bottom liner ,_ JJ
' system or natural subsoils present. -_• <•
«• rt
Waste Piles (1) At closure, the party closing the site 1264.258, Subpart L •_ <
must: Jg <*
Ul \C
o Remove or decontaminate all • ro
waste residues, contaminated ^
containment sysfm components,
contaminated subsoils, '<-
structures and equipment u
contaminated with wp*to and
leachatfi, and manage them as >•
hazardous waste. __
-------
EXHIBIT l|-8
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR CLOSURE OF A FACILITY
(Continued)
Requlrement
(Closure
standards)
Facility
Tvoe
Land Treatment (1)
Description of Requirement Cite
i
(2) If the party closing the site finds that
not all contaminated subsoils can
be practicably removed or deconta-
minated, he must close the facility
and perform postrclosure care In
accordance with the closure and
post-closure care requirements that
apply to landfills (§264.310).
During the closure period the party §264.280
closing the site must:
o Continue all operations to
maximize degradation, transfor-
mation, or immobilization of
hazardous constituents within the
treatment zone. §261.273(8)
o Continue all operations In the
treatment zone to minimize run-off
of hazardous constituents. §264.273(b)
o Maintain run-on control system. §264.?7Mr)
o Maintain run-off management system. §264.273(d)
o Control wind dispersal of hazardous §264.273(0
waste If required.
o Continue unsaturated zone monitoring. §264.278
Soil-pore liquid monitoring may be
terminated 90 days after the last
application of waste to the treatment
zone.
o Establish a vegetative cover over the
facility being closed at such a time that
the cover will not substantially Impede
degradation, transformation, or Immobili-
zation of hazardous constituents In the
treatment zone.
(2) The site Is not subject to regulations §264.280(d)
under (a) (8) and (c) If the level of
hazardous conbiivutents In the fpttment
•»onp soil does not exrppd the background
value of those rr>n«it inipnt-«i by a «ttiH«:-
significant amount ">M ?flO(H),
I
»
O
a >
o-
VO (D
00
l/l VO
o
I
OJ
-------
EXHIBIT U;8
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR CLOSURE OF A FACILITY
(Continued)
Requirement
(Closure
standards)
Facility
Tvoe
Description or Reaul-ement
Background soil values must be established
to determine whether there Is a
statistically significant Increase over
the values for hazardous constituents
spec I Tied In the facility permit.
Background soil values may be based on
a one-time sampling of a background plot
having characteristics similar to those
of the treatment zone.
Background values and values for
hazardous constituents In the
treatment zone must be expressed
in a form that can be used for the
determination of statistically
significant increases.
Samples must be taken at a
sufficient number of sampling
points and at appropriate
locations and depths to yield
samples that represent the chemical
make-up of the soil not affected by
leakage from the treatment zone, and
the soil within the treatment zone.
The statistical procedure used In
determining whether a statistically
significant Increase has occurred must:
- be appropriate for the distribution
of the data used to establish
background values.
- provide a balance between the
probability of falsely identifying
hazardous constituent presence In
the treatment zone and the proba-
blllty of falling to identify real
presence in the treatment zone.
Cite
(3) The site is not subject to regulation
under Subpart F If it satisfies
§26l.260(d)
o >
rt> f
3 >
cr
«> c
10
oo
-------
EXHIBIT 4-8
RCRA TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
FOR CLOSURE OF A FACILITY
(Continued)
Requlrement
FacIIIty
Tvoe
Incinerator
Tanks
Containers
Description of Requirement
At closure the party.closing the site must
remove all hazardous waste residues including
but not limited to ash, scrubber wastes, and
scrubber sludges from the Incinerator site.
At closure all hazardous waste and hazardous
waste residues must be removed from tanks.
discharge control equipment, and discharge
confinement structures.
At closure all hazardous waste and
hazardous waste residues must be removed
frooi the containment system. Remaining
coniainers, liners, bases and soils
containing or contaminated with hazardous
wastes or hazardous waste residues must
be decontaminated or removed.
Cite
§26U.351, Subpart 0
§2614.197, Subpart J
3264.197, Subpart I
iU
u>
O »'
(0 f
a »
tr
(0 D
f- O
o o
- rt
vO
00
I.
4
-------
EXHIBIT 4-9
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING
CLOSURE FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
SITE
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
( I) Re-Solvo, MA
(2) Bio-Ecology, TX
(3) McColl Site, CA
CO Drake Chemical, PA
(5) Pollution Abatement
Services (PAS). NV
The basic site was used as a solvent reclamation
facility. High concentrations of PCBs, volatile
organlcs and heavy metals have been measured. The
contaminants are migrating off-site via surface
runoff and ground water.
The Bio-Ecology site was a Class I Industrial solid
waste management facility on-site surface contamina-
tion is extensive for metals, organlcs, cyanide, and
arsenic. T
The site was created as a disposal area Tor acid
sludge wastes from the production of high octane
aviation fuel during WWII. S x sumps of highly
acidic waste are located on etch of 2 land parcels.
Homes are nearly and Inltal ccmplalnts of the site
were regarding odors.
Two lined wastewater treatment lagoons, an unlined
sludge lagoon and an untined lagoon are on the site.
Contamination Includes high pesticide and metals
concentration. Drums and bulk waste may be burled
on-site.
The facility was used as a chemical waste storage
and processing facility. The soil and ground water
are contaminated with waste acids and alkalis, PCB-
contamlnated solids and liquids, halogens ted organ-
Ir*, and heavy-metal laden
The remedial action selected Includes
removing contents of four unlined lagoons,
soil from "hot spots", and soil from a
former oil spreading area for disposal
off-site at a RCRA approved facility.
Capping of the entire site is Included.
Capping will eliminate the potential for
direct contact with the PCB-contarninated
soils which will remain on-site, and to
ensure surface water runoff to minimize
contaminants from further percolation
Into the ground water.
The remedial alternative selected in-
cludes: raising the elevation above the
100-year flood plain; construction of an
on-site disposal cell with synthetic
liner and a leachate collection system;
construction of a final cover, liner and
leachate collection and removal system;
stabilize the waste and encapsulate in an
on-site cell; construct a fence; and
Install a ground-water monitoring system.
The waste and contaminated soil will be
excavated and dispo«;prl of at an off-site
RCRA facility. Closure plans include
regrading of the site with soil available
on-site, and placing clean overburden
' over the graded areas.
The selected Phase I remedy Includes:
covering upper reach of leachate stream
with residual soils, capping with clay
and grading to contours of the surround-
ing land, and partial excavation of con-
taminated sediments and construction of a
conduct drain in the lower reach of the
leachate stream.
The remedial alternative Includes:
limited excavation and removal of con-
taminated soil, subsurface tanks and
drums to a RCRA approved landfiI I con-
struction of a perimeter Blurry wall; «ite
grading and capping in accordance with
RCRA k?f>tt- ground-water recovery and moni-
toring; leachate col lent !"r.; and r":-ii:H
leachate and ground-water treatment.
*.
*>.
o
re
o
n>
3
&
ID
n
vo
oo
Ul
-------
EXHIBIT l|-10
RCRA TECHNICAL STANDARDS
FOR POST-C! PSURE CARE
Standard
Post-Closure
Fact IIty
Tvpe
Surface
Impoundment
Landril
Wastes PIles
Description or Standard
o If all contaminated subsoils cannot
be practicably removed at closure
the party closing the site must prepare
a contingent post-closure plan.
o IT liquids leak Into a leak detection
system Installed In a double lined
surface Impoundment the owner/operator
must Inform RA within seven days after
detecting the leak.
After the final closure the party closing the
site must:
o maintain the Integrity and effectiveness
of the final cover, repairing the cap as
necessary to correct the effects of
settling, subsidence, or erosion.
o maintain and monitor the leak detection
system where such a system Is present
between double liner systems.
o continue to operate the leachate collec-
tion and removal system until leachate
Is no longer detected.
o maintain and monitor the ground water
monitoring system and comply with
applicable requirements of Subpart F.
o prevent run-on and run-off from eroding
or damaging the final cover.
o If liquid leaks Into a leak detection
system the owner or operator must notify
the RA within seven days after detecting
the leak.
If after removing or decontaminating residues,
and making all reasonable efforts to effect
removal or decontamination of contaminated
components, subsoils structures, and equip-
ment the party closing the site finds that not
all contaminated subsoils can be practicably
removed or decontaminated, he must close the
facility and perform post-rlnsure care In
accordance with the rInsure and post-rInsure
care requirements that apply to land?ills
(S26H.310).
Cite
§261.228. Subpart K
§2614.310
§264.302
«*
in
§26(1.302
§26i|.258(b), Subpart L
» V
o *-
a> tn
3 -yo
or
O
— r
- rt
H-
H- <
>£> (t>
OO
l/i VC
K)
C
•I
C
I
CO
-------
EXHIBIT «l-10
RCRA TECHNICAL STANDARDS
FOR POST-CLOSURE CARE
(Continued)
Fac111ty
Standard Tvpe Description of Standard Cite
Post-tio&ure Land Treatment (1) The party closing the site must: §26M.280
o continue operations necessary to
enhance degradation and transfor-
mation and sustain immobilization
of hazardous constituents In the
treatment zone consistent with
other post-closure care activities.
o maintain a vegetative cover over
closure portions of the facility.
o maintain the run-on control system (§26i4.273(c))
capable of preventing flow onto the
treatment zone during peak discharge
from at least a 25-year storm.
o maintain the run-off management system (§26M.273(d))
to collect and control at least the
water volume resulting from a 211-hour,
25-year storm.
o control wind dispersal of hazardous (S?fiii.273(f))
waste if the treatment contains partl-
culate matter.
continue unsaturated zone monitoring;
soil-pore liquid monitoring may be
terminated 90 days after the last
application of waste to the treatment
zone. . ' - • .
rt> u.
o *~
0> tr
3 *
cr
n> u
M *•
H
H-- 0>
_. P
- n
H
H* <
vo a>
en
l/t v.
I •
-------
OSWER Directive ^_
December 10, 1985
4-47
and protection of public health and the environment. A number of RCRA
post-closure requirements, however, are likely to be relevant or appropriat
at CERCLA sites. Exhibit 4-11 presents O&M activities associated with live
CERCLA sites. The activities include ground- water monitoring, maintaining
vegetative cover, and operating ground-water treatment systems.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT U-11
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING OPERATION * MAINTENANCE
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
SITE
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
(1) Tysons Dump, PA
(2) Krysov/aty Farm, NJ
(3) IIPnrl Landfill, NJ
Tyson's Dump site Is an abandoned septic and chemical
waste disposal site situated within an old sandstone
quarry. The most highly contaminated areas at the
site are soils over old lagoon locations. A variety
of hazardous chlorinated and non-chlorinated chemical
compounds were round In the soil, air, and water
within and around the former lagoon areas (on-site)
and In the rioodplaln (offsite).
The disposal or chemical wastes at the site was
reported to have occurred between 1965 and 1970.
The disposal area Is a partly rilled, seml-perennlcal
stream channel ralrne drums, bulk'chemicals, refuse,
automobiles, and other wastes have been Identified
at the site.
Hazardous wastes dumped at the landfill have perco-
lated Into the ground water under the landfill.
Wastes have leached out and contaminated surface
In the area.
The selected remedy Includes excavation
and offsite disposal or contaminated
soils and wastes to a permitted RCRA
landfill, upgrading or an existing air-
stripping facility to treat leachate,
shallow ground water, and surface run-on
encountered during excavation, and ex-
cavation and off-site disposal of
contaminated sediments within the
tributary which receives effluent from
the existing air stripper. Post
excavation activities Include collection
and treatment of residual leachate and
contaminated shallow ground water
Monitoring until data Indicates that
treatment Is no longer required will be
conducted periodically. It is
anticipated that by removing the source
or contamination, the quality or
leachate and contaminated ground water
will gradually Improve so that the
operation or the treatment system will
no longer be warranted. The time period
is estimated to be rive years.
The remedial alternative selected for the
site includes: the excavation and re-
moval or the waste disposal area, trans-
port and disposal of waste to an approved
hazardous waste facility, the provision
or a permanent alternative water supply
for potentially affected residences, and
the monitoring of wells, senI-annually
for a five year period. The monitoring
or existing onslte wells will evaluate
the migration or any remaining
contamination.
The remedial action selected for the ••;>•
Is to be Implemented In two phases.
Phase I Involves the Installation of an
impermeable slurry wall around the
entire affected area and th»
installation of an impermeable cap over
the area. Pha«:e II is a well collection
system to remove contaminated ground
water, which will then be routed to an
area POTW.
I
*>.
CO
» u
o -
n r
3 >
tr
>- r
*-• <-
V£> (t
-------
EXHIBIT 4-11
(Continued)
SriFPTCO RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING OPERATION ft MAINTENANCE
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
ol It
CO Highlands Acid Pit, TX
SITUATION AND ISSUES
The site was used for the disposal of Industrial
waste sludge, delivered to be spent sulfurlc acid
sludge. The site Is often subject to extreme water
level fluctuations, and is flood-prone.
(5) Old Ingor, LA
The Old Inger site was used as an oil .eflnery and
reclamation plant. The waste at .the site contains
quantities of hazardous constituents which potentially
have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenlc, or teratogenlc
effects on humans.
DECISION AND RATIONALE
Activities to be completed as a part of
the remedial action Include: excavating
the waste material, transporting the
waste to a Class I disposal facility
backfilling the excavated area with
clean fill, constructing temporary site
perimeter fence with warning signs,
installation of a ground-water
monitoring system, and performing
ground-water monitoring and site
maintenance for a 30-year period.
Maintenance could consist of periodic
Inspections, revegetation, and erosion
control.
Projected operation and maintenance
activities for the selected alternative
will Include long-term soil monitoring
and long-term ground water monitoring.
Other activities Include maintaining the
run on/run off system, maintaining the
vegetative cover, and continuing
operations to enhance degradation and
transformation of hazardous constituents
in the land treatment zone.
vo
-
10 t/1
O *~.
m tn
3 1C
tr
«> o
hi H-
H
•— a>
O O
I- <
do
L/i VC
N-
I
(.
-------
D rp(—ve ^_
December 10, 1985
5-1
CHAPTER 5
GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
FOR SITE CLEANUP BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
This chapter addresses "clean closure" or site cleanup by removal of
hazardous substances to an off-site facility. Closing a site by removing ?11
hazardous substances requires the following seni'pnrp Of actions:
(1) Identification of the contaminated area, media, and
waste types involved;
(2) Excavation of the hazardous substances and removal of
contaminated soils, ground water,l equipment, and
structures; and
(3) Selection of an off-site waste management technology
and an off-site RCRA-permitted facility (or
facilities) to receive all excavated materials.
Each of these steps is subject to Federal requirements that meet the Hpf •>«•!-
tions of applicable or relevant and appropriate as considered in Chapter 2.
There are three principal issues inherent to remedies designed to "clean
close" a CERCLA site:
(1) Are the RCRA definitions of and standards for
hazardous waste management applicable?
1 It is assumed that ground water is not treated on site, but is removed
to an off-site, approved facility for treatment and disposal. This can be
nn-ifp cos.ly, considering t^e large volumes of contaminated ground water -
may be involved. As a result, remedies that combine removal of hazardous
substances =» • i' *in-E:J-r» ground wft*»r i-i-Am-m^nt and disposal
necessary.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10, 1985
5-2
(2) How clean is clean?
(3) What technologies, given the waste types involved, can
achieve proper management of the wastes, and which
off'Site facilities can provide the necessary
treatment and disposal technology in accordance with
all RCRA requirements?
Remedial actions such as consolidating off-site releases or consolidating
wastes from several contiguous areas can constitute waste management under the
RCRA definition of that term. RCRA requirements that determine how hazardous
wastes oust be managed must be interpreted as to their application to CERCLA
actions.
The question of "how clean is clean" is the factor that determines fb»
areal extent and the depth of a contaminated area that must be removed
off-site to qualify as a clean closure. Much of the CERCLA policy
interpretations of RCRA requirements and many RODs deal with this question.
The choice of technologies to treat and dispose of the hazardous
substances and materials rests largely on technical factors such as the
treatability or incinerability of the waste, but also is influenced by
Fund-balancing needs. The RCRA regulations also place restrictions on
technology choices that are specific to certain waste forms (e.g., liquids) or
types (e.g., dioxins).
Selecting a facility to receive the materials removed also requires
technical evaluations and can also have a cost dimension when an available
off-«--'fi° far.-i'V-i'fy is located at a jrpnr Ji'^t^rp from a site. VThp^^pr a
particular facility is in compliance with the technical standards established
nnHpT RCRA :.s nor a CERCLA responsiLlliuy; CERCLA policy, however, does
require that only facilities known to be compliance can receive wastes
generated from CERCLA site clean-up actions.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER B__t.L.ve -• -4.0-3
December 10, i°^5
5-3
RCRA regulations establish applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements that pertain to each of these issues. These requirements are
discussed in detail in Appendix A. In following sections, these requirements
are addressed in summary form and, most importantly, are discussed in rei-m* of
the interpretations made to date for their specific application to CERCLA
clean-up actions that involve the removal of hazardous substances. Sources
consultsd for these interpretations or which provide examples of the
application of these requirements include: Records of Decision (RODs); ~b<>
memorandum on "Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions"; afld a variety of site-specific or general policy memoranda,
interpretive memoranda, technical guidance, and briefings on remedy selection.
This chapter is organized into five sections. Each of the five sections
focuses on one of these action steps, key issues or decision points -inhpi-pnt
tp that step, and the requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate to that step.
5.1 IDENTIFYING THE AREA OF CONTAMINATION AND WASTE TYPES
At some CERCLA sites, hazardous substances may have been released to areas
outside of the main waste area (the waste management unit in RCRA terms). It
may be appropriate, in some circumstances, to remedy this contamination by
returning the material released to the waste management unit prior to
subsequent consolidation and removal of all contaminated material to an
off-site facility. Under RCRA, such an action constitutes "management" of
hazardous wastes.
Waste management as defined by RCRA means the "systematic control of
collection, source preparation, storage, transportation, processing,
treatment, recovery, and disposal of hazardous waste." As so defined, the
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive 9234.3-3
10, 1985
5-4
excavation of an area with significant concentrations of hazardous substances
would require the wastes to be disposed in an interim status or permitted
facility, or in a new on-site facility that meets RCRA technical standards.
Consolidation of waste material from such a release with wastes contained in
the former waste management area does not strictly meet these requirements.
CERCLA policy, however, has been established that consolidation of an area
with significant concentrations of hazardous substances is fully compliant
with applicable or relevant and appropriate provisions of RCRA if the
contamination is returned to the waste management unit- of its origin. Such a
decision was reached in devising the compliant remedy for the Crystal Chemical
site though, in that case, containment rather than off-site disposal was
chosen as the final remedy. The rationale is whether the final remedy
complies with RCRA requirements although the interim remedy (waste
consolidation) does not. Selection of an interim remedy that does not meet
applicable or relevant and appropriate Federal requirements is allowed by the
NCP and the Compliance Policy. It should also be noted that if these releases
were excavated and sent directly to a RCRA-permitted off-site treatment and
disposal facility, this, too, would be compliant remedy.
There remains some question as to whether an interim remedy whe^p
contaminated materials from different, but contiguous, waste management units
are excavated and consolidated at one unit for removal to an off-site
facility. Again, RCRA definitions of waste management would apply as would
requirements that disposal occur at an interim status or permitted facility.
CERCLA policy in these cases would probably be controlled by NCP provisions to
allow interim remedies that do not meet applicable or relevant and appropriate
TprmiTpme«r«! but, as yet, this decision has not bp«"i conf*-rm<*A in a sp«»r--P-~
m
site action.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
rircc._j.vt y_ji+.0-3
-j. 10, i-«Mj
5-5
5.2 EXCAVATION OF WASTES AND CONTAMINATED SOILS
The question of "how clean is clean" has perhaps its greatest impact on
what qualifies as a "clean closure" under RCRA when the CERCLA remedy involves
removal of wastes off-site for treatment and disposal. This question impacts
how much material must be excavated and removed either when waste materials.
are consolidated as discussed above, or when final excavation takes place.
5.2.1 Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements for Excavation
Subpart G of RCRA specifies the technical and procedural standards for
closure of hazardous waste management facilities. 40 CFR §264.111 requires
that the owner or operator close the facility in a manner that "minimizes the
need for further maintenance" and "controls, minimizes, or eliminates...post-
closure escape of hazardous waste, leachate, contaminated rainfall, or waste
decomposition products." Process-specific closure requirements for surface
impoundments (40 CFR 264.228), as one example, state that "all waste residues,
contaminated containment system components and contaminated subsoils..." must
be removed or decontaminated if closure of the facility as a land disposal
facility is to be avoided (i.e., with a final cap and 30 years of post-closure
care).
The implication of *h*»se T-pm"i»-«»rv»«t«5 is that contaminated soils and -<->
materials must be cleaned up to background levels. For contaminated ground
water, RCRA specifies that either the hazardous constituent levels must be
returned to background concentrations, to constituent-specific levels that
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) under the SDWA, or to alternate concentration
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Dirp-r:Ve 923^.3-3
December 10, 1985
5-6
limits (ACLs), if these limits can be shown not to pose a substantial present
or potential hazard to human health or the environment.2
For CERCLA clean-up actions, the practical effect of cleanup to background
levels may be to make the removal of "all" contamination impractical and
costly, and to force remedies towards containment of wastes on-site. As
discussed in Chapter 4, policy has been established through decisions like
those made for the Crystal Chemical site that allows contamination levels
greater than background to be left behind without triggering requirements for
capping and other closure and post-closure measures.
For soils, CERCLA policy has established two mechanisms for setting an
"action level" greater than background that are judged to coaply with RCRA.
The first is the hazardous waste delisting process, which is discussed in
detail in Chapter 6. Prior to the codification of the HSWA amendments to
RCRA, delisting petitioners had to demonstrate that the waste did not meet any
of the criteria under which it was originally listed as hazardous, including
the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and EP
toxicity. New provisions under HSWA added requirements to determine that the
waste does not satisfy any factors other than those for which the waste was
listed, or to show there is no reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. The delisting
process, while a possible mechanism, is, however, a rule-making procedure of
2. Ground-water protection standards may also be set at health advisory
levels. Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels, for example, have been
developed for several toxics. For carcinogens, an acceptable risk range of
-4 -7
10 to 10 has been established under Agency policy with a target level
of 10'6.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive
December 10, 1935
5-7
sufficient length and complexity that its use for CERCLA clean-up actions is
impractical.
The second mechanism is a site-specific exposure and risk modeling
methodology crafted for CERCLA sites. Th*» objective of this method is to
demonstrate that the residual contamination poses no threat to human *- 1 • or
the environment through any route of exposure involving all media. In *hi«:
respect, it is similar to the demonstration required under RCRA regulations
for setting alternate concentration limits for hazardous constituents in
ground water.
One such method under development for soil contamination is the Soil
Contaminant Evaluation Methodology (SOCEM), which is discussed in detail in
Chapter 4. SOCEM can be used to set preliminary soil clean-up targets and to
assess the threat to ground water. In addition, guidance documents concerning
the evaluation of soil and ground-water contamination are being developed for
publication within the next year.
In instances of ground-water contamination, it appears that the RCRA
requirement for cleanup to background levels, MCLs, or ACLs applies to
ground-water restoration at CERCLA sites. Final remedies that involve removal
of ground water for treatment and disposal off-site must, therefore, meet one
of these protection standards as established for the site. Established MCLs
under RCRA and the RCRA requirements for an ACL demonstration are discussed in
Appendix A and Chapter 4. An interim remedy, however, may establish an
alternate and, perhaps, lesser clean-up goal as per provisions in the NCP and
the Compliance Policy.
5.2.2 Selected RODs
Several Records of Decision (RODs) for remedial actions at CERCLA sites
have involved consideration of "how clean is clean" for the clean-up of soil
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSUER Directive 923-.C-31
December 10, 1985*
5-8
and ground water, although not all have resulted in the removal of hazardous
substances off-site for treatment and disposal. These RODs are nonetheless
illustrative of the application or interpretation of RCRA requirements for
setting clean-up levels at CERCLA sites. Exhibit 5-1 provides a sample of
these RODs summarizing the issues involved at each site, how these issues
decided, and, if provided, the rationale behind the decisions made.
Jibboom Junkyard. The Jibboom Junkyard site (Region 9) is the former
location of the Associated Metals Company salvage yard. Extensive lead,
copper, and zinc contamination of soil has been detected onsite. PCBs were
detected in the top foot of soil throughout the site; however, the levels
detected did not exceed state or federal criteria for the definition of a
hazardous substance which in the case of PCBs is 50 ppm.
The selected remedy consists of excavation and removal of contaminated
soils to a RCRA-approved off-site, Class I, hazardous waste disposal
facility. A cleanup objective of controlling exposure to lead at
concentrations greater than 200 ppm, the health-risk-based action level, was
developed for the ROD. The removal alternative eliminates the potential for
contaminants to migrate into the ground water and is compliant with RCRA and
the Ground-Water Protection Strategy.
Voodbury Chemical Company. The Voodbury Chemical Company (Region 9)
operated a pesticide manufacturing facility for approximately fifteen years
until fire destroyed the facility. Fire rubble and debris containing
pesticides were disposed on an adjacent empty lot, which is designated the
CERCLA site. More than 1,500 pounds of orgpnorMo^-iHp pesticides »*•«» prp««v-
on the sites. Results of remedial investigations show contaminated soils and
sediments on site, contaminated •sprHiipnT's off-site, and pesticides in tho
«
ground water below the site. The most significant- contamination is limited to
the rubble piles.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING "HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN"
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
SITE
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
Jibboom Junkyard, CA
Contamination at site Is United to the top foot
or soil, there is no off-site contamination;
PCBs detected in top foot of soil, however,
levels did not exceed state or federal criteria
to define as hazardous (50 ppm); lead levels
found to be above background, and lead, zinc,
and copper levels exceeded California Assessment
Manual Criteria; direct contact hazard to soil
poses risk in range of 10-3 to 10-5 If contami-
nated with PCBs, but PCB levels below 50 ppm
standard.
None of five NCP exceptions for com-
pliant remedy apply to this site
(§300.68(i)(5i); decided to clean-up or
control exposure to levels of lead In
soil that exceed background (200 ppm);
recommended excavation and off-site dis-
posal at RCRA-approved, Class I site for
all soils with lead levels greater than
200 ppm.
Woodbury Chemical, CO
H01CO. IX
ii. and Caiia
Propeilies, MO
Pesticide contamination of suit at site; three
options evaluated to select appropriate residual
pesticide concentration as clean-up standard:
(i) "typical" residual concentrations for soil in
urban areas, (n) RCHA standards, and (in)
potential cancer risk calculation; typical resld'ial
total pesticides concentration in soil in urban
areas found to be 1 ppm from data studied; level of
3 ppm represented 5 kg of total pesticide remaining
on ** ' acre «•!«•; calculated possible delivered
concentration in ground water based on this level,
solubility of pesticide, pesticide half-lives,
recharge to ground water, and dilution by the
alluvial aquifer; calculated level of 35 ng/l two
orders of magnitude below RCRA standard for
toxaphene; level also within 10-4 to 10-7
acceptable cancer risk range.
Near surface ground water and soils have been contam-
inated when waste pits overtopped dikes after storm
events; residuals in soils most likely to be non-
volatile organic* and some metals.
360 square feet of soils at the Rosalie Site are
contaminated to d depth of two fret with moderately
and highly toxic, highly mobile substances; priority
pollutants in 4'»r««" of [HA water quality criteria
foi hum.i n h<»l Hi and freshwater aquatic Hie toxicity
wrri» (ii-i i-i-l i i| in surface water samples from Hosalie
and C.i I liih.in iitrv Nil. 2. J. 1,8- ICHO was delected at
H I ppli delect ion level in composite soil samples.
Removal of 250 cubic yards contaminated
soil with total pesticides levels greater
than 100 ppm.
Contamination off-tite subject of
ongoing Rl study to determine what
information is needed to set "how clean
is clean" levels for soil and ground
water.
Removal of all contaminated material to
achieve background levels in the suit
would result in a cost that is dispro-
portionate to (•<>«!< of other alterna-
tives, and would not provide a balance
between the need for protection nf thn
public health, wi'irsri' and the environ-
ment and the amount of money available
.
m i
o *
IB r
3 >
cr
a> t.
VO ft
00
01 v.
r.
i.
4
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
(Continued)
SELCCTCD RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING "HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN"
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
Rosa Iie and Callahan
Properties, HO (cont'tl)
Triangle Chemical, TX
Bayou Bonfouca, LA
Taylor Borough Site, PA
Soil contamination restricted to on-slte drum and
tank storage areas; levels of metals in background
range, but extensive area of VOC contamination in
excess of 500 ppm.
55 acre, abandoned creosote works.faclIIty; creosote
contaminated exists on the site surface, in bayou
bottom sediments; there are approximately 5.000 cubic
yards or creosote material on the site surface; a
sharp decrease in soil contamination occurs at a depth
or about 6 Inches below the creosote deposits; two
shallow ground water zones above the significant aquifer
are contaminated.
An abandoned strip mine and municipal landfill; no
Primary Drinking Water Standards are exceeded for
inorganics In ground water; secondary standards are
exceeded for lead and manganese; organic contamination
of ground water while present. Is minimal in terms of
the number of wells affected, the number of contami-
nants detected, and their concentrations; limited
volatile organlcs, pesticides and PCBs are found In
a surface pond; organic concentration of surface soils
Is minimal; concentrations of metals In surface soils
are prevalent; lead and arsenic especially are elevated
in two areas; because ground water in the area Is acidic
and not used as a drinking water supply, the primary
exposure pathway of concern is direct contact of site
trespassers or wildlife with soil contaminants.
In the Fund to respond to other sites.
Contaminant levels will not be restored
to background levels; CDC evaluation of
threat to public health of soil levels
is a continual process until CDC
determines threat no longer exists; CDC
has advised that concentrations
anticipated to remain after excavation
expected to depth of 2 feet do not
represent a threat to public health.
Mechanical aeration of contaminated
soils; decontamination to background
levels effectively mitigates the
potential for future ground water
contamination. Cost pfferHve.
Treat and dispose of creosote material;
for added protection of public health
and the environment, excavate and
dispose upper 6 inches of soil beneath
creosote piles.
Excavation of contaminated soils and
wastes for off-site disposal of a
qualified RCRA facility. Backfilling
and placement of a 2U" soil cover,
installation of chain link fence around
perimeter of soil covered areas. The
final cover will provide a barrier for
direct contact and reduce the amount of
infiltration caused by precipitation.
Future land i'<;p restrictions should
ensure long-l-prm Integrity and pff<»rtivo-
ness of the response.
I
M
o
o
oo -
Ol >.
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
(Continued)
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING "HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN"
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
oi it
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
HcKIn Site. ME
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
Lehlgh
beri hi ft Farrc, HI
Enterprise Avenue, PA
Current potential health and environmental risks
associated with exposure to contaminated ground
water; exposure to other contaminated media judged
to Involve insignificant risks based on comparison
of levels to relevant criteria and from risk assess-
ment performed as part of FS; Ingestion of 10 grams
of the most contaminated soil would result In iCL
exposure below acute toxlcity levels and risk from
chronic Ingestion not significant based on limited
exposures to site and soil levels; dermal contact
risks also Insignificant based on soil concentra-
tions, volatility of substances, and toxic levels.
Site used for lagoon storage and settling of repro-
cessed oil, storage of filter clay from oil repro-
cessing facilities, as a sanitary landfill, and as
sand and gravel pit.
Site contaminated with up to 10,000 ppm PCBs.
Features of site Include drum landfill, a 0.2 acre
paint sludge trench, two subsurface agricultural
drains and numerous Isolated pockets of liquids,
paint sludges and solvents; approximately 35 percent
of drums In the landfill contain solids with PCB
concentration greater than 50 ppm; small quantities
of liquid could have PCB concentrations greater than
500 ppm; potential exposure routes are surface water,
ground water and air; two aquifers are affected by
releases at this site.
Contaminated Is limited to two soil stockpiles; the
larger pile contains total organic' halogens up to
5,350 ppm, averaging j?0 ppm; the smaller pile
contains volatile organ Ics up to 1000 ppm, averaging
iid ppm toluene, 3<4 ppm benzene and 9*1 ppm ethyl-
benzene; the potential exists for contamination from
the piles to reach surface water and a deep aquifer.
Residual soil contamination level after
aeration that is protective of human
health and environment Is 0.1 ppm TCE;
level determined by site-spec I fie fate
and transport modeling with concurrence
by CDC that level posed no hazard from
soil Ingestion, paniculate Inhalation,
dermal contact, or Ingestion of contami-
nated ground water (safe level in ground
water 28 ppb for iLt based on 10-5
lifetime cancer risk).
Excavation to i| foot level determined to
remove 90% of contamination; excavation
to a greater depth provides only marginal
additional benefits at a high cost.
Excavate and dispose off-site all soils
with PCB concentrations greater than 50
ppm; community wanted 10 ppm level set,
but Judged too rnvt-iy; 50 ppm is ibCA
cut-off level.
Excavate existing drum landfill and
dipose of sludge, crushed drums, liquid
wastes, and visibly contaminated soils
off-site. Off-site disposal of wastes
In accordance with RCRA regulations for
the transportation and disposal of l.m.-
ardous wastes. Temporary cap if deter-
mined that additional actions are needed
to address contaminated soil under
Sample stockpiled soils for key Indicator
parameters; contain soils on-site when
levels measured are less than parameter
limits and dispose soils off-site when
levels exrppd limits (limits: tottl
organic halogens, 25 ppm; benzene 12
ppm; toluene, 15 ppm; ethyIbpnvpnp, 15
ppm; ar^onlr. 5 ppm; barium, 100 ppm;
cadmium, 1 ppm; chromium, 5 ppm; lead, 5
ppm; mercury, 0 ? ppm; selenium, 1 ppm;
siIver, 5 ppm).
01
(0 C
o >
n> n
9 *
cr
n c
vo i
oo
Oi .
i
i
i
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
(Continued)
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION CONSIDERING "HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN"
FOR CERCLA REMEDIAL ACTIONS
ol it
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
AlcJex Corporation, IA
Wade Site, PA
Spence Farm, NJ
Tysons Dump
Seventeen pesticides. In concentrations 500-1,000
times the normal application rate, found at this site;
two burial trenches contain 154,000 pounds or powdered
pesticide; It Is easily dispersed If disturbed; shallow
ground water and subsurface soils have also been con-
taminated; the greatest risks are exposure to materials
in the burial trenches, contaminated ground water under
the site, and the contaminated surface soil; surface
soil serves as a leachate source.
Sampling has Indicated that the top 12 inches of soil
over much of the site is contaminated by volatile
organic compounds and/or base neutral and acid
extractable fractions of priority pollutants; over
100 different organic and inorganic compounds and
metals have been identified; inhalation/ingestlon of
contaminated soil is the most likely route of exposure;
concentrations of contaminants In ground-water discharge
from the site are negligible.
Wastes were disposed at the site by surface dumping
rather than by burial; principal contamination Is
in soils and containers; only limited contamination
of ground water and surface water exists; most organic
pollutants found are not priority pollutants; volatile
organics are only found In localized areas; contamina-
tion of soil by individual organic compounds In test
pits averages about 1,500 ppb; individual inorganic
components averages about 10 ppm. .
Septic and chemical wastes In unlined lagoons.
Excavation of soils In and immediately
adjacent to waste trench when levels are
in excess of 10 ppm total pesticides.
10 ppm total pesticide standard ooiprteil
based on recommended application id lea of
various pesticides In use throughout the
State, (conservative estimate of back-
ground residual contamination).
Excavation of soils exceeding 100 mg/kg
volatile organics or 500 mg/kg base
neutral/acid organics to depth at which
levels are not exceeded.
Removal of containerized wastes and
visibly contaminated soils to a RCRA
landfill.
Excavate contaminated soils and waste in
lagoon areas and .dispose orr-site. OSW
guidance on locational criteria was nspri
In deciding to dispose of contaminate
off-site rather than establish on-site
RCRA landfill on-slte soil cleanup level
to background level was selected to be
consistent with RCRA.
n> ir
o *
cr
(0 CJ
vr
t"
U
i.
L-
-------
923-*.0-3
, 1985
5-13
The criteria used to select the remedial alternative at the Woodbury
Chemical Site, for the appropriate residual pesticide concentration were:
• potential cancer risk;
• typical residual soil concentrations in urban areas; and
• RCRA standards.
The value of 3.0 ppm was selected as a reasonable level for a criteria cleanup
concentration for total pesticides. The value was selected because it
represents an average urban total pesticide soil concentration based on deta
that were reviewed. Cleaning to a 3.0 ppm residual pesticide concentration in
the soil will result in a minimal impact to the aquifer underlying the site.
The potential cancer risk based on the value of 3.0 ppm is 3.5 x 10 .
for toxaphene, and is within the acceptable range of cancer risk levels of
10" to 10 . The EPA document "Guidance on Feasibility Studies under
CERCLA," (June 1985), suggests a 10* target cancer risk factor w*"*ie
-4 -7
allowing an acceptable range of cancer risk factors from 10 to 10
The cleanup value of 3.0 ppm represents a total residual pesticide
concentration of 5.0 kg. of total pesticides remaining on the 2.2-acre site.
The potential delivery of pesticides to the alluvial aquifer at a depth of 20
feet was calculated. The calculations were based on the:
• relative concentration of pesticides in the soil,
• solubility of pesticides,
• pesticide half-lives,
• recharge to the site, and
• dilution by the alluvial aquifer.
Empirically derived adsorption equations were used to calculate the
concentration of 35 ng/1 in the water at a 3.. 0 ppm soil pesticide
concentration. The concentration is more than two orders of magnitiude less
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Ub-v-K ~\ir*»--.-vt 923-*.0-3
Decerrber 10, 1985
5-14
than the RCRA concentration limits for toxaphene (0.005 mg/1) at the point of
compliance directly outside of the site boundaries.
Tysons Dump. The Tysons Dump site (Region 3) consists of septic and
chemical wastes disposed of in unlined lagoons. The remedial alternative
selected was to excavate contaminated soils and waste in lagoon areas, and to
dispose of the materials off-site.
OSV guidance on locational criteria was used in deciding to dispose of the
contaminants off-site rather than establishing an on-site RCRA landfill. Thp
on-site cleanup to background level was selected to be consistent with RCRA.
The off-site soil cleanup level was an interim remedy selected using a public
health/exposure approach, leaving concentrations above background without a
cap.
Rosalie and Callahan. Containerized and bulk liquid and solid wastes
were disposed of on the Rosalie and Callahan properties (Region 7) during the
1970s. The types of wastes included solvents, oils, sludges, pesticides and
flammable gelatinous materials. The remedial alternative involves the
off-site disposal of hazardous substances which pose a threat of release into
the environment.
The contaminant levels at the Rosalie and Callahan properties will not be
restored to background levels. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has
advised that the contaminant levels that are anticipated to remain following
the remedial action do not represent a threat to public health. The ROD
indicates that a substantial threat of a release into the environment will be
reduced.
Aidex. The Aidex site (Region 7) is widely, and is some areas, heavily
contaminated with a variety of chemicals, principally organochlorine,
*
organophosphate, and S-triazine pesticides. The materials on Aidex which
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10,
5-15
of greatest concern are the pesticides, which have migrated downward through
the soil. The contaminated surface soil is acting as a source for continued
leaching into the ground water and is a direct contact hazard. The range of
concentrations across the site is large but some samples show total pesticide
concentrations up to 5100 ppm.
Recommended action at the Aiaex site is cleanup of contaminated soils
where total pesticide content exceeds 10 parts per million. The cleanup level
approaches background levels for pesticides when compared with peak values for
Iowa farms. The excavated areas will be filled with approximately three •??»<-
of clean, compacted soil and graded. The alternative is designed so that:
• the cleanup of soils which exceed a total pesticide
level of 10 ppm would assure that no single chemical
is present at a level significantly higher than the
normal field application rate for pesticides;
• the cleanup of soils containing more than 10 ppm
pesticides substantially reduces the amount of
pesticides at the site which may cause harm or be
available for transport to offsite receptors; and
• the threat of ground-water contamination is reduced
if the level of contaminants is reduced to 10 ppm at
the site.
The off-site disposal of contaminated soils and buried waste, with
ground-water monitoring are considered adequate to protect public health and
-he oTivi'Tument.
The proposed action will not require on-site treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous wastes. *^P removal of pes.-lu.Lue contaminated soils to
near background levels of total pesticides «•11 alleviate the need for capping
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
GSWER Dj-itu-iv-e 9C14.C-3
December 10, -••*•<
5-16
residual soils. Therefore, the proposed alternative is consistent with RCRA
regulations.
5.3 SELECTING AN OFF-SITE WASTE MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY
The choice of a technology to treat and dispose of hazardous substances
removed from a CERCLA site is largely a technical evaluation of waste
characteristics and treatabllli./. Cost consideration (including
transportation costs) are also important, however, because both CERCLA and the
NCP require Fund-balancing for Fund-financed responses. Fund-balancing can
influence the choice of technology if costs for one option are sufficiently
high that, considering the amount of money available in the Fund, selection of
the less costly option is preferable in order to have funds to address other
sites. Although the choice can be influenced by costs, all options must be
protective of public health, welfare, and the environment.
CERCLA policy has also been developed that expresses certain preferences
for the application of a waste management technology to CERCLA clean-up
actions. This policy has been established as part of "Procedures for Planning
and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions," (the "Off-Site Policy"). This
policy states that response actions that use treatment, reuse, or recycling of
hazardous substances should be pursued over land disposal to the greatest
extent practicable, consistent with CERCLA requirements for cost-effective
remedial actions. The Off-Site Policy goes on to say that treatment, reuse,
or recycling alternatives should not be screened out on the basis of cost
alone unless that cost exceeds the cost of other alternatives by an order of
magnitude and does not provide substantially greater public health and
environmental benefits.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
1Q,
5-17
For certain waste forms (e.g., liquids) and certain waste types (e.g.,
dioxins) RCRA regulations may also influence the range of technological
options for off-site treatment and disposal of hazardous substances removed
from a CERCLA site. As an example, the HSWA and subsequent codification rule
impose a ban on the placement of bulk liquids or hazardous waste containing
fi-pp Hnii-iH«:* in any IflnH^-M1 after May 8, 1985. Non-hazardous, liquids also
may not be placed in any landfill after November 8, 1985, unless it is
demonstrated that it is the only reasonably available alternative and will not
present a risk of contamination to any underground drinking water source.
HSVA also established a schedule for restricting the land disposal of all
hazardous wastes. Land disposal includes any placement of hazardous waste in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed formation, or underground mine or
cave. A ban on all land disposal is established under the statute's hammer
provisions unless there is a determination that for a particular waste, one or
more methods of land disposal are protective of human health and the
environment. To be judged protective, treatment standards set by the Agency
to minimize threats to human health and the environment must be met, or a
case-specific petition must demonstrate that there v
-------
OSWER D_xe;.-we 923-*.0-3
December 10, 1985
5-18
HSVA also established disposal prohibitions (except for deepwell
ion), effective November 8, 1986, for dioxin- firifl solvpnt-containing
hazardous wastes. RCRA regulations promulgated on January 15, 1985, listed
certain chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans, and phenols (and ^h^r
phenoxy derivatives) as acute hazardous wastes. These wastes can only be
handled at fully permitted facilities that meet certain criteria (e.g.,
incinerators that demonstrate 99.9999% destruction and removal efficiency) or
at certain qualified interim status facilities as certified by the EPA. As
yet, these regulations have not been made effective. In addition, the EPA has
proposed to list residues from the approved incineration or thermal treatment
of dioxin-containing wastes as toxic rather than as acute hazardous wastes.
This allows for the management of these residues (containing 10 ppm or less
chlorinated dioxins) at interim status facilities.
The new delisting provisions discussed in Section 5.3 can also impact
technology choices for treatment and disposal of hazardous substances removed
from CERCLA sites. If these substances can be delisted as hazardous under
these provisions, these substances could be disposed at a non-secure i/»rHf-ni
or treated at a municipal wastewater treatment plant.
If the hazardous substances involved include PCBs, TSCA requirements for
the treatment and disposal of PCBs will also influence technology choices.
PCS liquids containing more than 500 ppm PCBs must be incincerated or treated
by an equivalent method; solids must be incinerated or drained of fluids,
flushed with solvent, and landfilled. Fluids containing 50 to 500 ppm PCBs
can be incinerated, landfilled at an approved facility, or burned in a high
efficiency boiler. Wastes containing less than 50 ppm PCBs are generally not
regulated though prohibitions on the land disposal of these wastes »"•«» to be
considered.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CSU-R Directive 923-*.0-3
Dprpr-ihpr 10, !-(•>-,
5-19
5.4 SELECTING AN OFF-SITE RCRA FACILITY
CERCLA policy and guidance on selection of an off-site RCRA facility to
treat and/or dispose of hazardous materials removed has been estaonshed in
The Oil-Site Policy, which prohibits the "use of a RCRA facility for off-site
management of [CERCLA] hazardous substances if [that facility] has significant
RCRA violations (e.g., Class I violations) or other environmental conditions
that affect the satisfactory operation of the facility." To select an
appropriate facility, these steps must be followd:
• The facility must have an applicable RCRA permit or
interim status specific to the wastes, and storage,
treatment, or disposal processes involved;
• A RCRA compliance inspection must have been
performed at that facility within the preceding six
months to assess whether there f>r* any significant
violations or conditions affecting satisfactory
operation;
• RCRA hazardous wastes, if sent to a new land
disposal facility or lateral expansion or replacement
of an existing land disposal unit, «ft«"' May 8, 1°**
must be sent to those facilities in compliance with
the minimum technical requirements established under
RCRA;
• Interim status land disposal facilities under
co"«iHi>T>9f-ton must have Mprnmt* ground-w?1""^
monitoring data to assess whether the facility poses a
to ground wtf"-; and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10,
5-20
All other sources of information must be evaluated
to judge the acceptability of using the facility,
including judging whether there are physical
conditions at the facility that pose a significant
threat to public health, welfare, or the environment.
No CERCLA hazardous substances can be sent to an off-site RCRA facility if any
or all of these conditions cannot be satisfied. There are exemptions if both
the following conditions are met: (i) the owner or operator must commit,
through an enforceable agreement, to correct detected problems, and the
Regional Administrator must determine that compliance with the agreement is
possible and will correct the problem; and (•*•>) disposal only occurs within
the facility at a new or existing unit that is in compliance with RCRA
requirements, and that unit does not contribute in any significant way to
adverse conditions at the facility.
5.5 OTHER APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
When hazardous wastes are transported off-site to a RCRA facility, the
shipment must be packaged and manifested in accordance with rhp applicable or
relevant and appropriate RCRA requirements. For example, the manifest must be
a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest as specified in 40 CFR Part 262.
Transportation of the hazardous waste must comply with 40 CFR Part 263
standards for transporters (i.e., manifest, record-keeping, and spill
DRAFT: . DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSUER iiet-u.vt :i_.-f.O-3
Derpmt^er 10,
6-1
CHAPTER 6
GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE RCRA
REQUIREMENTS FOR MANAGEMENT OF SUBSTANCES ON-SITE
This chapter addresses CERCLA compliance with other applicable or
and appropriate public health and environmental statutes for on-sita
management of hazardous substances. Such on-site management may involve the
following options:
• new containment;
• on-site storage and treatment, including land treatment,
and incineration; and
• underground injection.
Before discussing the requirements for using these management options,
this chapter first addresses three preliminary issues. Section 6.1
(Delisting), discusses the option of removing a waste from the definition of a
hazardous waste. Section 6.2 (Location Guidance) describes the general
requirements governing where an on-site management facility may be located.
Finally, Section 6.3 (Definition of Hazardous Waste Management) outlines the
activities that are considered on-site management. RCRA requirements are
likely to be applicable or relevant and appropriate to such activities.
Management options are grouped into separate sections on containment,
treatment, and injection. For each management option discussed, the
potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are noted. In
addition, the application of these potential requirements is illustrated by
reviewing decisions aade at previous CERCLA responses.
S.I DELISTING
In determining whether RCRA requirements will be applicable or i-pTpvant
and appropriate to on-site management activities, the initial question that
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CSWER >r«»--;
December 10,
6-2
must be asked.is w^Ptbe^ the substances are covered by the RCRA definitions of
hazardous waste. This section deals with the issue of characterizing wastes
as hazardous or non-hazardous. If a waste is determined to be non-hazardous,
or if a substance that would otherwise be defined as a hazardous waste is
excluded for purposes of the particular site ("delisted"), then RCRA
regulations will not be applicable and may not be relevant and appropriate.
The delisting process is considered in this chapter as a preliminary step i)<-
may affect on-site management, because a delisted substance is not subject to
RCRA requirements. In addition, tb*» delisting procedure may provide a uspfi'i
method for determining an appropriate level of cleanup.
Generally, a substance is defined as hazardous under RCRA if it can be
demonstrated to have any of four characteristics (ignitable, corrosive,
reactive, or EP toxic) described in 40 CFR §261, Subpart C, or is listed in 40
CFR §261, Subpart D. The listed wastes are industrial process by-products and
specific chemicals. Because the sources of wastes at Superfund sites prp
usually not known, and because these wastes are typically mixtures of a
variety of wastes, the lists often are not directly applicable to
characterizing wastes at Superfund sites.
In those cases where the source or identity of a waste is known, ~b»
substance is considered a "listed" hazardous waste if it is among those listed
in 40 CFR §261, Subpart D. However, a specific waste from an individual site
meeting the listing description may in fact not be hazardous. For example,
while electroplating waste is generally listed as hazardous, certain wastes
found at an abandoned electroplating facility may be found to be too m,->~ H to
demonstrate any of the characteristics for which that waste type was
originally H«. t-H —hprp.fni»-, -*0 CFR §§260.20 and 260.22 provide an c.x_I
procedure (delisting), ailtAnlufc persons to demonstrate that a specitic
from a particular site should not be regulated as a hazardous waste.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
UbwtK rntv.i.i'vt 223-*.--3
December 10, _!
6-3
A delisting petition generally requires two gpnPTjil types of
First, the petitioner must submit information, if available, on fbe process
and raw materials. In addition, the petitioner may submit test information on
the constituents of the waste.1 EPA will evaluate this information
qualitatively and quantitatively, considering the following types of data:
• whether the waste is acutely toxic;
• toxicity of the constituents;
• concentration of constituents;
• tendency to migrate or bioaccumulate;
• persistence; and
• possioie types of disposal.
In order to exclude a substance from regulation as a hazardous waste,
petioners must show that a waste generated at their facility does not meet any
of the criteria under which the waste was originally listed (see 40 CFR 261
Subpart B). In addition, Section 222 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (42 USC 3001(f)) requires the Agency to consider factors
(including additional constituents), other than those for which the waste was
originally listed if there is a reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The Agency currently assumes that land disposal of the waste will occur.
To evaluate the potential risk to human health, particularly through affected
ground water, the Agency may use an environmental dispersion model to
determine whether the waste presents a threat to human health. For example,
1 EPA has developed the following manuals on waste analysis:
« "per Mpt-Kpds frr ?v-1-vt-rip ^1:^ Waste (SW-846); and
• Solid Wabifc Leach-ng Prorprf"rp Manual.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10, 1985
6-4
the "Vertical and Horizontal Spread" (VHS) model was proposed February 26,
1985 (50 £]? 7882).J The VHS model rppn-frps that information be developed
on the following four parameters:
(1) toxicant identity;
(2) concentration;
(3) waste generation rate; and
(4) waste density.
A delisting requires an amendment to 40 CFR §261, Subpart D. Therefore,
in considering a delisting petition EPA follows informal rulemaking procedures
of the Administrative Procedure Act.1 Under Section 222 of HSWA, EPA is
required to publish and request comments on delisting petition actions in i->ie
Federal Register. Remedial action being conducted by EPA at a CERCLA site
might not be required to follow these precise procedural requirements,
although public notice of the proposed action would be given. Action on
delisting typically requires from 6 to 12 months after receiving a complete
petition.
In addition to its primary function, the delisting process should also be
considered as a method of determining levels of risk associated with
particular clean-up alternatives. For an example of its use in that context,
see the discussion of the Crystal Chemical site analysis in Chapter 4.
2 Further details on this model are expected to be published soon by
EPA. See also P.A. Demenico and V.V. Paleiauskas, Ground Water.
ii (1982).
1 For examples of delisting petitions see 50 FR 7882 (February 26,
50 FR 3736+ (September 13, 1985).
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Pprp-p->ci 10,
6-5
6.2 LOCATION GUIDANCE
A site's location is a fundamental characteristic in determining its
impact on human health and the environment. This characteristic is an
important decision threshold for CERCLA responses because on-site management
cannot be considered if the location is infea&iLle. Thpi-p are several levels
of guidance for location under RCRA that may be applicable or *-fOey*»nr and
appropriate to CERCLA responses where new on-site storage, treatment or
disposal occurs. In addition to explicit regulations under RCRA, presentprf in
Exhibit 6-1, EPA also has established a number of criteria in guidance
documents for evaluating the acceptability of the location of a facility
submitting a RCRA Part B permit application.* The major criteria include:
• Site Characterization;
• Protected Lands;
• High Hazard and Unstable Terrains;
• Ability to Monitor at the Location; and
• Ground-water Vulnerability.
* See, PprTTift Writers' Guidance Manual For the Location of Hazardous
Waste Land Storage and Disposal Facilities; Phase I. Criteria for location
acceptab-mty and existing regulations for evaluation locations (Final
Draft), February 1985. This document is the first of a series of three
prepared by EPA to assist permit writers in evaluating the appropriateness of
proposed sites for permitted hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal
facilities. The Phase I draft contains extensive discussion of the five
factors to consider in siting a facility. Subsequent volumes deal with more
technical issues such as time of travel of ground water and its
appropriateness for evaluating human health risk.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
. vs. ,._-
December 10,
6-6
EXHIBIT 6-1
LOCATION GUIDANCE CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Criteria
Site Characterization
Security
Protected Lands
Archaeological/Historic Places
National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA) of 1966
Endangered/Treatened Species
Endangered Species Act of 1974;
Parks, Monuments and Rivers
Organic Act of 1916
Wetlands
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
Presidential Executive Order 11990
Wilderness areas
wilderness Act of 1984
Wildlife Refuges
High Hazard/Unstable Terrain
Seismic Standard
Seismic considerations
Floodplains
Liner Foundation Requirements
Surface Impoundments
Waste Pile
Landfill
Closure Standards
Closure Performance Standard
Closure/Postclosure care
Closure/Postclosure care
Citation
40 CFR 270.14-270.21
40 CFR 264.14
40 CFR 264.117
16 USC 370 et seq.
16 USC 1531-1542
33 USC 1344
50 CFR Part 27.94
40 CFR 270.14(b)(ll)
40 CFR 264.18(a)
40 CFR 264.18(b)
40 CFR 264.221(a)
40 CFR 264.251(a)
40 CFR 264.301(a)
40 CFR 264.111
40 CFR 264.228(a)
40 CFR 264.310(a)
40 CFR 264.221(d)
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
6-7
December 10, 1985
EXHIBIT 6-1
(Continued)
LOCATION GUIDANCE CRITERIA FOR HAZARDOUS
WASTE DISPOSAL FACILITY
Specific Part B information
for surface impoundments
Specific Part B information
requirements for waste piles
Specific Part B information
requirements for landfills
Ability to MoT"'tor
Monitoring requirements
Ground-water Protection Standard
General groundwater monitoring requirements
Detection monitoring program
Compliance monitoring program
Groundwater vulnerability
HSVA of 1984
40 CFR 270.17(b)
40 CFR 270.18(c)
40 CFR 270.20(c))
40 CFR 270.14(c)
40 CFR 264.92
40 CFR 264.97
40 CFR 264.98(e)
40 CFR 264.99(e)
P.L. 98-616, 42 USC 6901
et seq.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
UbltK D-i'T-'
December 10,
6-8
Although these criteria are intended primarily for RCRA land disposal
facilities, some could also be relevant and appropriate for other hazardous
waste management technologies. Under currant RCRA regulations, inability to
satisfy any of the first four requirements would be grounds for permit ^pniai
but a permit may be granted if all but ground-water vulnerability factors ?rP
found to be satisfactory. Previous CERCLA responses, however, have rejected
remedial alternatives involving on-site landfilling wW^-p the hydrogeological
setting was found to be inappropriate.
The following previous CERCLA actions provide useful examples of fhp use
of RCRA location guidance. Location considerations were considered explicitly
in the remedy selection at three sites. At one site the alternative was
structured to address locational problems. In two cases, the site
characteristics were found to be unfavorable for the use of on-site
landfilling. At one site location criteria led to the rejection of one
alternative but did not cause rejection of the other.
Bioecology. At the Bioecology site, the on-site landfilling alternative
was selected despite the location of the site wi*M« the 100-year flood
plain. Backfilling of the site was planned to avoid flooding. A temporary
dike was planned to protect the site during construction. In addition the
construction was evaluated regarding its integrity in a high hazard area near
a dam. An erosion protection plan was incorporated into the design to protect
against dam failure.
Tysons Dump. At the Tysons Dump site, in Pennsylvania, on-site
lan-llllling was rejected ali-er location constraints and deficiencies in '-r
following areas were noted:
(1) Foundation bLaL-" nty;
(2) Slope stability.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
CSWER D_.fc_
De-P-nher 10,
6-9
(3) Protected lands;
(4) Ability to monitor ground water;
(5) Ground-water vulnerab-iHty;
(6) Liner system design/construction feasibility;
(7) Run-off management; and
(8) Site accessibility and working area.
Ti and Farro. At the Berlin and Farro site, in Michigan, a high
ground-water table and permeable subsurface soils made the use of on-site
landfilling problematic. The costs for off-site disposal and on-site disposal
were roughly the same. Therefore, the superior effectiveness of off-site
landfilling made it the more cost-effective of the two options.
Enterprise Avenue. At the Enterprise Avenue site near Philadelphia, PA,
on-site landfilling was rejected because of the shallow water table. This
constraint did not prevent the selection of land fanning of some of the
wastes, despite the fact that the two foot vertical separation of the seasonal
high water table and the bottom of the land treatment unit was less than the
regulatory requirement of a three foot separation (40 CFR 264, Subpart M).
6.3 DEFINITION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Compliance with procedural and administrative requirements of RCRA is
required if on-site management occurs. The basic definition of what
constitutes "management" is given in 40 CFR 260.10, which defines hazardous
waste management as:
" . "*hi» systematic control of the collection, source
separation, storage, transportation, processing, treatment,
recovery t and disposal of hazardous *as><-t.."
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSVER Directive
December 10,
6-10
As discussed in previous chapters, the following activities are
not considered waste management for the purpose of CERCLA compliance
with the requirements of RCRA:
• Consolidation into adjacent or original disposal
area of waste that has migrated off-site;
• Site grading within waste management area; and
• Excavation and redisposal of waste into same waste
management area (waste is "picked up").
V
"Waste management" would include the actions addressed in the balance of
this chapter: new containment; on-site storage and treatment, including land
treatment and incineration; and underground injection.
6.4 NEW CONTAINMENT: CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING NEW LANDFILL
This section discusses RCRA requirements for constructing and operating a
new on-site landfill. As noted above, RCRA requirements may be applicable to
on-site remedies whenever waste is "managed". In the case of an on-site
landfill, RCRA regulations apply if waste is moved from one location (on-site
or off-site) to a newly constructed landfill. These requirements do not apply
if disturbing waste is an incidental effect of construction, such as when
contaminated soil is removed from a trench while building a slurry wall or
gravel sump.
Requirements for new RCRA landfills are established in 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265, Subpart N. Pursuant to the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984, a new lanatiii must have a double synthetic liner and leachate detection
and collection system between the liners. No bulk or non-containerized or
f-OP-liquid hazardous waste is permitted to be placed in the lanolin!. A
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
jve J-JH.O-3
TVrpn-~'C.l 10,
6-11
to prevent run-on and run-off in a 25-year storm and erosion control must be
constructed. The facility must be maintained for a 30-yp»-r post-closure
period.
Nine previous CERCLA responses have considered on-site landfilling.
Exhibit 6-2 describes the f->vp sites that adopted the on-site disposal
alternative; Exhibit 6-3 describes the four sites wbP1-* the alternative was
rejected.
Of the five sites where on-site landfilling was selected, only one did not
have unique circumstances that made other remedial alternatives infeasit>i*»
At the Drake Chemical site an interim landfill for excavated contaminated
creek sediments was selected despite the fact that it would not comply w<.t>i
RCRA construction and monitoring requirements, and would be located below the
100-year flood plain. Construction of the landfill was believed to be
warranted because the landfill was expected to be an interim remedy and would
involve only 300 cubic yards of the 82,000 cubic yards of contaminated
sediments that would remain on-site. Hence, a flood disturbing the 300 cubic
yard landfill would also disturb much greater amounts of the rest of the
waste. The buried sediment is expected to be dealu with when the remainder of
the waste on-siut is addressed.
The Mountain View Mobile Home Estates site involved burial of trailers
contaminated with asbestos, followed by capping and closure. Because asbestos
is not regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA, landfilling and closure
standards were not applicable. The site is located in the Arizona desert. At
the Bioecology site (discussed above in the Location Guidance section), a RCRA
compliant, double-lined landfill with leachate collection was constructed at
the site, despite its location within the 100-year flood plain. Backfilling
was used to raise the site above the 100-year flood line, and i temporary
was built to protect the «ri'r*> during construction.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 6-2
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION—
ON-SITE LANDFILLINC ADOPTED
SITE
SITUATION AND ISSUES
DECISION AND RATIONALE
Bio Ecology, TX
Drake Chemical, PA
Love CanaI, NY
Petro Processors, LA
Mountain View, AZ
Organic* (TCE, benzene, MeCI) Inorganics (lead,
arsenic) landfllled In flood plain, contaminating
drainage ditches.
Highly contaminated waste (300 cu yd) among larger
quantity of less contaminated wastes (82,000 cu yd)
located within 100-year flood plain.
Contaminated sediments from creeks and sewers (10,000
cu yds) Including dloxln (TCDD) required disposal; no
off-site options available.
Two sites: BrookI awn Avenue
300,000 cu yds waste and contaminated soil + 3
ponds of contaminated water; Scenic Hwy -
130,000 cu yd waste. About 35 acres on banks of
bayou In Mississippi River Floodplain.
Mobile home community built on abandoned asbestos
talI Ing piles.
On-slte landfill selected for sludges.
Off-site landfill selected for "special"
wastes (cyanide, arsenic). New landfill
to be raised-up above 100-year flood
plain. Temporary dike planned to
protect site during construction.
On-slte landfill selected for highly
contaminated waste. Despite noncompll-
ance with RCRA construction and
monitoring requirements, believed
warranted because (1) temporary, and (2)
relatively small risk compared to large
quantity of residual waste.
Interim, above ground, on-slte earthen-
be rmed storage vault planned to be
"consistent with the technical
requirements of RCRA."
Consolidation and landfill Ing of waste in
new concrete vault constructed adlacent
to Brook Iawn site. "Consistent with
requirements of RCRA."
On-slte landfllling of contaminated
troMpr* Off-site disposal or
decontamination too expensive.
u u
to
O S~
fl> M
3 »
cr
!-• (B
—1 il
- n
»-••.
t- <-
VD (6
CO
l/l O
N)
O-
-------
EXHIBIT 6-3
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION—
ON-SITE LANDFILL INC REJECTED
SITE
Aldex, IA
Enterprise A/enue, PA
Krysowaty Farms, NJ
Woodbury Chen lea I, CO
SITUATION AND ISSUES
Fire dlstroyed pesticides plant In 1976.
Powdered pesticides (1!>i|,000 Ibs.) burled In two
trenches. Buildings contaminated.
Municipal Incinerator residue disposed on 57-acre
site contained organic and inorganic hazardous
wastes (39,000 tons). High water table (less than
5 feet from surface). Waste segregated Into 100
cu yd piles for disposition decision.
Miscellaneous organic chemicals Including PCBs
disposed.
A 1965 fire at a pesticide manufacturing plant In
an Industrial section north or Denver, left about
6,000 cu yds of pesticide contaminated rubble,
which continued to leach pesticides.
DECISION AND RATIONALE
On-slte landfill Ing rejected as not
technically feasible; off-site landfill
selected.
On-slte landfill rejected because of
high water table.
On-site landfill ing rejected because of
cost and delays of ibiA compliance for
PCBs.
An on-slte landfill alternative was re-
jected because It was "felt to be
deficient In (Its) ability to minimize
actual or potential long term ha/nrds at
the site due to potential ground w«rpr
fluctuations, did not destroy
contaminants, and required long term
monitoring."
n> in
n c:
fl> tn
a x
o-
re o
n H-
1-1
VD
00
N)
(.0
O
I
to
-------
10,
6-14
At Love Canal in New York (EPA Region II), an on-site storage facility was
P" im-erin) disposal of contaminated creek and sewer sediments. An
earthen benn storage facility was selected for the approximately 16,000 cu yd
of sediments, which could not be disposed of at existing RCRA facilities. ThP
proposed storage and sediment dewatering facilities were to be designed to be
"consistent with the technical requirements of RCRA." (Love Canal ROD, May
1985).
At the Krysowaty site, TSCA landfilling requirements were also considered
because of the presence of PCB waste. In addition to the difficulty in
meeting TSCA location and technical requirements, the expected delay in
obtaining state approval for the landfill was considered a serious liability
with the alternative.
6.5 ON-SITE STORAGE AND TREATMENT
6.5.1 Storage of Hazardous Substances in Containers and Tanks
On-site management of hazardous waste may require temporary storage of *->>i»
waste. Generally, RCRA regulations for containers are given at 40 CFR 264,
Subpart I, and those regarding tanks are at 40 CFR 264, Subpart J. Most of
the requirements are'a codification of good management practices, such as the
requirement to keep containers of ignitable or reactive waste at least 50
yards from the property line.
RCRA container storage requirements were considered for at least one
previous CERCLA action. At the Love Canal site in New York, interim on-site
storage for about 650 drums was provided. To be consistent with the technical
requirements of RCRA, the drum storage facility was constructed with a
concrete pad, a roof, two-foot walkways between drums, and wooden pallets to
support the drums.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
923-».0-3
December 10, 1985
6-15
6.5.2 Land Treatment
Land treatment may include a variety of on-site waste management
alternatives, including biodegradation or volatilization of contaminated soil,
or traditional land-farming. Land treatment of hazardous waste is regulated
under RCRA at 40 CFR 264, Subpart M. This section summarizes those
regulations and reviews a previous CERCLA response where land treatment wao an
element in the selected alternative. The major RCRA requirements include -h«»
following:
• The treatment process must be studied and determined
to render the waste less hazardous through
degradation, transformation, or immobilization
occurring in or on the soil;
• A buffer of at least three feet must exist between
the bottom of the treatment zone and the top of the
seasonal high water table; and
• Regular monitoring of the unsaturated zone must be
conducted.
• Maximum treatment zone thickness of five feet.
Land treatment (farming) was selected for at least two previous CERCLA
responses (see Exhibit 6-4). At the Enterprise Avenue site near Philadelphia,
PA, landfarming was selected for use on soil and incineration residue
contaminated with low levels of hazardous waste. This alternative was
selected despite the fact that the vertical distance between the bottom of the
waste tr»>«i-mpi-t unit and ^hp top of thf seasonal high vt>t*r table was "fly -wo
feet, rather that greater than the regulatory minimum three feet. On-site
1 anrffi' 1 1 I'TIIT was Tpjpr1-(»H bpran«?p of '•»• high WP"?*" tab^P
Land farming was ^P.ler-pH for dealing wiuL the h*>»v 1* contaminated soils
and sludges at the Old Inger Site in Louisiana. The ground water conditions
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
EXHIBIT 6-l|
SELECTED RECORDS OF DECISION-LAND TREATMENT
SITE SITUATION AND ISSUES DECISION AND RATIONALE
Enterprise Avenue, PA Disposal of municipal Incinerator residue on 57- Land farming used for soil contaminated
acre site contained organic and inorganic hazardous below "key indicator limits." (Off-site
waste (39,000 tons). High water table (less than disposal for balance) separation of land
5 feet from surface). Waste segregated Into 100 cu farming unit and perched ground water =
yd piles for disposition decision. two feet.
Old Inger, LA Benzene, naphthalene, phenols, heavy metal waste On-slte land treatment was used for
stored In tanks, lagoons, landfllled and dumped heavily contaminated sludges dredge from
in swamp. swamp and lagoons.
U O
» in
o f.
(o m
a »
cr
n> o
vO (t>
CD
in vO
-------
OSw-K J • rp-r ive "J7" .3-3
Dprp-iKer 10, i-1-*:1
6-17
in the swampy area of the site were .inadequate to r, irni the RCRA Subpf-t M
requirements for separation of the treatment zone and the seasonal high
table. To meet these requirements, the swamp will have to be drained and
wood and contaminated soil removed and stockpiled, before being replaced with
approximately eight feet of fill.
6.5.3 On-site Waste Treatment
It is EPA's policy to pursue response actions that use treatment, reuse,
or recycling rather than land disposal to the greatest extent practicable,
consistent with CERCLA requirements for cost-effective*remedial actions. (See
"Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions", May 6,
1985 and section 300.68(f) of the NCP). This section reviews potentially
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements for a waste traatment
remedy.
Potential RCRA requirements for on-site waste treatment can be drawn ^TUI
a variety of sections in the RCRA interim status regulations (e.g., Subparts
J, 0, P, and Q,). Regulations on "Chemical, Physical, and Biological
Treatment" (40 CFR Subpart Q) do not contain detailed requirements for any
particular type of process or equipment. Instead, because there are different
types of possible processes, EPA has the following general requirements:
• General operating requirements;
• .Waste analysis;
• Inspection;
• Closure; and
• Specitic requirements for ignitable and reactive wastes.
Other regulations that may be applicable or relevant and appropriate are
found in other Subparts. Many requirements relevant to waste treatment ?"•*>
contained in Subpart J regarding storage in tanks (see section 6.3.2 above).
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
j.ii_k._^e *_.}•+.D-3
December ID, 1985" ' '
6-18
Subpart P describes general requirements for thermal treatment other than
incineration, which is regulated under 40 CFR Subpart 0 (see section 6.5.4
below).
Finally, if PCS-containing waste is to be treated, a TSCA-approved
technology must be used. Approval procedures for "alternative disposal
technologies" are outlined at 40 CFR 761.60(e). Alternative technologies
include anything other than incineration and landfilling, which are regulated
under 40 CFR 761.70 and 761.75, respectively. Generally, alternative
technologies are approved if they are substantially equivalent in
effectiveness to incineration. Technologies may be approved at either the
Regional or the Headquarters level for regional or national use respectively.
A number of treatment technologies have been approved including a physical
separation process using solvents and a dechlorination process.
6.5.4 Incineration
Incineration of hazardous waste is an increasingly important on-site
management alternative. This section discusses the applicable and relevant
and appropriate RCRA requirements, as well as the consideration of
incineration at previous CERCLA responses.
The RCRA requirements for incinerations that may be applicable or
and appropriate in 40 CFR 264 Subpart 0 briefly include the following
standards:
• Destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) of 99.99
percent for each principal organic constituent (40 CFR
264.323);
• Emissions controls for HC1 of 1.8 kg/hr;
• Monitoring of combustion tempprprvr*1, waste fuel
feed rate, combustion gas velocity and carbon monoxide
(40 CFR 264.347;; and
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OS'hER ~ • • - ..-: V .:_->. 0-3
DerPmMr 1~>, 1935
6-19
• Removal and appropriate disposal of «li hazardous
sludge, ash, and other residues from the site.
On-site incineration has been considered at three previous CERCLA
responses and rejected in two of these cases. At the Miami Drum site in
Florida, incineration was rejected on technical grounds. Heavy metals
remaining in the ash following incineration would require off-site disposal of
about 75 percent of the original contaminated soil volume. Excavation and
off-site disposal was the alternative choosen at the Miami drum site.
At the McKin site in Maine, use of a mobile incinerator was considered.
At this site, the waste was in the form of liquids and sludges contaminated
with organic chemicals. Incineration was rejected because of the estimated
cost and perceived puoiic health risk. The fixed mobilization costs WPTP
deemed too high for the relatively small amount of waste to be incinerated.
The close proximity of the site to residential areas raised public concerns
about the health and safety risks of on-site incineration. Off-site disposal
was selected for this remedial action.
A mobile incinerator is being used for dioxin-contaminated soil at the
Verona site in Missouri. Off-site disposal of this soil was rejected because
of the inaviilabmty of a disposal facility.. In addition to the national
TSCA permits obtained, this unit was permitted under subpart 0 of RCRA. >T>>P
state also permitted the incinerator under both its hazardous waste and air
regulation authority. Wastes from several nearby sites related to the Verona
site are also being incinerated at the site.
If the waste to be incinerated contains PCBs, then an approval from EPA
under TSCA regulations (40 CFR 760.70) must be obtained. Essentially EPA
headquarters (for incinerators operating in more than one region) or Regional
offices may provide the following three types of approvals:
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE .
-------
6-20
• Research and development;
• Demonstration ("trial burn"); and
• Commercial operation.
As of late 1985 only rh'-pp mobile incinerators had been constructed (one
by EPA and two by ENSCO, Inc.), and only one of these (EPA's) had received
permits to incinerate hazardous wastes. This is the unit being used (r/-n
1985) at the Verona, Missouri site for the incineration of contaminated soil
from several sites. Several more units are planned by private corporations
pending permitting. Following regional or national approval of a unit, it may
operate without a need for additional TSCA approval within the Region or
across the country.
6.6 UNDERGROUND INJECTION
Underground injection of contaminated fluids (primarily aqueous wastes) is
used for disposing of more RCRA-waste in the United States than any other
method. Injection wells can also be expected to play a significant role in
future CERCLA responses. Underground injection is regulated primarily under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) by Underground Injection Control (UIC)
requirements. These technical requirements will be addressed when SDVA
requirements are added to this guidance. This section will briefly review
those requirements that may be applicable or relevant and appropriate, and
discuss a previous CERCLA response where underground injection was considered.
The UIC regulations at 40 CFR 144.14(c) generally require persons
injecting hazardous wastes to comply wii.li certain RCRA regulations as _'.
(1) Notification;
(2) Identification number (40 CFR 264.11),
(3) Manifest system (40 CFR 264.71);
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
10,
6-21
(4) Manifest discrepancies (40 CFR 264.72);
(5) Operating record (40 CFR 264.73(a), (b)(l) and (b)(2));
(6) Annual report (40 CFR 264.75);
(7) Unmanifested waste report (40 CFR 264.75);
(8) Personnel training (40 CFR 264.16; and
(9) Certification of closure (40 CFR 264.52(a)(b)).
In addition, underground injection is exempted from other RCRA regulations at
40 CFR 264 Subpart R.
Underground injection (off-site) was considered but rejected for disposal
of contaminated surface waters at the Old Inger Site in Louisiana. On-site
carbon treatment of the water was expected to be equally as effective but h«if
as costly as injection. The cost of storage and transportation was a
significant clement of the off-site injection costs. This element would be
lower for on-site injection.
At a responsible party-funded site in Lathrop, California, subject to an
enforcement action (consent decree), a UIC permit was obtained for disposal of
effluent from a ground water treatment system. Groundwater contaminated with
up to 2,000 ppm dibromochloropropane (DBCP) was treated with an on-site carbon
filter to less than 10 ppb. The treatment goal was 1 ppm, and the treated
water was injected 300 feet below the site.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Direct_ve *_3-+.0-3
December 10, 1985
7-1
CHAPTER 7
GUIDANCE ON APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
FOR MANAGEMENT OF AREA-WIDE GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
This chapter addresses response to area-wide ground-water contamination.
At some CERCLA sites, contamination of ground water resulting f-rotn either an
unknown source or from numerous intermingled sources may exist over an
extensive area. In these cases of area-wide contamination, the contaminants
may be present throughout the area undertaken for study in the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, but no evidence can be found of a contaminant
plume from one or more particular sources in the study area. Although good
reason may exist to believe that a substantial portion of the contamination
was released from particular sites, the plumes may have subsequently blended
together and become indistinguishable from the generally poor ground water in
-.
the study area. Multiple smaller sources scattered throughout the study area
also may be known or suspected to be contributing to ground-water
*
contamination. However, some or all of the area-wide problems cannot be
solely attributable to an individual site.
Section 7.1 describes those requirements in RCRA that are potentially
applicable or relevant and appropriate. Section ~.2 describes the Biiua/ne
Aquifer Sites Record of Decision, which implements an area-wide approach to
ground-water contamination.
7.1 POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE
REQUIREMENTS
If the contamination emanates, in part, from a facility subject to RCRA
regulations, the RCRA Subpart F requirements could be applicable for -l.ai.
site. The particular requirements to be applied would depend on whether tut
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER lirective 92i-.C-3
December 10, 1985•
7-2
RCRA facility is permitted or is an interim status facility. In addition to
the RCRA requirements under 40 CFR 264.100 for corrective action to clean up
ground water contaminated by releases from permitted facilities, the site
could also be subject to applicable requirements established by 40 CFR
264.101, which requires corrective action for the cleanup of continuing
releases from any solid waste management unit, including inactive units, at
any hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility seeking a permit
under Section 3005(c) of RCRA. Finally, the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 authorize EPA to issue administrative orders requiring
corrective action at interim status hazardous waste management facilities as
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
In many cases, however, the RCRA ground-water protection and corrective
action requirements may not be applicable to area-wide ground-water
contamination. The RCRA requirements are designed to address contamination
from wastes or waste constituents from discrete regulated units, rather than
area-wide ground-water contamination of either unknown origin or resulting
from numerous intermingled sources monitoring requirements.
In those cases in which the RCRA requirements are not applicable, certain
of the requirements still may be Ti>ipvant and appropriate to the particular
situation of area-wide ground-water contamination. Maximum contaminant levels
established in the RCRA requirements could be used, for example, to establish
the appropriate level of cleanup of the ground water. However, in cases of
area-wide contamination in which no RCRA facility is identifiable as a source
of wastes or waste constituents, other requirements such as monitoring at ->•«»
boundary of the regulated unit would be neither applicable nor relevant and
appropriate.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive 923-+.0-3
December 10, 1985
7-3
When the RCRA Subpart F requirements are not applicable nor relevant and
appropriate for the area-wide contamination, an area-wide remedy may be
considered. For one or more CERCLA sites in an area-wide contaminated
ground-water system, the following steps could be considered:
• Control or remove the particular source, through
soil excavation and removal as well as treatment of
ground water encountered during excavation;
• Manage migration of any identifiable plumes, through
actions off-site as well as on-site; or
• Implement a remedy on an area-wide basis, using a
risk-management approach, without setting
concentration limits or monitoring requirements with
respect to individual sources of contamination. This
approach could include ground-water recovery,
treatment, and discharge back into the aquifer as a
means of aquifer restoration; provision of alternative
sources for certain uses of the ground water, such as
drinking water; or institutional controls to provide a
preventive action program for future protection of the
aquifer.
7.2 ROD DECISION ON AREA-WIDE CONTAMINATION
The best current example of an area-wide approach to ground-water
contamination is the remedial alternative selected for the Biscayne Aquifer
Sites, Dade County Florida. In this situation, EPA decided to address three
sites proposed for the National Priorities List as a single management unit
for the performance of the RI/FS because the three sites, as well as numerous
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE .OR QUOTE
-------
ObWER Directive il^.^r
December 10, 1985
7-4
small generators, affect the same general area of the Biscayne Aquifer.
effects of the sites on the aquifer apparently were interrelated, and some of
the suspected problems could not be attributed to an individual site. TV
Remedial Investigation consisted of a unified, planned sampling effort to
determine the magnitude and extent of ground-water contamination for a study
area encompassing over 80 square miles surrounding the three sites.
The Remedial Investigation determined that the ground water in the study
area was poorer in quality than the "true background" level in the aquifer,
that the ground-water quality was the result of contamination from multiple
sources, and that there were no concentrated contaminant plumes emanating from
any of the three sites in the study area. The three sites were collectively
designated as the Biscayne Aquifer Site to address the threat to the regional
ground-water supply.
Source control actions were undertaken at one of the sites to excavate and
remove contaminated soil and to treat ground water encountered during
excavation, and source control at another site is planned to carry out
landfill closure and leachate control. In a separate decision, these plpnnpH
actions were determined to comply with applicable and relevant public health
and environmental standards. However, it was deemed impractical to treat the
ground water at each source, because (1) numerous other unidentified smaller
sources were contributing to the contamination and no plume could be
identified from any of these sources; (2) withdrawal of water from existing
well fields -tended to affect the distribution of contaminants in the aquifer;
and (3) the well fields provided a reliable and practical mechanism for
withdrawing water from the aquifer at centralized locations. Thus, only
off-site remedial action alternatives were considered for the Biscayne Aquifer
Site.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSVvER Directive *__•».0-3
December 10,
7-5
The alternative chosen involves ground-water recovery by means of two of
the three existing well fields, pretraatment by air stripping, and provision
of the water to existing water treatment plants for granular activated carbon
treatment. The alternative will result in water meeting the primary drinking
water standard. It will bring the quality of the water withdrawn to level *
below those set to protect puulit, health. The alternative also is consistent
with the requirements of Florida State air quality standards, EPA Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations, standards for surface water
quality, and Executive Orders relating to floodplains and wetlands.
In addition to the air stripping treatment systems, existing and
supplementary institutional controls established by existing and proposed
county regulations, inspection and enforcement programs, and other components
of a locally established Biscayne Aquifer Protection Plan form the final
component of the area-wide response.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive *_.><*. 3-3
December 10,
A-l
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE
OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
This chapter presents a short summary of those requirements listed as
potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate in the Compliance Policy,
stressing the objectives of the requirements, variances, and other
characteristics that are relevant to determining initially whether the
requirement may be applicable or relevant and appropriate. The requirements
are described in this chapter in the same order as they are listed in the
Policy, to facilitate use of this chapter as a reference.
A.I OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
This section describes the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976, the additions to the act made in the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSVA) of 1984, and accompanying regulations. As the major *pHpr*l
statute creating standards for the treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste. RCRA is the most important source of applicable or relevant
and appropriate standards for actions taken pursuant to sections 104 and 106
of CERCLA. The first part of this section provides an overview of the
statutes, noting their purpose and structure. The second part of this section
provides a summary of the important regulatory requirements under RCRA and
HSVA.
A. 1.1 Ov«rvi«w of RCRA
RCRA was enacted in 1976 to ^pgulate -^P management of hazardous waste, to
ensure the safe disposal of wastes, and to provide for resource recovery from
wastes. "**»* -r-i-pn*- of the RCRA ->rr«gram is to protect public health and -*>.•»
env•"•-"?•"*«- by controlling hazardous wastes "from cradle to grave."
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Directive
December 10,
A-2
statute attempts to address all aspects of hazardous waste management by
establishing essentially a three-step process: (1) identification and listing
of wastes to be regulated as hazardous; (2) tracking of listed wastes from the
point of generation, through transportation, to the site of ultimate treat-
ment, storage, or disposal; and (3) controlling the management practices used
for the treatment, storage, and ultimate disposition of these wastes.
Although certain statutory and regulatory requirements under RCRA apply
specifically to generators and transporters, a large majority of the
substantive RCRA requirements affect the management of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
RCRA operating standards for treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
will be the primary area of interaction between RCRA requirements and CERCLA
responses. The authority for these requirements is found in RCRA Subtitle C,
section 3004, Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Subtitle C also addresses the
other aspects of the three-step process mentioned above, including
identification and listing of hazardous waste (section 3001); standards
applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous waste (sections 3002
and 3003); and permits for treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste
(section 3005). These areas, however, generally do not contain applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements and thus *111 not be discussed.
RCRA Subtitle D provides criteria for open dumps and sanitary landfills
for disposal of nonhazardous wastes that may be applicable or relevant and
appropriate for CERCLA actions in a limited number of situations. RCRA
section 4004(a) requires EPA to promulgate regulations containing criteria for
determining uhpThe^ a Im._iity should be classiiied as a sanitary lancri.. or
as an open dump. RCRA requires solid waste to be disposed in sanitary
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSVER Dirp-rivo 923-^.0-3
December 10, 1985
A-3
landfills, and section 4005(a) prohibits open dumping of hazardous or solid
waste. Because these provisions are intended to apply to solid waste,
however, they are not likely to be applicable or relevant and appropriate to
most CERCLA responses.
The enactment in November 1984 of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amt»T-H->pnr<;
of 1984 (HSVA) added significant new provisions to section 3004:
• Prohibiting land disposal of certain wastes,
including some liquid hazardous wastes and dioxins
(this prohibition does not apply to disposal from a
CERCLA response action for a four-year period after
enactment of the amendment);
• Requiring a review of each RCRA hazardous waste to
determine whether land disposal should be prohibited
for the waste. The ban would not apply if
EPA-developed treatment standard had been met for a
waste;
• Requiring (1) the installation of a double liner and
a leachate collection system, and (2) ground-water
monitoring for landfills and use of leak detection
systems for certain types of hazardous waste
management units; and
• Requiring corrective action for all releases from a
hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility seeking a RCRA permit.
A. 1.2 Regulations
The RCRA program is heavily dependent upon regulations, which, along w_.ii
guidance and decisions made in the permitting process, are the source of a
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSVkER D^-ctive 923-».0-3
December 10, i^bS
A-4
great majority of the RCRA program's specific requirements. RCRA requirements
that may be applicable or relevant and appropriate to CERCLA response action
are found in the RCRA regulations, not in the statute itself. Consequently,
it is important to provide an overview in this section of not only the statute
but also the regulations.
The RCRA regulations that are of primary importance for CERCLA responses
are the Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage and Disposal Facilities, which implement the authority provided in RCRA
section 3004. These RCRA regulations differ depending on whether a hazardous
waste facility has a RCRA permit (40 CFR Part 264) or is operating under
interim status (40 CFR Part 265). CERCLA remedies will generally be consistent
with the more stringent Part 264 standards, even though a permitted facility
is not involved. Therefore, the Part 264 standards are described here.
Nine of the subparts in 40 CFR Part 264 are listed as applicable or
relevant and appropriate in the Compliance Policy. Seven of these subparts
establish process-specific standards for particular types of hazardous waste
management units:
• containers (Subpart I);
• tanks (Subpart J);
• surface impoundments (Subpart K);
• waste piles (Subpart L);
• land treatment (Subpart M);
• landfills (Subpart N); and
• incinerators (Subpart 0).
The other subparts that are potentially applicable or relevant and appropriate
are ground-water protection (Subp/"*r F) and closure and post-closure
G). These nine subparts >"•*» b»->p*1y described below.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWER Diractive Q?^ .0-3
December 10, 1985
A-5
Subpart F — Ground-Water Protection (40 CFR 264.90-264.101)
Subpart F creates broad ground-water protection requirements under RCRA.
These requirements include both concentration standards and monitoring
requirements.
The EPA Regional Administrator is authorized by 40 CFR 264.93 to set
concentration standards for designated hazardous constituents in the ground
water. According to 264.94(a), these standards will be based on (1) the
background level of each constituent in the ground water at the time the
is specified in the permit, (2) maximum concentration limits (MCL) set'under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDVA) for 14 specified hazardous constituents if
background levels are below these standards or (3) an "alternate concentration
limit" (ACL) can be set if the Regional Administrator determines that less
stringent standards will protect public health and the environment. The
factors that should be used to grant an ACL are outlined in 40 CFR
264.94(b).1
Subpart F also establishes a three-phase ground-water monitoring program
for permitted land disposal facilities. 40 CFR 264.98 outlines the
requirements of a "detection monitoring program" -- the first phase of the
ground-water monitoring program used to detect the existence of designated
hazardous constituents in the ground waters. The "detection monitoring
program" is a semi-annual monitoring protocol. 40 CFR 264.99 outlines the
second phase of the program -- the compliance monitoring program that must be
established when hazardous constituents are detected. During this phase,
1J ACLs can be granted if the RA determines that less stringent factors
will still protect public health and the environment. The factors used to
grant an ACL are presented in Chapter 4 (p. 4-29).
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OS-»EK Directive^
December 10, 19*85
A-6
owner or operator must conduct compliance monitoring to determine if the
levels of constituents exceed the ground-water protection standards
(background levels, MCLs, or ACLs) specified in the permit. Third, if
concentration limits are exceeded, the owner or operator must institute a
corrective action program to bring the facility back into compliance.
Subpart F — Ground-Water Monitoring (40 CFR 265.90-265.94)
Interim status RCRA facilities are required to satisfy less stringent
ground-water protection requirements than permitted facilities. Although
sampling and analysis must be conducted in order to monitor the facility's
impact on the quality of ground water in the uppermost aquifer, ground-water
protection standards, compliance monitoring, and a corrective action program
are not required under the interim status regulations.
Subpart G -- Closure and Post-Closure (40 CFR 264.110-264.120.
265.110-265.120)
Subpart G creates technical and -procedural standards for closure and
post-closure care of hazardous waste management facilities.
40 CFR 264.111 requires that the owner or operator close the facility in a
manner that "minimizes the need for further maintenance" and "controls,
minimizes, or eliminates ... post-closure escape of hazardous waste, leachcto,
contaminated rainfall, or waste decomposition products" to the environment.
Process-specific closure requirements for surface impoundments and waste
piles, in particular (see 40 CFR 264.228 and 264.258, respectively), specify
that either (1) all wastes and contaminated soils must be removed at closure
("clean closure") or (2) the facility must be closed as a land disposal
facility (i.e., with a final cap and 30 years of post-closure care). EPA
guidance suggests i.uak for clean closure the facility's soils should be
returned to background levels.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Directive 923-.J-3
December 10, 1985
A-7
40 CFR 264.112 requires the owner or operator to prepare a written plan as
part of the permit conditions that describe how and when the facility «:ti be
closed and partially closed, describes procedures for decontamination
activities, and includes a schedule for conducting closure. In addition, the
owner or operator must notify the Regional Administrator at least 180 days
prior to the date he intends to begin closure activities. The closure plans
must be reviewed by the Regional Administrator and are subject to public
participation provisions in 40 CFR Part 124 as part of the permit review
process. Thus, many of the cleanup requirements and limits for the site *rf
developed on a site-specific basic and represent the best professional
judgment of the owner or operator and the RCRA permit writer.
40 CFR 264.117 states that monitoring and reporting requirements
established for surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment facilities,
and landfills must continue for 30 years following closure. The Regional
Administrator may extend or reduce the length of the period based on cause.
The owner or operator or the public may petition the Regional Administrator at
any time during the post-closure care period to alter the length of the
period. 40 CFR 264.118 requires the owner or operator to prepare a written
post-closure plan describing planned monitoring and maintenance activities.
The post-closure care plan is subject to the same public participation
requirements as the closure plan.
Subpart I -- Use and Management of Containers (40 CFR 264.170-264.178.
265.170-265.177)
Requirements for facilities that store, containers of hazardous wastes PT-P
provided in 40 CFR Subpart I. The regulations stipulate that the owner or
operator must (1) maintain containers in good condition; (2) inspect container
storage areas at least weekly; (3) provide a sloped, crack-free base for all
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
Ui>*th. Directive t92-ik». >3«
December 10, 1985
A-8
areas storing containers that contain free liquids; (4) refrain from placing
incompatible wastes in the sane container, and place walls or dikes between
containers holding wastes incompatible with other nearby materials; and (5)
remove all wastes and residues from containment systems upon closure.
Subpart J -- Tanks (40 CFR 264.190-264.200. 265.190-265.199)
40 CFR Subpart J outlines design and management standards for tanks
containing hazardous wastes. These rules are largely similar to those for
containers (see above).
Subpart K -- Surface Impoundments (40 CFR 264.220-264.249.
265.220-265.230)
40 CFR Subpart K establishes design and operating requirements for surface
impoundments. The standards require that each new surface impoundment must
satisfy certain minimum technological requirements, including two or more
liners, a leachate collection system between the liners and ground-water
monitoring. An alternative liner design may be approved if the Regional
Administrator finds that operating practices and locational characteristics
together prevent such migration. Owners or operators must comply with
ground-water monitoring requirements under 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F (unless
the impoundment has a double liner and a leak detection system and qualifies
for an exemption under 40 CFR 264.222), including corrective action, if
needed. Impoundments must be removed from service if the liquid level
suddenly drops or the dike leaks.
At closure, an impoundment operated under Part 264 may be closed by
removing and decontaminating all hazardous wastes, residues, liners and
subsoils. If all hazardous wastes cannot be removed to background levels,
then -lit loui-ity must be capped and post-closure care provided. An owner or
operator of an impoundment designed with a synthetic liner may also choose to
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSV»LK Directive 9234.0-3
December 10,
A-9
close the impoundment as a disposal facility -- solidify all remaining wastes,
cap the facility, and comply with all Part 264 post-closure requirements. If
surface impoundments are to be closed as storage facilities, then soils must
be returned to background levels.
Subpart L -- Waste Piles (40 CFR 264.250-264.269. 265.250-265.258)
Subpart L requires that an owner or operator of a waste pile facility (1)
Install a li'npr under each pile that prevents any migration of waste out of
the pile into the adjacent subsurface soil or ground or surface water at any
time during the active life; (2) provide a leachate collection and removal
system; (3) provide a run-on control system and a run-off management system;
(4) comply with the Subpart F requirements (unless a double liner and leachate
collection system is in place and no leaks have been detected); (5) inspect
liners during construction, and inspect the wastes at least weekly thereafter;
and (6) close the facility by removing all wastes, residues, and contaminated
soils (or comply with the closure and post-closure requirements applicable to
landfills if total decontamination proves impossible). Existing piles are
exempt from the liner and leachate collection system requirements.
Subpart M -- Land Treatment (40 CFR 264.270-264.299. 265.270-265.282)
Subpart M requires that owners or operators of facilities that dispose of
hazardous waste by land application (1) establish a treatment program that
demonstrates to the Regional Administrator's satisfaction that all hazardous
constituents placed in the treatment zone will be degraded, transformed, or
immobilized within that zone; (2) conduct a monitoring program to detect
contaminants moving in ->>* unsaturated zone; and (3) continue all operations
during closure and post-closure to maximize the degradation, transformation,
or immobilization of hazardous constituents.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSWIR Directive
December 10, 198*5
A-10
Subpart N •- Landfills (40 CFR 264.300-264.339. 265.300-265.316)
Subpart N requires owners or operators of landfills to satisfy the minimum
technological requirements for two or more liners, a leachate collection
system above and between the liners, and ground-water monitoring. In
addition, the landfill must have run-on/run-off control systems and control
wind dispersal of particulates as necessary; comply with the Subpart F
ground-water protection requirements; close each cell of the landfill with a
final cover; and institute specified post-closure monitoring and maintenance
programs. Existing facilities, or portions thereof, may be required to
retrofit to satisfy the liner and leachate collection system requirements. In
addition, 40 CFR 264.314 and 265.314 ban the landfill disposal of bulk or
non-containerized liquid hazardous waste. After November 8, 1985,
non-hazardous liquids also are generally banned.
Subpart 0 -- Incinerators (40 CFR 264.340-264.999. 265.340-265.369)
Subpart 0 of Part 264 specifies design and operating requirements for any
incinerator burning hazardous wastes. For incinerators that only burn wastes
listed as hazardous solely by virtue of their ignitability, corrosivity, or
reactivity, or some combination thereof, only the closure requirements and
waste analyses required prior to incineration are applicable. 40 CFR 264.343
specifies that all incinerators must be constructed and maintained so as to
detoxify (by destruction or physical removal in scrubber or precipitators) at
least 99.99 percent of each "principal organic hazardous constituent" in the
input stream, and so as not to emit more than 180 milligrams of particulate
matter per cubic meter of waste. 40 CFR 264.347 outlines the parameters rhp
owner/operator must monitor during incinerator operation; 40 CFR 264.351
-pruires that oil wastes, residues, ash, and effluents be removed from the
incinerator site at closure and treated as hazardous wastes, if applicable.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSbER 3-rective **
December 10, 1985
A-ll
Codification Rule
On July 15, 1985, EPA codified into the existing RCRA Subtitle C
regulations a set of provisions from the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (See 50 FR 28742) (the "Codification Rule"). Those provisions likely
to have a significant impact on the RCRA regulatory requirements that may be
applicable or relevant and appropriate to CERCLA responses are discussed below.
Ban on Liquids in Landfills. The HSWA and the Codification Rule imposed
a ban on the placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous waste or
hazardous waste containing free liquids in any landfill after May 8, 1985. In
addition, the amendments prohibited the placement of non-hazardous liquids in
permitted or interim status landfills after November 8, 1985, unless the
landfill owner/operator successfully demonstrates that:
(1) The only reasonably available alternative for these
non-hazardous liquids is a landfill or unlined surface
impoundment (including units not operating pursuant to
«
a permit or interim status) which already contains, or
may reasonably be anticipated to contain, hazardous
waste; and
(2) it)* disposal of the non-hazardous liquids in the owner
or operator's landfill will not present a risk of
contamination to any underground source of drinking
water.
Delisting Procedures. Prior to the codification rule, delisting
petitioners were required to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the
Administrator, that the waste in question did not meet any of the criteria
under which it was o^'gi""1Ty listed, i^1* regulation irted that a waste so
excluded could iuj.ll quality as a hazardous waste if it failed any of the RCRA
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
iK Directive4-9Cr?5 O^
December 10, 1985
A-12
Subpart C charcteristics (ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, EP
toxicity). The new regulation added to these provisions the requirement that,
before excluding a waste, the Administrator must determine that:
(1) The waste does not satisfy any factors other than
those for which the waste was listed; or
(2) There is no reasonable basis to believe that such
additional factors could cause the waste to be
hazardous.
Insert B?
Minimum Technological Requirements. The HSVA imposed minimum
technological requirements that must be met by owners or operators of certain
landfills and surface impoundments. Specifically, amended section 3004 of
RCRA stipulates that a permit for a new landfill or surface impoundment, a new
landfill or surface impoundment at an existing facility, or a replacement or
lateral expansion of an existing landfill or surface impoundment unit, must
require the installation of two or more liners, a leachate collection system
above (in the case of a landfill) and between the liners, and ground-water
monitoring. The section provides an exemption from liner and leachate
collection system standards if alternative design and operating practices,
together with locational characteristics, will prevent the migration of
hazardous constituents into the ground water or surface water at least as
effectively as the liners and leachate collection systems. Amended section
3015 of RCRA establishes the applicability of Section 3004 standards to
interim status surface impoundments, landfills, and waste piles receiving
wastes after Hay 8, 1985.
Corrective Action and Cleanup Beyond Facility Boundary. Section 3004 of
RCRA was amended by HSVA to require corrective action for all releases of
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
December 10, 1985
A-13
hazardous waste or constituents from any solid waste management unit at a
facility seeking a RCRA permit, regardless of when waste was placed at the
unit. Section 3004 also directs the Agency to promulgate regulations
obligating owners and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal foci i-.i>s
to undertake corrective action beyond the facility boundary where n«.rptn:»aiRlmgfti} ,2-U
Tq-. it-ip«! rhpt fa-M to w»atdsf y *the criteria -of- -this V'?£¥t
'*" 'fVitt-f-'viLUj Jl.'Ji'-^'.1
ir.tJ as jpcu dumps, which -*rp prohibited .inder Sub^l.ie D at 3C3A.
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
-------
OSVER Dirp-t
December 10,
A-14
Special Rules Cr-nporning Dioxin
40 CFR Part 261 provides that certain wastes containing tetra-, penta, and
hexachlorinated dioxins (CDDs) Pr" acute hazardous wastes. Special
requirements are set by §§ 264.175, 264.200, 264.231, 264.259, 264.283,
264.317, and 264.343 for the management standards concerning such wastes.
These standards include special requirements for the management of the wastes
in a storage, tank, surface impoundment, pile, land treatment unit, land:ill,
or incinerator. EPA has also proposed a rule for the management of the
residues resulting from the incineration or thermal treatment of such wastes
(See 50 FR 37338, September 12, 1985).
[Sections on requirements from other environmental statutes
to be provided in subsequent drafts of this guidance]
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 W«t hrksnn BoutevanL 12th Mf •
Chicago. It. 60604-3590^
DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
------- | |