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        DRAFT:  DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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                DRAFT:  DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE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

-------