BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OP.HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES UNDER RCRA, SUBTITLE C, SECTION 3004
TfSneral Facility Standards for Location of Facilities
(40 CFR 264, Subpart B, Section 264.18)
This document (ms. 1941.34) provides background information
and support for EPA's hazardous waste regulations
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
December 30, 1980
-------
Contents
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. RATIONALE FOR REGULATION 2
A. RCRA Authority and Mandate 3
B. Damage Incidents 3
C. State Legislation and Regulation 5
1. Seismic Considerations 6
2. Endangered and threatened species
and their critical habitats 7
3. Floodplains 7
D. Related Federal Legislation and
Regulation 10
1. Wetlands 10
2. Floodplains 11
3. Seismic considerations 11
E. Contacts with other Federal Agencies
and Professionals j.3
III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED
REGULATIONS AND RATIONALE FOR THE
FINAL REGULATIONS . , . . 15
A. Active Fault Zone 15
1. Summary of proposed standard 15
2. Rationale for proposed standard 16
3. Response to comments 16
a. The definition of active fault
zone and the area affected by
the standard 16
b. Design and construction of facility
to mitigate seismic considerations. ... 20
c. Basis for restricting facilities
in active fault zones 22
-------
d. Miscellaneous comments . . ....... 23
4. Rationale for the final
regulation (§264.18{a)) .......... 24
a. Fault Displacement and Associated
Deformation ............ • • 26
b. Ground Motion .............. 46
c. Ground Failure ............. 49
5. Summary of the seismic regulation ...... 52
B. Regulatory Floodway ................ 53
1. Summary of proposed standard
(250.43-l(b) ) ............... 53
2. Rationale for proposed standard ....... 53
3. Response to comments ............. 54
a. The lack of a variance procedure .... 54
b. The requirement for an analysis
where regulatory floodways have
not been designated ........... 55
c. Unavailability/inadequacy of
regulatory floodway maps ........ 56
d. Regulation of location in
regulatory floodways is
inappropriate .............. 53
4. Rationale for deletion of the
proposed standard ............. 58
C. Coastal High Hazard Areas
1. Summary of proposed standard
(§250.43-l(c)) 61
2. Rationale for proposed standard gjL
3. Comments received g2
4. Deferral of final action g2
D. Floodplains • 64
* •
1. Summary of proposed standard
(S250.43-l(d))
2. Rationale for proposed standard ....... 54
-------
3. Response to comments 66
a. The definition of floodplain 66
b. Executive Order 11988 and
WRC's Guidelines 66
c. Information utilized in mapping
the 500-year flood and flood
insurance maps 70
d. The impacts of the proposed
standard 74
e. Suggested alternatives to
the proposed standard 77
f. The variance to the proposed
standard 84
g. The proposed special wastes ....... 90
h. Miscellaneous comments .... 93
4. Rationale for the floodplain regulation ... 95
a. Hazards associated with
location 95
b. The one-hundred-year flood 99
c. The standard 104
d. Definitions 108
e. EPA policy and Executive
Order 11988 109
f. The guidance manual 110
5. Summary of the floodplain regulation
(§264.18(b)) Ill
E. Wetlands 112
1. Summary of proposed standard
(§250.43-l(e)) 112
2. Rationale for proposed standard 112
3. Response to comments 114
a. The definition of wetlands 114
1*1
111
-------
b. The "NOTE" to the proposed stan-
dard; NPDES and §404 permits
c. Executive Order 11990 .......... 125
d. Miscellaneous Comments ......... 127
4. Current status of regulating siting
in wetlands ................ 129
a
Values of wetlands 129
b. Potential damages to
wetlands and consequences ........ 130
c. EPA policy ....... . ....... 132
d. Applicable existing programs
and deferral of regulation ...... 133
F. Endangered and Threatened Species
and Critical Habitats .............. 136
1 . Summary of proposed standard
(§250.43-l(f)) ............... 136
2. Rationale for proposed standard ....... 136
3. Response to comments ............. 137
a. The Endangered Species Act ....... 137
b. The phrase "to be likely" ........ 138
c. Protecting endangered species
outside of their critical
habitats
d. Locating in a critical habitat ..... 139
4. Final disposition ......... ..... 141
a. Potential damages
b. The Endangered Species Act
and Part 122 ........
............. 143
G. Sole Source Aquifers ..........
'
,.,
J.4O
1. Summary of proposed standard
(S250.43-l(g))
2. Rationale for proposed standard ...... 146
iv
-------
3. Response to comments 147
a. The standard is too lenient 147
b. The standard is too stringent 151
c. Miscellaneous comments . 153
4. Rationale for deletion of the
proposed standard 154
a. Protection provided by
facility standards 154
b. Inappropriate use of sole
source aquifer designation 157
H. Buffer Zone 159
1. Summary of proposed standard
(§250.43-l(h) ) 159
2. Rationale for proposed standard 159
3. Response to comments 160
a. Impact on existing facilities 160
b. Surrounding land use 163
c. Comments specific to facility
type 165
d. Alternate suggestions for the
length of the buffer zone 169
e. The "NOTE" to the standard 172
f. General comments 173
4. Rationale for deletion of the
proposed standard 178
a. Ignitable, reactive, and
incompatible wastes 179
b. Spills 182
c. Dissipation and control
of discharges 183
d. Odors and noise 183
-------
IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON RELATED ISSUES J.84
A. General Comments 184
1. Existing facilities 184
2. Geographical impact 185
3. Applicability 186
4. Degree of hazard 188
5. General site selection standards
vs. specific operating and design
standards 189
6. Hazardous waste vs. hazardous
materials management 191
7. State/local regulation of
facility location 191
8. Variances . 194
B. Miscellaneous comments 196
C. Additional Location Standards 200
D. Permafrost Areas 204
1. Proposed approach to
permafrost areas 204
2. Response to comments 204
3. Deferral of final action 206
V. REGULATORY LANGUAGE 208
§264.18 Location Standards 208
Part 264, Appendix VI
VI. REFERENCES
•
Technical Documents
VI
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
On December 18, 1978 EPA proposed a comprehensive set of
regulations covering the management of hazardous wastes. This
proposal included rules governing the location of hazardous waste
management facilities (40 CFR 250.43-1, General Site Selection
standards; 43 FR 59000).
In May, 1980, the Agency promulgated standards governing the
management of hazardous wastes by existing facilities during the
interim status period (45 FR 33154 et seq.) For any given facil-
ity, the interim status period extends from the effective date
of the regulations (November 19, 1980 for most provisions) until
the receipt (or denial) of a permit. Other than for direct sur-
veillance and enforcement, there is to be little direct interac-
tion between the Agency and the regulated community; i.e., the
Agency will not be regularly reviewing designs, plans, operating
methods, or technical information concerning the facility.
Evaluating the adequacy of a facility is, properly, the subject
of the permitting process.
The May, 1980 interim status standards do not include
regulations for general site selection. Existing facilities,
which are the only ones eligible for interim status, have
already been sited and are usually in operation. For a given
facility, any decision that it is not satisfactorily located can
have major repercussions, not only for the faciliy but for the
management of wastes in the area as a whole. Such decisions
require careful study of the technical facts and the. opportunity
for the owner or operator and for the general public to present
- 1 -
-------
their views and to defand their positions. Such reviews and
due process procedures are part of the permitting process and
cannot be readily accommodated during the interim status period.
This document provides background information and support
for the general Location standards around which permits will be
granted. It explains how the regulations have come to be written
as promulgated.
This document is organized into six sections. Following
this introduction the Agency presents (Section II) the reasons
why the regulation of site selection is important and necessary.
Section II also explores State and other regulatory precedents
and identifies some of the external sources of expertise who
assisted the Agency. Next, in Section III, the Agency summarizes
the December, 1978 proposed regulations, the rationale for them,
and public comments received on them. These comments are then
analyzed and a rationale for the substance of each final require-
ment is presented. Section IV analyzes and responds to comments
on related issues including whether and to what extent location
requirements should be different for new or existing facilities.
Complete final regulation language can be found in Section V.
Section VI contains the list of references.
II. RATIONALE FOR REGULATION
This section contains the reasons why the location of
hazardous waste management facilities is important and why the
Agency has chosen to develop regulations covering site selection.
Also, in this section, the Agency explores how states and other
Federal agencies have regulated the location of facilities and
- 2 -
-------
how these regulations and legislation have served as a precedent
for the RCRA requirements. This section also identifies non-
government experts who have assisted agency staff in exploring
issues and developing these final requirements.
A. RCRA Authority and Mandate
In Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976, (42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.), the Congress
of the United States requires the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regula-
tions to establish such standards, for hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities "as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment".
EPA is to promulgate regulations specifying standards,
which inter alia include requirements for -
"the location, design, and construction of
such hazardous waste treatment, disposal,
or storage facilities,-" [emphasis added].
The Agency considers this language to be a specific mandate
for these regulations.
B. Damage Incidents
Instances of past damages to human health and the
environment are sometimes used as justification for standards
which are designed to prevent the future occurance of such
damages. It was difficult to find examples of damages that
were solely caused by the presence of a facility at a parti-
cular location; usually careless waste management practices
- 3 -
-------
were the primary cause of trouble, though poor location often
contributed to the extent of damages. In addition to damage
incidents, EPA used its best professional judgment to predict
potential damages that could occur due to locating in various
environmentally sensitive areas. Many of the potential damages
are obvious, or they can be deduced from past damages to similar
structures. For example, tank and lagoon dikes can be rup-
•h
tured by seismic activity. It is thus not wise to locate such
facilities near known faults.
Structural damages resulting from recent earthquakes have
been extensively documented. A three volume report on the
San Fernando, California earthquake of February 9, 1971
includes a detailed discussion of the damages to building
structures, utilities, transportation systems, and storage
tanks. The San Fernando earthquake is considered "moderate"
as it was assigned a rating of 6.6 on the Richter magnitude
scale. (The great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 has been
assigned a Richter magnitude of 8.3.)
Volume II of this report contains a detailed description
of the effects of the earthquake on steel and concrete storage
tanks.1 Because tanks are employed for treatment and storage
of hazardous waste, a discussion of damages to these units is
included here. Although the tanks reported on were used to
store water, it is reasonable to assume that similar damages
would occur to tanks containing hazardous waste.
- 4 -
-------
Common tank failures included buckling of the walls of
steel tanks, collapse of tank roofs, and separation of
connecting valves and fittings from tanks. Other damages to
steel tanks included failure of riveted connections, displace-
ment of tanks from their foundations, floor deformation, dis-
lodging of an internal overflow pipe, failure of the weld
between the shell and floor plate, sloshing of water, and
rocking of tanks. The weld failure between the shell and the
floor plate allowed water to empty from the tank which eroded
several cubic yards of earth from under, and adjacent to,
the tank. The concrete foundation of one tank broke in two
because of the rocking of the filled tank and the differential
earth movement under the tank. One cylindrical tank of rein-
forced concrete suffered cracking of the walls, and water
leaked from most of the cracks.
There are however, several documented incidents involving
flooding of hazardous waste management facilities. Summaries
of these incidents can be found on pages 96, 97, and 98 of this
document. These incidents illustrate the need for either
locating outside of floodplains or designing facilities to
withstand flood waters.
C. State Legislation and Regulation
EPA reviewed the solid and hazardous waste management
legislation, regulations, and guidelines of several States
to ascertain the various approaches that were used by the
States to regulate the location of solid and hazardous waste
facilities and to determine what elements the States deemed
- 5 -
-------
important to consider when siting hazardous and solid waste
facii ities.
1. Seismic Considerations
The Texas Technical Guideline on Site Selection
and Evaluation (No. 2)2 suggests factors that should be
taken into consideration when selecting the location of
an industrial-solid waste disposal facility. Active
faults and high seismic risk zones are two factors
included for consideration.
Minnesota^ includes a provision in its hazardous
waste facility location regulations which states that,
"No person shall establish, construct, or
operate a hazardous waste facility in a
location where the topography, geology,
hydrology, or soil is unsuitable for the
protection of the groundwater and surface
water." [emphasis added]
California regulations for land disposal4 at Class I
disposal sites prohibit siting over zones of active
faulting (i.e., where evidence indicates that there may
be movement in the disposal area along a fault trace
during the active life of the site, which may be infinite
in the case of some conservative toxic materials) or
where other forms of geologic change (e.g., liquefaction
due to seismic shocks, landslide, and subsidence) would
* Class I disposal sites may receive all waste groups. They must
provide complete protection to ground and surface waters for
all time so as to prevent hazard to public health and wiid£tfe
resources.
- 6 -
-------
impair the competence of natural features or artificial
barriers which prevent continuity with usable waters.
2. Endangered and threatened species and their
critical habitats
In selecting a disposal site that will pose the
least amount of threat to the environment, the Texas
Guidelines5 suggest that areas be chosen with a low
fauna and flora diversity. Also included are suggestions
to avoid wildlife refuges, migration routes, and areas
of unique plant and/or animal communities.
In New York State,6 related legislation illustrates
that effects on endangered and threatened species and
their habitats are considered important in determining
significant effects on the environment. The (New York)
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR) requires
that all state, regional, and local government agencies
determine whether actions that they directly undertake,
fund, or approve might have a significant effect on the
environment. Specifically, one group of criteria are:
"the removal or destruction of large quantities
of vegetation or fauna; the substantial inter-
ference with the movement of any resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species; impacts on
a threatened species of animal or plant or the
habitat of such a species;" (§617.11).
3. Floodplains
When selecting a disposal site, the Texas Guide-
lines 7 suggest that floodplains and fluvial terrace
deposits be avoided.
- 7 -
-------
Minnesota8 prohibits hazardous waste facilities
from locating in floodplains.
q
The Pennsylvania Solid Waste Rules and Regulations'
prohibit sanitary landfills (§75.24), composting
facilities (§75.34), and Class III* construction and
demolition waste disposal sites (§75.33) from locating
in areas subject to flooding once in every 100 years
(i.e., in the 100-year floodplain).
The following regulations are less stringent in
that they allow location in a flood zone provided that
certain measures have been taken to prevent inundation
of the facility.
For Class II** construction and demolition waste
disposal, Pennsylvania allows location in areas inundated
more frequently than once every 100 years if the site is
approved by the Department of Environmental Resources.
Criteria for approval are: "types and volumes of wastes,
methods of emplacement, flood protection, erosion control,
and compatibility with land and water uses." (§75.33)
The Iowa Solid Waste Disposal Commission10 requires
proposed sanitary landfills to submit a "plan" detailing
* Class III - waste materials resulting from the construction or
demolition of buildings and other structures which may include
but are not limited to, wood, plaster, metals, asphaltic substances,
and Class I and Class II wastes. (§75.33(b))
** Class II - waste materials resulting from land clearing, grubbinq
and excavations which may include trees, brush, stumps, vegetative
material, and Class I wastes. (§75.33(b))
- 8 -
-------
various aspects of the facility's operation and expected
impact. A landfill is granted a permit only if Its plan
is approved by the Commission. A portion of the report
that must be submitted as part of the plan requires veri-
fication that the site is outside a floodplain or shore-
land unless proper engineering and sealing of the site
will render it acceptable, ajid that prior approval of
the Iowa Natural Resources Council and, where necessary,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has I been obtained.
New York11 prescribes that secure (solid waste)
land burial facilities must be located at least five
feet above a floodplain unless provisions have been
made to prevent the encroachment of flood waters.
Oklahoma Industrial Waste Management Rules and
Regulations1^ state that, "No [industrial waste] disposal
site or processing facility located at an elevation of
less than two (2) feet above a one-hundred-year flood
elevation shall be granted a permit, unless in the
Department's [Department of Health] judgment adequate
flood control measures have been provided in the site
or facility design and construction. Flood control
measures shall include protection against flooding to
at least two (2) feet above the one-hundred-year flood
elevation." (§3.5)
— 9 —
-------
D. Related Federal Legislation and Regulation
1. Wetlands
To determine if the Section 404 and Section 402
programs under the CWA adequately preserved and protected
wetlands, EPA reviewed regulations promulgated under
those sections of the CWA. In a statement of its
General Regulatory Policies (33 CPR 320), the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers lists functions of wetlands that
they consider important. It is stated that each activity
requiring a permit will be evaluated to determine whether
it is primarily dependent on being located in, or in
close proximity to, the aquatic environment and whether
feasible alternative sites are available. The Corps
also states that each wetland site will be evaluated
with the recognition that it is part of a complete
and interrelated wetland area.13
The EPA Final Guidelines for the Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material are also
part of the 404 program. These Guidelines are used to
evaluate proposed sites for the disposal of dredged or
fill material. They contain thorough procedures for
evaluating impacts of a discharge on human health or
welfare, and the effects on municipal water supplies,
plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and adjacent
aquatic ecosystems. Great detail is also devoted to
evaluating the effects of the discharge on the chemical
and physical aspects of the wetland.
- 10 -
-------
The NPDES (Section 402) permit program, administered
by EPA, sets effluent limitations for point source dis-
charges to waters of the United States. The effluent
limitations are set in order to protect public water
supplies, populations of fish, shellfish, and wildlife,
and to permit recreational use of the water. The Agency
believes that this program adequately protects human
health and the environment with respect to point source
discharges to wetlands.
2. Floodplains
The Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) of the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes
flood insurance available (in participating communities)
to property owners at a reasonable cost, in return for
which communities are required to carry out floodplain
management measures to protect lives and, reduce property
loss.14 This program has resulted in a National effort
to map floodplains and regulate floodplain development.
EPA reviewed FIA's minimum requirements for com-
munities participating in the NFIP.1^ EPA could thereby
determine the scope and degree of restriction which is
applied to structures located in floodplains in communi-
ties participating in the NFIP.
3. Seismic considerations
EPA reviewed the seismic activity controls that the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses in siting nuclear
- 11 -
-------
power plants and the Corps of Engineers uses in design4-n9
dams.16 Particularly helpful were two reports prepared by
the NRC:
(1) U.S. NRC - Information Report. Identification
of Issues Pertaining to Seismic and Geologic Siting
Regulation, Policy, and Practice for Nuclear Power
Plants. April 27, 1979. SECY-79-300.
(2) U.S. NRC. Comparison of U.S. Federal Agencies
Seismic, Geologic and Gee-technical Siting Regula-
tions and Guidelines for Critical Structures.
Presented at GSA Symposium: Geological Informa-
tion - Problems in Transfer from Scientist to
Policy Maker, Toronto, Canada; October 26, 1978.
These publications allowed EPA to gain insight into how
other agencies regulate for faulting and vibratory
ground motion and the advantages and disadvantages of
their approaches.
EPA also reviewed a preliminary draft of 10 CFR
Part 61, Disposal of Low-level Radioactive Waste and
Low-activity Bulk Solid Waste prepared by the NRC. The
criteria for determining site suitability (§61.96), state
that a disposal facility is not allowed to be located
in an area having a peak horizontal ground acceleration
of greater than 0.25g with a recurrence interval of less
than 500 years (note: a 500-year recurrence interval is
equivalent to a 90% probability that the ground accel-
eration will not be exceeded in 50 years).
- 12 -
-------
E. Contacts with other Federal Agencies and Professionals
In developing the final regulations, the Agency used a
number of sources in addition to the very valuable informa-
tion received by comment on the December, 1978 proposed regu-
lations. There are, of course, a number of very excellent
reports, studies, and other documents on such subjects as
flooding and seismic activity and means of safeguarding
structures against them. A list of those used extensively
can be found in the References and list of Technical Documents
(Section VI). In addition, EPA used the expertise of some
specialists (e.g., hydrologists, professional engineers,
and geotechnical engineers). Specifically, the Federal
Insurance Administration of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency provided EPA with information on how flood insurance
maps are prepared and the availability of flood insurance
maps, and answered technical questions for us. Memoranda
of those meetings are in the Administrative Record for the
Location standards. (See references 67 and 71.)
In addition, a private consultant (Mr. Charles L. Taylor)
assisted EPA in developing the basis for the final standard
on seismically active areas. Mr. Taylor is both a registered
geologist and engineering geologist in the states of Cali-
fornia and Oregon. Working with Woodward-Clyde Consultants
in San Francisco, California, he has gained extensive exper-
ience in conducting, supervising, and managing geotechnical
investigations for a wide variety of projects. He has been
involved in developing criteria and procedures to identify,
- 13 -
-------
evaluate, and classify fault activity, and is especially
experienced in the subject of ground deformation adjacent to
active fault traces. He is presently involved in developing
and evaluating criteria for nuclear waste management.
Mr. Taylor also serves a number of public agencies in Northern
California.
Before Mr. Taylor was enlisted to assist EPA with
seismic considerations, Agency staff periodically consulted
scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey in Denver, Colorado
and the U.S. NRC in Bethesda, Maryland.
- 14 -
-------
III. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS AND RATIONALE
FOR THE FINAL REGULATIONS
In December of 1978 (43 PR 59000) EPA proposed standards for
the location of facilities in active fault zones, regulatory flood-
ways, coastal high hazard areas, 500-year floodplains, wetlands,
critical habitats of endangered and threatened species, recharge
zones of sole source aquifers, and, for the location of active
portions of facilities with respect to the facility's property line.
The Agency received extensive comments on these proposed standards.
In this Section, the Agency presents the results of analysis of
these comments and supports the decisions made regarding the content
of the final requirements. This is done on a regulation-by-regulation
basis in the sequence they appeared in the proposal.
Each proposed requirement is first summarized and the rationale
for it at the time of proposal is presented. Then the comments
received are summarized and analyzed, and finally the rationale
is presented in support of the final regulation and the decisions
made concerning it. In the comment analysis section, paragraphs
labeled "C:" summarize the comment, while those labeled "R:" con-
tain the Agency's response.
A. Active Fault Zone
1. Summary of proposed standard (§250.43-l(a))
The proposed standard prohibited all hazardous waste
facilities from locating in an active fault zone. "Active
fault zone" was defined in proposed §250.4l(b)(2) as,
"a land area which, according to the weight of
geologic evidence, has a reasonable probability
of being affected by movement along a fault to
- 15 -
-------
the extent that a hazardous waste facility would
be damaged and thereby pose a threat to human
health and the environment."
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
Movement of land areas adjacent to an active fault
clearly poses a threat to the integrity of structures,
which may lead to uncontrolled release of hazardous
waste, therefore constituting a danger to human health
and the environment. The Agency believed that there
were no existing, practicable engineering methods for
design of a facility to assure structural integrity
during a serious earthquake. Therefore, EPA proposed
that no facility be allowed to locate in active fault
zones.
3. Response to comments
a. The definition of active fault zone and the
area affected by the standard.
Comment: The definition of an active fault zone is
imprecise, thus making it difficult for owners or
operators to determine whether their facilities
are located in active fault zones. Without a more
precise definition, or additional guidance, many
widely different interpretations of the standard
are possible.
Response: EPA agrees that the proposed definition was
imprecise and that because of this, the exact area
affected by the standard would be difficult to
determine. In the standard which EPA intends to
- 16 -
-------
finalize the area affected by the standard is
precise: the area within 200 feet of a Holocene
fault.*
C: The definition is so encompassing that it would
include large areas of the western United States.
R: Areas within 200 feet of a Holocene fault
will include a very small percentage of available
land in the western United States.17
C: Magnitude and frequency should be specified
in the definition of active fault zone.
R: Magnitude is important in assessing ground
motion and displacement along a fault. When EPA
proposes a standard which addresses ground motion,
magnitude will be considered. EPA has made the
judgment that all new facilities must be 200 feet
from any Holocene fault in order to protect against
damage due to displacement and deformation. Frequency
of recurrent activity has been considered by using
the Holocene epoch as a basis for evaluating fault
activity. It is expected that younger faults have
a shorter recurrence interval of displacement.18
* For the sake of brevity, in this document the term "Holocene
fault" will be used to mean a fault which has had displacement
in Holocene time.
- 17 -
-------
C: The definition does not conform to the general
interpretation of active fault zone which is, a
fault along which there is evidence of movement or
seismic activity during the past 10,000 to 20,000
years.
R: One of the reasons that EPA chose not to use
the term active fault (zone) in the final standard
is because a survey of past geologic literature
shows that active fault (zone) has been defined in
many different ways. Generally, it was defined
using geologic information available at the time,
or a definition was tailored to the purpose of a
particular project.^
EPA believes that using a criterion of dis-
placement within an identifiable period of geologic
time will eliminate the confusion associated with
using a term with many recognized meanings.
However, the time frame suggested by the com-
menter is largely in conformance with the Holocene
epoch which represents about the last 11,000 years,
although in some parts of the United States the
limits of the Holocene may range from 10,000 to
15,000 years ago.
C: The definition should only cover areas having
the potential for Richter Scale 7.0 or greater
earthquakes (the commenter provided no information
as to why this particular magnitude was selected).
- 18 -
-------
R: The final standard will be directed towards
the potential for surface faulting and not earth-
quake ground motion. The basis for using Richter
magnitude 7.0 and greater earthquakes to identify
significant faults (or fault zones) does not seem
reasonable for a ground faulting standard since
small magnitude earthquakes can cause damage to
structures located near the epicenters.
C: The definition should only cover areas that
have been active during the last 11,000 years so
that it will conform with the California Geologic
Hazards Act's definition.
R: The final standard is based on faults which
have had displacement during Holocene time. EPA
realizes that this is consistent with the California
Geologic Hazards Act's definition. This consistency
will help in implementing the standard as maps
will be available for Holocene faults in California.
C: An active fault zone should be qualitatively
defined; for example, the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) has defined zones for determining
degree of seismic activity. Facilities in the
USGS's Zone 3 (the most active zone) should be
screened; however, do not exclude all hazardous
waste sites from this zone.
R: EPA believes that reliance on a qualitative
system is unnecessary because the actual location
- 19 -
-------
of faults would certainly be a variable in the
screening process. Thus, the end result would be
the same as that under the seismic standard where
the permit applicant is required to determine if
there are any Holocene faults near the facility
(specifically, within 200 feet of portions of the
facility where treatment, storage, or disposal will
be conducted). However, the USGS's seismic risk map
can be used as a general indicator of the location
of faulting activity because it is based on historic
seismic activity which correlates strongly with dis-
placements along Holocene faults.
b- Design and construction of facility to mitigate
seismic considerations
C: Facilities should be allowed to be located in
active fault zones if the facility is designed and
constructed:
to withstand the expected seismic activity of
the area; in particular, the fault zone slip-
page effects on a facility.
with a certain prescribed safety factor tailored
to the seismic activity of the area.
so that hazardous waste is not likely to escape
and cause substantial hazard. (This should be
determined using a case-by-case analysis.)
R: At this time it is impracticable from economic,
engineering, and architectural points of view to
- 20 -
-------
design a critical structure to withstand serious
damage under the stress of surface fault rupture.2^
EPA has therefore prohibited facilities from locating
within 200 feet of a Holocene fault because the
damaging effects of major fault displacement and
deformation associated with historical surface
v&
faulting hag occurred within this width.
EPA has learned that it is not appropriate
to use safety factors for designing structures to
withstand certain degrees of ground motion. The
concept of using safety factors is becoming obso-
lete because is it difficult to achieve agreement
on what is an appropriate safety factor.21
EPA has determined from available information
that significant gaps in the knowledge of how
hazardous waste facilities would be affected by
different ground motion parameters (e.g., accelera-
tion, velocity, significant duration) exist at this
time. The state-of-the-practice is advanced enough
and acceptable procedures are available to design
and construct civil engineering structures to with-
stand earthquake shaking. Although it is assumed
that these procedures may be modified so that they
can be applied to units used to manage hazardous
waste, there are no commonly accepted "standards"
for design and construction of such units.
- 21 -
-------
EPA is not in agreement with the commentor
that suggested a design and construction perfor-
mance standard. EPA. believes that ground motion,
and displacement and deformation should be con-
sidered separately because of their inherent
differences.
c. Restricting facilities in active fault zones
should be based on:
C: - the "degree of hazard" of the waste being
treated, stored, or disposed at the facility.
the particular treatment, storage and disposal
method used by a facility.
- the probability that a certain magnitude of
earthquake will occur.
R: EPA has not developed a comprehensive Degree
of Hazard system. For a discussion of this issue,
see the Degree of Hazard Background Document that
accompanied the Phase I rules.
With regard to ground motion, EPA cannot deter-
mine how to restrict facilities based on the parti-
cular waste management methods used at the facility
because the differential effects of different ground
motion parameters on the components (e.g., landfills,
tanks, incinerators, etc.) of a facility are not
known.
With regard to displacement and deformation,
EPA has set a distance of 200 feet from a Holocene
- 22 -
-------
fault as the set-back distance for all new facilities.
It seems plausible to EPA however, that some facili-
ties may be able to locate at some distance within
200 feet from a Holocene fault and not pose a threat
to human health and the environment in the event of
fault displacement. In the preamble to these rules,
EPA requests comment on what may be appropriate set-
back distances from Holocene faults for facilities
which contain different operational units and, if
variable set-back distances would be justified on
the basis of the nature and quantity of waste managed
at the facility. EPA also requests that commenters
specify their reasoning and justify distances which
are suggested with technical data to the degree
possible.
Probabilities of certain magnitudes of earth-
quakes are not available for most regions in the
U.S. where earthquakes commonly occur. Beyond this
problem, it would not be appropriate for EPA to
specify a certain magnitude of earthquake because
the damage caused by a certain magnitude of earth-
quake is dependent upon the structures at a facility
and the local geologic conditions.
d. Miscellaneous comments.
C: The hazard posed by locating a facility in
an active fault zone may be less than the hazard
posed to the population along transportation routes
- 23 -
-------
from generation sites in active fault zones to
facilities located in "non-active fault zones".
R: The seismic standard should not result in the
transportation of wastes over long distances. Trans-
portation distance may increase by a few miles;
however, EPA believes that minor increases in trans-
portation are justified due to the hazards associated
with locating within 200 feet of a Holocene fault.
The rule does not affect existing facilities.
C: Additional flexibility needs to be provided
so that facilities will be allowed to locate in
areas that are protected by structures outside the
facility and not built or controlled by the operator.
R: EPA knows of no structures that can be located
outside a facility that would render a facility
earthquake resistant. Engineering methods to make
a facility earthquake resistant are tied to the
direct design, construction, and operation of the
structural components of a facility.
4. Rationale for the final regulation (§264.l8(a))
It cannot yet be claimed that there is only one
cause of all earthquakes. A minor cause of earthquakes
is volcanic activity. Some deeper earthquakes may perhaps
be related to sudden changes in rock properties due to
motion deep within the Earth's mantle. However, most
destructive, shallow-focus earthquakes appear to be asso-
ciated with a sudden rupturing (faulting) of the Earth's
- 24 -
-------
crust. (The crust is a rock layer of varying thickness,
ranging from 30 miles under continents to 3 miles under
oceans, which is found world-wide and is composed of
mainly basaltic and granitic rocks.) The resulting earth-
quakes are caused by the sudden releases of accumulative
strain energy. The rupture, or break, is called a fault
and is generally accompanied by displacement of blocks
either vertically or horizontally or both, on opposite
sides of the fracture.22
Hazardous waste management facilities wtll be located
in areas of the United States which have been the sources
of historical earthquakes and which are expected to be
the sources of earthquakes in the future.23,24 since
some of these historical earthquakes resulted in damage
to existing structues there is also the potential for
damage to hazardouos waste facilities. The damage may
or may not be of consequence to the performance of the
facility. Historical damage to structures has been
associated with displacement and deformation along
faults, strong ground motion (shaking), and ground (or
soil) failure. Therefore, in locating hazardous waste
management facilities in areas which have been subject
to historical earthquakes, consideration should be given
to the potential for surface faulting, ground motion,
and ground failure.
- 25 -
-------
a. Fault Displacement and Associated Deformation
Faults are fractures along which rocks on one
side have been displaced with respect to those on
the other side. Displacement is the relative move-
ment of any two sides of a fault measured in any
direction. The displacement may be confined to the
subsurface or it may continue to the Earth's surface.
Geologists refer to the intersection of a fault
and the earth's surface as a fault trace. Displace-
ments along a fault can be horizontal, vertical,
or a combination of both and can be on the order of
a few inches or feet to as much as 20 feet or more.25
The width of an individual fault trace is generally
on the order of several feet to several tens of
feet.26 There are three main types of faults and
each is characterized by a distinctive type of
movement and geometry. (Figure 1) Strike-slip
fault displacement is essentially a horizontal
lateral motion along a nearly vertical fault plane.
Structures placed across or in the vicinity of a
strike-slip fault can be subject to shortening
(compression), lengthening (extension), and distor-
tion (deformation) as well as displacement. Normal-
slip fault displacement is primarily a vertical
(down drop) separation with one side of the fault
down in relation to the other side. Structures
located across a normal-slip fault are generally
- 26 -
-------
STRIKE-SLIP
MAY HAVE A
VERTICAL COMPONENT
IN EITHER DIRECTION
^5^1
f f f^m w . jfsi**£it
•;^?$..^.
;S-o»-o:i:.<»!<
LO^ >v^,.On.-.C
NORMAL-SLIP
MAY HAVE
STRIKE-SLIP
COMPONENT IN
EITHER DIRECTION
MAY HAVE
STRIKE-SLIP COMPONENT
IN EITHER DIRECTION
REVERSE-SLIP
FIGURE /
THREE TYPES OF FAULT DISPLACEMENT
- 27 -
-------
subjected to a horizontal lengthening across and
down the scarp (steep slope) produced by the faulting,
A reverse-slip fault is essentially a ver^tical
thrusting of the upper block over the lower block.
Structures located across reverse-slip faults are
generally subject to shortening (compression) across
the fault scarp. Displacement of normal-slip and
reverse-slip faults also subjects structures that
are near the fault trace to distortion.27
Seismically active areas usually do not contain
only one fault, but a number of faults grouped
together. These faults are grouped within a well
defined width or zone. Such a grouping is commonly
referred to as a "fault zone" since it consists of a
zone (a width) with several individual faults.
M.G. Bonilla studied historic instances of
surface faulting in the continental United States
and adjacent parts of Mexico. His study has provided
the most comprehensive data on the spatial relation-
ship of faults. The following classification system
is based on his work.28
The general fault zone usually can be divided
into a main fault zone, a branch fault zone, and a
secondary fault zone (Figure 2). The spatial rela-
tionship of individual faults in the fault zone has
resulted in this classification system. The main
fault zone contains the main fault (i.e., the fault
- 28 -
-------
an:
Figure 2. Zones of fault rupture
(I) main fault zoney (II) branch fault;
and (III) secondary faults.
- 29 -
-------
with the greatest displacement, length, and continuity)
and closely associated faults. The width of the main
zone of faulting has been reported to range up to
3,000 feet, but in most of the cases (71%) (reported
by Bonilla, 1967) the width was less than 1,600 feet
and for half (50%) the width was less than 550 feet.
(Figure 3) Occasionally, faults diverge from and
extend well beyond the main zone of faults and are
referred to as branch faults. Secondary faults are
completely separate spatially from the main fault
and sometimes form several hundred feet to a few miles
from the main fault. Associated with main, branch,
or secondary faults are often small, subsurface
faults evident as fault planes in a geologic investi-
gation. These planes run parallel to the fault and
typically are considered a part of that fault.
Adjacent to the fault rupture is commonly found
a zone of deformation. This is an area where the
ground has been bent or warped as a consequence of
the two surface planes moving relative to one
another. Surface deformation is frequently reported
within a zone of several tens to several hundred
feet wide.3°'31 Structures located within this
zone are subject to distortion and are likely to be
subject to damage.
- 30 -
-------
,
7
c
4
M
*
'
,
M
M JH
....
*
it
•
• . - .
• "
lit
• •
M
A
'
....
w kl
• 41
^
u
" .
» joi jos 0.1 • o.s
V 11
o
«" M
a
Sl« Sit M
A • A
n
D
V- •
A
V
m.,
a
Hfl
IIITI»«
• O O liiiii-iiii lutu
• B O in — l lulu
A A A MiinioiiMi lull.
A ^ ^ itvitti item
. . 1 . . ..1 . ..!....
IISTAICC rian ciiTEitiiit or HM» ieic T» ootti tost or ingicuce u«t (mitt)
Figure 3. Distance to outer edge of zone as
related to earthquake magnitude.
Roman numerals indicate, for each of the four types of faults,
the greatest distance to the outer edge of the main zone (I), the
zone of branch faults (II), and the zone of secondary faults (III)
- 31 -
-------
Structures located across a fault at the time
of surface faulting will be subjected to fault dis-
placement. The amount of and direction of displace-
ment and deformation will depend upon the type of
fault (strike-slip, normal-slip, or reverse-slip),
the amount of displacement (a few inches or feet to
as -much as 20 feet), the attitude of the fault plane,
and the surficial geology.33 At the present time it
is generally not practicable to design most structures
to withstand serious damage under the stress of sur-
face fault rupture. Mitigating measures are available
for lifelines (pipelines, electrical lines, roads,
canals, etc.) and earthen structures (dams, embank-
ments, fills, etc.) which must cross a fault subject
to displacement. The best protection, however, for
hazardous waste facilities is to avoid faults subject
to displacement. Consequently, the regulation which
EPA intends to finalize prohibits location of portions
of a facility where treatment, storage, or disposal
of hazardous waste will be conducted within a distance
(200 feet) of the fault. This distance typically
covers the zone of deformation.
The purpose of the seismic regulation at
§264.18(a) is to protect facilities from the damage
which may occur due to displacement of a fault and
the associated deformation. In this regulation EPA
intends for fault to be a generic term which includes
- 32 -
-------
fault traces, fault planes, faults which do not have
surface expression, main faults, branch faults, and
secondary faults.
EPA reviewed seismic criteria for the State of
California when determining an exclusion width for
hazardous waste management facilities. The Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 regulates
development in California near Holocene faults. In
accordance with the Special Studies Zones Act, the
California State Mining and Geology Board has
established that: (1) no structure for human occu-
pancy will be permitted to be placed across a Holocene
fault trace; and (2) no structures will be permitted
within 50 feet of a Holocene fault unless an appro-
priate geological investigation demonstrates an
absence of (Holocene) branches of that fault. The
latter standard is intended to represent minimum
criteria only, for all structures. The Mining and
Geology Board recommends that certain essential
(e.g., schools and hospitals) or critical structures*
should be subject to more restrictive criteria at
the discretion of. cities and counties in Calif ornia. 35
California's rules for siting liquefied natural
gas facilities prohibit liquefied natural gas tanks
from being sited within 100 feet of a capable fault.36
* Examples of critical structures are dams, reservoirs, nuclear reac-
tors, tall buildings, schools, prisons, and structures containing
large quantities of potentially explosive or toxic materials.34
- 33 -
-------
Recency of Faulting - EPA does delimit the time
period of last displacement of the fault; the seismic
standard specifies faults which have had displacement
in Holocene time. The Holocene is a geologic time
period extending from approximately 11,000 years ago
to the present. More specifically; it is the most
recent epoch of the Quaternary period. Hoiocene
deposits are those formed within this time period,
during which climatic and sea level conditions, and
geomorphic processes have been similar to or are
ongoing with those now prevailing.
The presence of faulting can be established
through physiographic features, and stratigraphic and
structural relations within the Quaternary or Pre-
Quaternary deposits. The recency of fault activity
is more difficult to establish in Quaternary or older
deposits. In this case, ongoing or Holocene processes
superimposed upon the Quaternary and older deposits
must be identified and evaluated in terms of fault
related discontinuities. Such processes mainly in-
clude soil formation and profile development, and
weathering, all processes in which some sort of
layering is developed. In areas where layering is
not obvious, age dating of materials at various
depths can be carried out to establish time horizons.
Where the above methods of fault identification
and activity assessment cannot be achieved, seismic
- 34 -
-------
records and historic methods may help to identify
to
fault areas and^establish activity.37
While many areas of the United States have
Holocene deposits and landforms of significant extent
such that evaluation of fault presence and activity
can be achieved, there are areas where Holocene
deposits and landforms are not well developed, as
in areas where glacial activity has stripped the
surficial ground cover and left highly resistant
rock such that inspection of Holocene deposits and
landforms for fault related features is hindered,
and the presence of potentially active or active
faults and the recency of possible fault movements
cannot with this means be adequately assessed. In
situations of this sort, reference to seismic epi-
center plots and historic records must be utilized,
as well as identification and close examination of
possible fault related features expressed in Pleisto-
cene and older deposits.
Where deposits or landforms of known Holocene
age are offset or displaced by faults, movement along
the fault is established to have occurred within
Holocene time. As major geologic processes such as
faulting are long lived, lasting millions or tens
of millions of years, movement along faults within
the past 11,000 years can reasonably be considered
to represent a high potential for future activity
- 35 -
-------
along a fault.38 For example, faults of Hoiocene
age, as a class, have a greater probability of
future activity than faults classified as Quaternary
age (last 2-3 million years).39
In the proposed rule, EPA used "active fault
zone" to delimit faults of concern. "Active fault
zone" was defined as, "a land area .which, according
to the weight of geologic evidence, has a reasonable
probability of being affected by movement along a
fault to the extent that a hazardous waste facility
would be damaged and thereby pose a threat to human
health and the environment."
EPA has decided not to use the terms "active
fault" and "active fault zone" because of the various
and sometimes conflicting definitions commonly in use
and cited in publications.40 Other disadvantages of
using the proposed definition are that it is difficult
to achieve agreement on the meaning of the phrases,
"weight of geologic evidence" and "reasonable proba-
bility", and there is no set of criteria that can be
used to demonstrate activity (or non activity) of a
fault.
EPA decided to use Hoiocene faults as the group
of faults which are significant to hazardous waste
facilities based on the following criteria:
(1) The time period selected for defining the
range of last fault movement should be
- 36 -
-------
long enough to provide a level of accep-
table risk,
(2) Faulting within the time period should
be recognized by surface features or sub-
surface displacements,
(3) The time period can be related to a
geological time with identifiable deposits
or features which can be used to establish
the time of last displacement (should the
need arise).
Faults which have had displacement in Holocene
time are the group of faults which are most widely
used in current engineering practice41'42 and for
evaluating the hazard of surface fault rupture.4^
It should additionally be noted that the hazard of
surface fault rupture is not only based on the
recency of activity but also on the recurrence of
faulting along existing faults. With respect to
the latter basis, future faulting generally is
expected to recur along pre-existing faults.44
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission both use capable fault (in
general, movement within the last 35,000 years) to
define the recency of fault activity that concerns
them. The harm and damage which may result from the
structural failure of a dam or nuclear reactor in
the event of fault displacement is, in most cases,
- 37 -
-------
greater than that which would occur as a result of
damage to a hazardous waste facility. The spread of
radiation is difficult, if not impossible, to contain.
Undoubtably there would be a great loss of life and
property if a large dam were to fail in the vicinity
of a large population center.
In summary, EPA uses the concept of "displacement
along Holocene faults" because it:
Identifies a specific geological time frame
(within about the last 11,000 years).
Represents a specific, unique, and recognizable
group of geological deposits.
Represents an area of investigation, research,
and mapping by Federal and State agencies which
will provide more specific data that can be
used for siting.
Is a concept which can be demonstrated and
agreed on within the geological profession.
Existing Facilities - EPA intends to exclude
existing facilities from the seismic standard on the
basis of concern about the impact of possible facility
closure on hazardous waste capacity, about the prac-
ticability of moving existing facilities, and, the
relative infrequency of seismic activity. Since the
Agency was unable to include provisions in the
standard for designing facilities (unlike the 100-
year floodplain standard where the facility can be
- 38 -
-------
designed to prevent washout) to withstand the effects
of surface faulting, closure or moving would be the
only alternatives for existing facilities. Moving
or closing existing facilities may be impractical in
some cases. For example, on-site storage and treatment
facilities may be associated with existing manufac-
turing operations which must store or treat waste -to
at least some extent as an integral part of their
operations. Movement or closure of these storage
facilities might result in movement or closure of
the manufacturing facility. Off-site storage facil-
ities can be closed or moved, but this would impact
existing hazardous waste capacity, possibly in areas
where shortages already exist. Since storage typically
is associated with other hazardous waste management
facilities, such as incinerators, the impact would
go beyond storage alone. Should this standard be
applied to incinerators and land disposal facilities
in the future (as is likely when further standards
under Part 264 are promulgated for those facilities)
the impact on capacity would be more direct. In the
case of existing landfills, closing a facility (with
the waste in place) would not significantly reduce
the potential for damage associated with faulting.
Finally, given the relative infrequency of seismic
activity, the Agency believes that there is a very low
potential for an earthquake occuring before most
- 39 -
-------
existing facilities close at the end of their normal
lifetime.
Nevertheless, EPA is not fully convinced that
the standard should not apply at least to existing
storage facilities (or incinerators) and has requested
comment on this issue in the preamble to these regu-
lations. In particular, the Agency asked for comment
on the number of existing facilities currently
located in areas restricted by this standard, and
the impact this restriction would have on those
facilities and on capacity in the area where they
are located. After reviewing this information the
Agency will reconsider whether this standard should
apply to existing facilities.
Demonstration of Compliance (Part 122) - The
owner or operator of a facility must demonstrate
compliance with the seismic standard as part of his
permit application. For facilities that are located
in areas of the United States which are riot likely
to be subject to seismic activity the demonstration
will be a simple one. Appendix VI to Part 264
contains a list of the political jurisdictions in
the United States in which owners or operators of
new facilities must demonstrate that there are no
Holocene faults within 200 feet of portions of the
facility where treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste will be conducted. (See Section V
- 40 -
-------
of this document.) If the political jurisdiction in
which a facility is located is not listed in Appendix
VI as needing to comply, the owner or operator has
complied with the seismic standard.
The list in Appendix VI is taken from the
Applied Technology Council's (ATC) map entitled,
"Map For Coefficient Aa". (Figure 1-1, in Tentative
Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for Buildings.)45 This map is based on the earlier
work by Algermissen and Perkins (1976) which resulted
in a contour map of the United States which estimated
the maximum ground acceleration to be expected from
earthquakes occuring in the U.S.46 It was based pri-
marily upon the historic seismic record and represents
the best work done thus far on estimating the relative
earthquake hazard in the United States as a whole.
To a minor degree, data on the distribution of faults
was used. The ATC modified this map by increasing
the scale and inserting the boundaries of counties
and other political jurisdictions. The ATC map shows
seven zones of increasing ground acceleration. The
political jurisdictions listed in Appendix VI are
those which are likely to be subject to an estimated
,10g of ground motion (specifically effective peak
acceleration). Based on the work by Howard and others
(1978) and a review of other available data it appears
that the areas of the United States most likely to be
- 41 -
-------
influenced by earthquakes with associated surface
faulting are within the .10g contour.47 In addition,
the regions in the Eastern United States which have
experienced reasonably large damaging earthquakes
in the past are outlined by the -10g contour (i.e.,
Charleston, S.C.; New Madrid, Mo.; New England).48
EPA has attempted to minimize the cost of
compliance with the seismic standard in all cases,
but particularly for facilities where the risk of
seismic activity is very low.
Because a demonstration of compliance with the
seismic standard is made as part of the permit appli-
cation, Part 122, Subpart B, §122.25(a) contains pro-
cedures which must be followed to adequately demon-
strate compliance with the standard. The permit
applicant is provided with several alternative study
approaches because site-specific conditions will
vary considerably due to type of faults, geologic
structure of the area, and the existence of published
data. The information developed during the study
**
must be^sufficient quality to be acceptable to geolo-
gists experienced in identifying and evaluating
seismic activity.
Study approaches may include a review of
published geological data, an aerial reconnaissance,
an analysis of aerial photographs, a geological recon-
naissance of the site, or trenching. EPA intends to
- 42 -
-------
require these studies to be carried out to different
distances from the facility; specifically, 3000 feet
and 5 miles. These distances are generally accepted
within the geologic profession as distances which
must be investigated to conclusively make the demon-
strations required. These distances are also based
on results of geological studies, the most imporant
of these is by M.G. Bonilla (1967) which analyzes
historic surface faulting in the continental United
States and adjacent parts of Mexico. Bonilla has
indicated that the maximum distance from the center-
line of the main zone of surface faulting to the
outer edge of that zone is on the order of 3,000 feet.
Bonilla also found that some branch and secondary
faults do appear within the zone.49 Therefore, if
an area within 3,000 feet of the site is studied and
there is no evidence of Holocene faulting, EPA is
confident that the facility is not located within a
main fault zone where the large-scale damage due to
displacement and deformation occurs.
The other study distance is five miles. Regional
studies include a review of published geological data
and an aerial reconnaissance to cover an area within
a five mile radius of the site. Five miles is speci-
fied here because surface faulting data (Bonilia,
1967) indicate that the majority (81%) of branch and
secondary faults associated with the main Holocene
- 43 -
-------
fault zone occur within five miles from the centerline
of the main zone. This distance is also accepted as
a regional study distance by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) for siting nuclear power plants50 and
by the State of California Public Utilities Commission
for siting of liquefied natural gas facilities.51
The NRC specifies that sites within about five
miles of a surface capable fault greater than 1,000
feet in length are usually not suitable for a nuclear
power station. In any case, extensive and detailed
geologic and seismic field studies and analyses'
should be conducted for such a proposed site.
The level of effort which will be required to
make the demonstration to comply with the standard
will depend upon the amount of evidence which indi-
cates that Holocene faulting is likely or unlikely.
For example, if Holocene faults have been mapped
within one mile of the facility the owner or operator
may want to trench at the outset because, even though
the other procedures are followed through, the data
may indicate that trenching must be done to conclu-
sively make the demonstration. On the other hand,
if no published data indicate faulting within (for
example) 5 to 10 miles of the site, an aerial recon-
naissance may be all that is required to sufficiently
demonstrate lack of faulting activity. A guidance/
permitting manual for the Location standards win be
- 44 -
-------
available shortly which will provide greater detail
on the study procedures identified in Part 122.
Location of Holocene Faults - The United States
Geological Survey (USGS) and some State geological
agencies are identifying Holocene fault displacements
in present mapping programs, and mapping of Holocene
deposits is becoming more widespread.. Both of these
will be of benefit in locating acceptable waste facil-
ity sites. The recent map by Howard and others^ _
Preliminary map of young faults in the United States
as a guide to possible fault activity - shows the parts
of the U.S. where Holocene faults have been identified:
the Western United States and the New Madrid area in
the Midwest. At present, no Holocene faults have
been identified on the East Coast.
The map by Howard and others provides some indi-
cation of where Holocene faults are likely to be found.
Geological studies will be necessary to assess the lo-
cation of any Holocene faults in the vicinity of a site.
This is expected to require review of available litera-
ture published by the USGS and State geological agencies,
with more site-specific studies in the Western United
States and the New Madrid area. The growth faults along
the Gulf Coast (i.e., see Howard and others), are not
considered the source of earthquakes or likely to have
large displacements (if any) and therefore, should
not be considered in the context of seismicity.
- 45 -
-------
The State of California has the greatest number
of mapped Holocene faults. California's Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 required,
among other things, the mapping of traces of some of
the major faults in California which have had displace-
ment in Holocene time. The status of this mapping
program is contained in the California Division of
Mines and Geology's Special Publication 42 (Revised
March 1980), entitled Fault - Rupture Hazard Zones
in California by Earl W. Hart.
Techniques for identifying Holocene faults will
be discussed in the guidance/permitting manual.
Scientific reports also exist which identify criteria
which can be used to recognize faults which may be
of Holocene age. One good report is "State-of-the-
Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United
States" by David B. Slemmons (1977).53
b. Ground Motion
Seismic waves generated by an earthquake travel
in every direction away from the source and are
manifested in the vibrations of the material beneath
a structure and the structure itself. Ground motion
pertains to the energy released by the earthquake,
expressed in terms of intensity and duration, as
transmitted through the ground. Damage from strong
ground motion (shaking) is caused by the transmission
of earthquake vibrations from the ground into the
structure. Ground motion is fundamentally different
- 46 -
-------
than displacement and deformation for damage in the
former is only secondarily related to distance from
the fault. Thus, the impact that ground motion has
upon structures is a function of the energy charac-
teristics of the ground located between the facility
and the epicenter of the earthquake, and the design
of the structure. A facility may be located adjacent
to or hundreds of miles away from the displaced fault
and still be damaged by the resulting ground motion.
There has been some attention given to the
design of earthquake resistant structures. Perhaps
the most significant efforts to date have been by
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ^4 ancj -the study by
the Applied Technology Council entitled "Tentative
Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for Buildings". However, few data exist that relate
ground motion dynamics to adequacy of engineering
design for various operational units at hazardous
waste facilities. Thus, EPA is not presently pre-
pared to set a ground motion standard until it can
determine which components of ground motion (e.g.,
acceleration, velocity, significant duration) should
be the subject of design for different operational
units (e.g., tanks, surface impoundments, incinerators)
at facilities. This requires an analysis of data on:
(1) probability of occurrence of different magnitudes
of earthquakes, (2) types of construction needed to
- 47 -
-------
protect against the different levels of ground motion,
and (3) the feasibility and costs of such construction.
OJ\ .
Such analysis is needed for each operational unit of«.
hazardous waste facility. In order to resolve these
uncertainties, it is apparent that information from
the fields of geology and engineering which could be
utilized in designing hazardous waste facilities for
seismic considerations must be gathered and analyzed
by the engineering community.
EPA has decided that a ground motion considera-
tion will not be included as part of the present
seismic standard because of the lack of knowledge in
the following four areas:
1. Which components of ground motion should be
used for the full range of operational units
at facilities.
2. The level of ground motion which is critical to
o?
the full range^operational units at facilities.
3. The designs which could be used to make a
facility resistant to the pertinent component
of and level of ground motion.
4. The costs of earthquake resistant designs.
EPA has invited the public to comment on these
areas of concern in the preamble to the Location
standards.
- 48 -
-------
c. Ground Failure
Ground failure occurs when the energy charac-
teristics of an earthquake cause a particular piece
of ground to lose its qualities of support. This
may occur in several different forms to include land-
sliding, liquefaction, settlement, and lurching.
While the cause of damage due to ground failure origi-
nates with ground motion, actual damage to a facility
results because of the failure of the ground in or
near the facility. It is common for earthquake-
triggered landslides to occur as renewed movements
of deposits resulting from previous landslides. Areas
subject to slope instability and strong earthquakes
could be subject to earthquake-triggered landslides.
Liquefaction occurs when granular, essentially
conesionless soils undergo small to complete losses
of shear strength due to the buildup of fluid pres-
sures in the soil pore water caused by cyclic loading
during earthquakes. When the loss in strength is low
to moderate, partial liquefaction may cause ground
settlement and associated ground cracking. However,
when liquefaction is complete, the soil can behave
as a fluid, and catastrophic failures, including
soil flows and landslides, have occurred as a result.
Partial liquefaction during strong ground shaking
may occur in dense to very dense cohensionless
soils, complete liquefaction typically occurs only
- 49 -
-------
in loose to medium dense cohesionless soils.
Seismic settlement is also typically associated
with cohesionless soil deposits but can occur in
poorly placed or uncompacted man-made fill. The
strong ground shaking that occurs during earthquakes
will densify loose granular soils. When these soils
are above the groundwater table, their densification
and resulting ground subsidence will occur rapidly.
When located below the groundwater table, the pore
water pressures that have developed during the
shaking must begin to dissipate before a decrease in
soil volume can occur and, as a result, settlement
occurs at a rate commensurate with the flow of water
from the cohesionless soil layer.
Lurching may be generally defined as the develop-
ment of all types and sizes of irregular ground frac-
tures, cracks and fissures associated with ground
motion, settling, and the passage of surface wave
phases during earthquakes. In this general sense,
ground cracks that occur as a result of liquefaction,
compaction, settlement, or lands!iding may be termed
lurch cracks. More specifically, lurching involves
the seismically induced lateral movement and spreading
of ground toward a free face, together with the
development of associated tension cracks in the
ground behind the free face.
- 50 -
-------
There are simplified procedures for assessing
the potential for liquefaction on the basis of bore-
holes drilled on the site and the level of ground
acceleration expected at a given site. The density
of the subsurface granular deposits and the ground
acceleration value are necessary items.
The assessment of the potential for lurching
and earthquake induced landslides are generally not
subject to analytical procedures but are based on
historic observations. They are commonly assessed
on the basis of performance of similar materials
during historical earthquakes.55
As in the case of ground motion, EPA does not
have sufficient data relating ground failure risks
to hazardous waste facility siting and design.
Therefore, EPA does not at present include a ground
failure standard; although the Agency plans to
propose such a standard in the future. To assist
EPA in this regard, the Agency has requested (in the
preamble) data on the various issues relating to a
ground failure standard to include:
(1) Is it necessary to distinguish between hazardous
waste facility types when setting a standard?
(2) Should the standard involve a prohibition from
locating facilities in areas of possible failure
or should the standard allow location of
facilities in such areas if properly designed?
- 51 -
-------
(3) What types of ground and soil conditions are
reasonably part of a standard?
(4) What types of tests would be definitive for
demonstrating compliance?
5. Summary of the seismic regulation (§264.l8(a))
Portions of new facilities where treatment, storage,
or disposal of hazardous waste will be conducted must not
be located within 61 meters (200 feet) of a fault which
has had displacement in Holocene time.
"Fault" means a fracture along which rocks on one
side have been displaced with respect to those on the
other side.
"Displacement" means the relative movement of any
two sides of a fault measured in any direction.
"Holocene" means the most recent epoch of the
Quarternary period, extending from the end of the
Pleistocene to the present.
- 52 -
-------
B.. Regulatory Floodway
^* Summary of the proposed standard (§250.43-l(b)
The proposed standard prohibited hazardous waste
facilities from locating in a regulatory floodway.
"Regulatory floodway" was defined in proposed
§250.41(b)(70) as,
"the channel of a river or other watercourse and
the adjacent land areas that must be reserved in
order to discharge the 100-year flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface eleva-
tion more than a designated height".
Regulatory floodways are selected by communities parti-
cipating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)*
within the limits imposed by FIA's minimum criteria.
The proposed regulation required an owner or operator
to obtain an analysis using FEMA-approved methods to
determine whether the facility would be located within
the regulatory floodway if such boundaries had in fact
been mapped.
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
Regulatory floodways are typically those portions
of the 100-year floodplain which are frequently flooded
and which becomes areas of major flood dynamics during
large floods. According to the Federal Insurance
Administration of FEMA, in regulatory floodways "flood-
waters exert their maximum pressures, erosion is greatly
* The NFIP is presently managed by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) - Federal Insurance Administration (FIA).
- 53 -
-------
accelerated and loss potential is increased." (43 FR 6046,
February 10, 1978) If flood flow is impeded by structures
in this critical portion of the floodplain, flood heights
will increase causing an increase in the area flooded.
Hazardous waste facilities were therefore prohibited from
locating in regulatory floodways because occupying this
portion of the floodplain would result in greater flood
damages to others as well as increasing the probability
that hazardous waste would be released to the environment.
3. Response to comments
a. The lack of a variance procedure.
C: Because the standard is unfairly rigorous,
particularly for existing facilities, exceptions
to the standard should be allowed. The following
conditions for examption were suggested by the
commenters:
i. existing facilities - if these facilities pose
no threat to human health and the environment.
if it can be demonstrated that no signi-
ficant adverse effects would result.
ii. new and existing facilities - if the permit
applicant can demonstrate that inundation of
the facility would not significantly exacerbate
the damage caused by flood waters.
iii« storage facilities within railroad yards located
near major waters and facilities within chemical
plants - if inundation of these facilities would
- 54 -
-------
create no greater environmental damage than that
which would occur by inundation of the railyard
or chemical plant themselves.
iv. all facilities - if it can be demonstrated
that the facility will not be inundated.
R: The requirement controlling location in
regulatory floodways has been dropped because the
"no washout" flood standrd is deemed sufficiently
A
stringent to provide the same level of protection.
Inherent to the no washout standard is the right
to locate in a 100-year floodplain (to include the
regulatory floodway) provided that the owner or
operator can satisfy the standard. Of course no
facility will be located within the regulatory
floodway if the locality prohibits such development
in these areas. Since the National Flood Insurance
Program requires communities in the program to
restrict development within the regulatory floodway,
new hazardous waste facilities would probably be
barred from such areas. The RCRA flood standard
does not and is not intended to override any local
prohibition of development in the regulatory
floodway. No standard, therefore, is required.
b- The requirement for an analysis where regula-
tory floodways have not been designated.
C: (i) Verification by an EPA Administrator of the
results of the analysis conducted by industry
- 55 -
-------
should be required because this would assure that
such results would be both carefully considered
and subject to regulatory control.
(ii) The analysis should not be required if the
owner or operator can demonstrate that the location
of a facility is not subject to regulatory floodway
designation.
(iii) Most of the designated regulatory floodways
are located in urban areas; however, oil and gas
operations are usually located in rural areas. In
light of the number of wells drilled each year
(48,000 in 1978) and the present oil shortage,
analyzing almost ail drilling areas would be too
costly and time-consuming. Furthermore, an analysis
would be unnecessary if EPA does not intend to
prohibit drilling of an oil well in a regulatory
floodway.
R: The requirement controlling location in regu-
latory floodways has been dropped for reasons stated
above.
c. Unavaiiabilty/inadequacy of regulatory flood-
way maps.
C: (i) The maps which have been developed often only
take into consideration distance from waterways
and do not factor in differences in elevation in
determining the boundaries of the floodway.
- 56 -
-------
(ii) The maps are often faulty to the point that
regulatory floodways have been designated in areas
which are not even within the applicable floodplain.
(iii) In many areas of the country, the designation
of regulatory floodways is not complete. Further-
more, few, if any, regulatory floodways were desig-
nated when existing facilities were built. Penalizing
existing facilities is unnecessarily rigorous.
(iv) Neither the definition nor the regulation pro-
vide any guidance as to what precise areas would
be or are regulatory floodways. EPA should enable
companies to obtain information on regulatory
floodways that is pertinent to their facilities.
R: The Federal Insurance Administration (FIA)
maps regulatory floodways according to a defined
set of procedures. After FIA provides floodway-
related data to a community, the community may
increase the area which they choose to designate
as the regulatory floodway in order to provide
greater protection from flooding. Thus, the extent
and degree of protection which regulatory floodways
provide differs among communities participating in
the National Flood Insurance Program. This is one
reason that the regulatory floodway would be an
undesirable regulatory criterion for EPA to use.
EPA agrees that mapping of floodways is far
from complete.
- 57 -
-------
d. Regulation of location in regulatory floodways
is inappropriate.
C: The regulatory floodway defined by the FEMA
was not developed as a national standard for the
location of land disposal facilities and therefore,
it cannot be realistically utilized for this purpose,
R: EPA disagrees with the commenter for the
protection sought by a regulatory floodway provision
is as applicable to FIA programs as it is to RCRA's
directive of protection of human health arid the
environment. As explained above, this protection
is provided by the floodplain standard coupled
with any local bar on development.
4. Rationale for deletion of the proposed standard
EPA has decided not to promulgate a final standard
for locating in regulatory floodways. The information
below has prompted EPA to make this decision:
(1) As of July 1979, only 1,000 communities in the
NFIP had maps with regulatory floodways delineated.
At that time, approximately 16,000 communities were
in the NFIP. As a result, it would be difficult
to know whether most facilities were in compliance.
(2) Although FIA maps regulatory floodways, the
community may extend the boundaries in order to
provide greater flood protection to the community.
Thus the community has the final word (provided
that they are more stringent) in specifying the
- 58 -
-------
extent of the regulatory floodway. As a result,
implementation would be non-uniform and non-equitable.
(3) Communities that have floodway maps are required
to establish FIA1s minimum standards. Section
19l0.3(d)(3) of FIA's minimum standards states
that a community must, "Prohibit encroachments...
within the adopted regulatory fioodway that would
result in any increase in flood levels within the
community during the occurence of the base flood
(100-year flood) discharge" (emphasis added).56
These community standards are applied through a
permitting system for all development in the 100-
year floodplain; a hazardous waste facility would
be subject to that permitting system. As a result,
a RCRA requirement would be redundant of the FIA
standards.
(4) Regulatory floodways are always within the
100-year floodplain. A hazardous waste facility
located in, or planning to locate in, a regulatory
floodway would therefore be subject to the 100-
year floodplain location standard. Thus, a regu-
latory floodway requirement would overlap signifi-
cantly with the 100-year floodplain standard.
EPA believes that regulating development in
floodways is probably best left up to communities which
have designated regulatory floodway since they must, at
a minimum, ensure that FIA's regulations are implemented.
- 59 -
-------
EPA anticipates that problems might arise if a
standard was written for location of hazardous waste
facilities in regulatory floodways. Problems include
the unavailability of maps which would necessitate
hydraulic analyses to determine the extent of the
regulatory floodway; and then, the potential exists
for a community to designate a more extensive regulatory
flood at a later date.
Because, according to FIA's minimum requirements,
any obstruction in a regulatory floodway which causes
any rise in the base flood (100-year flood) elevation
is prohibited, EPA anticipates that very few hazardous
waste facilities, if any, would be permitted to locate
in the floodway. Even fewer facilities would be allowed
to locate if the communities adopted more stringent
requirements than FIA. Thus, FIA indirectly protects
human health and the environment from the potential
hazards of a hazardous waste facility locating in a
regulatory floodway. Further, EPA's 100-year floodplain
standard provides sufficient protection against the
washout of hazardous waste in a floodway.
- 60 -
-------
C. Coastal High Hazard Areas
1. Summary of the proposed standard (§250.43-l(c))
The proposed standard prohibited hazardous waste
facilities from locating in a coastal high hazard area.
However, a discretionary approval of a facility located
in a coastal high hazard area was allowed if the facility
owner or operator could demonstrate that measures had
been taken to ensure that the facility would not be
inundated by high velocity waters. "Coastal high hazard
area" was defined in proposed §250.41(b)(15) as,
"the area subject to high velocity waters,
including, but not limited to, hurricane
wave wash or tsunamis as designated on Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) as zone VI-30".
In cases where the coastal high hazard zone had not
been designated by the Federal Emergency Management
Aency (FEMA) the owner or operator was required to
obtain an analysis using FEMA-approved methods to
determine if the facility is located in a coastal high
hazard area.
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
According to FEMA, coastal high hazard areas are
those portions of the 100-year floodplain "where flooding
is not only most frequent and damaging, but where natural
and beneficial values of the land and water interface
are at their maximum." (43 FR 6042, February 10, 1973)
Because a facility located in these areas would not only
be highly susceptible to flooding and wave action, but
- 61 -
-------
would also pose a potential threat to these ecologically
valuable areas, the intent of the proposed standard was
to prohibit facilities from locating in coastal high
hazard areas unless they could be engineered to provide
needed safety.
3. Comments received
Of the few comments received, several proposed
that the analysis required if the facility was located
in a non-designated area imposed an unnecessary additional
burden. The standard should be limited to areas subject
to coastal high hazard designations. A couple of
commenters proposed that the degree of hazard presented
by the facility be taken into account when determining
whether a facility need comply with the standard. One
commenter went further and proposed that the standard
be entirely dropped because it, when linked to the 500-
year flood standard, would adversely affect a large
number of facilities, particularly in the Gulf Coast
area. Only one commenter suggested that the note be
dropped and that there be an absolute ban against place-
ment of facilities in coastal high hazard areas.
4. Deferral of final action
EPA has deferred final action on a specific standard
for location in coastal areas because the floodplain
standard provides significant, if not complete, protec-
tion. All coastal high hazard areas are within the
100-year floodplain and therefore siting in these areas
- 62 -
-------
will be subject to control under the 100-year floodplain
standard. The 100-year flood in coastal areas is accom-
panied by some degree of wave action and this wave
action must be accounted for when the facility is
being designed, constructed, operated, and maintained
to prevent washout by a 100-year flood.
With respect to a standard specifically on coastal
high hazard areas, EPA recognizes the problems presented
by incomplete mapping of coastal areas. Of 1,465
coastal communities in the National Flood Insurance
Program, coastal high hazard areas have been mapped for
724 (July 1980 estimate by FEMA). According to FEMA,
mapping of all coastal high hazard areas is to be
completed by 1983.
For the above reasons, EPA has deferred promulga-
tion of a specific coastal high hazard standard. In
the preamble to the Location standards, EPA requests
comment on what additional action - beyond the floodplain
standard - the Agency should take in order to protect
human health and the environment in coastal areas.
EPA will continue to investigate this problem with FEMA
and those in charge of implementing the Coastal Zone
Management Act, 16 U.S-C. 1451 et. seq.
- 63 -
-------
D. Floodplains
1. Summary of the proposed standard (§250.43-l(d))
The proposed standard prohibited the location of
hazardous waste facilities in a 500-year fioodplain.
However, the owner or operator of a facility could
obtain a discretionary approval to locate in a 500-year
fioodplain if he could demonstrate at the time of permit
issuance that the facility would not be inundated by a
500-year flood. The 500-year flood was defined in
proposed §250.41(b)(31) as,
"a flood that has a 0.2 percent or one in
500 chance of recurring in any year. In any
given 500-year interval, such a flood may not
occur, or more than one such flood may occur."
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
Disposal of hazardous waste in floodplains may
have several significant adverse impacts: (1) If not
adequately protected from flooding, wastes may be inun-
dated by water and flow from the site, contaminating
downstream waters; (2) Since floodplains generally have
hydraulic connection to wetlands, surface water, and
ground water, location of hazardous waste facilities
in floodplains may result in leachate contamination of
ground water; (3) Development in the fioodplain may
restrict the flow of flood water, causing greater
flooding upstream; and (4) Development in the fioodplain
may reduce the size and effectiveness of the flood-flow
retaining capacity of the fioodplain, which may cause
- 64 -
-------
a more rapid movement of flood waters downstream,
resulting in higher flood levels and greater flood
damages downstream.
The Agency sought to make the standard consistent
with the U.S. Water Resources Council (WRC) Guidelines
for Implementing Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain
Management" (43 FR 6030-6055, February 10, 1978). While
the guidelines use the 100-year floodplain as its basic
level of protection, a greater level of protection is
suggested for critical actions. The WRC Guidelines define
"critical actions" as those actions for which even a
slight chance of flooding would be too great. The
Guidelines further explain that a key question to ask
in determining whether an action is critical is:
If flooded, would the proposed action create
an added dimension to the disaster as could
be the case for liquefied natural gas ter-
minals and facilities producing and storing
highly volatile, toxic, or water reactive
materials? (43 FR 6043)
Hazardous waste facilities seemed to meet this definition.
The intent of the proposed standard was to prohibit
placement of facilities within the floodplain unless
the facility owner or operator could demonstrate that
the facility was engineered and located so as not to
be inundated by the 500-year flood.
- 65 -
-------
3. Response to comments
a. The definition of floodplain
C: The definition of "floodplain" should define
the concept in general, and should not include
reference to a specific frequency of occurence.
R: EPA agrees that the term floodplain should be
generally defined. For purposes of regulation,
however, a frequency must be stated so that the
limits of the area subject to the requirement and
the elevation of the flood can be determined. In
the floodplain standard, the Agency has defined
the 100-year flood and the 100-year floodplain.
C: The Agency's definition of floodplain is
inconsistent with E.G. 11988.
R: EPA's proposed definition was consistent with
the E.O. except for an error in transcription.
The word "areas" was erroneously substituted for
"waters".
b. Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain Management"
and WRC's Guidelines
C: The E.O. makes no specific mention of a "500-
year floodplain", and gives EPA no authority to
regulate them. The E.O. defines floodplains as
areas subject to a "one percent or greater chance
of flooding in any given year," i.e., a 100-year
floodplain. Therefore, the 100-year flood should
be used as the criterion in the floodplain standard
in order to be consistent with the terms of the E.O.
- 66 -
-------
R- The commenter is correct in stating that E.G.
11938 only refers to the base or 100-year flood.
The final standard is consistent with the E.O. in
specifying the 100-year floodplain as the minimum
floodplain of concern. There may be situations
where greater protection is warranted. EPA is
separately considering whether a stricter standard
fa
is warranted for certain situations. Such change
A
will be subject to a separate rulemaking procedure
and therefore opportunity for public comment.
C: The E.O. is directed exclusively to Federal
Government agencies and not to private industry.
If EPA wishes to apply the terms of the E.O. to
private industrial facilities by analogy, it should
offer at least some plausible reason for doing so.
R: EPA does not rely on the Executive Order to
regulate private industrial facilities in flood
prone areas. The authority to so regulate is
found in Section 3004 of RCRA.
The Executive Order requires Federal agencies
to include provisions for the evaluation and con-
sideration of flood hazards in the regulations
and operating procedures for licenses, permits,
and loan and grantin-aid programs it administers
(Sec. 2(c)). EPA considers the floodplain standards
as satisfying Section 3004 while being consistent
with the Executive Order.
- 67 -
-------
C: Reliance by EPA upon the Executive Order is
subject to challenge because no EIS was prepared
for the E.G. nor was any notice published or public
hearings hald on the E.O. as mandated by Section 4
of the Administrative procedures Act. For these
reasons, the E.O. is null and void, and therefore,
it has no binding effect upon any Federal agency
in developing its regulations, permit issuing
procedures, or policies.
R: The Executive Order was not the basis for
specifying floodplain protection as discussed in
response to the first comment.
C: Reliance by EPA upon WRC's Guidelines to imple-
ment the Executive Order is subject to challenge
because although the the Executive Order provides
that Federal agencies must incorporate the existing
procedures of the Unified National Program for
Floodplain management of the WRC into their regu-
latory structures (Section 2(d)), the Executive
Order does not give the WRC authority to create
general new "guidelines" which go beyond the scope
of the Executive Order (i.e., the Executive Order
only refers to the 100-year floodplain). WRC's
authority under the E.O. is limited to "guidance"
regarding the location of floodpiains where existing
maps of the Federal Insurance Administration do not
adequately delineate the location of a floodplain
- 68 -
-------
(Section 2(a)(1)).
R: The Agency's proposed 500-year floodplain
standard was based on the need to protect human
health and the environment from inundation of hazar-
dous waste management facilities by floods. Thus
EPA was relying on its own authority and mandate
under Section 3004 of RCRA and not on either the
E.O. or WRC's Guidelines. EPA believes it is imple-
menting the spirit of both by attempting to protect
human health and the environment from the conse-
quences of inundation of hazardous waste management
facilities by most floods.
C: EPA has improperly applied the Guidelines to
implement the E.O. because whether or not a Federal
action is a "critical action" must be determined
on a case-by-case basis- To properly follow the
requirements of the Guidelines, EPA should have
structured the proposed rules so as to allow for
a case-by-case determination of what constitutes
a "critical action".
R: The final standard requires a case-by-case
evaluation to determine whether the no washout
requirement has been satisfied. As mentioned above,
EPA is considering a separate rulemaking procedure
to determine whether a requirement stricter than
the 100-year flood standard should be imposed for
special situations and if so how that would be
- 69 -
-------
accomplished. There is insufficient data to
justify such a standard at this time.
C: The E.O. contains no prohibition on the siting
of facilities in 100-year floodplains. Instead,
it requires careful consideration of alternatives
and minimization of potential harm, both of which
are consistent with limiting the coverage of this
standard to 100-year floodplains.
R: The proposed regulation was not an outright
prohibition but included a variance "note" allowing
such location upon demonstration that inundation
of the facility would not occur.
c. Information utilized in mapping the 500-year
floodplain and flood insurance maps
C: Because historical flood data in the United
States varies from none to a maximum of 120 years,
it is impossible to calculate, statistically or
technically, an accurate 500-year floodplain. In
other words, extrapolation to 500-years results in
considerable uncertainty when estimating the height
of inundation and the lateral extent of the 500-year
flood.
R: EPA agrees that there is considerable uncer-
tainty involved in mapping the 500-year floodplain
because available data must be extrapolated to 500
years. This one principle reason EPA has used the
100-year flood as the final requirement.
- 70 -
-------
C: Where extrapolation of data is used in deter-
mining the 500-year floodplain, there will be room
for considerable debate by various sources and
authorities. Because of the unavailability of
information, and the margin for debate, the more
commonly accepted 100-year floodplain restriction
should be used.
R: EPA agrees that using the 500-year floodplain
as the minimum floodplain of concern would have
resulted in more controversy over the boundaries
of the floodplain of concern. Because the 100-year
flood is the standard, the commenter's point is no
longer of concern.
C: The study and research required to determine
a 500-year floodplain would, in most cases, be
prohibitively costly, particularly in the Western
United States where there is a dearth of rainfall
and flood records. The 100-year flood should be
the standard flood.
R: The amount of study and research required to
determine a 500-year floodplain would probably not
be much more than that required to determine a 100-
year floodplain because the records available are
finite. However, the accuracy of the determination
would suffer and the cost would be greater because
of the degree that available data would have to be
extrapolated to determine the 500-year floodplain.
- 71 -
-------
C: EPA agrees that if all facilities were mride
to comply with a 500-year floodplain requirement
there would be a delay because 500-year floodplain
maps are not widely available. A 1979 estimate was
that only 3,000 of the 16,876 communities partici-
pating in the National Flood Insurance Program had
Flood Rate Maps (FIRM) which delineated the 500-year
floodplain.
C: Maps which delineate the 500-year floodplain
have not been developed for many sections of the
country and will not be ready for 3-5 years.
Nearly 90% of all FEMA flood maps are Flood Hazard
Boundary Maps (FHBM), which delineate only the
boundaries of the 100-year floodpiain. A 100-year,
or more frequent, floodplain should be established
as the criterion.
R: See response to previous comment. One of the
reasons that EPA has established the 100-year
floodplain as the floodplain of concern is because
maps which delineate the 100-year floodplain are
available for more flood prone communities.
C: The floodplain restriction should be deleted
because no reliable generalized floodplain map
currently exists for either the 100-year or 500-
year floodpiain.
R: The Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) produced
by the Federal Insurance Administration are based
- 72 -
-------
on the best available data and statistical techniques.
These maps will be discussed later. EPA believes
that the 100-year floodplain criterion is necessary
to protect human health and the environment.
C: Using Flood Insurance Rate Maps is inappro-
priate because they are not based on accurate,
technically sound engineering surveys.
R: FIRM'S are based on available historical infor-
mation, hydrological analyses (to obtain flood flow
frequency) and hydraulic analyses (to obtain flood
elevations). The FIRM'S are prepared by professional
engineering firms which must follow a detailed
guidance manual given to them by FIA. They are the
best and most reliable maps that are widely available.
C: Because flood insurance maps generally do not
delineate floodplains less than 200 feet wide, no
information is available for small streams and tri-
butaries. This lack of information will make it
extremely difficult to make siting decisions for
new power plants and associated disposal facilities.
R: EPA will require an owner or operator to deter-
mine if his facility is located in the 100-year
floodplain if the floodplain is less than 200 feet
wide and not mapped. Mapping procedures are suffi-
ciently detailed by the Federal Insurance Administra-
tion so that an owner or operator can determine if
this facility is within a 100-year floodplain.
- 73 -
-------
C: The method of predicting a 500-year flood
should be stated and explained.
R: EPA. agrees that some guidance should be given
to owners or operators on how to determine a 100-
year flood and floodplain. A guidance/permitting
manual for the Location standards will be available
shortly after these regulations appear in the Federal
Register. This manual will provide information on
how to determine the elevation of the 100-year flood.
d. The impacts of the proposed standard
C: The standard will have a substantial impact on
existing facilities that need to be near a source
of water (e.g., NPDES treatment facilities that
discharge to waters of the U.S., chemical plants
and refineries, and vessel cleaning plants); most
of them are in the 500-year floodplain.
Possible consequences are that these facilities
would:
- be unable to comply, even on a compliance
schedule.
experience a competitive disadvantage.
have to sustain tremendous moving costs.
have to close because of the monumental
financial impact even if the facility was
well designed and environmentally sound.
R: EPA believes that the impacts on existing
facilities that need to be near a source of water
- 74 -
-------
will be greatly reduced because: (1) the flood-
plain of concern is now the 100-year floodplain,
and (2) existing facilities need not comply until
they are required to file an application for Part B
of their RCRA permit. At that time these facilities
need not be moved. They are to be modified if they
do not comply with the standard as soon as possible
in accordance with a compliance schedule. Since all
facilities must comply, there are no competitive
advantages to any firm.
C: The 500-year standard is overly restrictive by
eliminating substantial sections of the country as
potential sites for new facilities. This result is
not in the public interest in light of the shortage
of suitable sites which meet the other Section 3004
requirements.
R: By reducing the floodplain of concern to the
100-year floodplain, there will be less restriction
on the siting of new facilities. New facilities
are not prohibited from locating in 100-year flood-
plains in this rule, but rather are required to
design their facility to prevent washout by the
100-year flood.
C: This standard is overly restrictive for Florida,
It is estimated that as much as 80-90% of the State
would be in the 500-year floodplain. It is recom-
mended that the 100-year floodplain be used because
- 75 -
-------
it is mapped extensively by several agencies and
data is available. Others commented that the
entire Houston-Galveston area, not to mention
the rest of the Gulf Coast, is included within a
500-year floodplain. It should be noted that the
nation's largest concentration of refineries and
petro-chemical plants and the chlor-aikali industry
is located in that area. The 500-year requirement
alone could preclude the use of many acceptable
and safe sites for disposal of hazardous wastes.
R: EPA agrees and has adopted the 100-year flood
standard. EPA is aware of the concentration of
industry on the Gulf Coast. The regulations now
require that these existing facilities comply with
the 100-year flood standard as soon as possible
after applying for a RCRA permit or that the owner
or operator satisfy the variance provision.
C: The possibility of a 500-year flood is very
remote and does not justify the expense and limi-
tation placed on otherwise available sites. Further-
more, it seems to exceed the degree of" restriction
necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment in the siting of new facilities. The 100-year
floodplain should be used.
R: Available data presently only justifies the
use of the 100-year standard. This standard is
widely used by other Federal agencies and states.57
- 76 -
-------
There may be particular wastes or facility
types or combinations thereof which justify a
greater degree of protection. Such situations
are being considered in a separate ruiemaking.
e. Suggested alternatives to the proposed standard
C: The 500-year floodplain should be used only
where sufficient data exist. In other areas, a
minimum of a 100-year floodplain or a maximum of
a 200-year floodplain should be used if sufficient
information is available.
R: EPA cannot be more or less stringent with respect
to locating in floodplains simply on the basis of how
much information is available on a floodplain. Under
this approach, identical facilities would be subject
to different degrees of restriction depending upon
how much information was available for a particular
floodplain. If the commenter intended that the
floodplain of concern should be determined by both
availability of data and the type of facility; EPA
does not have sufficient data to tailor the standard
to facility type.
C: Because data for accurately determining the
elevation of the 500-year flood are limited and
because many industrialized areas are already within
the 500-year floodplain, EPA should reduce the
required floodplain elevation to a more reasonable
- 77 -
-------
level taking into account available data and
relative potential for disaster.
R: EPA has adopted the 100-year floodplain for
reasons already discussed above.
C: Commenters stated that the 100-year floodplain
should be used because: (l) flood level information
is available and verified in many cases, (2) it
would provide adequate protection, (3) it is econo-
mically justifiable, (4) more land would be available
for siting, (5) the possibility of a 500-year flood
is remote, and (6) the 500-year fioodplain is not a
recognized design tool.
R: EPA agrees with many of these comments.
While the Agency recognizes that a 500-year standard
would afford a higher level of protection, at present
the Agency does not have sufficient information that
would justify a need for the added level of protec-
tion over that provided by the 100-year floodplain
standard. The 100-year flood is the most widely
used standard in various Federal and state programs
addressing the hazards associated with flooding.
Of twenty four states that regulate floodplains,
eighteen use the 100-year flood as the regulatory
standard. The Federal Insurance Administration,
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have adopted
the 100-year flood as their standard on which to
base floodpiain management measures.58 Because of
- 78 -
-------
this common use, engineering expertise in designing
for the 100-year flood is available.
C: EPA should specify the 100-year floodplain or
the greatest flood on record, whichever is greater.
Rj EPA believes that specifying the 100-year
floodplain in all cases is a more reliable deter-
mination and it ensures a greater degree of equality
in regulating facilities. The greatest flood on
record is not a good tool to use in regulating
because the degree of restriction would be almost
solely dependent upon the number of years that
elevations of floods have been recorded.
C: The 50 to 100-year floodplains should be speci-
fied in view of the protection afforded by flood
control measures such as dikes, dams, and levees
now in existence.
R: One reason that the 100-year floodpiain was
specified in the final rule is that it is used
as the floodplain of concern in many states and
other Federal agencies, and accordingly it is a
common design tool which flood control measures
now in existence can protect against.
C: The 50-year floodplain should be used because
sufficient data are available to accurately define
the range of this area, and because it would be a
more realistic design parameter.
- 79 -
-------
R: EPA believes that the 100-year floodpiain
standard will provide the minimum level protection
to human health and the environment in the case of
hazardous waste facilities. A 50-year standard
would result in an unacceptable frequency of
flooding and in an unacceptable degree of damage
in the event of a larger flood.
C: The 10-year floodpiain should be used because;
(i) it can be readily determined, and
(ii) here a true potential exists for environmental
problems as the result of siting a new hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
R: The response to the previous comment applies
here.
C: State agencies should determine floodpiain
requirements based on scientifically justified
and site-specific criteria.
R: RCRA (§3004) requires that EPA promulgate
regulations with respect to location in order to
protect human health and the environment, and
§3006 requires that States which receive final
authorization must have requirements that are equi-
valent to EPA's. As stated before, EPA believes
that the minimum floodpiain of concern cannot be
less than the 100-year floodpiain. Of course, a
State may specify a more stringent requirement
(e.g., a 200-year or a 500-year floodpiain) if it
- 80 -
-------
believes that a greater degree of restriction is
necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment in that State and if it believes the require-
ment can be adequately implemented.
C: EPA should specify that location will be
restricted in an area subject to greater than a
one percent chance of flooding in any given year.
This requirement would allow for flood prevention
measures to be taken into account whereas the
proposed approach (i.e., specifying a certain
year floodplain) did not. For example, it is
unclear whether the definition of a 500-year flood
would change if flood prevention measures were to
prevent its occurance.
R: The definition of a 100-year or 500-year flood
would not change if flood prevention methods were
to "prevent" its occurrence but the area defined
as the 100-year or 500-year floodplains would change,
For example, if dikes or levees were constructed
in an area which was defined to be within the 100-
year floodplain and because of such construction
the area was no longer susceptable to being flooded
by the 100-year flood, that area would thereafter
not be considered to be within the 100-year flood-
plain.
C: Floodplain restrictions should be developed
according to facility type (i.e., land disposal
- 81 -
-------
or thermal treatment facility) taking into account
type and amount of waste. For example, secure
landfills should never be allowed to locate in a
500-year floodplain.
R: EPA believes that the 100-year floodplain is
the minimum floodplain of concern for all hazardous
waste facilities. In the future, EPA may specify
a less probably flood for wastes or facility types
that it deems require more protection in order to
protect human health and the environment. At
present, data are not available to tailor the
standard to particular facility types.
C: The standard should specify the 100-year
floodplain, and it should only apply to facilities
which manage very hazardous waste. The amount of
water from a 500-year flood will have substantial
dilution capability, such that most marginally
hazardous waste will be rendered non-hazardous
before it crosses the property line.
R: See response directly above. In general, the
dilution capacity of a 100-year flood is less than
that of a 500-year flood. However, the Agency
has no data on the degree wastes would be diluted
and thereby be rendered innocuous before they
cross the property line. This would be a highly
variable phenomenon which does not lend itself to
a universal regulation.
- 82 -
-------
C: The standard should only apply to land dispo-
sal facilities because the emplaced waste will be
inundated eventually.
R: See previous responses.
C: A case-by-case evaluation of each facility
should be undertaken so that, for example, on-site
storage awaiting pickup or treatment (including
incineration) is not unnecessarily forbidden.
R: The permitting official will have to review
each RCRA application with an understanding of
the types of operational units at the facility in
order to determine if the owner or operator is in
compliance with the 100-year floodplain standard.
No hazardous waste management activity is outright
forbidden in the 100-year floodplain standard.
- 83 -
-------
f. The variance to the proposed standard
C: The meaning of the term "inundated" is unclear,
making the variance provision subject to various
interpretations.
R: The proposed standard would have allowed the
placement of a facility within a 500-year flood-
plain if the applicant would demonstrate that no
inundation by flood waters would result. Protec-
tion from inundation is not the only method of pro-
tecting the environment and the public from the
effects of flooding. Other measures involve flood
proofing, which allows the waters to inundate the
facility, but prevents the hazardous waste from
leaving the facility. Proper anchoring or elevation
of containers may in fact be less "expensive than
the construction of dikes or flood walls which the
same level of protection would be provided. Thus,
the inundation provision was dropped in favor of
the washout provision with the effect of expanding
the means by which owners or operators could comply
with the standard.
C: Allowing facilities that would not be inun-
dated to locate in the 500-year floodplain is not
practical because:
it is impossible to guarantee beyond all
shadow of a doubt that a facility will not
be flooded;
- 84 -
-------
large volume sites would be required to con-
struct prohibitively expensive dikes or
berms, and
it would preclude the use of sites that would
only be inundated for a few hours with no
lasting adverse impact.
The commenter that supplied the last reason sug-
gested that the "Note" be changed to require that
the facility not be inundated by the 100-year
flood, and so that any inundation by a 500-year
flood will not cause a significant impact on the
environment.
R: EPA has concluded that sufficient flood tech-
nologies exist to provide protection against
flooding. Thus, EPA has eliminated the presumption
against locating within a fioodplain in favor of
showing that adequate technologies are used to
protect against washout.
EPA has concluded that inundation of a site
should not be the sole criterion. Flood proofing
is also effective where flood waters reach the
facility, but due to adequate anchoring or eleva-
tion of tanks and incinerators for example, the
wastes are not washed out. Washout, the standard
adopted, can be satisfied either by preventing
inundation or by flood proofing.
- 85 -
-------
The difference between inundation and washout
of waste is illustrated in the Guidance Document
for the Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities;
"A facility protected against inundation is
not necessarily protected against washout of
the waste. A facility can be inundated with-
out washing out, and washed out without being
inundated. The former occurs when waste is
covered or held by vegetated soil, and the
base flood inundates the surface but does not
erode and wash out waste. The latter can
occur when the facility is diked or the waste
covered up to the 100-year level, but the dike
or covering is insufficient protection and the
waste is eroded and carried away." 59
If upstream flooding is a concern, the note
should be written to require an economic and
safety evaluation to demonstrate that excessive
cost prevents locating the facility elsewhere and
that the risk to human life is within acceptable
limits.
Upstream flooding is always a concern in a
comprehensive floodplain management program.
However, in these rules, EPA has only considered
upstream flooding in an indirect way. For example,
by preventing incinerators and containers from
being washed away, potential problems of blocking
the flow of flood waters is reduced. EPA has left
direct regulation of concerns that determine the
extent of upstream flooding to local and State
governments.
- 86 -
-------
A variance to the standard should be granted
under each of the following conditions:
if inundation of the facility would not sig-
nificantly exacerbate the damage caused by
the flood waters.
if it can be shown that hazardous waste will
not be released to the environment if the
facility is flooded.
if inundation of the facility will not cause a
significant adverse impact on the environment.
- if it can be demonstrated that applicable en-
vironmental protection standards will not be
violated.
if inundation of the facility will not present
an environmental or public health hazard either
because of the inherent characteristics of
the facility design or because of the nature
of the contingency plans that will be acti-
vated if flooding is threatened.
if contaminated ground water conditions already
exist.
if the facility is located on waterways that
are flow or level controlled, such as the
rivers in the TVA system.
if inundation of an on-site facility will
create no greater environmental damage than
that which would occur by inundation of the
- 87 -
-------
plant of which the facility is a part.
if adequate design criteria are present,
based on site-specific analysis.
if there is no practicable alternative to
location in the floodplain, and if all prac-
ticable measures have been taken to minimize
harm to or within the floodplain (such an
analysis is required in E.O. 11988). In
making these findings EPA should take into
account economic, environmental, and other
pertinent factors.
R: The prescriptive part of the final standard,
which requires that facilities within the 100-year
floodplain must be designed, constructed, and
operated and maintained to prevent washout of any
hazardous waste, is consistent with the comment
that facilities should be allowed to locate in
the floodplain if it is shown that hazardous
waste will not be released to the environment if
the facility is flooded, and with the comment
that suggested a variance based on a case-by-case
analysis of the facility's design.
EPA does not agree that a facility should be
allowed to locate in a floodplain if contaminated
ground water conditions already exist. EPA does
not sanction further degradation of ground water.
Furthermore, hazardous waste in flood waters may
- 88 -
-------
adversely impact other facets of human health and
the environment such as life adjoining wetlands and
streams and potable groundwater some distance from
the facility. Therefore, contaminated ground
water should not be a variance condition.
Another issue concerns facilities that are
located or want to locate in floodplains alongside
waterways that are flow or level controlled. If a
facility is located in a 100-year floodplain where
the stream or river is contained during the 100-year
flood by a system of dikes, levees, berms, revet-
ments, or other structures such that the natural
100-year floodplain is no longer subject to flooding
by the 100-year flood, then the facility is in
compliance with the final floodplain standard.
The hazard presented by an on-site facility is
the same as that presented by an off-site facility.
Because an industrial plant may be flooded is no
justification for not requiring the hazardous
waste facility to be protected from flooding.
EPA has chosen not to prohibit facilities from
locating in the 100-year floodplain if a practicable
alternative exists because EPA believes that if the
facility complies with the floodplain standard,
then human health and the environment are adequately
protected.
- 89 -
-------
Comments specific to the proposed "special
wastes"
Summary of comments
This standard is unreasonable for a lead
smelter furnace slag pile because there would
be no measurable damage to the environment due
to the low solubility of the slag material.
There should be an exemption for these and
other facilities, which, if flooded, would
not adversely affect human health arid the
environment.
This standard is overly broad and inappro-
priate for new power plants and associated
disposal facilities.
Special waste disposal facilities should
not have to comply with this standard because
it has been estimated that 64% of existing
electric utility generating stations are located
in floodplains. In addition, it is expected
that Major Fuel Burning Installations (MFBI's)
are located in floodplains because, like elec-
tric utilities, they are dependent on water
resources for cooling, and often use coal
transported by barge. Piping in water would
be costly and may result in additional impacts.
Utility wastes such as fly ash and bottom
ash are not volatile, corrosive, reactive or
- 90 -
-------
toxic. If a 500-year flood did occur, these
wastes would not be of much concern. For
these reasons, this restriction is unreasonable.
° In the Southwest, copper mining wastes
are deposited in gulleys, ravines, and arroyos
(flow areas) in desert regions. During rain
storms, run-off from the desert flows into
these drainage areas. It is impossible to
pile this enormous amount of material on the
ridges that separate these gulleys.
° If metal mining wastes are deemed hazar-
dous under the Act, most of that industry
may have to cease operations because mining
wastes are quite often located in or near
natural stream drainages which may be in the
500-year floodplain.
Response to comments
As a result of Congressional amendment to
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, regulation of many
proposed special wastes has been temporarily
deferred. The effects of disposal of these
wastes on human health and the environment are
being studied. The results of these studies
will determine if the wastes will be regulated
under Subtitle C.
The deferred wastes include:
(1) Fly ash waste, bottom ash waste, slag waste,
- 91 -
-------
and flue gas emission control waste generated
primarily from the combustion of coal or other
fossil fuels.
(2) Solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation,
and processing of ores and minerals, including
phosphate rock and overburden from the mining
of uranium ore.
(3) Cement and kiln dust waste.
(4) Drilling fluids, production waters, and other
wastes associated with the exploration,
development, or production of crude oil or
natural gas or geothermal energy.
In the interim, these wastes would be subject
to regulation only under applicable provisions of
other State and Federal laws. However, Congress
has directed EPA to protect human health from
exposure to radioactive wastes which are used in
construction and land reclamation. These solid
wastes include wastes from the extraction, bene-
ficiation, and processing of phosphate rock,
and overburden from the mining of uranium ore.
With respect to the comment on existing
electric utility stations: the proposed site
selection standards only applied to new sources
of utility waste and did not apply to existing
utility waste disposal facilities. The commenter
misunderstood the proposed utility waste standards.
- 92 -
-------
h. Miscellaneous comments
Pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act (FWPCA) amendments of 1972, all industrial
wastewater treatment facilities must be designed
and constructed to withstand the 100-year flood.
EPA is reversing past policy which has resulted
in the expenditure of millions of dollars.
The FWPCA amendments of 1972 do not require
ail industrial wastewater treatment facilities to be
designed and constructed to withstand the 100-year
flood. However, the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973 (Pub. Law 93-234, December 31, 1973) requires,
with certain exceptions, that grantees purchase flood
insurance on or after March 2, 1974, as a condition
of receiving any form of Federal assistance for con-
struction purposes. Thus, receipt of construction
grants for municipal wastewater treatment facilities
is contingent upon compliance with applicable flood
insurance regulations (see 40 CFR 30).
The environmental damage created by the
flooding of a facility by a 500-year flood will be
insignificant in relation to other environmental
damage caused by the flood waters from such a storm.
Flooding of a facility by the 100-year flood
has the potential to cause environmental damage.
The actual damage is of course dependent upon
facility specific wastes involved.
- 93 -
-------
C: EPA should consider the costs required for
compliance against the environmental benefits
achieved. For example, petroleum industry disposal
sites, and water treatment facilities appear to
pose little risk to the environment while retro-
fitting these facilities would cost billions.
R: Since protecting facilities against the 100-year
flood is widely used in other Federal programs and
by many States, the costs presumably are not pro-
hibited. EPA, in the case of existing facilities,
will provide a reasonable period of time during
which an existing facility is to come into com-
pliance. Cost burden, presumably, will be taken
into account setting the compliance schedule.
C: Hazardous waste facilities can be designed
and constructed in a manner that will protect
human health and the environment even in the event
of a 500-year flood.
R: EPA agrees that technologies are available to
protect against the 100-year flood. The data are
not as convincing for the 500-year flood because
of the limited experience with such floods.
C: The selection of the 500-year floodplain as a
siting criterion appears arbitrary and capricious
and it is not supported by data.
R: EPA acknowledges that almost no data exist on
the 500-year flood and its effects. For this reason
- 94 -
-------
EPA has modified the standard to the more commonly
used 100-year flood.
C: If wastes are properly stabilized or encap-
sulated or neutralized, EPA should permit the use
of environmentally sound disposal in the 500-year
floodplain.
Rs Facilities are allowed in 100-year flood plains
if they can meet the no washout standard or the
variance (hazardous waste safely carried away).
The standard does not allow a variance if the wastes
are stabilized or neutralized. Consideration will
be given to such variations in a separate rulemaking
which will be subject to public comment.
4. Rationale for the floodplain regulation
a. Hazards associated with location
Locating hazardous waste facilities in flood-
plains may have several significant adverse effects
on human health and the environment: (1) wastes
which are exposed to flood waters (e.g., in piles,
surface impoundments) may produce more leachate,
and be washed out and carried variable distances
from the site, thus creating a potential for con-
taminating surface water, ground water, aquatic life,
and soils, or directly affecting human health by
direct contact; (2) tanks, incinerators, and treat-
ment units may not be capable of resisting the hydro-
static and hydrodynamic loads (inducing the effects
- 95 -
-------
of buoyancy) and thus, the structure may be weakened
by seam failures and/or may be physically dislo-
cated; and (3) containers may be carried away by
flood waters, and opened or caused to leak, or
they may be handled at their new location by
persons who are not aware of the hazardous nature
of the contained waste.
As discussed in Section II of this document
there are some documented instances of flood damage
to hazardous waste management facilities. The
following documented incident concerns drums (i.e.,
containers) being carried away from a reclaiming
facility that is located in a 100-year floodplain.
In July 1975 in Mount Hoiley, North Carolina,
drums containing wastes from a chemical reclamation
plant were washed downstream in Fites Creek by
heavy rains. No fish kills were reported although
an unusual odor emanated from the creek.^0 The
plant subsequently went out of business and closed.
The following damage incident is the subject
of a pending civil action. The alleged damages
presented below are exacerbated by frequent flooding
of the site.
The Brooklawn site, containing four or five
pits or ponds, is located in East Baton Rouge Parish,
Louisiana. It contains a variety of chlorinated
hydrocarbons, organic chemicals of the anthracene/
phenanthracene groups, styrene tars, vinyl chloride,
lead, silver, and chromium. In one sample taken
at the site, the total chlorinated hydrocarbon
organic fraction is almost 11,000 parts per million.
The site is low-lying, swampy, and is in the flood-
- 96 -
-------
plain of the Bayou Rouge and the Mississippi River.
Floods regularly inundate the site, carrying the
stored wastes away from the property. These wastes
have escaped Into the Bayou Baton Rouge, Devil's
Swamp, and the Mississippi River. These chemicals
allegedly are destroying and have destroyed near
wildlife habitats, especially marsh and swamp lands,
making them uninhabitable for animal and vegetative
life. Many animals, including fish, alligators,
turtles, cattle, and birds have already been killed.
Considerable numbers of trees and other plants have
been killed.52
The next two damage incidents involve pits
and lagoons that are located in 100-year floodplains.
Both of these incidents could possibly have been
prevented if 2 feet of freeboard were maintained
or if a secondary containment system was available.
However, taken together, these four instances
illustrate the potential for harm to human health
and the environment when a facility is located in
a 100-year floodplain.
In November 1970, sludge from an oil repro-
cessing plant in Douglassville, Pa. was released
to the Schuylkill River after heavy rains caused
one of the walls of a lagoon to break. When
Hurricane Agnes flooded the Schuylkill in June of
1972, the waters flowed over the tops of the
lagoons, carrying more sludge to the river and
causing further damage downstream. The trees and
waters of the river were left coated with oil
following the incident. Since June 1972, there
have been minor releases of oil sludge to the
river due to flooding, but nothing of the magni-
tude of the damage caused by Hurricane Agnes.°3
An eleven-acre chemical waste site in
Lamarck, Texas was the location of a waste over-
flow in 1961 due to heavy rains which accompanied
Hurricane Carla. This site consists of approxi-
mately 7 pits (each 12 to 25 feet deep) with earthen
- 97 -
-------
dikes. The pits contained such industrial wastes
as tars, acids, chlorides, catalysts, lead and
mercury. Heavy rainfall causes the pits to over-
flow and drain into ditches which connect with
Highland Bayou. The waste site was closed in
1976, and cleanup efforts are underway.^4
Locating any structure in a floodplain will
additionally (1) restrict the flow of flood
water usually causing greater flooding upstream,
and (2) reduce the natural valley storage of the
floodplain which may cause greater discharges
which in turn cause higher flood levels and greater
flood damages downstream. Because these are
general concerns (i.e., they apply to all struc-
tures), which are dependant on the physical charac-
teristics of a particular channel and watershed,
and the degree of floodplain development, EPA
believes that it is logical for local laws and
zoning ordinances to regulate floodplain develop-
ment with respect to these general concerns.
Communities participating in the NFIP are required
to promulgate regulations which take into account
the degree of flood-flow restriction and the
retaining capacity of the floodplain. The flood-
plain regulation in these Location standards is
tailored to preventing damages that may result if
a hazardous waste facility is located in a 100-year
floodplain.
- 98 -
-------
b. The One-Hundred-Year Flood
EPA. cited the minimum floodplain of concern
as the 500-year floodplain in the proposed rule.
The numerous comments received on this standard have
been answered individually in a previous section
of this document. Commenters most frequently
suggested that EPA use the 100-year floodplain as
the minimum floodplain of concern. Reasons given
were that; (1) flood level information is available
and verified in many cases, and thus (2) there
would be less of a margin for debate in boundary
determinations (compared to the 500-year flood-
plain), (3) it is consistent with the degree of
restriction necessary to protect human health and
the environment, (4) more land would be available
for siting new facilities, (5) it is economically
justifiable, and (6) it is consistent with Executive
Order 11988.
Other commenters suggested that the 50 and
10-year floodplain be specified. The overriding
reasons given were that information is available
to accurately determine these floodplains and
that facilities can be designed to be protected
against that degree of flood hazard. EPA has re-
jected these commenters' suggestions because EPA
believes that the 10 and 50-year floodplains repre-
sent too high a probability that the land area
- 99 -
-------
will be flooded, particularly in the case of
land disposal facilities where leachate production
is a concern. Also, these higher probability
floodplains will be particularly hard hit in the
event of a larger flood.
EPA has specified the 100-year floodplain as
the minimum floodplain of concern in the standard.
Comments on the proposed rule were the major
factor in EPA's decision. EPA met with various
Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) employees
to investigate the validity of commenters1 con-
cerns and suggestions. FIA was particularly
helpful with technical matters and in providing
us with information on the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) and on the availability of flood-
plain maps. Flood Hazard Boundary Maps (FHBM)
have been prepared for nearly all (e.g., except
for approximately five) communities that have been
identified as flood prone (i.e., any land area
susceptible to being inundated by water from any
source65) by FIA.66 The FHBM delineates the boun-
daries of the 100-year fioodplain but does not
give elevations. There were approximately 20,238
communities identified as flood-prone as of July,
1980.67 if a 100-year flood level is not available
from another source, it can be determined from
the FHBM. A qualified hydrologist will be able
- 100 -
-------
to make this determination with less than a days
work or FIA can be contacted to aid in determining
the 100-year flood elevation at a particular loca-
tion.68 Of the 16,876 (estimate as of July, 1980)
communities that have been accepted into the
National Flood Insurance Program approximately
4,846 have Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)69 which
delineate the 100-year floodplain with flood eleva-
tions. Where these maps are available, determining
if a facility is located in a 100-year floodplain
should be a simple task.
Because a uniform set of maps is available
from FIA for nearly all flood prone communities
the 100-year floodplain standard will be easier
to comply with and there should be fewer disputes
over boundary determinations.
By specifying the 100-year flood, EPA is also
maintaining consistency with E.O. 11988, FIA, and
most States. A booklet published by FIA on the
NFIP states that the 100-year flood standard,
"...is used by Federal agencies in the admin-
istration of programs as they relate to the
floodplains. In addition, the same standard
is required either by law or regulation in
most States and is used in the administration
of State programs in virtually every State."70
Because the 100-year floodplain is the most
commonly used standard in Federal and State program
- 101 -
-------
the final standard should be easier to implement
as engineers will be familiar with the parameters
involved in designing, construction, or retrofitting
a facility.
Until other data are presented to the Agency
indicating the need for a different minimum flood
level, the 100-year flood has been selected as
the minimum flood for this rule. However, EPA does
not conclude that this level necessarily is suffi-
cient protection for human health and the environ-
ment for all hazardous waste management facility
situations. EPA is currently considering issuance
of a proposed rule that would allow the Regional
Administrator to require more stringent standards
where circumstances would so warrant. Such a change
though is not part of this rulemaking.
FIA usually does not map floodplains that are
less than 200 feet wide; therefore, mapped informa-
tion would probably not be available for floodplains
less than 200 feet wide. FIA does not (normally) map
floodplains that are less than 200 feet wide for the
following reasons:
(1) This width typically represents a transition
zone where flooding becomes a drainage problem
and is controlled by culverts or sewers.
Culverts and sewers are extremely expensive
to evaluate hydraulically.
- 102 -
-------
(2) The hazard represented by such a straam
flooding is typically not great because
only shallow flooding is experienced.
(3) Floodplains less than 200 feet wide are fre-
quently subject to local zoning ordinances
and easements.
(4) Alteration of natural drainage systems and the
watershed frequently occurs during development
which would result in FIA having to frequently
reevaluate the floodplain.71
Where FIA omits an area because of the 200 foot
exclusion, the owner or operator will have to deter-
mine if his facility is within the 100-year flood-
plain. FIA mapping procedures may be used to make
this determination.
Another issue concerns the permanence of a
100-year floodplain. In other words, "the 100-year
floodplain is not fixed; it is subject to changes
caused by future urban development and flood control
improvements, including physical structures and
land conservation practices, i.e., it may expand
or contract in the future."72 If the elevation of
the 100-year floodplain is reevaiuated such that a
facility which was previously outside of the 100-
year floodplain is now within the floodplain, the
owner or operator, probably when the permit expires
or upon notification from the permit issuer, will
- 103 -
-------
have to modify the facility to comply with the
standard. The owner or operator and the permitting
authority can work out a reasonable time period to
achieve compliance.
c. The standard
In developing a floodplain standard, EPA ruled
out a prohibition of facilities in the 100-year flood-
plain both because of the potential impacts of such a
standard on new and existing facilities and because
of the availability of techniques to protect the
facility from the effects of floods. The Agency
believes that with proper safeguards and careful
design, hazardous waste management facilities can
be located acceptably in the 100-year floodplain.
FIA's minimum requirements (24 C.F.R.
§1910.3(c)(3)) for new construction and substantial
improvements of any commercial, industrial, or
other nonresidential structure in the 100-year
floodplain specify that either the lowest floor,
including basement, must be elevated to the level
of the 100-year flood elevation; or, together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities, must:
(l) be floodproofed so that below the 100-year
flood level the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water?
and (2) have structural components capable of
resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and
- 104 -
-------
effects of buoyancy.^3
EPA believes that FIA's requirements are
reasonable and that the general principles could
be applied to operational units of a hazardous
waste facility. Owners or operators who can show
compliance with the FIA requirements should have
no difficulty obtaining a RCRA permit, unless
circumstances of waste type, location, and/or
design lead the Regional Administrator to a deci-
sion that an unacceptable risk may still exist.
EPA is leaving the regulation of structures that
are not used directly to manage hazardous waste
(e.g., offices, sanitary facilities) up to local
authorities. Undoubtedly these structures will
have to conform to similar standards, especially
if the facility is located in a community that is
in the NFIP.
The Army Corps of Engineers has specified the
use of dikes, covers, and flood walls to keep flood
waters away from facilities. They have issued tech-
nical manuals on designed construction techniques
and methods for ascertaining the proper levels of
structural integrity for these retaining devices.74
Similarly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
thoroughly researched how one protects elements of
a nuclear facility from the hazards of flooding.
Thus, there is considerable practicable experience
- 105 -
-------
with issues of appropriate flood prevention tech-
niques . 75
Professionally trained engineers should be
versed in principles of hydrodynamics and hydro-
statics. These areas of study are part of the
educational curriculum at engineering school.
Because of the education and practical experience
of engineers, EPA concludes that a 100-year flood
standard would not require novel engineering solu-
tions. The state of the art is sufficient to
satisfy most engineering requirements.'^
Based on inquiries with engineering professors
and professional engineers^? it appears that hazar-
dous waste facilities can be divided into two groups
with respect to methods which can be used to prevent
washout of waste, i.e., those which require flood
protection (not allowing flood waters to reach the
facility or active portions thereof) and those
which require flood proofing (allowing flood waters
to come into contact with structures but preventing
damage to them). Facilities within the group which
require flood protection are landfills, surface
impoundments, land treatment, and waste piles. The
most common method of flood protection is the con-
struction of levees around the facility. The general
rule for the height of the levee is that is should
be the elevation of the flood which it is designed
- 106 -
-------
for plus a safety factor of 3 feet. The Army Corps
of Engineers has prepared an Engineer Manual
(EM 1110-2-1913) for Design and Construction of
Levees. It is important for levees to be designed
properly; for example, placing the levee material
on the ground surface without clearing and grubbing
could eventually result in voids being formed where
humas has decomposed. Internal drainage networks
result which undermine the structural integrity of
the levee. Structural components of facilities
such as tanks, containers, incinerators, and
structures utilized in thermal, chemical, physical,
and biological treatment can be flood proofed.
Of course, flood protection measures also may be
needed at these facilities if waste is exposed at
the 100-year flood level; for example, in an
uncovered tank. The Corps of Engineers has pro-
duced a general manual entitled, "Flood-Proofing
Regulations" which will be of use to owners or
operators and permitting officials.
The Agency believes that it may be possible
for some owners or operators to institute manage-
ment procedures instead of design provisions,
which can adequately safeguard against washout of
wastes. A provision has therefore been included
which allows owners or operators to demonstrate as
part of the permit application that they can safely
- 107 -
-------
remove the waste before the area is flooded and
store the wastes in a permitted facility that is
not vulnerable to flood waters. For example, this
might be done by keying waste removal procedures
to a certain river stage. When the river approaches
flood stage, the drums can be loaded on trucks and
moved. The owner or operator will have to demon-
strate that procedures are in effect and equipment
is available at all times to accomplish removal
in a short period of time.
The final standard specifies the same opera-
tional and design standards for new and existing
facilities. EPA believes that existing facilities
pose an equal hazard to human health and the
environment when located in the 100-year floodplain.
However, in order to decrease the impact of these
standards on existing facilities, and to avoid
disruption of the waste management system in the
Region, existing facilities may be given a reason-
able period of time to comply with the standard
by means of a compliance schedule that is part of
their RCRA permit.
d. Definitions
The term "flood" is difficult to define.
"Perhaps it is enough to say that a condition of
flood exists when the discharge of a river cannot
be accommodated within the margins of its normal
- 108 -
-------
channel, so that the water spreads over adjoining
ground upon which crops or forests are able to
flourish."78 In the finai rulej EpA ig deflning
the "100-year flood" as a flood which has a one
percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in
any given year. This includes the smaller size
but more frequent floods (e.g., 50- and 20-year
floods) and excludes the larger but less frequent
flood (e.g., 500-year flood). The height of the
100-year flood is called the 100-year flood eleva-
tion. It is a statistical concept; over a signifi-
cantly long period of time, one would expect this
flood elevation to be equalled or exceeded once
in 100 years. However, it is recognized that in
any given 100-year interval, the 100-year flood
may not occur, or more than one such flood may
occur. The land flooded by this size flood is
termed the "100-year floodpiain".
e. EPA policy and Executive Order 11988
In the proposed rule, EPA cited Executive Order
11988 as the authority for prohibiting facilities
from locating in the 500-year floodpiain (unless
the demonstration in the "Note" was made). Executive
Order 11988 differs from the wetlands Executive Order
in that it "applies to federal agencies authorizing
private work in floodplains, as well as to federal
activities and funding and work on federal floodpiain
- 109 -
-------
land".79 EPA policy essentially reiterates the
purpose of E.O. 11988 which is to avoid wherever
possible the long and short term impacts associated
with the occupancy and modification of floodplains.
However, given the shortage of hazardous waste
facilities, the fact that many industrial on-site
facilities are located within 100-year floodplains,
and the availability of flood prevention technologies,
the standard does not require an analysis of prac-
ticable alternatives.
f. The guidance/permitting manual
A guidance/permitting manual that has been
prepared to accompany the Location standards pro-
vides information as to where FIA flood maps can be
reviewed or copies obtained. Other sources of
floodplain maps are listed such as the U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
If a facility owner or operator disputes a flood-
plain boundary or elevation that was previously
determined, procedures will be identified for an
owner or operator to follow in order to resolve
the disparity.
Steps will also be outlined that an owner or
operator or a hydroiogist can follow to determine
the 100-year flood flow and then, the 100-year
flood elevation.
- 110 -
-------
Examples of how to prevent washout will be
provided and technical design and construction
manuals for use in this regard will be listed.
5. Summary of the floodplain regulation (§264.l8(b))
Hazardous waste facilities that are located within
the 100-year floodplain must be designed, constructed,
operated and maintained so as to prevent washout of
any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood. This require-
ment can be waived if the owner or operator either
demonstrates that emergency procedures initiated at the
facility would result in the safe removal and storage
of the waste before flood waters reach the facility.
Existing facilities must be in compliance with this
standard within a reasonable period of time from the
date that a RCRA permit is issued.
The following terms are defined in the standard:
"100-year flood" means a flood that has a one percent
chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year.
"100-year floodplain" means any land area which is
subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding
in any given year from any source.
"Washout" means the movement of hazardous waste from
the active portion of the facility as a result of
flooding.
- Ill -
-------
E. Wetlands
1. Summary of proposed standard (§250.43-1(e))
The proposed standard prohibited hazardous waste
facilities from locating in a wetland. An owner or
operator of a facility could obtain a discretionary
approval for locating a facility in wetlands if the
facility was operated under a NPDES permit, and if
dredging or filling of a wetland was associated with
the facility, that he obtained a permit under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (P.L. 95-217).
In proposed §250.41(b)(100), "Wetlands" were
defined as,
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface water or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do or would support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
or seasonally saturated soil conditions."
Swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, wet meadows,
river outflows, mudflats, and natural ponds were cited
as examples of environments that would be classified as
"wetlands".
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
The nation's coastal and inland wetlands are vital
natural resources of great hydrological, ecological,
economic, and social importance. Wetlands provide
natural flood and storm control, sediment and erosion
control, recharge of aquifers, natural purification of
waters, and flow stabilization of streams and rivers.
- 112 -
-------
Wetlands produce large quantities of nutrients which
support complex ecosystems extending into estuaries
and streams, well beyond the marshes and wetland areas.
Wetland habitats support fish, shellfish, mammals,
waterfowl, and other wildlife fauna and flora. More-
over, wetlands are used in the production of many
agricultural products (food and fiber) and timber, as
well as for recreational, scientific, and cultural
pursuits.^0
The alteration and destruction of the wetland
resource through draining, dredging, filling and other
means has had an adverse cumulative impact on wetlands
and other aquatic resources. Recent estimates indicate
that between 30 and 40 percent of the 127 million acres
of original wetlands in the lower 48 states have been
irrevocably destroyed.81 The intent of the proposed
standard was to minimize the potential adverse effects
on wetlands that may be associated with hazardous waste
facilities.
One objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to
"restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity" of the waters of the United
States (Section 101). Because some wetlands are part
of the waters of the United States, EPA and the Corps
of Engineers have promulgated regulations to protect
these wetlands from the adverse impacts of discharges
of pollutants, and dredged or fill material.
- 113 -
-------
Section 402 regulations require that a NPDES per-
mit be obtained for the point source discharge of
pollutants into waters of the United States. Since
hazardous wastes are pollutants, as defined by the CWA
(Sec. 502(6)), the discharge of hazardous waste from
a point source into wetlands requires a NPDES permit.
Section 404 regulations require the Army Corps of
Engineers to issue permits pursuant to criteria issued
by EPA for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States. The primary protec-
tion sought under Section 404 is a consideration of the
effects upon the wetland environment from the construction
and continued presence of a facility in a wetland.
3. Response to Comments
a. The definition of wetlands
C: i. EPA should use the definition of wetlands -
(1) in E.O. 11990 because the same meaning
was intended and E.O. 11990 is cited as
the authority for wetland protection.
(2) that is used by the COE, as well as
their method of designating value to
wetlands developed pursuant to §404(b)
of the Clean Water Act.
(3) used by the Department of Interior as
well as their system for classifying
wetlands.
- 114 -
-------
ii. Wetlands should be defined as: "those areas
which are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration
sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life and
are capable of tolerating life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs and other periodically
inundated or saturated areas, such as sloughs,
prairie potholes, wet meadows, river overflow
and river backwater areas, mud flats, and
natural ponds. This term should be broadly
construed to include those areas which in
fact perform the wetland values described in
40 C.F.R. §230.4-l(a)(l)(i) to (vi)."
R: EPA1 s authority under RCRA is sufficient to
justify promulgating standards to protect wetlands.
Therefore, EPA does not rely on the Executive
Order's authority, but does cite it as reflecting
federal concern for preserving our wetlands.
EPA believes that definitions should be consis-
tent to the greatest degree possible between Federal
agencies and particularly within EPA itself. The
definition of wetlands in Part 122 (45 FR 33424,
May 19, 1980) is identical to the definition used
by the Corps and EPA in implemeting Section 404.
- 115 -
-------
It is also the same definition used by the §4004
(RCRA) program, and it is substantively the same
as the definition in E.O. 11990. It would be
counter productive to unilaterally modify the
definition of wetlands. Therefore, when EPA
promulgates a location standard for wetlands,
in all likelihood the definition of wetlands in
Part 122 will be employed.
The Department of Interior's definition and
wetlands classification system may be a good system
for future use. At this time however, data are
still being gathered and many areas have not been
mapped. When the inventory is complete, it should
facilitate the management of wetlands and deepwater
habitats on a sound, multiple-use basis.^2 DQI
anticipates that all Federal agencies will adopt
its classification system and maps when the inven-
tory is complete.
C: Maps which correspond with the proposed defi-
nition of "wetlands" are not available. Identifying
the boundaries of wetland areas places a difficult
burden on industry which could cause a delay in
the approval of hundreds of disposal facilities.
R: Since RCRA at present will rely on the Section
404 permitting program, there is no added burden on
the applicant for he must determine, irrespective of
RCRA, whether the site is in a wetland for Section
- 116 -
-------
404 purposes. This being the case, the owner or
operator of a facility would contact the appro-
priate District Office of the Corps of Engineers
for assistance in determining whether the site is
in a wetland.
C: The proposed definition of "wetlands" is
sweeping, and as such, it would include substantial
land areas - almost the entire states of Florida
and Louisiana - making it difficult to site
disposal facilities in these and other states.
Rs The definition of wetlands used by EPA and the
Corps in the Section 404 program does not contain
the phrase "or would support" that was used in the
proposed definition of wetlands. Thus the Section
404 program's definition is more precise than the
proposed definition.
C: EPA should not consider all wetlands to be
alike:
there are significant differences in the eco-
logical value of various types of wetlands
(e.g., freshwater and estuarine*); different
* The commenter stated that freshwater wetlands are able to re-
ceive large volumes of nutrient-laden water because the water is
dispersed over a large area, and the plant life is adapted to
filtering nutrients, from the water. However, inhabitants of
estuarine-type wetlands must already cope with widely varying
salinities. When organic and industrial waste is discharged into
these wetlands, an additional stress is realized: bioaccumulation
of toxic substances. The discharge may go downstream with the
ebb tide; however, it returns with the natural flowage.
- 117 -
-------
types of wetlands should be defined separately
in the regulations and these differences
should be reflected in the siting criteria.
wetlands which contribute little toward wild-
life protection or as a nutrient source may
be more valuable as disposal sites if they
are near communities. In light of the pending
shortage of suitable land for disposal purposes
the value of a wetland, and hence its suita-
bility as a disposal site, should be determined
by the permit writer on a case-by-case basis.
R: In determinations made under Section 404, the
ecological value of wetlands is considered. In
cases where the Section 404 permitting process has
been completed. EPA believes that the value of a
particular wetland has been carefully considered.
The RCRA program of EPA is concerned about
wetlands which are not part of "waters of the United
States" and therefore not subject to CWA jurisdiction.
EPA is deferring specific regulation of siting in
wetlands until the exact scope of the CWA is deter-
mined and other related problems are solved.
EPA cannot make sweeping judgements about the
values of one type of wetland over another. Until
proven otherwise, all wetlands are assumed to be
valuable and worth preserving.
- 118 -
-------
b. The "NOTE" to the proposed standard; NPDES
and §404 permits ~~ " •
C: Because the location of a facility in a wet-
land would bring about the ruin of the wetland, the
note is at variance with the purpose for which the
standard was written (i.e., the protection of wet-
lands), and therefore should be deleted. However,
because the removal of a small wetland may not
endanger or interfere with wildlife, an owner or
operator of a facility should be able to remove a
wetland if the wetland: (1) is no larger than
1/2 acre discrete and distant from other such
wetlands; (2) does not play a significant role
in life history stages of migratory and resident
wildlife; and (3) is not part of or recharge to
an underground drinking water source.
R: The commenter's approach of allowing facil-
ities to locate in wetlands if the wetland exhibits
certain characteristics is broadly included in
the Section 404 evaluation procedures. However,
the 404 program goes farther in that•it considers
alternate locations and how a facility could be
built to minimize damage to the wetland. The
latter two factors that the commenter suggested
are considered by the Corps and EPA in evaluating
§404 permit applications. The first factor is
not considered in and of itself, but rather only
- 119 -
-------
in so far as the size of a wetland affects the
wetland's productivity, habitat value, water
purifying capability, or any of the other factors
evaluated by the Corps and EPA.
C: There is no reason to prohibit location of a
facility in a wetland if the owner or operator
can demonstrate:
that there will be no harm to human health
and the environment and that applicable
Federal requirements for the protection of
wetlands will be met.
compliance with the proposed Human health and
environmental standards.
that there will be no discharges to the wet-
land (this additional variance provision
would make it possible for storage facilities
to locate in a wetland).
R: EPA has not scoped out its final approach to
siting hazardous waste facilities in wetlands.
However, human health and the environment are pro-
tected to some degree by other regulations now in
existence. Environmental and human health concerns
are considered in the Section 404 permitting proce-
dures and NPDES effluent limitations and the RCRA
facility standards.
The proposed human health and environmental
standards are largely redundant requirements for
- 120 -
-------
compliance with regulations under other statutes
that a facility is required to comply with inde-
pendently. The exception is the proposed ground-
water human health and environmental standard
which is now expressed in the groundwater monitoring
regulations and the facility standards.
In response to the last comment, it would not
be appropriate to allow location in a wetland solely
on the condition that there would be no discharge
of hazardous waste to the wetland. Wetlands are
not good building sites in their natural state and
therefore must be modified to some degree before
the facility is constructed. This modification
in and of itself may destroy acres of wetlands.
Of course, discharges to wetlands are not permissable
unless they are in accordance with applicable federal
(e.g., NPDES), state, and local permits.
C: The only condition under which a facility
should be allowed to locate in a wetland is if the
facility design assures proper protection of the
wetland. If this condition is met, the appropriate
NPDES and dredge and fill permit should be issued.
R. Facility design may ensure "proper protection"
of a wetland after the facility is constructed in
a wetland however, such a standard would have
limited utility as a location standard. Further-
more, NPDES and dredge and fill permits are only
- 121 -
-------
required for discharges to wetlands.
C: A permit under RCRA should not be limited by
requirements for a permit under the NPDES or the
Section 404 programs because there will be facil-
ities which are not subject to either of these
programs, and thus, no basis would exist for a
permit under RCRA even where impacts of locating
a facility in a wetland would be minimal. Further-
more, the RCRA, NPDES, and 404 programs are con-
cerned with three different problem areas and the
creation of interlocking authority may result in
confusion rather than serve the public interest.
R: At present EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) have not come to an agreement on
the appropriate scope of the definition of "fill
material" in regulations promulgated pursuant to
the Clean Water Act. Until this is resolved, the
exact set of circumstances under which the owner
or operator of a hazardous waste facility would
be required to obtain NPDES or §404 permits is
not known. When the scopes of these CWA programs
are sorted out, EPA intends to fill the gaps
in protection of human health and the environment
where they exist in relation to hazardous waste
facilities. In doing this, EPA will consider
determinations made under the NPDES and Section 404
programs so that duplication will be minimized.
- 122 -
-------
C: By requiring a facility to obtain a NPDES
permit, EPA is not solving the problem; it is
"passing the buck" by forcing facilities to submit
to CWA jurisdiction.
R: As stated before, it was improper for EPA to
require a NPDES permit for locating in wetlands.
Such requirements has been deleted.
C: The requirement for a NPDES permit in the
proposed "NOTE" should be deleted because:
- if the facility has a point source discharge
into navigable waters, then a permit is
already required under FWPCA, such that the
requirement for a NPDES permit under RCRA is
redundant.
if the facility has no point source discharge,
then the proposed RCRA requirement is unau-
thorized arid invalid.
the NPDES program has no provisions for
transportation-related discharges to wetlands.
the deposition of solids into a wetland
facility does not constitute a point source
discharge to navigable waters.
even though the purpose of the discharge may
be waste disposal, solid waste discharges
into navigable waters are generally more
subject to the 404 program than the NPDES
program; this interpretation is consistent
- 123 -
-------
with Congressional intent since discharges
causing material hydroiogic modification
clearly constitute "fill material" within
the meaning of Section 404.
Congress directed EPA to issue environmental
guidelines to govern disposal sites (§404(b)(l))
and to prohibit disposal at a site upon deter-
mining that the discharge would have an unac-
ceptable adverse effect on the environment
(§404(c)). These responsibilities would be
redundant if dual permits under §§402 and 404
were required. Such redundancy would conflict
with the national policy of §10l(f) that EPA
"prevent needless duplication and unnecessary
delays" in its implementation of the Clean
Water Act. The control of disposal in wetlands
should only be under regulations promulgated
in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act.
R: EPA agrees that NPDES permits are indepen-
dently required under the CWA for discharges of
pollutants from a point source into waters of the
U.S. EPA's intent in the proposed standard was
to allow a facility to locate in a wetland if the
owner or operator had independently obtained a
NPDES permit under §402 of the CWA.
- 124 -
-------
NPDES permits are issued for point sources
such as a truck delivering trash to a wetland.
Therefore, the commenter was incorrect in stating
that the NPDES programs has no provisions for
transportation-related discharges to wetlands.
The subject matter of the remainder of these
comments was discharges to wetlands. Discharges
to wetlands are regulated under the CWA. As was
stated previously, the scope of the CWA programs
needs to be decided upon before EPA can determine
what its role for protecting wetlands under RCRA
should be.
c. Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands
C: The Executive Order does not give EPA the
authority to prohibit construction of hazardous
waste disposal sites in wetlands because:
Section I(b) of Executive Order 11990 states
that the Executive Order does not apply to the
issuance by Federal agencies of permits for
activities involving wetlands on non-Federal
property.
The Executive Order does not flatly ban con-
struction in wetlands, but provides that it
may be allowed where, based on economic,
environmental, and other pertinent factors,
there is no practicable alternative to such
construction, and that the proposed action
- 125 -
-------
includes all practicable measures to minimize
harm to wetlands which may result from such
use. EPA should also adopt this approach as
the basis for determining whether a permit will
be granted to a facility located in a wetland
because this will provide adequate and equal
protection for both Federal and non-Federal
wetlands and at the same time permit the regu-
latory authority to exercise some discretion.
Because no EIS was prepared for the Executive
Order, nor was any notice published or public
hearings held on the Executive Order as mandated
by Section 4 of the Administrative Procedures
Act. For these reasons, the Executive Order
is null and void, and therefore, it has no
binding effect upon any Federal agency in
developing its regulations, permit issuing
procedures, or policies.
R: EPA agrees that Executive Order 11990 does
not apply to the issuance of permits to private
parties for activities involving wetlands which
are located on non-Federal property. However, EPA
does not rely on the Executive Order as authority
for regulating for wetland conditions. Authority
is found in RCRA itself in Section 3004 which grants
the Administrator authority to promulgate standards
"necessary to protect human health and the environ-
- 126 -
-------
ment ... [for] the location, design, and construc-
tion of such hazardous waste treatment, disposal
or storage facilities." Executive Order 11990 is
cited to show the long standing federal interest
in protecting wetlands. EPA policy pronouncements
of May 1973 and November 1979 similarly state the
Agency's vital concern for preserving this natural
resource.^3
EPA has not formulated a comprehensive approach
for siting in wetlands at this time.
d. Miscellaneous comments
C: EPA should delete the entire "wetlands" sec-
tion until the Agency develops a thorough-going
program related to the location of facilities and
the discharges from such facilities in wetlands.
R: EPA is deferring specific regulation of the
siting of hazardous waste facilities in wetlands
until the interface between the CWA and RCRA can
be determined in this regard.
C: EPA has offered no valid justification for a
ban on construction in wetlands.
R: EPA does not ban construction in wetlands.
C: Rules for operation in a wetland should be
provided in this standard because careful operating
procedures can minimize the potential risk of a
wetland discharge site. Operating procedures that
were suggested by the commenters are: (1) routine
- 127 -
-------
monitoring for leachate in selected areas surrounding
the site at approximately monthly intervals; and
(2) bimonthly sampling of surface water areas.
R: EPA is not writing regulations for a wetland
discharge site in the Location standards. However,
operating procedures which are designed to prevent
contamination of the area surrounding the facility,
regardless of the type of land area it is, are pro-
vided in the facility standards. Most pertinent to
the commenters' suggestions are the ground-water
monitoring requirements. Other operating and
design requirements are specified for operational
units where leaks to ground water or surface water
may not be readily detected (e.g., controls to pre-
vent overfilling of tanks, and liner and impervious
base requirements.
C: RCRA regulations should not prohibit disposal
in wetlands.
R: The proposed regulation did not prohibit dis-
posal in wetlands.
- 128 -
-------
4' Current status of regulating siting in wetlands
a. Values of wetlands
The federal government has actively sought to
protect wetland resources* for we recognize that
the nation's coastal and inland wetlands are vital
natural resouces of great hydroiogical, ecological,
and social importance. In recent years, the public
and lawmakers have also come to realize that wet-
lands must be preserved in order to maintain an
ecologically stable and balanced environment. The
protection of wetlands has become a vitally impor-
tant priority in the effort, to restore and maintain
water quality and preserve natural hydrologic
cycles.84 Wetlands purify and regenerate water,
control flood waters, and provide food and habitat
for wildlife. Commercially important fish and
shellfish harvested along the Atlantic and Pacific
Coasts and in the Gulf of Mexico depend on coastal
estuaries and their wetlands for food sources,
spawning grounds, and for support of various
* EPA, in adopting this approach, utilizes the Section 404 defini-
tion of wetlands which is:
"Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and that under
normal conditions do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps,
marshes, bogs, and similar areas.
- 129 -
-------
stages of their life cycles. In addition, wetlands
provide essential resting, wintering, and nesting
grounds for many species of migratory waterfowl,
other waterbirds and songbirds.85
Wetlands are also a valuable tool in flood-
plain management. Marshes and swamps along coasts,
rivers, and lakes protect shorelines and banks from
erosion. Wetlands additionally have the capacity to
store floodwaters temporarily and in some instances
to reduce the volume and severity of floods.86
For example, the Corps of Engineers concluded after
a five year study that flooding problems in the
Charles River Basin in Massachusetts could best
be resolved by maintaining 8,500 acres of wetlands
in their natural state.87
More recently, chemists have begun to appre-
ciate the ability of wetlands to buffer aquatic
ecosystems from the inroads of pollution. Thus
wetlands may prove to be a valuable resource in
protecting our water supply from the increasing
number of contaminants which enter our environ-
ment .88
b. Potential damages to wetlands and consequences
of damage
EPA is aware that indiscriminate placement of
hazardous waste facilities in wetlands is likely
to contribute to the degradation of that resource.
- 130 -
-------
Draining or filling in the wetland will probably
be required to produce stable foundations for
buildings, roads, tanks, etc. Draining and filling
not only could destroy the area of the wetland that
is drained or filled, but it could also have secon-
dary impacts such as an alteration of water circu-
lation patterns, or a deficit in habitat area or
food availability.
Impacts from spills or other emergency inci-
dents would also be more likely to do extensive
harm to a wetland and hydrologically connected
areas because; (1) wetlands are usually part of a
hydroiogic cycle which could be connected to
drinking water sources and other water bodies,
(2) a high water table exists and thus transport
of contaminants to ground water and surface water
is expedited, and (3) wetlands are fragile eco-
systems themselves and therefore cannot absorb
external pressures to the degree that other eco-
systems can (see 38 FR 10834).
The EPA standard should be preventive rather
than corrective. The causal relationship between
an action in a wetland area and the diminution of
water quality, flooding, or the disappearance of
a species of fish is not always readily recognized.
Moreover the cumulative impact of excessive encroach-
ments in a wetland might not be apparent in the
- 131 -
-------
immediate area of the facility but could manifest
Qrt
itself at lower elevations in a watershed.0^
c. EPA policy
This policy of protection has taken several
forms. EPA as early as May 1973 stated its policy
that:
It shall be the Agency's policy to minimize
alterations in the quantity or quality of
the natural flow of water that nourishes
wetlands and to protect wetlands from adverse
dredging or filling practices, solid waste
management practices, siltation or the addi-
tion of pesticides, salts or toxic materials
arising from nonpoint source wastes and
through construction activities, and to
prevent violation of applicable water quality
standards from such environmental insults.
Several years later in 1977, the Administra-
tion issued Executive Order 11990 entitled "Protec-
tion of Wetlands" which requires Federal agencies
to take action to minimize the destruction, loss
or degradation of wetlands. While the Order did
not apply to permitting activities by its terms,
the Order focused federal concern on preservation
of the nation's wetlands.
On July 5, 1979 EPA, building upon this Execu-
tive Order, reaffirmed its wetland policy in the
"Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management
and Wetlands Protection". EPA required that
existing regulations and procedures be amended to
incorporate the policies and procedures set forth
in this Statement. The EPA policy was:
- 132 -
-------
The Agency shall avoid wherever possible the
long and short term impacts associated with
the destruction of wetlands and the occupancy
and modification of floodplains and wetlands,
and avoid direct and indirect support of
floodplain and wetlands development wherever
there is a practicable alternative.
d* Applicable existing programs and deferral of
regulation
In developing a regulatory program as author-
ized by Section 3004 of RCRA, EPA has sought to
achieve consistency with these policies. There
are three aspects of facility construction and
operation which should be considered for wetland
locations. The first is the impact, without regard
to the nature of wastes handled by the facility,
that the construction and actual presence of the
facility will have upon the wetland environment.
The second is the impact of planned discharges
from the facility and the third is the potential
impact of accidental and unplanned discharges of
hazardous waste into the wetland environment.
In reviewing the proposed rule and comments
on it, EPA considered not promulgating a wetland
location standard under RCRA, but rather just
ensuring that the permit applicant had obtained
permits under the NPDES and Section 404 programs
if they were required to do so under the Clean
Water Act. EPA previously determined that these
existing programs adequately protected wetlands
- 133 -
-------
from the adverse impacts of the construction and
actual presence of the facility, and adverse impacts
from planned discharges from the facility. In the
later stages of developing the location standards
promulgated today, it became apparent that EPA
could not go forth with such an approach for three
fundamental problems exist. One, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) and EPA had not come to
an agreement on the appropriate scope of the defi-
nition of "fill material". Until this is resolved,
the exact set of circumstances under which the owner
or operator of a hazardous waste facility would be
required to obtain NPDES or §404 permits is not
known. Two, not all wetlands are "waters of the
United States" and therefore, they are not under
the jurisidiction of the Clean Water Act- EPA
could not rely on either the NPDES or the §404
program for these wetlands. The third problem
relates to a COE policy of issuing general or
nationwide Section 404 permits for some wetlands
and certain activities in wetlands, rather than
issuing individual §404 permits. These wetlands
and activities are permitted by class and each
action is not scrutinized individually. EPA
believes that the suitability of a wetland for
siting of a hazardous waste facility must be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
- 134 -
-------
EPA is deferring specific regulation of the
siting of facilities in wetlands until it is clear
to EPA what the extent of coverage of the NPDES and
Section 404 programs will be. EPA expects, however,
to retain the presumption against siting facilities
in wetlands which was expressed in the proposed
rule, and to promulgate standards as necessary to
address situations not covered by NPDES and Section
404 programs. EPA will consider determinations
made under the NPDES and Section 404 programs so
that duplication will be minimized.
EPA believes that in the interim wetlands will
be sufficiently protected against the unintentional
discharge of hazardous waste through facility com-
pliance with the Part 264 standards. Examples of
Part 264 requirements that would protect wetlands
in the vicinity of facilities include: maintenance
of freeboard at surface impoundments, controls to
prevent overfilling of tanks, diversion of run-on
and collection of run-off for piles, land treatment
facilities, and landfills. Forthcoming regulations
to protect ground water and surface water from the
adverse effects of land disposal facilities will
also protect wetlands. This list is by no means
complete.
- 135 -
-------
F. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats
1. Summary of the proposed standard (§250.43-l(f))
The proposed standard prohibited hazardous waste
facilities from locating in areas where they would be
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered
and threatened species, or where the facility would
destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat.
The standard provided for a discretionary approval for
location in a critical habitat if the owner or operator
consulted with the Office of Endangered Species (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior)
prior to demonstrating (at the time a permit is issued)
that operations carried out by the facility would not
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered and
threatened species located within the critical habitat.
Species that are endangered or threatened are
listed in 50 CFR Part 11, Section 4 pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93205, 16 U.S.C.,
1530 et seq.). Critical habitats of endangered and
threatened species are listed in 50 CFR Part 17 (1760
et seq.).
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was enacted to
conserve the ecosystems and habitats upon which endan-
gered and threatened species depend for their existence
and to provide a program for the conservation of such
endangered and threatened species (Sec. 2(b)). This was
- 136 -
-------
to be accomplished by requiring all Federal agencies,
in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior or
the Secretary of Commerce, to utilize their authorities
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act (Section 7).
EPA proposed this standard to insure that owners or
operators locate and operate their facilities so as not
to (1) jeopardize the continued existence of endangered
and threatened species or (2) result in the destruction
or adverse modification of the critical habitats of
those species.
3. Response to Comments
a. The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
C: The standard is much broader than the ESA
(the commenter did not explain why he thought this
was so).
R: The proposed regulation language is the same
as, with minor modifications that are not substantive,
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA.
C: The standard is unnecessary because the
regulated community already knows it has to comply
with the ESA. It should not be necessary to incor-
porate the features of each predecessor law into the
regulations of each new law.
R. EPA does not agree that the proposed standard
was unnecessary. Although Section 9 of the ESA
applies to any person subject to the jurisdiction
of the United States, Section 7 specifies EPA's
- 137 -
-------
responsibilities under the ESA. The proposed
standard reiterated EPA's responsibilities; the
content of that standard now appears in Section
122.12 (Part 122 - permitting requirements; see 45
FR 33428, May 19, 1980.)
b- The phrase "to be likely" in the proposed
standard
C: The phrase should be deleted because it
weakens the standard. If there is any possibility
of jeopardizing endangered and threatened species,
a facility should not be allowed to locate.
R: EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpre-
tation of the effect of the phrase "to be likely".
That phrase was included to strengthen the provision,
After an action jeopardizes a species, it may be
too late for the species to recover. The "to be
likely to jeopardize" language follows the statutory
language of the ESA.
C: "To be likely" should be deleted because
"jeopardize" itself connotes a subjective determi-
nation without the addition of the adverbial
modifer, "likely". The "likely" to jeopardize
language would facilitate the prohibition of siting
of facilities on the sheerest speculation.
R: The phrase "is not likely to jeopardize" is
found in Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. Regulations
promulgated by the Departments of the Interior
- 138 -
-------
and Commerce under Section 7 have defined "taking"
to clarify the actions which would be "likely to
jeopardize" an endangered or threatened species.
"Taking" is defined as harassing, harming, pursuing,
hunting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing or
collecting, or attempting to engage in such conduct.
(See 43 FR 875.) "Taking" is also used in Section
9 of the ESA.
c. Protecting endangered species outside of their
critical habitats
C: Endangered species should only be protected
in their designated critical habitats.
R: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The ESA
requires all Federal agencies and any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to protect endangered species wherever they occur.
Preservation of endangered species would not be
accomplished if these species were allowed to be
"taken" as soon as they went beyond the boundaries
of their designated critical habitats.
d. Locating in a critical habitat; the "NOTE" to
the proposed standard
c. The "NOTE" should be deleted because the very
location of a facility in a critical habitat would
probably jeopardize the continued existence of an
endangered species given the documented evidence
of damage caused by the treatment and storage of
hazardous waste.
- 139 -
-------
R: If a facility is located or is proposed to be
located within a critical habitat EPA is required
to ensure that such action will not appreciably
diminish the likelihood of the survival and recovery
of endangered and threatened species. Furthermore,
under the ESA, owners or operators are implicitly
required to evaluate if the construction, presence,
and operation of their facility will result in the
taking of endangered or threatened species.
C: The "Note" does not indicate how it is to be
demonstrated that facility operations will not
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered
species. Furthermore, once a permit is issued,
there are no means of preventing careless spillage
and leakage of deadly chemicals which would result
in irreparable damage to endangered and threatened
species.
R: If a facility is located or proposes to locate
in a critical habitat, EPA will determine, in
consultation with the Department of Interior or
Commerce, if the facility will appreciably diminish
the likelihood of the survival and recovery of
endangered and threatened species. A facility that
is permitted pursuant to the Part 264 standards
presumptively will not cause careless spillage
and leakage of waste.
- 140 -
-------
C: A framework for consultation should be set up
to ensure that all pertinent and necessary informa-
tion is supplied to the Department of Interior
prior to any decision regarding the location of a
facility in a critical habitat.
R: EPA no longer requires that owners or operators
consult with the Department of the Interior. The
Department of Interior (DOI) is currently writing
final regulations for the consultation process
mandated by Section 7 of the ESA. This consul-
tation process is only applicable to consultation
between Federal agencies and the Secretary of the
Interior. The regulations soon to be promulgated
by DOI will specify the information that is
necessary to present during a consultation.
4. Final disposition
a. Pot ent i a1 damag e
Many species of plants, fish, and wildlife
have become threatened or endangered or extinct in
the past through the cumulative effects of human
activities.* Habitat destruction, excessive
Endangered species are species which are in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of their range except for
species of the Class Insecta determined by the Secretary of Commerce
to be a pest whose protection would present an overwhelming and over-
riding risk to man. Threatened species are species which are likely
to become endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
a significant portion of their range. (Section 3, ESA)
- 141 -
-------
killing, and contact with an environment which has
become, in recent years, increasingly contaminated
with a complex array of toxic chemicals are factors
which contribute to the demise of these species.
Indirect poisoning or debilitation can result from
the biological magnification of toxic elements or
compounds in the food chain.
Locating, constructing, and operating hazardous
waste facilities, if not adequately regulated, can
lead to further reductions in populations of endan-
gered and threatened species. Possible impacts
include removal of critical habitat,* restricting
the movement of species, and degrading the environ-
ment near the facility (e.g., increasing siltation
of rivers, degrading air quality). Thus, EPA
believes that it is important to evaluate effects
on endangered and threatened species and their
critical habitats when a hazardous waste facility
is being located or when an existing facility is
applying for a permit.
As of January 31, 1980 there were 228 species
listed as endangered and 44 species listed as
threatened in the United States.90 Lists of
Critical habitat is the area, together with contained biological
and physical elements, which are necessary for the conservation
of the species. (For greater detail see Section 3(5)(A) of the
ESA. )
- 142 -
-------
endangered and threatened species are periodically
published in the Federal Register. The last such
listing appeared on May 20, 1980 in Volume 45,
Number 99 (p. 33768-81) of the Register. Critical
habitats are also published in the Federal Register.
t>. The Endangered Species Act and Part 122
EPA's authority for protecting endangered and
threatened species and their critical habitats is
contained in both the ESA and the RCRA. RCRA
inherently accounts for protection of endangered
and threatened species and their critical habitats
by specifying that location standards must be
promulgated which protect the environment. Section
2 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, specifies that all Federal departments
and agencies are to seek to conserve endangered
and threatened species and to utilize their
authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the
ESA. Those purposes include providing a means
whereby the critical habitats of endangered and
threatened species may be conserved and providing
a program for the conservation of endangered and
threatened species. Section 7 of the ESA specifies
that Federal agencies must take no action which is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered or threatened species or result in
the destruction or adverse modification of critical
- 143 -
-------
habitats of such species unless the agency has
been granted an exemption for the action by the
Endangered Species Committee (such as the case of
the Tellico Dam project in Tennessee).
Part 122 of the Consolidated Permit Regulations
(45 PR 33290; May 19, 1980) contains a section
(§122.12) which lists Federal laws which EPA is
required to comply with. The ESA is listed and
EPA's requirements under Section 7 stated. EPA
is required to ensure that the facility which it
is permitting is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species or adversely affect its critical habitat.
Section 9 of the ESA applies to any person
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Thus, owners or operators are subject to require-
ments under that Section irrespective of RCRA.
Section 9 regulates, among other things, the
taking, possession, and transport of such species.
EPA has therefore determined that the Endangered
Species Act adequately protects endangered and
threatened species and their critical habitats
such that a separate requirement in the Location
standards is unnecessary.
Owners or operators of facilities should contact
the Regional Offices of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Department of Interior) and State agencies
- 144 -
-------
that have responsibility for protected species
for current listings of endangered or threatened
species and information on the location of critical
habitats. A guidance/permitting manual on the
Location standards contains a section on compliance
with the ESA. Owners or operators and permitting
officials shpuld consult this manual for help in
determining if the facility has the potential to
adversely affect a listed species or a designated
critical habitat.
- 145 -
-------
Sole Source Aquifers
1. Summary of the proposed standard ( §250.43-1 (g.)}
The proposed standard prohibited hazardous waste
facilities from locating in the recharge zone of a sole
source aquifer. The "Note" to the proposed standard
specified that a facility could be allowed to locate in
the recharge zone of a sole source aquifer if it could
be demonstrated (at the time of permit issuance) that
the facility is located, designed, constructed, operated,
maintained, and monitored to prevent endangerment of
the sole source aquifer.
"Sole source aquifers" were defined in proposed
§250.4l(b)(82) as,
"those aquifers designated pursuant to Section
I424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
(Pub. L. 93-523) which solely or principally
supply drinking water to a large percentage
of a populated area".
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
Approximately 123 million Americans rely on ground
water for drinking purposes. Ground water also supplies
36% of all irrigation water and about 25% of the fresh
water used by industries dependent on their own water
supply facilities. Six states depend on ground water
for more than half of their water needs.^1 Sole source
aquifers are unique and highly important natural resources
because they are, by definition, the principal source of
drinking water for population centers.
- 146 -
-------
Aquifers are replenished through recharge zones
which are permeable to rainfall and surface run-off and
through which the aquifer is susceptible to contamina-
tion. The location of a hazardous waste facility in
the recharge zone is undesirable because:
(1) degrading a portion of the recharge zone reduces
the amount of uncontaminated. water available for
use;
(2) the contaminants would be more likely to migrate
to adjacent areas of the aquifer, and to surface
waters.
The purpose of the proposed regulation was to
prohibit the location of facilities in the recharge zone
of sole source aquifers. However, the Agency allowed
facilities to locate in the recharge zone of a sole
source aquifer, at the discretion of the permitting
authority, if the owner or operator could demonstrate
that such location would not endanger the aquifer.
3. Response to comments
a. The proposed standard is too lenient
Summary of Comments
(i) The safety of all drinking-water-quality
aquifers must be assured under RCRA and the
SDWA so that the intent of both of these Acts
are fulfilled.
(ii) The siting restriction should be expanded to
apply to location of facilities:
- 147 -
-------
- in the recharge zone of every under-
ground drinking water source
in the watershed of a public drinking
water supply
upstream of or in the recharge zone of
any aquifer
(iii) The "Note" to the proposed standard should be
deleted. In view of the limited number of
available drinking water sources, and the
potential social, environmental and economic
costs that would be involved if an aquifer
was polluted "by mistake" (i.e., the degree
of protection required was miscalculated), no
hazardous waste facility should be permitted
in the recharge zone of a sole source aquifer.
EPA should not opt for the short-term accommo-
dation of conditionally allowing hazardous
waste facilities to locate in the recharge
zone of sole source aquifers when the long
term water supply of our nation is at stake.
(iv) There should be no condition under which a
facility could be located in the recharge
zone of a sole source aquifer unless positive
assurances are provided to prevent groundwater
pollution.
(v) The standard does not provide much protection
for states where a sole source aquifer has
- 148 -
-------
not been designated.
(vi) No hazardous waste facility should be sited
near the zone of "important aquifers" because
of:
the uncertainties surrounding the effec-
tiveness of the design and management
criteria required by EPA in Section 3004;
the weaknesses of the endangerment con-
cept and the proposed human health and
environmental standards; and
the possibility of spills, other accidents
or human error.
To more precisely regulate where, in relation to
aquifers, a facility would/would not be allowed to
locate, the commenter suggested that EPA establish
three categories of aquifers and classify every
known aquifer accordingly. The three categories
and their attendant siting specifications follow.
0 No facility should be allowed in the recharge
zone of a priority aquifer unless the permit
applicant can show that no alternate site
exists within a multi-state area. This
category includes all aquifers which,
meet the criteria for sole or principal
sources contained in the proposed 40 CFR
§148 (42 FR 51620)
- 149 -
-------
discharge into wetlands or high quality
surface waters
are high quality present or potential
drinking water sources
are so designated by a §208 agency under
the Clean Water Act or the §4002 planning
process of RCRA
have less than 10,000 ppm total dissolved
solids
Facilities should be allowed to locate over
the recharge zone of other underground drinking
water sources (UDWS) if the facility complies
with all of the §3004 criteria. To be included
in this category are aquifers which, although
they may be actual or potential drinking
water sources, warrant less protection because
of either existing contamination, availability
of other drinking water sources, or the
absence of significant surface water effects.
Facilities should be encouraged to locate
over underground non-drinking water sources.
This category includes aquifers which are
saline, highly polluted or otherwise of
severely limited value. Facilities located
over these facilities will still have to
comply with all §3004 regulations.
- 150 -
-------
When classifying an aquifer, EPA should additionally
consider the number of people who depend, or will
depend, on the aquifer.
Response
EPA agrees that the proposed standard was too
restrictive in the universe of aquifers that it
protected. The RCRA program is aimed at not
allowing contamination of any water that may be
used. This includes ground water and surface
water that is used, or may be used in the future
for drinking water, agriculture, irrigation, or
industrial purposes. The specific facility stan-
dards provide significant ground water protection.
It would not be practicable for EPA to restrict
location in the recharge zones of ail UDWS's
because a majority of the United States would be
included in such a restriction. Additionaly, EPA
believes that it would be inappropriate for this
Agency to classify all aquifers in the U.S. EPA
believes that such a classification scheme should
be left up to the States.
b. The standard is too stringent
Summary of Comments
(i) The standard should only apply to land treat-
ment, land storage, and land disposal facil-
ities because these facilities are the only
- 151 -
-------
facilities that present any substantial
threat to aquifers. The proposed standard
will result in numerous unnecessary demon-
strations of facility adequacy.
(ii) The "NOTE" to the standard should be amended
so that facilities are allowed to locate in
the recharge zone of a sole source aquifer
provided that measures are taken to prevent
endangerment of the aquifer at distances
greater than 500 feet from the facility and
so that existing water wells within 500 feet
of the facility are not endangered. This
revision would increase the number of available
disposal sites and is in agreement with the
purpose of RCRA and the SDWA.
Response
EPA agrees that land disposal facilities pose
more of a threat to ground water than other facility
types. Because of this, the Phase II land disposal
regulations are keyed to protecting groundwater from
contamination by hazardous waste facilities. EPA
believes that because the facility standards are
designed to provide maximum protection to ground
water from contamination that a location standard
to protect aquifers would be redundant.
- 152 -
-------
c. Miscellaneous comments
(i) The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) applies
to facilities which present a "significant
hazard to public health". Until such time
that a SDWA standard is defined for ail
activities that take place in the recharge
zone of a sole source aquifer, there should
not be a special standard for hazardous waste
management facilities. The commenter also
objected to the RCRA standard being more
stringent than the "SDWA standard".
(ii) Because all components of a facility (e.g.,
tanks, incinerators, storage areas) are poten-
tial threats to an aquifer, each component
should be required to have berms to control
spill and precipitation run-off.
(iii) The recharge zone of an aquifer does not
necessarily remain constant over time. Hydro-
logic changes could cause the recharge zone
to expand thereby circumscribing a facility
which was previously outside the recharge
zone. Such a facility would de facto be in
violation of the standard.
(iv) The standard is unnecessary because sole
source aquifers are protected under the SDWA.
(v) Retain the proposed siting restriction.
- 153 -
-------
Response
There are no plans to write regulations under
the Safe Drinking Water Act for all activities in
recharge zones of sole source aquifers. Restric-
tions in these zones under the SDWA only apply to
new underground injection wells.
Requirements for control of spill and preci-
pitation run-off are examples of facility standards
which serve to protect ground water. A summary of
some of these standards follows in the discussion
of the protection provided to ground water by the
facility standards. EPA does not however, require
spill and run-off control for all components of a
facility? rather, only where EPA believes that a
potential hazard exists from spills or run-off.
4. Rationale for deletion of the proposed standard
EPA has decided not to promulgate a final location
standard concerning recharge zones of sole source
aquifers. This decision is based upon (1) the protec-
tion that the facility standards will provide to all
underground drinking water sources (UDWS) and (2) weak-
nesses discovered in using the group of aquifers that
have been designated as sole source as the subject of a
location standard for hazardous waste facilities.
a. Protection provided by facility standards
Taken together, the Phase I and Phase II Part
264 and 265 standards provide for a comprehensive
- 154 -
-------
system of waste management which is designed, among
other things, to minimize, if not prevent, any con-
taminant from reaching any point of ground water use.
This approach applies equal protection to water
that is used for drinking, irrigation, agriculture,
and industry. Most of the Part 264 and 265 regu-
lations directly or indirectly protect ground-
water such that an exhaustive review would be too
lengthy to include here. Examples of standards
which protect groundwater follow:
- Waste piles. Run-on must be diverted away
from a waste pile. Piles which are used to
treat or store waste must be equipped with a
containment system to include a leachate and
run-off collection and control system and a
base. The containment system must be designed,
constructed, maintained, and operated to prevent
discharge into the land, surface water, or
ground water during the life of the waste pile.
Tanks- At the time of permit application the
Regional Administrator will assess the ade-
quacy of the tank design, including the foun-
dation, structural support, seams, and pressure
controls. Owners or operators are required to
inspect their tanks in order to detect cracks,
leaks, corrosion or erosion which may lead to
cracks or leaks, or wall thinning.
- 155 -
-------
Surface impoundments. Surface impoundments
used to treat or store waste must be designed
to prevent discharge into the land and ground
water, and to surface water during the life
of the impoundment by use of a containment
system.
Areas that are used for storage of containers
must have a containment system that is capable
of collecting and holding spills, leaks, and
precipitation.
Leaks are minimized by the inspection stan-
dards. Requirements include inspection of
areas where containers are stored; containment
systems 7 construction materials of a tank,
and emptying the tank for a thorough examina-
tion of the condition of the inside of the
tank when necessary to detect corrosion or
erosion of the tank sides and bottom.
The standards for management of ignitable,
reactive, and incompatible wastes will mini-
mize discharges of waste resulting from vio-
lent reactions or corrosion of containment
systems.
EPA intends to promulgate land disposal
regulations which provide maximum protection
to surface water and ground water.
- 156 -
-------
Given that land disposal facilities are most
likely to be the cause of groundwater pollution,
the land disposal regulations are key to EPA's
belief that all water sources will be protected by
the facility standards. The groundwater monitoring
requirements provide for early detection of ground
water contamination.
t>. Inappropriate use of the sole source aquifer
designation
While protecting sole source aquifers by
restricting location of hazardous waste facilities
appears to be a reasonable approach to preserving
a portion of the water supply of the nation, a
closer look at the criteria which are used to
designate a sole source aquifer and future conse-
quences of such designation provide insight into
the problems associated with that approach.
One of the criteria for designating a sole
source aquifer is that the aquifer must provide
over 50 percent of the drinking water for an area.
Water sources protected by the hazardous waste
program are not limited by present use or the size
of the dependent population. An aquifer may not
be deemed important enough to warrant designation
as a sole source aquifer until a large population
has settled in an area for which the aquifer supplies
drinking water. It would not show foresight if a
- 157 -
-------
hazardous waste facility siting restriction were
only to apply when the aquifer was actually desig-
nated. In contrast, the facility standards and
the groundwater monitoring requirements seek to
protect all present and potential water sources.
Another potential consequence of using the
recharge zone of sole source aquifers as a siting
standard is that an interested group might try to
have an aquifer designated as sole source in order
to make it more difficult to site a hazardous
waste facility in that area. A reduction in
hazardous waste management capacity could result
due to successful sole source designations, and
the increasing number of obstacles to siting
facilities. It would also represent improper use
of the system under the SDWA to designate aquifers
as sole source.
- 158 -
-------
H. Buffer Zone
1< Summary of the proposed standard (§250.43-1 (h))
The proposed standard required that active portions
of hazardous waste facilities be located at a minimum
of 60 meters (200 feet) from the facility property line.
A variance to the proposed standard was provided in
the form of a "Note". Lesser, distances would be allowed
if it could be demonstrated that unexpected releases
or discharges of hazardous waste could be controlled
before they crossed the facility property boundary.
2. Rationale for the proposed standard
A distance between the active portion and the
property line of a facility provides a buffer area
between the active portion of a facility and the area
beyond the periphery of the facility. The Agency
believed that a buffer zone would reduce risks to human
health and the environment in the vicinity of the
facility by allowing unexpected discharges resulting
from acute incidents such as fires, explosions, and
spills, and chronic incidents such as underground leaks,
to dissipate, dilute, or be brought under control before
going beyond the facility's property line.
A buffer zone could be of aesthetic value by con-
cealing a facility that otherwise might be an eyesore.
In addition, buffer zones might minimize the level of
noise and reduce the strength of odors which reach areas
beyond the facility.
- 159 -
-------
The selection of a 200 foot buffer zone was based
on the State of Oklahoma's Rules and Regulations for
Industrial Waste Management.92 Oklahoma prohibits
ultimate disposition of industrial waste within 200 feet
of the permit boundary, thus providing a precedent for
the proposed regulation. Although other states require
buffer zones of narrower width (e.g., Wisconsin - 20
feet, New York 50 feet; and Pennsylvania - 25 feet),
these regulations only pertain to municipal solid waste.
Since hazardous waste poses a greater risk to human
health and the environment than municipal solid waste,
Oklahoma's more stringent regulation for industrial
waste was adopted. A specific numerical distance was
specified in order to facilitate enforcement and to
provide a tangible point of reference.
3. Response to comments
These comments are responded to in a general way
because the proposed standard has been deleted.
a. Impact on existing facilities
(i) Establishing a 200 foot buffer zone will place
an undue hardship on existing facilities where:
The site is completely built upon such
that either part of the facility will
have to be dug up and relocated, or
additional land will have to be purchased.
Additional land is not available because
the land surrounding the facility is
- 160 -
-------
already occupied by another party.
The facility will have to bear the cost
of digging up and relocating the waste
(e.g., as in a surface impoundment) and
possibly threatening human safety in the
process.
(ii) The impact on existing on-site facilities
would be costly and it would render otherwise
suitable land unnecessarily useless. In addi-
tion, relocation within a plant or industrial
area may be difficult or impossible if addi-
tional land is not available. These impacts
are not balanced by meaningful environmental
benefits due to the nature of the site and
the adjacent property.
(iii) Existing facilities should be exempt from the
proposed standard if:
- The site is bounded by uninhabited or
industrialized areas.
The facility owner or operator can demon-
strate that there is minimal danger from
operating closer than 200 feet from the
property boundary line.
(iv) Existing impoundments should be exempt from
the buffer zone requirement because in many
cases impoundments are located immediately
adjacent to the plant property line and
- 161 -
-------
construction of a buffer zone would be costly
and might jeopardize the structural integrity
of the impoundment due to the limited working
space between it and the property line.
(v) The degree of hazard of contained waste should
be taken into consideration when specifying
the width of a buffer zone for existing lagoons
that are located less than 200 feet from a
river or a highway.
(vi) The standard is overly stringent for existing
facilities where the waste being managed is
of a minor hazard.
(vii) This standard could significantly reduce the
usable area of existing facilities.
(viii) If existing facilities in areas where space
is at a premium or unavailable (e.g., chlor-
alkali plants in heavily industrialized areas
of the Northeast) were made to comply with
this standard, they would experience a compe-
titive disadvantage.
(ix) A facility that is located on property 400
feet wide by 400 feet long or smaller, would
be forbidden to treat, store or dispose of
hazardous waste because of the 200 foot buffer
zone requirement.
- 162 -
-------
Response
EPA agrees that requiring existing facilities
to institute a 200 feet buffer zone would be un-
necessarily burdensome. The protection provided
to human health and the environment would not be
congruent with the expense which would be required
in most cases. In fact, it could be detrimental
to human health and the environment if existing
facilities were made to close for noncompliance
with the buffer zone standard. EPA additionally
agrees that requiring 200 feet at every facility
is too inflexible.
b. Surrounding land use
(i) The standard should allow a buffer zone less
than 200 feet where no residences are closer
than 50 feet from the property line. Facil-
ities located in a remote area or in an
industrialized area do not need a large
buffer zone.
(ii) Hazardous waste disposal facilities should
not be located within 1 mile of residentially
zoned land areas because odors can be a
problem when weather conditions are favorable
and, to protect the welfare and health of
people in adjacent residential zones.
(iii) The terrain and the type of neighbors (i.e.,
residential or industrial) surrounding a hazar-
- 163 -
-------
dous waste disposal site should be taken into
consideration when determining the required
length of the buffer zone.
(iv) This requirement should be a permit condition
so that surrounding land use and facility
operation can be taken into consideration by
the regulatory authority.
(v) EPA should clarify its position on the loca-
tion of disposal sites relative to population
centers.
(vi) Facilities should not be located in population
centers because:
- Explosions may expose thousands of people
to toxic airborne substances.
- Leachate from chemical landfills may
travel more than 200 feet in porous soil
and contaminate public or private wells.
(vii) A minimum buffer zone of 50 feet should be
required from the active portion of all
facilities to public and private wells.
(viii) A minimum buffer zone should be required from
the active portion of all facilities to lakes,
streams, rivers, occupied dwellings, highways,
public parks, and historical sites.
Response
EPA agrees that it is preferable to locate
hazardous waste facilities away from residential
- 164 -
-------
areas and population centers. However, EPA believes
that equal protection should be provided at a
facility regardless of the surrounding land use.
c. Comments specific to facility type
(i) Storage facilities.
This standard is excessive for small
storage facilities (i.e., facilities that
store only a few barrels of waste) and
for generators in urban areas that store
hazardous waste.
- A buffer zone should only be one among
many engineering parameters to take into
consideration when designing a storage
facility.
( ii) Treatment and storage facilities
- A buffer zone is unnecessary due to the
diking, surface water diversion, and
containment requirements for these
facilities that are specified in other
sections of the proposed rules.
(iii) Treatment facilities:
The standard is oppressive and costly
due to the difficulty associated with
acquiring land in an industrial area.
EPA should be aware of, and consistent
with, local zoning ordinances and industry
standards that restrict the placement of
- 165 -
-------
treatment facilities relative to property
lines.
A lesser buffer zone would be appropriate
for a treatment facility which converts
toxic and hazardous waste to inert
material for use in saleable products.
It is inappropriate for EPA to dictate
specific distances, particularly for
treatment facilities.
The size of the buffer zone should be
sufficient to provide adequate space and
time to detect and correct any ground or
surface water contamination and, adequate
distance to protect the health of area
residents.
(iv) Land disposal facilities:
A minimum of 200 feet should be required
around a land disposal facility.
200 feet is appropriate for landfills.
- A 50 foot buffer zone would be adequate
for landfarms in light of the prohibition
of ignitable and volatile waste from
landfarms.
- A 200 foot buffer zone is inadequate and
arbitrary for landfills, landfarms,
basins, and surface impoundments because of
the threat posed by airborne contaminants
- 166 -
-------
and the trackout of toxic substances by
vehicles (discussed in the Phase I
Background Document on Landfills).
(v) The standard is excessive for vessel cleaning
facilities because after the residue in the
vessel is diluted with water, its degree of
hazard is not commensurate with a 200 foot
boundary zone.
(vi) Facilities which handle phosphate related
wastes should be exempt from this standard
because of the low hazard of these wastes.
(vii) Waste oil recycling facilities should be
exempt from the standard because adequate safe
guards against accidental spills or discharges
are already controlled under Section 311 of
the Spill Prevention, Control, and Counter-
measure (SPCC) Plan of the Clean Water Act.
(viii) Because used oil is generated in urban areas,
used oil reprocessing facilities are more con-
veniently and economically operated in, or
adjacent to, urban areas. The proposed buffer
zone requirement would necessitate the acquisi-
tion of more land. This additional cost
could lower the profit margin to a degree
that operating the reprocessing facility
would be uneconomical. The alternative of
locating further away from an urban area
- 167 -
-------
where land is less expensive will probably not
be viable because of increased hauling costs.
Response
EPA agrees that requiring the same buffer
zone width at all facilities would be inequitable.
Hazards from leaks, spills, and explosions are
dependent upon the types of wastes handled at a
facility, the size of the facility (i.e., the
number of tanks, landfills, etc.)* and the types
of operational units (i.e., tanks, containers,
surface impoundments, etc.) at a facility.
EPA also agrees that some of the protection
provided by surface water diversion or collection
and containment requirements reduce the need for
a buffer zone- Additional protection is provided
at treatment and storage facilities in the facility
standards by the set-back requirements for tanks
and containers that hold ignitable and reactive
waste.
One reason that EPA has not included a general
buffer zone standard in the final rules is that the
Agency believes that it is better to set such a
requirement at the local level. Regional factors
such as population density, land availability, and
proximity of the facility to residences, schools,
and hospitals can be factored into the distance
required.
- 168 -
-------
d' Alternate suggestions for the length of the
buffer zone
(i) The requirement for a 200 foot buffer zone is
excessive and should be reduced to (a maximum of)
100 feet because:
100 feet is sufficient in most cases,
and this distance is consistent with
state experience with safely operated
facilities rather than on Oklahoma's
regulation which is not backed by any
experience.
Many states only require a 50 to 100
foot buffer zone. For example, Pennsyl-
vania has found that a 50 foot buffer
zone amply serves environmental interests.
(ii) The standard should require a 50 foot buffer
zone. If a larger buffer zone is required,
it should be specified in the facility's
permit.
(iii) The standard should require a 100 foot buffer
zone with the caveat that EPA may require a
greater distance in cases posing a particular
hazard to neighboring properties.
(iv) The standard should require a 100 foot buffer
zone in order to be consistent with existing
set-back policies regarding floodplains, wet-
lands, and surface mining.
- 169 -
-------
(v) The "note" to the standard should be deleted
and the requirement for a 200 foot buffer
zone should be replaced with a 100 foot
buffer zone requirement. This revision will
curtail the growth of facilities' property
ownership, which is advantageous because
sloppy operations may take place in unneces-
sarily large sites.
(vi) 200 feet is generally acceptable unless the
site operator can show evidence that a lesser
distance would adequately protect human health
and the environment. The buffer zone should
not exceed 200 feet.
(vii) The standard should require a distance of 300
feet between the active portion of a disposal
facility and the facility's property line;
this suggestion is based on data derived
from the lateral subsurface migration of
septic tank effluents.
(viii) If the other (proposed) regulations for dis-
posal facilities are followed properly (thus,
preventing escape of fugitive emissions in
all three directions) and the monitoring
equipment is installed in the proper location,
the buffer zone could be substantially reduced,
perhaps to 20 feet or less.
- 170 -
-------
(iv) The buffer zone should have the same width as
the average thickness of the bottom seal of a
landfill, or alternatively; the buffer zone
should have the same width as the distance
from the top of the landfill to its bottom
seal. The latter option is derived from a
consideration of contruction parameters. Both
of these options permit the concurrent or sub-
sequent installation of a barrier which should
substantially seal in potential fugitive
emissions through ground migration.
Response
These comments illustrate the arbitrary nature
of a general buffer zone requirement. A reasonable
buffer zone distance can only be set for a defined
set of circumstances (e.g., treatment or storage
of reactive waste in a tank) or, on a case-by-case
basis during the permitting process. At present,
EPA believes that a general buffer zone requirement
is unnecessary because of the protection that the
facility standards provide to human health and the
environment. If EPA becomes aware of a situation
where a buffer zone or set-back distance is needed
to adequately protect human health and the environ-
ment, EPA may, at that time, either specify a cer-
tain distance (as in the case of containers holding
ignitable and reactive waste), or leave it up to
- 171 -
-------
the permitting official to set an appropriate buffer
distance based on site-specific determinations.
e. The "NOTE" to the standard
(i) Detailed guidance should be given as to how
the owner or operator can demonstrate that
his facility can meet the provisions of the
"note". There should be a delineation of
the acceptable means of controlling unexpected
releases and, what constitutes "sufficient"
proof. Also, the design base release and
other data should be described.
(ii) It is difficult, vague, potentially burdensome,
expensive, and/or impossible to demonstrate
compliance with the note.
(iii) The«,conditions of the note are redundant to
the requirements for contingency plans and
emergency procedures specified in Section
250.43-3.
(iv) An exemption from the 200-foot limit should
be allowed if contingency plans or emergency
procedures adequately handle probable and
possible incidents.
Response
EPA agrees that compliance with the proposed
"NOTE" would be difficult to demonstrate. EPA
also agrees that the final Contingency plan and
Emergency procedures (Subpart D) and Preparedness
- 172 -
-------
and Prevention (Subpart C) standards provide some
of the protection to human health and the environ-
ment that the proposed buffer zone standard was
meant to provide.
f. General comments
(i) This standard fails to make any distinction
in the degree to which a waste is hazardous.
It is excessive for relatively low hazard wastes
(e.g., utility waste). Also, "moderately"
hazardous waste should be exempt from the buffer
zone requirement. This Is particularly true
of phosphate related waste (e.g., gypsum)
where the standard would cripple phosphate
operations.
( ii) A specific distance for a buffer zone should
not be specified because:
It is too arbitrary and inflexible to be
universally applicable and therefore
will be excessive in some cases and
insufficient in others.
This approach allows no consideration of
site specific operating and design condi-
tions .
It will prevent construction and opera-
tion of facilities near industrialized
areas and near manufacturing plants
located in towns or cities where sizeable
- 173 -
-------
pieces of land are hard to find.
Distance from the boundary line is not
relevant to the general safety or operating
performance of a facility.
(iii) Suggested alternatives to specifying a buffer
zone distance are:
Requiring that "adequate buffer zone be
maintained to allow for safety".
That EPA require proof that a facility
has adequate technologies and "emergency
plans" to control accidental discharges
or releases of hazardous waste.
Requiring structural protection (e.g.,
a dike). This would be far more effective
in protecting the public from an explosion.
- Requiring that a satisfactory facility
design be demonstrated.
(iv) The need for and, if required, the size of a
buffer zone should be determined on an indi-
vidual site basis.
(v) Revise the standard to take into account;
(1) the nature and type of hazardous waste,
(2) surrounding land use, and (3) the function
of the active portion of the facility.
(vi) Protection of neighbors against spills and
explosions should not be considered within
the regulatory sphere.
- 174 -
-------
(vii) EPA has not demonstrated the relevance of
the buffer zone to the matter of protection
of human health and the environment.
(viii) The purpose(s) of the buffer zone should be
directly stated in the standard. If it is
not stated, buffer zone adequacy may not be
addressed by facility operators. The following
purposes were suggested by the commenters:
- Provides adequate space and time to
detect and correct any ground or surface
water contamination before such contami-
nation reaches the adjoining property.
- Provides adequate distance to protect
the health of area residents.
- Provides access for emergency equipment.
(ix) The standard does not provide for protection
of the public from noise or airborne pollutants
resulting from facility operations; particu-
larly in the case of catastrophes (e.g.,
chemical fires, uncontrolled reactions,
explosions).
(x) A 200 foot buffer zone does not adequately
protect the safety of the general public7
particularly if the facility manages ignitable,
reactive, and/or incompatible waste.
(xi) The Agency should clarify that the term,
"property line" refers to the perimeter
- 175 -
-------
property line and not to the right-of-way
boundaries around and through the property.
(xii) The requirement is unclear because the boun-
dary of the storage, treatment, or disposal
facility may not be the same as the owner's
or operator's property boundary.
(xiii) The standard significantly reduces the capa-
city and/or the size of the usable area of a
site. It is particularly onerous for small
facilities because the buffer zone will consume
an inordinate percentage of facility acreage.
(xiv) The proposed standard is contrary to the rights
of individuals to the use of their property.
(xv) Because a regulator finds it easier to deny a
variance rather than grant one, many owners or
operators may have to comply with the standard
in its most stringent aspect even though it
is impractical and unnecessay for them to do
so. Furthermore, the use of present and
potential sites which would require a variance
will be discouraged.
(xvi) 200 feet is the minimum acceptable buffer
distance because:
It will provide wording space to attempt
to correct discharges and a time delay
before a discharge would contaminate
external property.
- 176 -
-------
It will prevent adjacent property from
being contaminated before detection takes
place and thus, costly remedial actions
and law suits would be avoided.
Response
Many of these comments have been responded to
in responses to buffer zone comments preceding these.
However, EPA does want to respond to a few commenters
who brought up different issues. First, protection of
neighbors against spills and explosions at a hazardous
waste facility is certainly within EPA's mandate under
RCRA to protect human health. However, contrary to
what another commenter suggested, EPA does not believe
that protecting the public against noise is within
RCRA's mandate. Noise is usually controlled by local
ordinance. EPA's facility standards do not contain
specific requirements for airborne pollutants during
"catastrophes". Provisions are in place for the
emergency coordinator at a facility to assess the
danger to the surrounding public in the event of an
emergency, so that evacuation can be initiated imme-
diately if necessary. Other facility standards
which protect the public from airborne pollutants
are in the incineration, thermal treatment, and
prohibition of open burning (except for restricted
detonation or burning of explosives) regulations.
- 177 -
-------
4. Rationale for deletion of the proposed standard
EPA has reevaluated the need for a buffer zone at
hazardous waste facilities. This reevaluation was
prompted by the numerous comments received on the pro-
posed standard and a subsequent comparison of the pro-
tection afforded by the proposed buffer zone standard
and that provided by the Part 264 and Part 265 standards.
EPA determined that a general buffer zone requirement
would be redundant of the facility standards.
It is clear after reviewing the numerous comments
submitted on the proposed buffer zone requirement that
it is hard to specify a single buffer zone distance that
is appropriate for, and feasible to institute at all
hazardous waste facilities. As one commenter pointed
out, a single buffer zone distance is too arbitrary and
inflexible to be universally applicable and therefore,
it would be excessive in some cases and insufficient
in others.
Commenters suggested many factors that would
influence the size of the buffer zone that is needed
at a facility. These factors included the type and
size of the facility, the volume and degree of hazard
of waste(s) handled at the facility, type of land use
Although unknown in practice, the purposes of the proposed buffer
zone standard cited in the rationale for the proposed standard
provide insight into the protection that EPA believed a buffer
zone could provide.
- 178 -
-------
surrounding the facility, and operating procedures prac-
ticed at the facility; particularly contingency plans
and emergency procedures. It was also pointed out
that a buffer zone standard would be impossible, or
extremely burdensome to implement at existing facilities.
a. Ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes
One purpose of the proposed standard was to
reduce risks to human health and the environment in
the vicinity of the facility in the event of a fire,
explosion, or spill. With respect to the first
two; fires and explosions are usually associated
with ignitable or reactive wastes or, the mixing
of incompatible wastes. The presence of toxic or
corrosive waste may increase the hazards associated
with a fire or explosion, but these waste are
usually not the source of such acute incidents.
The Agency has taken a different approach in
the Phase I and Phase II rules to protecting human
health and the environment from incidents such as
fires and explosions which might occur during
treatment, storage, or disposal of ignitable,
reactive and incompatible waste. Instead of
providing buffer zone protection through a location
standard, the Agency has elected to tailor the
protection to type of waste handled at a facility
and the operating units present at a facility.
- 179 -
-------
The regulations not only contain general
requirements for ignitable, reactive, and incom-
patible waste (Subpart B, §265.17), but specific
procedures for managing ignitable, reactive and
incompatible waste are specified for piles (§§264.256
and .257), containers (§§264-176 and .177), tanks
(§§264.198 and .199), surface impoundments (§§264.229
and .230), landfills (§265.312 and .313), and
chemical, physical, biological (§§265.405 and .406)
and land treatment (§§265.281 and .282) facilities.
Ignitable and Reactive Wastes
Standards which are most similar to the
proposed buffer zone requirement are "set-back"
distances for containers and tanks. Specifically,
containers holding ignitable or reactive waste
must be located at least 15 meters (50 feet) from
the facility's property line. Covered tanks
which are used to treat or store ignitable or
reactive waste must be in compliance with the
National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA's)
buffer zone requirements for tanks, contained in
Tables 2-1 through 2-6 of the "Flammable and
Combustible Code - 1977."
The remaining final standards for ignitable
and reactive waste are operational requirements
designed to prevent emergency incidents such as
fires and explosions.
- 180 -
-------
Incompatible Wastes
The final standards concerning management of
incompatible waste require that incompatible wastes
must be separated during management. For example,
storage containers holding hazardous waste that is
incompatible with any waste or other materials
stored nearby in other containers, piles, open
tanks, or surface impoundments must be separated
from the other materials or protected from them
by means of a dike, berm, wall, or other device
(§264(5).I77(c)). Under Section 264(5).17(b),
incompatible wastes and materials can only be
mixed or commingled if this does not:
(1) Generate extreme heat or pressure, fire or
explosion, or violent reaction;
(2) Produce uncontrolled toxic mists, fumes,
dusts, or gases in sufficient quantities to
threaten human health or the environment;
(3) Produce uncontrolled flammable fumes or gases
in sufficient quantities to pose a risk of
fire or explosions;
(4) Damage the structural integrity of the device
or facility; or
(5) Through other like means threaten human health
or the environment.
In addition, the waste analysis (§264(5).13)
standards are designed to ensure that owners and
- 131 -
-------
operators know the identity and nature of the
wastes that they manage so that emergency incidents
due to mistaken identity will be minimized.
b. Spills
The Agency believes that the final Subtitle C
standards also adequately protect human health and
the environment from spills of hazardous waste. The
purpose of the proposed buffer zone standard with
respect to spills was to provide a medium to bring
the hazardous waste into control before it crossed
the facility's property boundary and also to allow
the waste to dilute before it crossed the facility's
property boundary. The final rules contain standards
for prevention of spills (e.g., maintaining sufficient
freeboard in uncovered tanks (§264(5).192) and
surface impoundments (§264(5).222)), containment of
spills (e.g., containment systems for storage areas
(§264.175)), and emergency procedures for cleaning up
of spills (§264(5).56 - Emergency Procedures).
The Preparedness and Prevention Standards specify
that adequate aisle space must be maintained at a
facility at all times to allow the unobstructed
movement of spill control and other emergency equip-
ment . The contingency plan and emergency procedures
are required to be carried out immediately, and
therefore the spill should be controlled or at
least purposefully diluted or decontaminated before
- 182 -
-------
it crosses the facility's property line.
c. Dissipation and control of discharges
Another purpose of the proposed buffer zone
standard was to allow discharges resulting from
underground leaks to dissipate or be brought under
control before crossing the facility's property
line. Operating and design requirements for the
different components (e.g., tanks, landfills) of
facilities are designed, in part, to prevent under-
ground leaks. Groundwater monitoring (Subpart F)
is required for components of facilities that are
likely to be a source of underground leaks (e.g.,
landfills and surface impoundments) unless adequate
protection is otherwise provided. For those parts
of facilities that are less likely to be a source
of underground leaks, inspections are required
(i.e., inspection of construction materials of
tanks (§264(5).194)).
d. Odors and Noise
The last purpose of the proposed buffer zone
standard was to conceal facilities and reduce
odors and noise reaching the surrounding community.
EPA believes that minimum set-backs for aesthetic
purposes are best handled at the local level.
In summary, EPA believes that the Subtitle C
regulations will provide the needed degree of
protection to human health and the environment.
- 183 -
-------
IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON RELATED ISSUES
A. General Comments
This section addresses those comments which were made with
respect, to the general site selection standards taken as a whole,
1. Existing facilities
C. The general site selection standards (especially
the standards concerning active fault zones, regulatory
floodways, coastal high hazard areas, 500-year flood-
plains, and wetlands) are overly stringent and will
result in the closing of many well designed and constructed
existing facilities. The performance (i.e., not causing
environmental harm) of existing facility should be con-
sidered before deciding that the facility must be closed
for noncompliance with a specific design standard. To
force these facilities to close would create a serious
shortage of acceptable hazardous waste disposal facil-
ities. Furthermore, to apply site selection standards
to such facilities would be contrary to Congressional
intent to apply only those standards "as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment". If human
health and the environment are already being protected,
site selection standards are not necessary within the
meaning of RCRA.
- 184 -
-------
2. Geographical Impact of the standards
C: The site selection standards will rule out con-
struction and continued operation of facilities in
many areas of the country except at prohibitive cost.
This is particularly true for facilities that are or
would be located in industrialized river valleys, the
Gulf Coast, the Eastern States, and California. For
example, coastal areas of states that border the
Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico are designated
as within a 500-year floodplain, coastal high hazard
area, and regulatory floodway.
This will create a serious shortage of acceptable
sites for hazardous waste facilities in these areas,
and it will pose a significant threat to public health
due to the need to transport waste through populated
and congested areas in order to reach facilities which
can meet the siting requirements. In addition, trans-
portation costs will increase waste management costs.
Response to issues #1 and #2
In the Location standards, the Agency has tried to
lessen the impact on facilities while continuing to pro-
tect human health and the environment. Variance proce-
dures, permit-conditional requirements, and a reasonable
period of time for existing facilities to comply with
the floodplain standard provide the flexibility that
is necessary so that certain geographical areas and
existing facilities are not inordinately penalized.
- 185 -
-------
The Agency believes that the Location standards
are necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The subject areas of the Location standards were chosen
because the Agency feels that location in these areas
requires additional safeguards, or an absolute prohibi-
tion in the case of new facilities within 200 feet of
a fault which has had displacement in Holocene time.
Furthermore, if existing facilities are designed
and operated in what EPA considers an environmentally
acceptable manner for the area that they are located
in, there should not be any problem in complying with
the floodplain standard.
EPA believes that increased flexibility in the
Location standards should prevent the unnecessary
closing of facilities and therefore should prevent any
subsequent shortage of facilities and increased trans-
portation of hazardous waste.
3. Applicability of site selection standards
The site selection standards should not be applied
equally to all types of facilities. In particular,
incinerators (or other facilities that destroy waste)
should not be restricted in siting considerations
because these facilities do not contain sufficient
quantities of waste to cause substantial harm to human
health or the environment. There is inequity in applying
the same site selection criteria to treatment facilities
and land disposal facilities. The general site selection
- 186 -
-------
standards should only include requirements that
must be met by all treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
The proposed rules contained a General Site
Selection section (250.43-1) and additional siting
requirements for landfills, surface impoundments, and
landfarms. EPA has used the same approach in the
Phase II rules.
The relationship between a land disposal facility
and groundwater and soil types necessitates a more
in depth consideration of those parameters when siting a
land disposal facility. Therefore, the Phase II rules
will specify additional location requirements for land-
fills, surface impoundments, and land treatment facilities
if they are deemed necessary (i.e., if the facility
standards are not adequately protective).
EPA believes that the Location standards should
(§264.18) apply equally to all facility types. However,
the floodplain standard is only applicable to facilities
subject to regulation under Part 264, Subparts I, J, K,«./»
-------
it can be demonstrated that they can be safely operated
or that adequate safeguards can be provided. The
concept of the general site selection standards is in-
consistent with the concept of minimizing the danger of
release of hazardous waste through specific operating
and design standards.
R: EPA believes that the Location standards reinforce
rather than contradict the protection to human health
and the environment that is afforded by the operating
and design standards. The Agency believes that the
standards which protect the facility from the environ-
ment (e.g., 100-year floodplain) are necessary in order
to minimize the possibility of uncontrolled release of
hazardous waste because of additional hazards associated
with locating in these areas. Although not included in
these Location standards, other standards serve to
protect the environment from the adverse impacts of
the facility (e.g., locating in a wetland or critical
habitat). Those standards provide necessary screening
of facilities for potential impacts because fragile
environments can be disturbed or destroyed simply by a
facility locating there, and indirect impacts such as
increased traffic volume compound the degradation.
EPA agrees that in some cases, the integrity of
the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
the facility precludes the need for a location standard.
The deletion of the proposed sole source aquifer general
- 190 -
-------
siting standard is a case in point where EPA felt that
protection of human health and the environment was ade-
quately provided by the facility standards. Thus, EPA
deleted that location standard.
6. Inequity of regulations regarding hazardous waste
and hazardous material management
C: Facilities which store, treat, or incinerate
hazardous waste pose no greater threat to human health
and the environment than manufacturing plants which
generate or store hazardous materials on-site, and thus
it is inequitable to regulate the location of the former
and not the latter. Also, it is unreasonable not to
allow on-site storage, treatment, or incineration of
these hazardous materials once they become hazardous
wastes .
R: RCRA takes effect once a material becomes a
hazardous waste. Manufacturers who generate hazardous
waste are subject to the law and its regulations. On-
site facilities which store, treat, or incinerate
hazardous wastes are also subject to the law and its
regulations. To alter this pattern of coverage would
require legislative changes.
7. State/local regulation of facility location
C: The standards should be less detailed in order to
allow state/local authorities to develop regulations
which are tailored to the characteristics of the
individual state/locality.
- 191 -
-------
R: Standards need to be as detailed as necessary to
allow compliance. EPA considers the level of detail in
the Location standards appropriate. States may not set
requirements that are less stringent than the Federal
EPA program; however, they may set stricter requirements
to tailor the standards to their particular circumstances,
C: The standards should be more detailed in order to
assist the States in determining the suitability of
hydroiogic, geologic, and soil parameters for the
location of hazardous waste facilities.
R: EPA will provide assistance on determining the
suitability of hydroiogic, geologic, and soil parameters
by making available guidance manuals to accompany the
Location standards and the land disposal regulations.
C: In view of the political difficulties associated
with establishing facilities in certain states, and the
possibility of inadequate disposal capacity, if states
fail to mandate means to allow facilities to locate
within their boundaries, EPA should step in and require
the states to do so.
R: RCRA does not give EPA the authority to step in
and require States to mandate means to permit estab-
lishing facilities within their boundaries. "Section
3006(b) of RCRA provides that State programs can only
be approved if they are 'equivalent to' and 'consistent
with1 the Federal program." (45 FR 33395, May 19, 1980)
RCRA therefore "speaks only to the 'inconsistency1 of
- 192 -
-------
State program submissions, not of State laws generally".
However, "...State programs which contain provisions
that prohibit treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
waste within the State, will be deemed inconsistent if
the prohibition has no basis in human health or environ-
mental protection." (45 FR 33395) (See 45 FR 33395
for a further discussion of this issue.)
C: Where an owner or operator must demonstrate under
the notes that his facility will not pose a threat to
human health and the environment, state, as well as
Federal, approval should be required in order to sanction
the location of the facility. In addition, where two
or more notes are involved, a public hearing should be
required so that local input can also be taken into
cons ideration.
R: All variance provisions that the permit applicant
wants to comply with and demonstrations that the appli-
cant wants to make will appear as cbnditions for issuance
in the draft permit. Pursuant to the Part 122-124 regu-
lations (45 FR 33290, May 19, 1980), issuance of a Federal
permit does not relieve applicants from compliance with
State requirements, therefore State approval is always
required where the State has such authority, regardless
of whether its program is approved. Where EPA has juris-
diction over the hazardous waste program, State and local
input can be submitted during the public comment period
or at the public hearing. Public hearings are held if
- 193 -
-------
there is a significant degree of public interest in
the draft permit. See Part 124 (45 FR 33484, May 19,
1980) for more detail on the procedures for a public
hearing and procedures for appealing a permit.
C: Site specific considerations are best handled at the
State level (in contrast to the Federal or local level)
because municipal politicians are subject to intense
local pressure to disallow the location of facilities
in their areas; i.e., municipal leaders may restrict
the location of facilities in their localities based
on political rather than environmental considerations.
R: State politicians can likewise be subject to
political pressures. EPA has specified minimum Location
standards and has left many areas open where a state
can fill in additional Location standards for such
concerns as odors, noise, and proximity to residences,
hospitals, and schools.
8. Variances to the proposed coastal high hazard
area, 500-year floodplain, wetlands, critical
habitat, sole source aquifer, and buffer zone
standards.
C: The Regional Adminstrator will-be unable to give
the necessary attention and in-depth study that each
request for a variance demands.
R: The variance provisions have been minimized leaving
a manageable burden on the Regional Administrator.
C: The "Notes" should be included as part of the
regulations because:
- 194 -
-------
Even though they have the weight of law, if they
were part of the rules, there would be no question
as to the use of alternative engineering specifi-
cations for some facilities.
The legal effect of a note to a regulation is
uncertain.
Rs EPA has deleted the use of notes in the final
standards. Comments are provided for clarification.
C: The "Notes" to the proposed standards should be
deleted because:
- There is no reason to accept the attendant risk of
allowing facilities to locate in environmentally
sensitive areas.
The standards should be applied uniformally across
the nation.
- Performance standards at the time a permit is
issued cannot ensure future reliability.
- They are contrary to EPA's Congressional mandate
and the intent of RCRA, which are to protect health
and the environment.
R: it is common practice to incorporate variances
into standards. In this case, variances were considered
necessary because of the diversity of hazardous waste
facility designs and the range of wastes that are poten-
tially managed at a facility. Variances are alternate
means of providing equal protection to human health and
the environment. Sufficient flexibility has been incor-
- 195 -
-------
porated into the location standards so that variances,
except in the case of the floodplain standard, were not
necessary.
EPA must also consider the impact of the standards
and the ease with which the regulated community will be
able to comply with such standards. For example, where a
standard has the potential to close many existing facil-
ities and an alternate procedure is available which will
be equally protective of human health and the environment
and yet will result in less of an impact to the regulated
community, EPA believes that owners or operators should
be allowed to demonstrate compliance through the alternate
procedure.
Future reliability of a facility is ensured by the
facility standards. Also the location of a facility
will be considered when a RCRA permit is modified or
revoked if new information or standards indicate that a
threat to human health or the environment exists which
was unknown at the time for permit issuance (§122.15(c)).
B. Miscellaneous Comments
C: If facilities are prohibited from the subject areas of
the siting standards, forthcoming technological advancements
to cope with siting in these areas will be stifled.
R: The Agency does not agree. Technological innovation could
prompt the Agency to revise its regulations. EPA supports the
development of technologies to cope with siting in environmen-
tally sensitive areas.
- 196 -
-------
C: Federal lands should be screened for potential use as
disposal sites because the large quantities of waste that will
be designated "hazardous" will need disposal sites.
R: EPA ls exploring with other Federal agencies both the
desireability and the possibility of siting hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities on Federal lands.
Results of this review will be incorporated, where appropriate,
as amendments to the regulations.
C: There should be no blanket prohibition against the use of
any area as a disposal site; evaluation of each site would
be more appropriate.
R: EPA agrees with this commenter except in the case of facil-
ities that propose to locate within 200 feet of a fault
which has had displacement in Hoiocene time. The technology
is not available to build a safe facility within that area.
An evaluation of each site is provided for in the
permitting process. The permitting official will evaluate
if the location of the facility is in compliance with all
applicable regulations.
C: Due to the variable nature of the geology and climatology
of the United States, the same site selection criteria can-
not apply to every area of the States. For example, if
waste acid/metal solutions which are hazardous due to their
toxicity are released from a landfill in areas with basic
soils, the acid would be neutralized and the metals immo-
bilized by the cation exchange capacity of the soil.
R: EPA has tried to make the Location standards flexible
enough so that they can be applied to every area of the States.
- 197 -
-------
States with authorized hazardous waste programs under
§3006 of RCRA can specify additional or more stringent siting
criteria that are needed in their States.
C: The general siting requirements are not specific or
stringent enough to assure that facilities will be sited in
the best possible manner, and to adequately protect human
health and the environment.
R: EPA believes that the Location standards are specific and
stringent enough to assure that facilities will be sited so
that human health and the environment will be protected in
those areas that are the subject of the standards. EPA realizes
however that the Location standards are not complete and EPA
will continue to propose and finalize additional standards as
the need arises.
C: The special considerations that need to be taken into
account for the geography of Louisiana are only accounted for
through the note mechanism.
R: It is difficult to answer this comment, as the commenter
did not specify what he meant by "geography of Louisiana".
However, EPA believes that adequate leeway has been provided
in the Location standards.
C: Many ponds and lagoons that are part of NPDES permitted
facilities will fail the site selection criteria.
R: Since NPDES permitted facilities are near surface water,
the only Location standard that would directly impact NPDES facil-
ities is the 100-year floodplain standard. These facilities will
be accommodated through the use of compliance schedules in their
- 198 -
-------
permits. EPA does not believe that the Location standards
(§264.18) will significantly burden NPDES ponds and lagoons.
C: The rules concerning protection of ground water should be
strengthened.
R: Because land disposal facilities pose a greater threat to
contaminating ground water than other facility types, more
restrictive siting requirements may be specified in Subparts
K, M and N, where they are deemed necessary, for protection
of ground water.
C: The proposed siting standards go beyond normal engineering
design considerations and limit future expansion capabilities.
R: The Location standards are largely performance standards,
and as such do not require particular designs. Engineering
designs do exist whereby the performance standards can be met.
For example, the engineering technology exists to reinforce an
incinerator so that it can stand up and remain intact under the
forces of a 100-year flood. The guidance/permitting manual on
the Location standards will provide information on engineering
design considerations.
The Location standards do not limit future expansion
capabilities (i.e., future expansion is not specifically
regulated) where the expansion is in conformance with the
Location standards. Commenters were particularly concerned
that the proposed buffer zone standard would limit future
expansion capabilities. Because this standard has been
deleted EPA believes that this concern has been largely
relieved.
- 199 -
-------
C. Comments Requesting Additional Location Standards
Comments were received which recommended consideration
of additional Location standards. These are summarized and
responded to below.
C: Farmland - because the treatment, storage, and disposal of
hazardous waste near farms has frequently endangered the
quality of the farms' livestock and produce.
R: Although contamination of farmland may have occurred in
the past from environmentally unsound treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste, the Part 264 and 265 operating
and design requirements (in particular, the standards con-
cerning spill confinement, diversion of run-on and collection
of run-off, ground-water monitoring, and inspections) are
designed, among other things, to minimize the potential
for contaminating adjacent land by direct and indirect means.
C: Surface water (rivers, lakes, oceans, and reservoirs) -
because much of the damage attributable to hazardous waste
has occurred in these areas, and has resulted in the contami-
nation of drinking water and fisheries.
R: The Section 3004 facility standards will minimize
indirect contamination of surface water. The standards
controlling run-on and run-off, spills, leachate, and ground
water monitoring will be most effective in this regard.
Surface waters are additionally protected by the floodplain
siting restriction.
Hazardous waste facilities will have to obtain permits
pursuant to Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean Water Act if
- 200 -
-------
the facility discharges pollutants or dredged or fill material
to surface waters. Wild and scenic rivers are also protected
by Federal law. (The guidance/permitting manual on the
Location standards has a section on compliance with the Wild
and Scenic Rivers Act.)
Because of these protection mechanisms already in place,
EPA does not believe that an additional siting standard is
needed for surface waters.
C: Cultural resources - because Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, directs ail
Federal agencies having direct or indirect jurisdiction over
proposed Federal or Federally-assisted undertakings to assess
the effect of such undertakings on any district, site,
building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
In addition, Federal agencies must give the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on any
such undertaking in accordance with the Council's Procedures
for the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties (36
CFR Part 800).
because Executive Order 11593 requires Federal agencies
to consider, in consultation with the Advisory Council,
the effect of their programs and plans on both federally-
owned and nonfederally-owned sites, structures, and
objects of historical, architectural or archeological
significance.
- 201 -
-------
R: Part 122 - EPA administered permit programs - requires
(§122.l2(b)) that the Regional Administrator adopt measures
when feasible to mitigate potential adverse effects of the
permitted activity on properties listed or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places. That
Section further states that: "The Act's requirements are to
be implemented in cooperation with State Historic Preserva-
tion Officers and upon notice to, and when appropriate, in
consultation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preser-
vation." (see 45 FR 33428, May 19, 1980)
Thus, EPA will consider effects on historical, architectural
or archaeological sites before making a final decision on a
permit application. The guidance/permitting manual on the
Location standards contains a section on compliance with
the National Historic Preservation Act.
C: Recreation resources - because the generator or permit
applicant should be made aware of Section 6(f) of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, and the
provisions of the Surplus Property Act. Both of these Acts
may impact the permitting of hazardous waste facilities in
certain locations.
R: Land acquired pursuant to the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act and the Surplus Property Act will probably not be
available for use as the site of a hazardous waste facility
because of the purpose for which those areas are set aside.
In any case, EPA cannot list every law that a permit applicant
might be affected by.
- 202 -
-------
C: Federal land - facility owners or operators should be made
aware that facilities will not be allowed to locate on public
land unless the Federal agency having administrative respon-
sibility for that land approves the installation of the
facility, and the owner or operator complies with all con-
straints imposed on it by the responsible Federal agency.
R: Although what this commenter suggested seems like a
reasonable approach, EPA has not as yet formulated a policy
with respect to locating hazardous waste facilities on
Federal lands. EPA will call upon other Federal Agencies
including the Departments of Agriculture, Interior, Defense,
the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) to be directly involved in
developing the policy.
- 203 -
-------
D. Permafrost Areas
I. Proposed approach to permafrost areas
In the preamble to the proposed rules (43 FR 58985,
December 18, 1978), EPA recognized that permafrost areas
are fragile ecosystems with a significant potential for
erosion and groundwater contamination. As such, the
Agency believes that these areas should be protected from
the uncontrolled siting of hazardous waste facilities.
However, because the only State where permafrost areas
are found is Alaska, the Agency also believes that it
is more appropriate for the State of Alaska to determine
what measures are needed to protect these areas.
2. Response to comments
C: Permafrost areas should be classified as extremely
sensitive (the commenter did not provide a rationale
for his viewpoint).
R: EPA agrees with the commenter in concept. As was
stated in the preamble to the proposed rules, EPA be-
lieves that permafrost areas are "very fragile ecosystems."
C: EPA's approach to permafrost areas is satisfactory,
however, it is questionable whether relaxation in such
fragile terrain is compatible with RCRA, and whether
it sets an undesirable precedent - that is, will other
states be able to regulate siting in environmentally
sensitive areas in their state.
R: EPA does not intend to take a relaxed attitude toward
permafrost areas in Alaska. EPA will continue to
- 204 -
-------
study this problem until a standard can be proposed.
If a State considers an environmentally sensitive area
in their state to be an important consideration in
siting facilities, and EPA has not promulgated a stan-
dard that addresses these areas, EPA believes that
states should promulgate such standards in keeping
with the spirit of RCRA's mandate.
C: The same logic used to allow Alaska to regulate perma-
frost areas should also apply to States which have
specific agencies set up to regulate certain industrial
activities such as oil and gas exploration.
R: EPA does not agree with the commenter. Allowing States
to regulate hazardous wastes from certain industrial
activities does not follow logically from allowing
Alaska to regulate siting of facilities in permafrost
areas (if that were the case). Permitting States to
regulate hazardous waste from certain industrial activ-
ities would result in a waste being regulated differently
depending on which state the waste was managed in. A
potential result would be lenient regulation in States
that want to attract industry. If EPA was to allow
States to regulate wastes from certain industries, EPA
would have to set minimum standards. This is in effect
what will happen if EPA can fulfill its long term goal
of writing industry specific standards in Part 266
because a State can be authorized to carry out the
Subtitle C regulatory program under RCRA if a States'
- 205 -
-------
program is equivalent to the Federal program.
Deferral of final action
EPA received little comment on whom should write a
standard for locating in permafrost areas, EPA or the
State of Alaska. After consulting with the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation, it is apparent
that there are no standards which regulate siting of
hazardous waste facilities in permafrost areas in
Alaska. According to State officials, the Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation is awaiting
the completion of studies on permafrost being conducted
by the University of Alaska at Fairbanks before
considering how such a standard should be written.
EPA recognizes permafrost as an important site
condition which warrants a standard. However, we do
not have sufficient background information at present
to justify a standard. We are continuing to study this
problem and will come out with a standard at a later
time. Should Alaska promulgate an adequate standard
as part of its State program, EPA would probably not
promulgate a standard.
There are many unfavorable conditions associated
with permafrost areas which suggest that the location
of hazardous waste facilities in these areas should be
controlled. Heat generated by operational units at a
facility may cause the permafrost to warm to 32°F and
thus melt. This heated area .does not provide an accep-
- 206 -
-------
•table degree of ground support for structures located
on it; it can cause settling of the structures (opera-
tional units at a facility) and structural damage.
Permafrost itself is not stable and is known to
cause ground movement with the consequence of damaging
structures. The frozen ground will push-up, blistering
the surface of the land with jagged pieces of frozen
soil.
A related problem has to do with thawing of the
surface or "active" layer of permafrost during the
short summer season. The ground surface thaws to a
deptTi of several inches, leaving the ground very wet.
"Summer travel on this thawed surface can disrupt the
fragile tundra vegetation. This, in turn, can lead to
severe erosion."93 Thus, hazardous waste management
activities may have to be restricted to certain times
of the year.
- 207 -
-------
V. REGULATORY LANGUAGE
§264.18 Location standards
(a) Seismic considerations
(l) Portions of new facilities where treatment, storage, or
disposal of hazardous waste will be conducted must not be located
within 61 meters (200 feet) of a fault which has had displacement
in Holocene time.
(2) As used in paragraph (a)(i) of this Section:
(i) "Fault" means a fracture along which rocks on one side have
been displaced with respect to those on the other side.
(ii) "Displacement" means the relative movement of any two
sides of a fault measured in any direction.
(iii) "Holocene" means the most recent epoch of the Quarternary
period, extending from the end of the Pleistocene to the
present.
[Comment: Procedures for demonstrating compliance with this standard
in Part B of the permit application are specified in §122.25(a)(11).
Facilities which are located in political jurisdictions other than
those listed in Appendix VI of this Part, are assumed to be in com-
pliance with this requirement.]
(b) Floodplains
(1) A facility located in a 100-year floodplain must be
designed, constructed, operated and maintained to prevent washout
of any hazardous waste by a 100-year flood unless the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the Regional Administrator that
procedures are in effect which will cause the waste to be removed
safely, before flood waters can reach the facility, to a location
where the wastes will not be vulnerable to floodwaters.
- 208 -
-------
[Comment; The location where wastes are moved must be a facility
which is either permitted by EPA under Part 122 of this Chapter,
authorized to manage hazardous waste by a State with a hazardous
waste management program authorized under Part 123 of this Chapter,
or in interim status under Parts 122 and 265 of this Chapter.]
(2) As used in paragraph (b)(l) of this Section:
(i) "100-year floodplain" means any land area which is
subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding
in any given year from any source.
(ii) "Washout" means the movement of hazardous waste from
the active portion of a facility as a result of flooding.
(iii) "100-year flood" means a flood that has a. one percent
chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year.
[Comment; (1) Requirements pertaining to other Federal laws
which affect the location and permitting of facilities are found
in §122.12 of this Chapter. For details relative to these laws,
see EPA's manual for SEA (special environmental area) requirements
for hazardous waste facility permits. Though EPA is responsible
for complying with these requirements, applicants are advised to
consider them in planning the location of a facility to help
prevent subsequent project delays.]
- 209 -
-------
Part 264, Appendix VI
Political Jurisdictions* in which Compliance with
§264.18 (a) Must be Demonstrated
ALABAMA
none
ALASKA
Aleutian Islands
Anchorage
Bethel
Bristol Bay
Cordova-Valdez
Fairbanks-Fort Yukon
Juneau
Kenai-Cook Inlet
Ketchikan-Prince of Wales
Kodiak
Lynn Canal-Icy Straits
Palmer-Wasilla-Talkeena
Seward
Sitka
Wade Hampton
Wrangell Petersburg
Yukon-Kuskokwim
ARIZONA
Cochise
Graham
Greenlee
Yuma
ARKANSAS
Arkansas
Clay
Cleburne
Craighead
Crittenden
Cross
Fulton
Greene
Independence
Izard
Jackson
Lawrence
ARKANSAS (continued)
Lee
Lonoke
Mississippi
Monroe
Phillips
Poinsett
Polk
Prairie
Randolf
Sharp
St. Francis
Stone
White
Woodruff
CALIFORNIA
all
COLORADO
Archuleta
Conejos
Hinsdale
Mineral
Rio Grande
Saguache
CONNECTICUT
all
DELAWARE
none
FLORIDA
none
GEORGIA
Banks
Barrow
Bartow
* These include counties, city-county consolidations, indepen-
dent cities, and, in the case of Alaska, election districts,
- 210 -
-------
GEORGIA (continued)
Bryan
Builoch
Burke
Candler
Catoosa
Chatham
Chattooga
Cherokee
Clarke
Cobb
Columbia
Dade
Dawson
De Kalb
Effingham
Elbert
Emanuel
Fannin
Floyd
Forsyth
Franklin
Fulton
Glascock
Gilmer
Gordon
Greene
Gwinnett
Habersham
Hall
Hancock
Hart
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jenkins
Johnson
Lincoln
Lumpkin
Madison
McDuffie
Morgan
Murray
Newton
Oconee
Oglethorpe
Pickens
Putnam
Rabun
Richmond
Rockdale
Screven
Stephens
GEORGIA (continued)
Talaferro
Towns
Treutlen
Union
Walker
Walton
Warren
Washington
White
Whitfield
Wilkes
HAWAII
Hawaii
Honolulu
Maui
IDAHO
Bannock
Bear Lake
Bingham
Bonnevilie
Caribou
Cassia
Clark
Franklin
Fremont
Jefferson
Madison
Oneida
Power
Teton
ILLINOIS
Alexander
Bond
Christian
Clark
Clay
Clinton
Coles
Crawford
Cumberland
Douglas
Edgar
Edwards
Effingham
Fayette
Franklin
Gallatin
Hamilton
- 211 -
-------
ILLINOIS (continued)
Hardin
Jackson
Jasper
Jefferson
Jersey
Johnson
Lawrence
Macoupin
Madison
Marion
Massac
Monroe
Montgomery
Moultrie
Perry
Pope
Pulaski
Randolf
Richland
Saline
Shelby
St. Clair
Union
Wabash
Washington
Wayne
White
Williamson
INDIANA
Gibson
Knox
Posey
Sullivan
Vanderburgh
IOWA
Fremont
Mills
Page
KANSAS
Anderson
Atchison
Brown
Coffey
Doniphan
Douglas
Franklin
Geary
Jackson
Jefferson
Johnson
KANSAS (continued)
Leavenworth
Linn
Lyon
Marshall
Miami
Morris
Nemaha
Osage
Pottawatomie
Riley
Shawnee
Wabaunsee
Washington
Wyandotte
KENTUCKY
Ballard
Bell
Caldwell
Galloway
Carlisle
Crittenden
Fulton
Graves
Harlan
Henderson
Hickman
Letcher
Livingston
Lyon
Marshall
McCracken
Trigg
Union
Webster
LOUISIANA
none
MAINE
all
MARYLAND
none
MASSACHUSETTS
all
MICHIGAN
none
MINNESOTA
none
- 212 -
-------
MISSISSIPPI
none
MISSOURI
Boilinger
Butler
Cape Girardeau
Carter
Crawford
Dent
Dunk1in
Franklin
Howell
Iron
Jefferson
Madison
Mississippi
New Madrid
Oregon
Pemiscot
Perry
Reynolds
Ripley
Scott
Shannon
St. Charles
Ste. Genevieve
St. Francois
St. Louis
St. Louis City
Stoddard
Texas
Washington
Wayne
MONTANA
Beaverhead
Broadwater
Cascade
Deer Lodge
Flathead
Gallatin
Granite
Jefferson
Lake
Lewis and Clark
Madison
Meagher
Missoula
Park
Powell
Sanders
Silver Bow
MONTANA (continued)
Stillwater
Sweet Grass
Teton
Wheatland
NEBRASKA
Cass
Gage
Jefferson
Johnson
Lancaster
Sarpy
Otoe
Nemaha
Pawnee
Richardson
NEVADA
all
NEW HAMPSHIRE
all
NEW JERSEY
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Passaic
Somerset
Sussex
Union
Warren
NEW MEXICO
Bernalillo
Catron
Grant
Hidalgo
Los Alamos
Rio Arriba
Sandoval
Santa Fe
Sierra
Socorro
Taos
Torrance
Valencia
- 213 -
-------
NEW YORK
Albany
Bronx
Clinton
Columbia
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Orange
Orleans
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Rich!and
Richmond
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
St. Lawrence
Suffolk
Sullivan
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Westchester
Wyoming
NORTH CAROLINA
Alexander
Alleghany
Anson
Ashe
Avery
Buncombe
Burke
NORTH CAROLINA (continued)
Cabarrus
Caldwell
Catawba
Cherokee
Clay
Cleveland
Gaston
Graham
Haywood
Henderson
Iredell
Jackson
Lincoln
Macon
Madison
McDowell
Mecklenburg
Mitchell
Polk
Richmond
Rowan
Rutherford
Stanly
Surry
Swain
Transylvania
Union
Watauga
Wilkes
Yancey
NORTH DAKOTA
none
OHIO
none
OKLAHOMA
At oka
Bryan
Carter
Choctaw
Cleveland
Coal
Creek
Garvin
Grady
Haskell
Hughes
Johnston
Latimer
- 214 -
-------
OKLAHOMA (continued)
Le Plore
Lincoln
Marshall
McClain
McCurtain
Mclntosh
Murray
Muskogee
Okfuskee
Oklahoma
Okmulgee
Pittsburg
Pontotoc
Pot.tawat.omie
Pushmataha
Seminole
Stephens
Tulsa
OREGON
none
PENNSYLVANIA
Berks
Bucks
Carbon
Chester
Lackawanna
Lancaster
Lebanon
Lehigh
Luzerne
Monroe
Montgomery
Northampton
Pike
Schuylkill
Susquehanna
Wayne
Wyoming
RHODE ISLAND
all
SOUTH CAROLINA
all
SOUTH DAKOTA
none
TENNESSEE
Anderson
TENNESSEE (continued)
Bledsoe
Blount
Bradley
Campbell
Carroll
Carter
Claiborne
Cocke
Crockett
Cumberland
Dyer
Fayette
Gibson
Grainger
Greene
Hamblen
Hamilton
Hancock
Hard email
Hawkins
Haywood
Henry
Jefferson
Johnson
Knox
Lake
Lauderdale
Loudon
Madison
McMinn
Meigs
Monroe
Morgan
Ob ion
Polk
Rhea
Roane
Scott
Sequatchie
Sevier
Shelby
Sullivan
Tipton
Unicoi
Union
Washington
Weakley
TEXAS
none
- 215 -
-------
UTAH
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfieid
Iran
Juab
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
Sanpete
Sevier
Summit
Tooeie
Utah
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
Weber
VERMONT
all
VIRGINIA
Bland
Buchanan
Carroll
Craig
Dickenson
Floyd
Giles
Grayson
Lee
Montgomery
Puiaski
Roanoke
Russell
Scott
Smyth
Tazewell
Washington
Wise
Wythe
WASHINGTON
Chelan
Clallam
Clark
Cowlitz
Douglas
Ferry
Grant
Gray Harbor
Jefferson
King
Kitsap
Kittitas
Lewis
Mason
Okanogan
Pacific
Pierce
San Juan Islands
Skagit
Skamania
Snohomish
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Whatcom
Yak ima
WEST VIRGINIA
Mercer
McDowell
Monroe
Summers
WISCONSIN
none
WYOMING
Fremont
Lincoln
Park
Subiette
Teton
Uinta
Yellowstone National Park
- 216 -
-------
TERRITORIES OF THE UNITED STATES:
American Samoa
all
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
all
Guam
all
Puerto Rico
all
U.S. Virgin Islands
all
- 217 -
-------
VI. REFERENCES
i. Subcommittee on Water and Sewerage Systems. "Earthquake
Damage to Water and Sewerage Facilities", in Volume II of
The San Fernando, California Earthquake of February 9, 1971.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 733; 1971.
2. Texas Department of Water Resources - Industrial Solid Waste
Management. Technical Guideline No. 2; Site Selection and
Evaluation. Issued: 5/13/76, Revised: 3/1/78.
3. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment Rules. 6 MCAR §4.9004 Location, Operation, and Closure
of a Hazardous Waste Facility. June 11, 1979. (Draft: HW4,
June 3, 1977).
4. California State Water Resources Control Board - Waste Dis-
charge Requirements for Nonsewerable Waste Disposal to Land.
Article 2, §25lO(g). January 1978.
5. Op. Cit., Texas Technical Guideline No. 2
6. New York State Environmental Quality Review, Part 617.
Adopted: September 1, 1978. Effective: November 1, 1978.
7. Op. Cit., Texas Technical Guideline No. 2.
8. Op. Cit., Minnesota Rules, 6 MCAR §4.9004.
9. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Chapter 75,
Solid Waste Management Rules and Regulations. Effective:
June 27, 1977.
10. Iowa Solid Waste Disposal Rules. Chapter 28 - Sanitary Land-
fills, §28.2. Effective: October 1, 1971; last revised:
August 31, 1978.
11. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
Part 360, Solid Waste Management Facilities. §360.8 Facility
Requirements. May 17, 1977.
12. Oklahoma State Department of Health Rules and Regulations
for Industrial Waste Management. 3.0 Permit Requirements for
Industrial Waste Disposal Sites or Processing Facilities.
Effective: June 12, 1979.
13. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. Part 320 - General
Regulatory Policies. Federal Register. Vol. 42, No. 138.
Tuesday, July 19, 1977; p. 37133.
14. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. "This is the
Federal Emergency Management Agency". March 1980.
- 218 -
-------
15. U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal
Insurance Administration. Federal Register. Vol. 41,
No. 207. Tuesday, October 26, 1976; p. 46962-92.
16. U.S. Department of the Army. Office of the Chief of Engineers.
"Earthquake Design and Analysis for Corps of Engineers Dams."
April 30, 1977. Regulation No. 1110-2-1806.
17. Howard, K.A. and Others. Preliminary Map of Young Faults in
the United States as a Guide to Possible Fault Activity.
1978. U.S.G.S. Miscellaneous Field Studies Map, MF-916.
18. Taylor, C.L. and L.S. Ciuff. Fault Displacement and Ground
Deformation Associated with Surface Faulting; Proceedings of
the Current State of Knowledge of Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering. ASCE Conference, Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 30 -
31, 1977.
19. Slemmons, David B. and Roy McKinney. Definition of "Active
Fault". May 1977. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station; Miscellaneous Paper S-77-8.
20. California Division of Mines and Geology. "Guidelines for
Evaluating the Hazard of Surface Fault Rupture." CDMG Note
No. 49, revised January 1977.
21. Taylor, Charles L. Associate Engineering Geologist, Woodward-
Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, California.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft guidance/permitting
manual for the Location standards; Seismic Considerations,
Appendix A. December 29, 1980.
23. Op. Cit., Map of Young Faults, 1978.
24. Algermissen, S.T. and David M. Perkins. A Probabilistic
Estimate of Maximum Acceleration in Rock in the Contiguous
United States. 1976. U.S.G.S. Open File Report 76-416.
25. Op. Cit., U.S. E.P.A. Draft guidance/permitting manual;
Seismic Considerations, p. 11.
26. Op. Cit., Taylor and Cluff. 1977.
27. Op. Cit., U.S. E.P.A. Draft guidance/permitting manual;
Seismic Considerations, p. 6 and Appendix B.
28. Bonilla, M.G. Historic Surface Faulting in the Continental
United States and Adjacent Parts of Mexico. 1967. U.S.G.S.
Reactor Technical Publication TID-24124.
29. Ibid, p. 6.
30. Op. Cit., Taylor and Cluff. 1977.
- 219 -
-------
31. Taylor, Charles L. "Comments on 61 Meters (200 foot) Set-
Back Distance". December 15, 1980.
32. Op. Ctt., Bonilla, 1967. p. 22.
33. Op. Cit., Taylor and Cluff. 1977.
34. California Seismic Safety Commission. Goals and Policies
for Earthquake Safety in California. May 10, 1979. p. 25.
SSC 79-04.
35. Hart, Earl W. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California.
Revised March 1980. California Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
36. California Public Utilities Commission. Liquefied Natural
Gas Facilities Safety Standards. Effective: July 5, 1979.
§193.115 and Appendix B.
37. Op. Cit., U.S. E.P.A. Draft guidance/permitting manual;'
Seismic Considerations, Appendix C.
38. Ibid.
39. Op. Cit., California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG
Note No. 49.
40. Op. Cit., Slemmons and McKinney, 1977.
41. Ibid.
42. Op. Cit., Department of the Armyt Regulation No. 1110-2-1806,
43. Op. Cit., California Division of Mines and Geology, CDMG
Note No. 49.
44. Ibid.
45. Applied Technology Council associated with the Structural
Engineers Association of California. Tentative Provisions
for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings.
June 1978.National Bureau of Standards (U.S.), Special
Publication 510.
46. Op. Cit., Algermissen and Perkins, 1976.
47. Op. Cit., U.S. E.P.A. Draft guidance/permitting manual;
Seismic Considerations, p. 14-18.
48. Op. Cit., Algermissen and Perkins, 1976. p. 24
49. Op. Cit., Bonilla, 1967. p. 21.
- 220 -
-------
50. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. General Site Suitability
Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations. Regulatory Guide 4.7,
Revision 1, November 1975.
51. Op. Cit., California Public Utilities Commission, LNG Facility
Safety Standards. Appendix B.
52. Op. Cit., Map of Young Faults, 1978.
53. Slemmons, D.B. State-of-the-art for Assessing Earthquake
Hazards in the United States - Faults and Earthquake
Magnitude. May 1977. U.S. Army Corps of Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station. Report No. 6, Misc. Paper S-73-1.
54. See, for example: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seismic Design Classification. Regulatory Guide No. 1.29,
Revision 3, September 1978.
55. Op. Cit., U.S. E.P.A. Draft guidance/permitting manual;
Seismic Considerations, Appendix A.
56. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance
Administration. The Floodway; A Guide for Community Permit
Officials. September 1979. Community assistance series,
No. 4. HUD-529-FIA.
57. Op. Cit., U.S. E.P.A. Draft guidance/permitting manual;
Floodplains. December 2, 1980.
58. Ibid.
59. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
Guidance Manual for the Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities.November 1979. p. 8-18,19.
60. Peace, Dick. Regional Supervisor, Mooresville, North Carolina
Regional Department of Natural Resources and Community Develop-
ment. Confirmed by telephone by Karen Walker, Environmental
Scientist, E.P.A., Washington, D.C., on May 16, 1980.
61. Beane, Jim. N.C. Department of Natural and Economic Resources,
Division of Community Assistance. Confirmed by telephone by
Karen Walker, Environmental Scientist, E.P.A., Washington, D-C.,
on May 16, 1980.
62. The case of United States of America v. Petro Processors of
Louisiana, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 80-358-B. United
States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. Filed
on July 15, 1980.
63. Kuchinski, Leon. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, Regional Solid Waste Manager. Confirmed by
telephone by Karen Walker, Environmental Scientist, E.P.A.,
Washington, D.C., on May 15, 1980.
- 221 -
-------
64. Ingraham, R.J. Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Office, U.S.
Coast Guard. Confirmed by telephone by Karen Walker, Environ-
mental Scientist, E.P.A., Washington, D.C., on May 16, 1980.
65. U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance
Administration. "National Flood Insurance Program." §1909.1
Definitions. Federal Register. Vol. 41, No. 207. Tuesday,
October 26, 1976.
66. Memorandum from Cindy Hoppmann (Environmental Scientist, U.S.
E.P.A., Washington, D.C.) to the Administrative Record dated
November 13, 1980. "Coverage of Flood Hazard Boundary Maps."
67. Memorandum from Cindy Hoppmann to the Administrative Record
dated November 13, 1980. "Meeting with Craig Wingo, P.E.;
Branch Chief, Map Appeals and Revisions, Program Implementa-
tion Division, Federal Insurance Administration."
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid.
70. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal
Insurance Administration. "Questions and Answers: The
National Flood Insurance Program". March 1977, p. 3.
71. Memorandum from Cindy Hoppmann to the Administrative Record
dated November 17, 1980. "Meeting with FIA hydrologist,
Brian Mrazik."
72. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
Environmental Impact Statement - Criteria for Classification
of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices. December
1979. SW-821, p. III-3.
73. Op. Cit., U.S. FEMA, FIA. 41 PR 46976.
74. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Office of
the Chief of Engineers. Wall Design - Flood Walls. January
1948. EM 1110-2-2501.
U.S. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Design and Constructionof Levees. 31 March 1978.
EM 1110-2-1913.
U.S. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Flood - Proofing Regulations. June 1972. EP-1165-2-314.
75. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission "Flood Protection for Nuclear
Power Plants". Regulatory Guide No. 1.102. Revision 1,
September 1976.
76. Memorandum from Cindy Hoppmann to the Administrative Record
dated December 2, 1980. "Flood Proofing and Flood Protection
Technology".
77. Ibid.
- 222 -
-------
78. Strahler, Arthur N. and Alan H. Strahler. Introduction to
Environmental Science. 1979. Hamilton Publiching Company, p.331.
79. Dawson, Alexandra D., J.D. "Land Use Implications of Wetland
and Floodplain Regulation." Zoning and Planning Law Reports.
Vol. 2, No. 12. November 1979, p. 181.
80. Op. Cit., EIS; SW-821. p. 111-18.
81. Horwitz, Elinor L. Our Nation's Wetlands. An Interagency
Task Force Report. 1978. p. 1 U.S. Government Printing
Office No. 041-011-00045-9.
82. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States.December 1979.p.2.FWS/OBS - 79/31.
83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Protection of Nation's
Wetlands - Policy Statement." Federal Register. Vol. 38,
No. 84. Wednesday, May 2, 1973; p. 10834-5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Implementation of
Procedures on the National Environmental Policy Act".
Appendix A - Statement of Procedures on Floodplain Management
and Wetlands Protection. Federal Register. Vol. 44, No. 216.
Tuesday, November 6, 1979; p. 64191-3.
84. Myhrum, Christopher B. "Federal Protection of Wetlands through
Legal Process." Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review.
Vol. 7, No. 4. p. 568.
85. Op. Cit., Horwitz, p. 1.
86. Ibid.
87. Op. Cit., Myhrum, p. 573.
88. Ibid. p. 573.
89. Ibid. p. 574-575.
90. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. "Box
Score of Species Listings". Endangered Species Technical Bulletin.
February 1980, Vol. V, No. 2. p. 8.
91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Report to Congress;
Waste Disposal Practices and their Effects on Ground Water.
January 1977.
92. Oklahoma State Department of Health Rules and Regulations for
Industrial Waste Management. 4.0 Minimum Specifications for
Controlled Industrial Waste Surface Disposal Sites. Effective:
June 12, 1979.
93. Solid Waste on Federal Lands in Alaska; A Report to Congress.
Executive Summary Report. p. 6.
- 223 -
-------
Technical Documents Not Specifically
Referenced in the Background Document But Used
in Developing the Location Standards
Floodplains
Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers. A Per-
spective on Flood Plain Regulations for Flood Plain Management.
June 1976. EP-1165-2-304.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Gaiveston District. Guidelines for
Identifying Coastal High Hazard Zones. June 1975.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center.
Shore Protection Manual, Volumes I, II, and III. 1977.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Design of
Small Dams. 1977. (GPO Stock No. 024-003-00119-8).
U.S. Water Resources Council. Guidelines for Determining Flood
Flow Frequency. Bulletin 17A of the Hydrology Committee. Revised:
June 1977.
U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance and
Hazard Mitigation. Statement of Work for Flood Insurance Studies.
April, 1979.
- 224 -
------- |