-------
-------
TABLE OP CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
10. Issue: Definition of Liner 82
11. New Definitions $3
V. References 84
VI. Appendix - Final Regulatory Language 86
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the authority in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, EPA is promulgating .interim status
standards for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste
in surface impoundments.
Draft regulations on this subject were proposed for public
comment on December 18, 1978. Comments were received by the
Agency at public hearings and in writing. This document provides
the rationale for the regulations and responds to the comments
received.
This document is divided into four parts, followed by
references and appendices. Part I, Introduction, describes the
purpose and scope of this document, the legislative authority for
the regulations, and key definitions used in their development.
Part II, Need for Regulation, explains the basic public health
and environmental problems which show the need for regulation in
this area. Part III, Synopsis of the Proposed Regulations,
summarizes the proposed regulations. Part IV, Analysis of Issues,
comprises the bulk of this document. For each issue, it discusses
the proposed regulation and its rationale, comments received,
and the Agency's response, including any new information obtained,
and the final regulatory language.
B. RCRA Mandate for the Regulation
Section 3004 of Subtitle C requires EPA to promulgate
regulations establishing standards, applicable to owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities, as may be necessary to protect human health
1
-------
and the environment. Section 3004 further requires that such
standards include requirements respecting (1) the location,
design, construction, and operation of such hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities, (2) records of
hazardous wastes treated, stored, or disposed, and (3) reporting,
monitoring; and inspection. Surface impoundments are common
means of treating, storing,, or disposing of hazardous wastes,
and are covered by Section 3004.
Section 3005 (e) also provides a period of interim status
for owners and operators of existing facilities for treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. After the effective
date of the regulations, treatment, storage, and disposal may not
be carried out except in accordance with a permit issued under
Section 3005. However, persons who have applied for a permit and
who have notified EPA of their activities, have interim status
and are treated as though a permit had been issued. Interim
status thus applies between the effective date of treatment,
storage, and disposal regulations and the date on which a permit
is issued or denied to a particular owner or operator.
A complete rationale for establishing interim status
standards and responses to the public comments on that subject
are presented in the preamble to the Parts 264 and 265 regulations
and in the background document entitled "General Issues Regarding
Interim Status Standards ."
This background document on interim status standards for
surface impoundments addresses the specific standards applicable
to surface impoundments during the time a facility has interim
status.
-------
C. Definitions
Key definitions pertinent to the surface impoundment
regulation are:
(1) "Dike"* means an embankment, or ridge of either natural
or man-made materials used to prevent the movement of
liquids, sludges, solids, or other materials.
(2) "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection,
dumping, spilling, leaking or placing of any solid
waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water
so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any
constituent thereof may enter the environment or be
emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
including ground waters.
(3) "Disposal Facility"** means a facility or part of a
facility at which hazardous waste is intentionally
placed into or on any land or water, and at which
wastes will remain after closure.
(4) "Facility"** means all contiguous land, structures,
other appurtenances, and improvements on the land,
used for treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous
waste. A facility may consist of several treatment,
storage, or disposal operational units (e.g. one or
more landfills, surface impoundments or combinations
of them.)
*New definition, see rationale in Part IV of this document.
-------
(5) "Freeboard"* means the vertical distance between the
top of a tank or surface impoundment dike, and the
surface of the waste contained therein.
(6) "Ground Water"** means water below the land surface in
a zone of saturation.
(7) "Incompatible waste"** means a hazardous waste which
is unsuitable for:
(i) Placement in a particular device or facility
because it may cause corrosion or decay of
containment materials (e.g., container inner liners
or tank walls); or
(ii) Commingling with another waste or material under
uncontrolled conditions because the commingling
might produce heat or pressure, fire or explosion,
violent reaction, toxic dusts, mists, fumes, or
gases, or flammable fumes or gases.
(8) "Injection well" means a bored, drilled, or driven
well; or a dug well, where the depth of the dug well is
greater than the largest surface dimensions.
(9) "Operator"** means any person who is responsible for
the overall operation of a facility.
(10) "Owner"** means any person who owns a facility or
portion of a facility.
* Revised definition, see rationale in Part IV of this document.
**Revised definition, see background document on definitions.
-------
(11) "Storage"** means the holding of hazardous waste for a
temporary period, at the end of which the hazardous
waste is treated, disposed of, or stored elsewhere.
(12) "Surface Impoundments"* or "impoundment" means a
facility or part of a facility which is a natural
topographic depression, man-made excavation, or diked
area formed primarily of earthen materials (although
it may be lined with man-made materials), which is
designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or
wastes containing free liquids, and which is not an
injection well. Examples of surface impoundments are
holding, storage, settling,, and aeration pits, ponds,
and lagoons.
(13) "Treatment"** means any method, technique, or process,
including neutralization, designed to change the
physical, chemical, or biological character or
composition of any hazardous waste so as to neutralize
such waste, or so as to recover energy or material
resources from the waste, or so as to render such
waste non-hazardous, or less hazardous; safer to
transport, store, or dispose of; or amenable for
recovery, amenable for storage, or reduced in volume.
*Revised definition, see rationale in Part IV of this document.
**Revised definition, see background document on definitions.
-------
II. NEED FOR REGULATION
A. Potential for Damage
In 1978, EPA published a preliminary survey of surface
impoundments and their effects on ground water quality-1 The
major findings of the study are summarized below:
0 There is a minimum estimated total of about 132,700
sites in the United States where municipal, industrial,
or agricultural impoundments are used for the treatment,
storage, or disposal of wastes. A large percentage of
the sites contain more than one impoundment, and EPA
expects that the total number of impoundments is several
times greater than the total number of sites.
0 Billions of gallons of wastes are placed daily in surface
impoundments. These wastes contain a wide variety of
organic and inorganic substances, some of which are
highly hazardous.
0 Most impoundments are unlined, and because a large
percentage of them are underlain by permeable soils, the
potential for downward seepage of contaminated fluids
into ground water is high. However, only incomplete
data are available on the volumes of surface impoundment
fluids that are lost by seepage into the ground water,
by evaporation, and by discharge to surface water bodies.
0 Some contaminants that seep from impoundments may be
attenuated by the soil by ion exchange, absorption, or
-------
other geochemical reactions. Others can move readily
through soil and into shallow, unconfined aquifers,
especially where the sorptive capacity of the soil is
exhausted by continuous seepage of contaminated fluids.
0 Incidents of ground-water contamination from impoundments
have been reported in nearly all states.
0 Case history studies generally show that the water in
shallow, unconfined aquifers is the first to be contaminated
by seepage of wastes from impoundments. The contaminated
ground water is generally in the form of a discrete
plume that may be localized or that may extend as much
as one mile or more downgradient from an impoundment.
0 Costs of preventive or remedial actions at individual
impoundment sites can range from tens of thousands of
dollars to millions of dollars.
An earlier EPA study^ of industrial waste disposal sites
monitored 50 sites; 20 of these sites used lagoons for treatment
and/or disposal of waste. The study determined that:
0 the ground water around 17 of the 20 surface impoundment
sites had concentrations of contaminants above background
levels
0 9 of the 17 surface impoundments with contaminated ground
water had one or more components exceeding EPA's Primary
Drinking Water Standards
0 11 of the 20 surface impoundments were onsite operations
0 17 of the 20 surface impoundments were still active at
the time of the study. Their ages ranged from 4 to 40+ years
-------
none of the 20 surface impoundments had any liner or
leachate collection system
As the above studies indicate, the movement of hazardous
wastes through a surface impoundment into the ground water has
contaminated ground water in numerous instances. Ground-water
contamination can cause serious damage to human health and the
environment. Ground water generally has little assimilation
capacity compared to the surface water which has such characteristics
as greater rate of flow, more mixing, and often larger volume.
Unlike streams, which can rebound from pollution conditions in a
few years, ground water does not experience the purifying effects
of air, light or aerobic biological activity. Instead, it flows
very slowly, receives less dilution, has essentially no oxygen to
degrade pollutants under aerobic conditions. Since the potential
for the ground water to recover from a polluted condition is very
low, a high degree of ground-water protection should be provided
by the regulations.
A preliminary report^ of the Surface Impoundment Assessment
conducted by EPA's Office of Drinking Water found that approximately
20% of the industrial impoundments are unlined and have the
potential for allowing contaminants to infiltrate unimpeded into
the subsurface. The report also indicates that about 95% of the
sites have virtually no ground-water monitoring and approximately
50% of the sites may have potentially hazardous constituents.
8
-------
However, surface water pollution incidents relative to
hazardous waste surface problems have also been caused in ways
not controlled through permits issued under the Clean Water Act.
For example, surface water contamination can result from breaks
in the dikes or overtopping, with subsequent spilling over of
hazardous wastes into the surface waters. Such incidents have
resulted in water contamination, fish kills, and degradation of
the stream. Contamination can also occur through direct contact
of surface water with a surface impoundment, particularly
during times of high water such as floods. In addition, surface
water contamination can also result from contaminated ground
water feeding surface water.
B. Reported Damage Incidents
The treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes in a properly
located, designed, constructed, operated and maintained surface
impoundment can be an environmentally sound waste management
practice. However, numerous incidents of damage have occurred
because of the improper location, design, construction, operation
or maintenance of such facilities. A few examples of such
incidents are described below:
Surface Water
0 A copper reclamation company operating in a mid-Atlantic
state from 1965 to 1969 bought industrial wastes from
other plants, extracted copper, and then stored the
remaining liquids in 11 cement lagoons. Three of these
lagoons developed open seams on the bottom from which
-------
pollutants seeped into an adjacent creek, which became
lifeless. Also, the plant grounds became reddish green
with sulfuric acid wastes. The county and state, after
prolonged litigation, finally had an injunction issued
to have all wastes properly treated. Rather than face
this expense, the company abandoned the site, leaving
the lagoons filled with 3-1/2 million gallons of
hazardous wastes, and leaving rusting drums of hazardous
materials strewn about the property- In April 1970,
heavy rains threatened to wash much of the wastes in the
lagoons into the Delaware River via the adjacent creek.
When overflow reached 25 gallons a minute, county
officials were forced to have the disposal site sandbagged
and a dike built to prevent further overflow. Had the
lagoons continued to overflow, the Trenton water supply
downstream would have been rendered unusable. Because
of this danger, and a steady underground seepage from
three of the lagoons, the state was forced to assume the
expense of cleaning up the site. At a cost of $400,000
the wastes were neutralized and dumped (in the ocean) in
1971. Although the wastes no longer poses a threat to
surrounding areas, the original plant site is still
contaminated and devoid of vegetation.3
Cn September 27, 1972, heavy rains broke the earthen
dike of a former refinery waste lagoon which is currently
owned by Pleasant Township. The released sludge entered
the Allegheny River and killed about 450,000 fish (with
10
-------
an estimated value of $75,000) along a 60-mile stretch.
Analysis of the discharge entering the river at that
time indicated the following: pH, 1.7; COD, 116,112 ppm;
iron, 507.3 ppm; sulfates, 56.5 ppm. Tb stop the leak,
the town built up the lagoon bank and has been
adding clean fill as available. Monitoring wells placed
near the lagoon show that the ground-water quality still
is degraded.^
On October 27, 1978, a waste storage lagoon on the
plant site of a Pennsylvania refining company broke,
spilling waste sludge containing oils, acid wastes,
and alkyl benzene sulfonate into the south branch of
Bear Creek, killing an estimated 4.5 million fish
valued at $180,000. Because the company was in poor
financial condition, only a little over $250,000 in
fines were levied to cover the damage.^
On June 10, 1967, a dike containing an alkaline
waste lagoon for a steam generating plant at Carbo, Virginia,
collapsed and released approximately 400 acre-feet
(493,400 cubic meters) of fly ash waste into the Clinch
River. The resulting contaminant sludge moved at a rate
of 1 mile per hour (1.6 kilometers per hour) for several
days until it reached Nbrris Lake in Tennessee, whereupon
it is estimated to have killed 216,200 fish. All food
organisms in the 4-mile ( 6.43-kilometer s) stretch of
river immediately below Carbo were' completely eliminated. 10
11
-------
On December 7, 1971, at a chemical plant site in
Fort Meade, Florida, a portion of a dike forming a waste
pond ruptured, releasing an estimated 2 billion gallons
(7.58 billion liters) of slime composed of phosphatic
clays and insoluble halides into Whidden Creek. Flow
patterns of the creek led to subsequent contamination of
the Peace River and the estuarine area of Charlotte
Harbor. The water of Charlotte Harbor took on a thick
milky white appearance. Along the river, signs of life
were diminished, dead fish were sighted and normal
surface fish activity was absent. No living organisms
were found in Whidden Creek downstream of the spill or
in the Peace River at a point 8 miles downstream of
Whidden Creek. Clam and crab gills were coated with the
milk^ substance, and in general all benthic aquatic life
was affected in some
A holding pond and tanks at a chemical manufacturing
plant in Saltville, Virginia, failed, spilling chlorine,
hypochlorities, and ammonia into the north fork of the
Holston River. River water samples showed concentration
levels at 0.5 ppm hypochlorite and 17.0 ppm of fixed
ammonia. Dead fish were sighted along the path of the
flow in the river- ^
In December 1973, overflow from a waste impoundment
at a chemical company in Clinton County, Pennsylvania,
caused pollution of Bald Eagle Creek, a tributary of
-------
the Susquehanna River. In addition to the degradation
of the stream quality, the overflow also saturated soil
around the bed of the Pennsylvania railroad, causing
derailment of several railroad cars. The prime contaminants
of the polluted waters were: chromium, copper, iron and
high BOD.15,25
A liquid industrial waste treatment and disposal
company in Portage County, Ohio has stored on its site
several thousand leaking barrels and a 300,000-gallon
cracked and leaking concrete storage tank. The site
presents a fire hazard from the improperly stored barrels
and chemicals and oils carried in rain water runoff from
the site present the possible contamination of a drinking
water reservoir. Some of the stored wastes include
acetone, MEK, toluene, latex, oils, hexachlorocyclopentadiene
and mirex. The cost to remove the wastes and secure the
site exceed $2 million.29
In Lowell, Massachusetts, a million gallons of
hazardous wastes, including solvents, waste oils, plating
wastes, toxic metals anc chlorinated hydrocarbons were leaking
from an abandoned toxic wastes disposal site. Rain water
runoff caused contamination of Concord River's aquatic
environment. Most of the wastes were removed at a cost to the
State of $1.5 million. Another $600,000 is needed to finish
the cleanup.29
-------
Seventy-five hundred drums of chemical wastes of unknown
composition are stored at an industrial site in Oswego,
New York. In addition, wastes have overflowed dikes at the
facility killing vegetation in an adjacent wetland. The
State appropriated $750,000 for remedial work, however,
bids for the cleanup were far above the amount of money
available.29
Pickling liquors mixed with lime escaped from improperly
lined lagoons in Butler, Pennsylvania. An estimated 400,000
gallons per day of liquid wastes with a pH of 2.6 contaminated
a nearby tributary of Raccoon Creek.29
Mercury leaching from lagoons on an industrial plant site
in Saltville, Virginia contaminated the Holston River. As
a result a fishing ban was imposed by the State. The company
has spent over $700 thousand to stabilize and protect the
lagoon levees. The remedial plan includes covering the lagoon
and diverting surface water at a cost of $4 million.29
Seven pits in Whitehouse, Florida covering seven acres were
filled with waste oil sludge contaminated with PCBs and
abandoned in 1968. In 1976 the levee of one of the pits
gave way and about 50,000 gallons of oily material was
released to McGirts Creek. In additon to PCBs, some of the
sludge was found to be highly acidic and contained high
concentrations of lead, zinc, and copper. Remedial actions
are being considered.29
H
-------
Heavy rains eroded a dike of a waste-storage pond
for hexachlorocylopentadiene owned by a chemical
company near Marshall, Illinois. The wastes
contaminated two tributaries which fed into the Wabash
and Ohio Rivers above Franklin, Illinois.29
A pit near Lisbon, Ohio that was used for the disposal
of neutralized spent pickling liquids began to leak in
1970. As a result fish were killed in nearby Wilson's
pond. In 1971, Wilson's pond overflowed into Little
Beaver Creek causing a major fish kill. As a result,
the company was required to install a collection system
and neutralization plant. In 1978 the site was again
causing contamination due to ammonia discharges. The
company will now be required to reclaim the area.29
A West Memphis, Arkansas oil company operated pits
for disposal of oily sludges for a waste oil recycling
operation. The 3.5 acre site is now abandoned and
subject to flooding. Oil has been released into surface
water. Further releases have been controlled by pumping
after each rain. Estimated cleanup is expected to be
between $700,000 and $1,000,000. The sludges contain
PCBs, cadmium, chromium, lead and zinc.29
A company operated a waste disposal facility in Wichita,
Kansas. In the early 1970's extensive air and water
pollution were caused by improper management practices.
Breached lagoons and contaminated runoff resulted in
\s
-------
numerous fishkills. The company paid a $10,000 fine for a
1976 fishkill, and claims to have spent $8.9 million on
site cleanup and implementation of a comprehensive
waste management program is complete. The Kansas Department
of Health and Environment and the EPA Regional Office
inspected the site and facility during the summer of
1979 and approved the clean-up effort.29
In 1979, a trucking firm in Kent, Washington violated
water pollution laws when its settling ponds, used to
filter liquid wastes out of its tanker trucks, overflowed
into an adjacent swamp. Surface water was contaminated;
groundwater had apparently not been affected.29
Mercury contamination from mercury mine tailings
ponds near Red Devil, Alaska are entering a stream.
Studies in the areas have shown that over time elemental
mercury is converted to the highly toxic methyl mercury
by bacteria. Methyl mercury then bioaccumulates in
aquatic life, rendering fish unfit for consumption.29
On March 11, 1977, a fire and explosion occured at a
remote housing development in Jefferson County near
Dittmar, Missouri. A portion of the property was used
to store barrels of waste, and liquid wastes were dumped
into a pit. After a nearby resident complained of strong
odors coming from the property, the State investigated
the site. Some of the containers had labels with the
1C*
-------
notations "Toxic", Lab Samples", " Herbicides" , "Corrosive",
etc. An analysis of the pit contents showed it contained
34,000 ppm of polychlorinatedbiphenols. A nearby creek
contained dead aquatic life and an oily film was found
downstream of the dump site. Total cost for clean-up is
estimated at $575,000.30
Ground Water
Four private wells in an eastern state were contaminated
with phenols in late 1972. The phenols had leached
from unlined disposal lagoons of a fiberglass
manufacturing operation. In January 1973, the phenol
concentration in one of the wells was 1.64 parts per
million (ppm). As a remedial measure, the leaking
lagoons have been emptied and lined disposal lagoons
have been installed. Recently, one of the affected
wells still had a phenol concentration of 0.138 ppm.4
Nitrate and nitrite contamination in several wells
at the Bangor Annex Naval installation in Kitsap
County, Washington, was discovered in March 1971
during routine sampling. The Navy then began a
program of monitoring 39 wells, 33 of which are off
the Annex. As a result, it was found that the shallow
perched aquifer underlying the area contained RDX and
TNT in concentrations of 5.2 ppm and 13 ppm,
respectively. The contaminants were also found to
have penetrated the soil underlying this aquifer to a depth
-------
approximately 260 feet above the main aquifer. The
contamination source was in an unlined settling basin
used to discharge wastewater from the washing of spent
bomb casings after removal of the insoluble solids. As
a remedial measure, the upper six inches of residue were
removed and incinerated in 1971 and the basin backfilled
with four feet of soil. An estimated 9,000 pounds of
RDX still remain in the soil of the basins. The U.S.G.S.
has released a final report on its study of the problem
which recommends that the site be covered with an
immpermeable material and drainage controlled on the
upgradient side. Currently, 11 wells are still monitored
in an operation which has cost the Navy $150,000 so far.
Final costs are estimated to approach 1 million dollars.^
A 1974 report stated that a lagoon on the Lexington-
Blue Grass Army Depot was found to be leaking and
contaminated underground water with cadmium.31
Unlined holding ponds containing complex mixtures of
chemical by-products from the manufacture of pesticides
and herbicides during the years 1943-1957 at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal near Denver, Colorado have been infiltrating
the shallow aquifer. To date, thirty square miles of
the shallow aquifer have been contaminated resulting in
the abandonment of sixty-four domestic, stock, and
irrigation wells. Soil and water in the vicinity of a
pond and a slough have become contaminated by the pesticides
aldrin and dieldrin.29
if
-------
Liquid and solid wastes from the manufacture of
pesticides and fertilizer products at a plant in
Lathrop, California have for years been dumped into
unlined ponds, a lined pond, ditches and other
disposal areas. The shallow groundwater which is
utilized by the Lathrop County Water District as well
as other domestic and public water supplies has become
contaminated with Dibromochloropropane (DBCP),
Lindane, and S,S,S-Tributyl phosphorotrithioate (DBF).
In addition, chemicals detected in the soil at the
facility or in the groundwater include: Chlordane,
Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Ethylene Dibromide, Dimethoate,
and DDT- Concentrations of sulfates and nitrates
found in production wells in the vicinity of the
facility also exceed the Regional Water Board's
limits.29
A fertilizer plant in Big Flats, New York discharged
waste nitrate material into a lagoon. Nitrates
contaminated the surrounding soil and ground water
resulting in nitrate levels above 100 ppm in
approximately twenty domestic wells. Residents were
forced to drink bottled water until a public water
supply line became available.29
Unlined lagoons in Whiteland Township, Pennsylvania
were used for the disposal of lithium. The resulting
-------
groundwater contamination caused the abandonment of
600 wells.29
Unlined lagoons of a manufacturing company in Berwick
Borough, Pennsylvania caused contamination of private
wells in the area. The lagoons were leaking plating
wastes containing cyanide, copper, nickel, alkylbenzene-
sulphonate and phosphate.29
Explosive residues have been found in wells in the
vicinity of industrial lagoons on an army ammunition
plant in Tennessee. The lagoons have received plant
process water since 1941, which contains residues of
TNT, DNT, RDX and "tetryl". As a result of the findings,
two water supply wells for the army installation were
closed and a survey of onsite and private wells downgradient
from the installation was instituted.29
Industrial waste holding ponds on a chemical company's
property adjacent to the Mississippi River in East Saint
Louis, Illinois received wastes from the mid 1960's
until 1974. Wastes dumped into the holding ponds included
phenols, nitrobenzene derivatives, sulfuric acid and fly
ash. In 1972 and 1974, tests of shallow wells at the
perimeter of the site showed phenol contamination.29
Solvents were dumped into unlined pits at a disposal
site in Woodbury Township, Minnesota until 1966. Test
drilling on the site found isopropyl ether concentrations
-------
of 4-5 ppm in shallow drifts and 0.11 ppm at a depth
of 100 feet. The pits have since been pumped out and
three wells are continuously pumped to stop the spread
of contaminants. The contaminated water is discharged to
a treatment system.29
An aluminum plant in Monroe County, Ohio grossly
contaminated the groundwater under its site with flourides,
high pH and other trace chemicals; the water was also
discolored. The source of contamination is leachate
from a used tailing pond and used potline pits.29
In 1979, high levels of chromate were found to have
contaminated drinking water wells in Riverside, Texas.
State officials believe that a leak in a cooling tower
basin at a private firm was the source of pollution.29
A Kansas City, Missouri chemical waste treatment/disposal
facility is located on the river-side of the flood
control level, at the confluence of the Missouri and
Blue Rivers. The facility was operated since the early
1960's and consisted of three disposal lagoons, a
neutralization basin and several storage tanks. The
site is located in sandy soil and groundwater contamination
has been documented. In July 1977, the State of Missouri
ordered the company to close, stabilize and cover the
lagoons. The closure plan has not yet been completed.
Additional groundwater monitoring is necessary to more
specifically define the extent of contamination.29
b?/
-------
A company which occupies 8,000 acres south of the American
River near Rancho Cordova/ California discharged waste
streams directly into an open pit. Sulfates, pesticides
and heavy metals from Cordova Chemical have been found
in an old dredge pit where these chemicals were dumped
over a 2-year period. TCE has also been found off-site.
There are 30-40 contaminated wells along Folsum Blvd.,
and one along the American River. At present a "sewage"
lagoon contains drums of unidentified wastes as well as
several unlined surface percolation ponds and defective
lined ponds receiving wastes. The State of California
has brought suit against these companies seeking remedial
actions.29
A research institute in Henderson, Nevada discovered
thirthion pesticides in a well 200 yards from the retaining
ponds of a chemical company.• Until 1973, the chemical
company had discharged the waste into unlined retaining
ponds. It corrected its disposal in 1973, and waste is
now put into lined pools for evaporation.29
A chemical company in Tacoma, Washington has recently
reported to the State of Washington and EPA Region X
that the groundwater at the plant site is contaminated
by chlorinated organic chemicals. The contamination
may be due to waste chemical migration from disposal
22.
-------
areas and lagoons on the plant site. Additional
groundwater monitoring is necessary to define the
extent of contamination.29
0 In 1978, private residential drinking wells near a
Spokane, Washington chemical plant were found to have
significant concentrations of cyanide. The apparent
cause of the contamination is the company's practice
of pumping liquid wastes containing cyanide into on-
site lagoons or directly into the ground. The cyanide
apparently migrated easily through the sandy flatland
which overlies the Spokane aquifer-^9
Surface Water and Ground Water
0 Chromium from a waste lagoon of a New Jersey company
contaminated a municipal well, at least one domestic
well, and a nearby stream in the 1960s. The company
had been in operation for about ten years before the
problem was recognized in 1970. At that time, a total
chromium concentration of 150 ppm was measured in one
of the wells 700 feet away from the waste lagoon. The
source of contamination has been eliminated, but the
plume of polluted ground water is still there. The
former municipal drinking water well is currently used
for industrial purposes only.6
0 Arsenic compounds, the byproducts of pharmaceutical
manufacturing operations, were discharged into sludge
lagoons behind a Pennsylvania plant prior to 1966. By
,23
-------
1966, the ground water in the vicinity of the plant
was contaminated with arsenic. The ground water in
the area discharges into Tupehocken Creek which downstream
contributes to Philadephia's water supply. Despite
persiste.it pumping of the ground water to reduce the
arsenic level, analysis of the creek water revealed an
arsenic concentration of 0.94 ppm in February 1975.
This is significantly higher than the"0.010 ppm arsenic
analyzed upstream from the plant site. Arsenic from
the ground water is also seeping into the Myerstown
municipal sewer lines and entering the treatment plant.
Arsenic has been detected at a concentration of 0.285
ppm in the sewage effluent, which now will require
upgraded treatment to reduce this level.9
A company in the business of reprocessing industrial
solvents stored still bottom sludge from a distillation
process in lagoons from 1955 to 1967. The water table
intersected the bottom of the unlined lagoons carrying
contamination downgradient, eventually to the
Quinnipiac River. In 1967, the lagoons were cleaned
out and filled. A public drinking water well was
installed in 1976 at some distance from the facility
but was later closed because contaminant concentrations
exceeded EPA drinking water standards.^4
Chemical wastes and septage were placed in trenches
and at least ten unlined lagoons at a sand and gravel
-------
pit near North Smithfield, Rhode Island. Groundwater
contamination by 1,1,1 trichloroethane and toluene has
been documented. In addition, analysis has shown that
trichloroethylene, benzene, toluent, ethyl benzene and xylene
were leaching into Tarklin Brook and Statesville Reservoir • ^9
Pickle liquors and organic wastes stored in a pit at
a treatment and disposal facility in New Beaver,
Pennsylvania resulted in the contamination of a nearby
pond and residential wells. Although the site was
cleaned-up at a cost of $300,000, the groundwater has
not been restored.29
A trucking firm in Lake County, Ohio that hauls bulk
chemicals washes residues from tank trailers into two
lagoons on its property. About 5,000 gallons of wash-
water, including phenols, organic solvents, phosphates
and suspended solids were added to the lagoons daily.
Wells on adjacent property were contaminated and
cattle refused to drink from a stream polluted by
effluent from the lagoons.29
In Harris County, Texas there is a 15 acre waste
disposal site that has been in use since 1965.
Approximately, 70 million gallons of acidic and oily
wastes were disposed into this unlined, abandoned sand
pit. The oily sludges and sediment of the pits
contain PCBs. In 1973, flooding of the San Jacinto
-------
^missions
River inundated the site and caused the dike to break.
Some of the oily sludges were released. The site was
again inundated in 1979. Drinking water wells are
contaminated and a nearby sand pit closed due to the
movement of toxic pollutants. The State has neutralized
the pH of the sludges as the first step of remedial action.
Substantial cleanup is required which may exceed $1,500,000
Annual production of organic lead waste from
manufacturing processes for alkyl lead in the San
Francisco Bay area amounts to 50 tons (45.4 metric
tons). This waste was previously disposed of in ponds
at one industrial waste disposal site. Attempts to
process this waste for recovery resulted in alkyl lead
intoxication of some plant employees in one instance;
in another instance, not only were plant employees
affected, but employees of firms in the surrounding
area were also exposed to an airborne alkyl lead vapor
hazard. Toll collectors on a bridge along the truck
route to the plant became ill from escaping vapors
from transport trucks. Currently, the manufacturers
that generate organic lead waste are storing this
material in holding basins at the plants pending
development of an acceptable recovery process.13
In April 1977, 14 children at a Columbus, Indiana
elementary school got sick after inhaling fumes from a
-------
nearby waste-disposal lagoon. Prior to the incident
xylene was dumped into the lagoon and began giving off
a sulfurous odor.32
0 A recycling company in Chester, Pennsylvania rec ^ved
drums of hazardous waste which were dumped on the
ground. The site is in a residential area and presents
a threat of fire and explosion with resultant toxic
fumes. The latest fire produced an acid mist. Site
clean-up which started in January 1980, may exceed $3 million.29
Fumes and Fire
0 In Antioch, Pennsylvania, a 55-acre site contained
several ponds containing sulfuric acid. When water
contacted the sulfuric acid in the ponds it reacted
violently (on several occasions) generating fumes that
required an evacuation of the entire city. The industrial
waste ponds have been dubbed "potential bombs" by fire
officials in the city. Their past efforts to cover the
pond with wood pulp and garbage made the site quicksand-like
and a potential fire hazard.15
0 On July 25, 1978, in Bayou Sorrel, Tiberville Parish,
Louisiana, a truck driver died while dumping a load of
chemicals into a open onsite pit. According to the
coroner's report, the cause of death was hydrogen sulfide
asphyxiation. The gas was generated by mixing of imcompatible
wastes. Approximately 16 million gallons of hazardous wastes
27
-------
have been disposed at the site to date. Surface drainage
from the pits is potentially discharged into Grand
River and other waterways.*5
Surface Water
A farm near Coventry, Rhode Island was utilized as a
repository for hazardous chemical wastes. Flammable
chemicals were dumped in ditch areas and approximately
20,000 55-gallon drums of chemicals were stored on the
farm. A substantial explosion and fire occurred in
late 1977. Subsequent to the explosion, surface water
contamination has been confirmed. Site clean-up costs
are estimated at $38 million.^9
Air and Surface Water
Near LaMarque, Texas is an unsecured, abandoned dump
site situated in a flood plain. The generator to this
site is a major chemical company. There are 88 drums
containing toluene, triethanolamine, acetic anhydride,
lead and mercury. Pits on the site contain oily
sludges. Analysis of these wastes reveal significant
concentrations of PCB, benzene, phenol, stryene,
trichloroethylene, chloroform, toluene, ethylbenzene,
and xylene. The site is causing air and surface water
pollution problems. Attempts at recycling the wastes
were halted due to vinyl chloride emissions. Costs
for containment are estimated to be at least $100,000
with cleanup expected to cost $1,500,000 to $4,000,000.29
28
-------
The damage incidents described above plus other similar cases
contained in the EPA internal files15 clearly indicate that
improperly located, designed, constructed, operated or maintained
hazardous waste surface impoundments can pollute usable aquifers
and surface waters creating public health and environmental
hazard.
III. SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The propose? regulations for surface impoundments were
specified in §250.43-3 of the proposed hazardous waste regulations
published in the Federal Register on December 18, 1978 (F.R.,
Vol. 43, No. 243). The surface impoundment regulations were
divided into the following subsections:
1. Site Selection
2. Hazardous Waste Suitable for Surface Impoundments
3. Design and Construction
4. Operation and Maintenance
5. Closure and Post Closure
In addition, certain requirements applicable to all
facilities, such as waste analysis and recordkeeping and reporting,
were specified in General Facility Standards, §250.43, of the
proposed regulations. Finally, these portions of the above
standards applicable to surface impoundments during interim status
were proposed in §250.40, Purpose, Scope, and Applicability.
The content of the proposed full set of surface impoundment
regulations is summarized below. It is followed by a summary of
the portions of those standards which were proposed as applicable
during interim status. Then a synopsis is presented of those
-------
portions of the General Facility Standards proposed as applicable
during interim status which are now addressed in the surface
impoundment interim status standards.
A. Summary of Proposed Full Status Regulations
1. Site Selection
The proposed regulations specified that:
0 the surface impoundment not be in direct contact with
navigable water
0 the bottom of the impoundment liner be at least five
feet above the historical high water table
0 the impoundment be at least 500 feet from a functioning
public or private water supply or livestock supply
0 landslides, slumping, and erosion be minimized
Variances to the second and third of these requirements
were allowed based on demonstration by a permit applicant
to the Regional Administrator that water contact or contamination
could otherwise be prevented.
2. Hazardous Waste Suitable for Impoundments
The proposed regulation prohibited:
0 ignitable, volatile, and reactive waste from being
placed in an impoundment unless it could be demonstrated
that airborne contaminants would not exceed certain
levels and the structural integrity of the impoundment
containment system would not be damaged through heat
generation, fires, or explosions
0 mixing of incompatible wastes in impoundments
0 placement of wastes which would be detrimental to the
3o
-------
impoundment containment system as determined by testing
of wastes for compatibility with liner materials used
in the impoundment
3. Design and Construction
The regulation required no discharge to ground or surface
waters. This was followed with a number of design and operating
requirements including:
0 minimum thicknesses and permeability of soil liners used
in the impoundment
0 specified liner designs
0 limitations on soil types acceptable for use in an
impoundment
0 minimum thicknesses, permeability and lifetime of
artificial liners used in the impoundment
0 a minimum soil cover (18 inches) over artificial liners
0 ground-water and leachate monitoring systems
0 minimum permeability of earthen dikes and a protective
cover to prevent erosion.
Variances to several of these requirements were allowed if
the permit applicant could demonstrate equivalent performance of
alternate designs to the Regional Administrator.
4. Operation and Maintenance
Requirements included:
8 maintenance of a specified minimum freeboard
0 keeping of records of contents and location of each
impoundment
0 maintenance of the integrity of the liners
-------
daily inspection of dikes and monitoring systems to
detect and correct any damage or deterioration
§• Closure and Post Closure
The proposed regulations required:
0 removal of all hazardous wastes and residuals and disposal
as a hazardous waste unless the impoundment meets the
requirements applicable to a landfill
0 for an impoundment which meets the requirements of a
landfill, all hazardous waste must be either:
- removed and disposed as a. hazardous waste, or
- treated to a nonflowing consistency, followed by closure
of the impoundment according to the landfill closure
requirements
0 filling of emptied impoundments with an inert fill material,
followed by seeding with a ground cover crop or conversion to
an alternative acceptable use
B. Summary of Proposed Interim Status Standards
The proposed interim status standards (§250.40(c)(21))
included the following portions of the above standards.
0 Keeping records of the contents and location of each
surface impoundment
0 Daily inspection of dikes and monitoring system to detect
and correct any damage or deterioration
0 Removal of all hazardous waste and residuals and disposal
as a hazardous waste unless the impoundment meets the
requirements of a landfill
0 For an impoundment which meets the requirements of a
-------
landfill all hazardous waste must be either:
- removed and disposed as a hazardous waste, or
- treated to a nonflowing consistency, followed by
closure of the impoundment according to the landfill
closure requirements of §250.45-2(c) and (d) of the
proposed regulation
0 Filling of emptied surface impoundments with an
inert fill material, followed by seeding with a suitable
grass or ground cover crop, or conversion to an alternative
acceptable use
In addition, the proposed interim status standards included
certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements which were applicable
to all facilities. These requirements were listed under the
heading of Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
in the proposed regulations and interim status standards.
Manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements applicable to
all facilities are described separately in §265.70 of the final
interim status standards.
The proposed recordkeeping and reporting requirements
included an operating log,
a record of the quantity and description of each waste received,
locations where each waste is treated or disposed and the methods
and dates of treatment or disposal, the results of the waste
analysis performed, monitoring data, reports of visual inspections,
and records of incidents requiring initiation of a contingency plan.
Finally, there were certain requirements proposed in the
full regulations for surface impoundment, but not in the proposed
33
-------
interim status standards, which the Agency feels should be added
to the interim status requirements.
The rationale the Agency has used in selecting those
standards to be applicable during interim status is described in
the preamble to the Part 264 and 265 regulations and the background
document entitled " General Issues Regarding Interim Status
Standards." Since the interim status standards apply prior to
the time a permit application is acted upon, the applicable
standards have been limited to those specific design and operating
conditions that are fairly straight forward and do not involve
tremendous capital expenditures.
However, the Agency believes that it is important to make
the interim status standards as comprehensive as possible.
Consequently, the following requirements from the full standards
have been added to those originally proposed to be applicable
during interim status:
0 Maintenance of a minimum freeboard in the impoundment;
0 Containment system consisting of protective cover for
earthen dikes;
0 Restrictions on placing ignitable and reactive wastes
in surface impoundments;
0 Restrictions on incompatible wastes in a surface
impoundment; and
0 Waste analysis.
IV. COMMENT ANALYSIS AND REGULATION RATIONALE
1. ISSUE; DEFINITION OF SURFACE IMPOUNDMENTS
A. Proposed Definitions
As proposed, "surface impoundment" means a natural topographic
depression, artificial excavation, or dike arrangement with the
-------
following characteristics: (i) it is used primarily for holding,
treatment, or disposal of waste; (ii) it may be constructed above,
below, or partially in the ground or in navigable waters (e.g.,
wetlands); and (iii) it may or it may not have a permeable bottom
and/or sides. Examples include holding ponds and aeration ponds.
B. Comments on Proposed Definition
1. Water impoundments in the direct stream of flow through
a process was'tewater treatment system should be
specifically excluded in this definition. The definition
for "basins" is sufficient to include waste oil pits,
skimming basins and other such installations related to
wastewater treatment byproducts.
2. Expand definition to make it clear that this term refers
exclusively to operations associated with hazardous
wastes, as opposed to all wastes.
3. Clarify definition to specifically state that structures
used for the sole purpose of spill confinement are not
surface impoundments subject to requirements under
Section 3004.
4. The distinction between "storage" and "impoundment" is
not clear. Impoundments are suitable and often used as
feed reservoirs for underground injection, which the
EPA refers to as "storage" prior to injection. Unless
definitions are greatly clarified, the requirement to
"store" only in tanks or containers is unreasonable and
should be deleted.
-------
5. In the definitions of surface impoundments and basins
at Section 250.41(b)(7) and 250.41(6)(85), respectively,
an effort is made to distinguish between types of
wastewater treatment units in order to allow different
levels of regulation. As currently written, the
definitions of basins and surface impoundments are
unclear, imprecise, arbitrary, and basically useless
for their intended purpose. Because of this, the proposed
definitions create potential major problems in applying
the regulations because the requirements under Section 3004
are much more stringent for surface impoundments than
basins and EPA's definitions are so vague. If EPA
intends for basins to be only aboveground tankage, they
should so state; the current definition with the term
"usually with a capacity of less than 100,000 gallons"
has no meaning whatsoever in terms of wastewater
treatment or, for that matter, solid waste disposal.
6. This definition should be modified to specifically
exempt dike arrangements around storage tanks. These
facilities are temporary storage facilities only and
primarily collect rainwater; in the event of a spill,
control and cleanup are covered by existing SPCC
requirements under the Clean Water Act. Any material
that could be considered a hazardous waste which would
enter the dike area would be removed expeditiously and
then at that point would enter the hazardous waste
disposal network. The dike arrangement itself is not a
36,
-------
storage or disposal facility and should not fall under
Subtitle C regulations.
C. Response to Comments
The Agency agrees with the comment stating that the surface
impoundments are used also as storage facilities. The confusion
resulted from the use of the term "holding" which can apply to
storage, treatment, or disposal. Therefore, the term "holding"
has been replaced by "storage" in respect to the "use" of surface
impoundments.
The Agency does not agree with comment No. 1, that the
impoundments in the direct stream of the flow through wastewater
treatment systems should be specifically excluded from the
definition. All surface impoundments regardless of their use, if
they contain hazardous wastes, have a potential for ground water
and surface water contamination especially if they are not properly
constructed or operated. Therefore, they should be regulated.
The Agency does not concur with the recommendation in the
comment which stated that the definition should refer exclusively
to the operations associated with hazardous wastes as opposed to
all wastes. The recommendation that the structures used for the
sole purpose of a spill confinement should be specifically exempted
from the definition, is similar to the recommendation in the
comment concerning dike arrangements around storage facilities.
The Agency believes that it would be an "unreasonable" interpretation
of the proposed definition to interpret such structures as surface
impoundments. The Agency does not believe that it can anticipate
and specifically exclude every such situation from the definitions.
-------
The Agency has made changes in the definitions of both
basins and surface impoundments which should eliminate the concerns
expressed that the definitions are vague and difficult to
distinguish. However, since the comment provided little specific
information on how the definitions should be changed, it is not
possible to determine whether the comment has been fully addressed.
D. Revised Definition
"Surface impoundment" or "impoundment" means a facility or
a part of a facility which is a natural topographic depression,
man-made excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen
materials (although it may be lined with man-made materials),
which is designed to hold an accumulation of liquid wastes or
wastes containing free liquids and which is not an injection
well. Examples of surface impoundments are holding, storage,
settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and lagoons.
2. ISSUE; NEED FOR RECORDS OF THE CONTENT AND LOCATION OF
EACH SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
A. Proposed Interim Status Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulations required owners/operators to keep
records of the contents and location of each surface impoundment.
This requirement was an extension of other general recordkeeping
requirements applicable to all facilities (§250.43-5).
There are several reasons for keeping such records. One is
to avoid accidental mixing of incompatible wastes. Over several
weeks, months, or years the contents of impoundments could easily
be confused by the owner/operator. If, as a result, incompatible
38
-------
wastes were mixed, environmental damages could result. Mixing of
incompatible wastes can result in fires, explosions, excessive
heat buildup, generation of toxic gases, or increased solubility
or mobility of hazardous waste constituents or byproducts. Such
reactions could endanger workers or population in the vicinity of
the facility (e.g., from toxic fumes), or they could damage the
facility liner or dike and result in release of hazardous wastes
to ground water or surface water.
The second purpose of records is to provide information
that could be useful in quickly resolving and correcting damage
incidents. For example, such records could aid in identifying
the specific source of contamination in ground or surface water
contamination at or beyond the site. They could help
identify the specific contaminants that could be leaking so that
the extent of potential public health damages could be assessed.
And they could help in determining the cause of the incident; for
example, types of wastes which may have caused a leak because of
incompatibility with the impoundment liner.
Since surface impoundments may be used for waste treatment,
it is essential that good records of impoundment contents be
kept. This will ensure that the wastes mixed in the treatment
process are properly identified and, therefore, will help avoid
accidents from improper mixing such as those discussed previously
for incompatible wastes .
Finally, such records could be useful at the time a facility
is closed. If wastes are removed from an impoundment, their
composition must be known to assure proper disposal and worker
safety. If they are to be treated as a part of closure, knowledge
-------
of their composition is essential to proper and safe treatment.
There is a precedent in state hazardous waste regulations
for keeping records of the contents and location of wastes in
impoundments. The current regulations of Texas16 and Oklahoma1**
for "ponds and lagoons" require maintenance of records on the
quality and composition of the waste treated or disposed of in
the facility-
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
Comment was received supporting the regulation as proposed.
However, comment was also received that surface impoundments
utilized for one type of hazardous waste should be exempted from
the requirement that records be kept of the content and location
of each impoundment, if the owner/operator can demonstrate that
these records are not necessary.
C. Response to Comments
The Agency agrees that the rationale presented above is
less compelling if an impoundment handles only one type of waste.
Compatibility and treatment would not seem to be issues, and
identification of damage sources would be greatly simplified. On
the other hand, the recordkeeping task in such situations would be
so greatly simplified that it hardly seems significant, and such
documentation could be very important under certain future
conditions. For example, a facility may deal with additional
types of wastes at a future date. Therefore, records of the type
of waste managed up to that time at the facility could be useful
to avoid compatibility problems. Furthermore, a facility could
change ownership. The type of records discussed above would be
useful in preventing compatibility problems, aid in safe closure,
-------
or could be utilized for identifying causes or sources of damage
incidents.
At impoundments receiving one type of waste, records can be
kept with a minimum of effort. There is no need for a detailed
day-by-day, impoundment-by-impoundment recordkeeping. An
owner/operator can simply record the location of the impoundment
once and maintain a record that a given type of waste is being
placed in the impoundment , until such time as the waste might
change. Thus, the Agency believes that for facilities managing a
single waste type, the recordkeeping requirement is greatly
simplified, and would have a negligible time and cost impact on
the owner/operator. The Agency does not believe exempting a
facility from such requirements represents sound environmental
management, and the final regulatory language was not changed
from that proposed. Because all hazardous waste facilities must
keep records on the types and placements of wastes, the recordkeeping
requirements for surface impoundments are included in the general
recordkeeping requirements for all facilities under Subpart E.
Furthermore, comments on the proposed recordkeeping requirements
are discussed in the background document dealing with the manifest,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
3. ISSUE; INSPECTION
A. Proposed Interim Status Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulations required that surface impoundment dikes
be inspected daily for the purpose of detecting and correcting
any deterioration. They also specified that any maintenance or
corrective action necessary to restore the dike to its original
condition can be accomplished expeditiously.
•H
-------
The reasoning behind the general requirement for all
facilities (including surface impoundments) to routinely inspect
their operations is discussed in the background document covering
the inspection regulations. In brief, the purpose is to detect
and remedy noticeable deterioration or malfunctions of facilities
and equipment before they result in public health or environmental
damages. Relative to surface impoundments, the primary objective
of the proposed regulation was to minimize the possibility of
impoundment dike failure by early detection of impending problems
and prompt corrective action upon detection of any dike deterioration.
The primary function of any surface impoundment dike is to
contain the liquids and sludges within the impoundment area and
to serve as a barrier between the contained wastes and the
environment. To serve its intended purpose, the dike should be
impermeable and structurally stable to prevent hazardous waste
seepage or release into the environment. The structural integrity
and impermeability of dikes can be adversely affected by improper
operation, erosion, deterioration over time, or simply structural
breakdown due to stress. As a result, a portion of the dike
could be washed away, develop cracks, or break, thus allowing
hazardous waste to be released into the environment.
The breaching of dikes is known to be one of the primary
sources of surface water pollution problems relative to hazardous
waste surface impoundments. A number of the damage cases presented
earlier in this document were the result of dike failure. Dike
failure can also cause ground-water contamination. If the soils
surrounding an impoundment are highly permeable, hazardous wastes
-------
released from the impoundment through slow leaks or rapid
discharges could quickly infiltrate into the area ground water.
Thus, detection, maintenance, or corrective action necessary to
restore the dike to its original condition should be accomplished
expeditiously to avoid potential ground-water and surface water
contamination.
The proposed requirement for daily inspection of dikes was
an extension of the general requirements for daily inspections
outlined in §250.43-6 of the proposed regulations. The rationale
for that proposed requirement is discussed in the background
document on facility inspection. In brief, the Agency felt that
daily facility inspections were necessary to ensure that
deterioration, breakdowns, or malfunctions did not result in
releases of hazardous wastes into the environment.
B* Comments on the Proposed Regulation
The following points were made by commenters:
0 Daily inspection is not necessary since dike failure is
a long term event, often with early warning signs.
0 Monthly inspection requirements would result in more
thorough inspection, since daily inspection would probably
be little more than a "drive-by" in practice.
0 A weekly or twice weekly inspection would be more
reasonable, particularly for facilities which are not
operated on weekends.
0 Daily inspection is not needed to assure physical
integrity of the facility. Should specify an inspection
schedule based on probability and seriousness of a failure,
for example, weekly for dikes.
-------
0 The section should be deleted and replaced with a
requirement that facilities be inspected as necessary to
detect any condition that would result in a violation of
the regulations.
C. Response to the Comments
As a result of comments received on the proposed general
inspection requirements (§250.43-6), the Agency has restructured
the inspection requirements.
The Agency believes that the commenters' suggestions for
less frequent inspections of dikes are well reasoned. The primary
purpose of dike inspections is to detect deterioration that would
lead to dike failure, or to quickly detect leaks before significant
quantities of hazardous wastes are released. Some types of
deterioration would normally occur slowly over several weeks or
months, so that a monthly inspection frequency would be adequate
to identify the problem.
As with any inspection program, the more frequent the
inspection, the better the chances for detecting potential problems
before they materialize. However, there is clearly a point of
diminishing returns regarding inspection frequency. The Agency
believes that minimum weekly inspections will be sufficient to
detect cracks or other problems and correct them before they
become serious and that the benefits of a daily inspection do not
justify the rigor of such an inspection schedule. As a commenter
suggested, it would be particularly burdensome for facilities not
operated on weekends. A commenter suggested that daily inspections
would probably be done in a cursory manner. If this were the
-------
case, a daily inspection would be less effective than a weekly
inspection. Consequently, the Agency believes that the weekly
inspections schedule suggested by several coramenters strikes an
appropriate balance between need and practicality. It should
provide ample protection of the environment against dike failure.
However, unusual rainfall events may cause significant
erosion of a dike. Under such circumstances, cracks in a dike
might occur in a few hours and potentially develop into a leak.
To ensure against such a problem, additional inspection may be
required during or as a result of an unusual rain event and should
be provided for in the inspection schedule or plan.
The proposed regulations only required inspection of dikes.
However, the Agency has decided to add an inspection requirement
with respect to the maintenance of freeboard. EPA believes that
the real potential for surface impoundment failure on a very
sudden basis (i.e., within a day) is from overtopping. This
potential is greatest when the surface impoundment is in operation
and receiving wastes. It is at this point in time when the
freeboard requirement may not be met because of
significant fluctuations in the level of the wastes. Therefore,
the final interim status standards require a daily inspection of
freeboard on those days when surface impoundment is in operation.
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.226 Inspections
The owner or operator must inspect: (1) the freeboard level
at least once each operating day to ensure compliance with
§265.222, and (2) the surface impoundment, including dikes and
-------
vegetation surrounding the dike, at least once a week to detect
any leaks, deterioration, or failures in the impoundment.
4. ISSUE; FREQUENCY OF VISUAL INSPECTION OF EQUIPMENT FOR
DETECTING A FAILURE OF THE IMPOUNDMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM
A. Proposed Interim Status Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulation required daily visual inspection of
any system provided for detecting the failure of a liner system
or natural in place soil barrier to ensure that it is operating
property for the purposes intended.
The objective of this specific inspection regulation was to
minimize the possibility of failure of the leachate detection
system (required in the proposed regulations) through routine
inspection. The daily inspection frequency was an extension of
the general requirements for daily facility inspections (§250.43-
6). See the background document on facility inspection for a
discussion of the daily inspection requirement.
In the proposed general status regulation, leachate detection
systems and ground-water monitoring systems were required to
detect any failure in a liner and any migration of waste to
to ground water. Periodic inspection of ground-water monitoring
equipment was not required, since in performing the ground-water
monitoring specified in the regulations, the equipment would
automatically be "inspected" as a part of its periodic use. Any
part of the sampling equipment (pump, pipes, etc.) that did not
function properly could be quickly replaced. However, the fact that
the leachate detection system would come into use only in a detection
mode during a problem occurrence suggested that it be periodically
inspected to ensure that it was in good working order.
ft-
-------
B. Comments on the Regulation
Comments on this issue were similar to those made relative to
inspection of dikes. Commenters made the following points:
0 Daily inspection in "unreasonable" or "unnecessary" to
provide adequate environmental protection. (No rationale
was included for this claim.)
0 The frequency should be based on the probability and
seriousness of a failure.
8 Daily inspection might be necessary only for "certain high
risk wastes."
0 Facilities should be inspected as necessary to detect any
condition that would result in a violation of the regulation.
In making these points commenters suggested frequencies of
weekly, biweekly, or monthly as alternatives to daily.
C. Response to the Comments
The Agency has made a determination to drop the requirements for
leachate detection systems in the interim status regulations. The
deletion of this requirement has been made because EPA believes
that many, if not most, existing surface impoundments are not
lined. It would be technically impractical and costly to require
such facilities to be retrofitted with liners. Because liners
are not required for surface impoundments under interim status,
there is little point in requiring leachate detection systems.
Inevitably, unlined existing surface impoundments are leaking and
there is little usefulness in requiring leachate detection systems
to detect existing leachate. Consequently, the requirement for
inspection of these systems has also been dropped. Since the
-------
inspection frequency is no longer an issue, no further response
to those comments is necessary.
5. ISSUE; MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM FREEBOARD
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulation required that the freeboard maintained
in a surface impoundment be capable of containing rainfall from a
24-hour, 25-year storm, but be no less than 2 feet. The requirement
was not included in the proposed interim status standards.
However, after further consideration the Agency has determined
that this standard meets the criteria established by the Agency
for interim status standards.
It is accepted engineering practice to design surface
impoundments with sufficient freeboard to protect against
overtopping by waves or precipitation, and most surface impoundments
already have 2 feet of freeboard. As discussed below, at least
six states already require the 2-foot freeboard required in
these regulations. As a result, an interim status freeboard
will not typically require large capital expenditures
by owners or operators, nor will it require interaction with the
Regional Administrator. For those facilities which do not meet
the minimum freeboard requirements, the minimum freeboard can be
established in a short period of time by such means as reducing
the quantity of waste or adding additional height to the dilces.
The objective of the proposed regulation was to prevent
spillover of hazardous waste from the impoundment with the
subsequent possibility of ground-water or surface water
contamination. Spillover of wastes in an impoundment could be
-------
caused by at least three types of events. For example, an
impoundment with inadequate freeboard could overflow if a pump
malfunctioned and failed to shut off or if an operator failed to
shut it off during normal operation. Freeboard allows a margin
of safety for such occurrences. If an impoundment has little or no
freeboard, wave action from a storm or from hydraulic turbulence
as a result of pumping could cause wastes to be washed over the
sides. Finally, a heavy rainstorm or continuous rain for an
extended period could raise the level in an impoundment and cause
it to overflow if freeboard were inadequate.
If hazardous wastes are washed over a dike by means of any
of the events discussed above, they could run into surface waters
or migrate into ground water if soils are sufficiently permeable.
Overflows are a significant potential source of surface water
pollution relative to hazardous waste impoundments. Part II of
this document contains damage cases which exhibit the kind of
damages that can result from overflows. Many less significant
overflows may never be reported.
One means of preventing the possible environmental damage
which could occur from impoundment overflows is to maintain a
sufficient freeboard to prevent or minimize the types of overflows
discussed above. Another technique is to provide backup dikes or
other systems to collect and contain or treat any overflow from
the primary containment structure. Finally, protection against
storms or overfilling could be provided by utilizing level controls,
pumps, and auxiliary impoundment capacity to automatically pump
-------
wastes out of an impoundment (e.g., during a storm or extended
rains) and either put it in another impoundment or treat and
discharge it in accordance with NPDES requirements. The latter
technique can also be used to help maintain a minimum of freeboard.
The States of Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Oregon, and New York are among the states with programs
for preventing ground-water and surface water contamination from
management of hazardous wastes. Each of these states requires a
minimum freeboard for surface impoundments. Texas-^,
Pennsylvania17, South Carolina26, and New York27 require a minimum
of two feet of freeboard for all hazardous waste "ponds and
lagoons." Oklahoma1^ and Oregon2** require three feet of freeboard.
California' s2^ regulations tie minimum freeboard to the greatest
anticipated 24-hour or six-day rainfall and wind conditions,
whichever is more restrictive.
Support for minimum freeboard of at least 2 feet can be
found in several technical documents. For example, a minimum 2-
foot to 3-foot freeboard is recommended in proceedings from a
symposium on upgrading of wastewater treatment plants . 2<-* A
minimum 2-foot freeboard is also recommended in proceedings from
a engineers handbook on water pollution2^- and in a wastewater
engineering textbook*2^
In developing a freeboard requirement in the proposed RCRA
regulations, the Agency considered all of the above information.
The Agency felt that a 2-foot minimum freeboard requirement was
adequate to address all of the potential avenues of spillover
with the possible exception of rainfall from highly unusual and
heavy storms. A minimum freeboard was deemed simpler, less
-------
costly, and more effective in preventing damages than a "backup"
dike system, and offered more complete protection than level
controls. (Level controls would by design be set at some minimum
freeboard anyway.)
Therefore, the Agency specified in the proposed regulation
that a minimum 2-foot freeboard must be maintained and also, that
freeboard must be sufficient to maintain the 24-hour, 25-year
storm. The latter requirement was intended to address the
possibility that a 2-foot requirement would be insufficient to
address such a storm occurrence. (A 24-hour, 25-year storm
occurrence was also used in other parts of the proposed regulation
as a "reasonable worst case" storm scenario.)
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
Commente»rs made the following points:
0 The 24-hour, 100-year storm should be used instead of
the 24-hour, 25-year storm (regulation should be more stringent.)
0 The 24-hour, 10 year storm should be used instead of the
24-hour, 25-year storm. (Rationale was not clear, but
seemed to suggest that the intent was consistency with
regulations under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act).
0 Requirements should be expanded to provide for total
containment in the wettest year of record superimposed
with a 24-hour.- 25-year storm while maintaining at least
a 2-foot freeboard at the end of the occurrence (No
rationale provided).
0 The Agency should remove all requirements for any specific
freeboard.
51
-------
0 The proposed requirement does not take into consideration
the fact that some companies are allowed to discharge,
through their NPDES permitted outfalls, the difference
between rainfall and evaporation. In those regions of
the country where rainfall exceeds evaporation, any requirement
for total rainfall containment would be an economic
hardship on the industry of that region. Further, the
requirement would have the net effect of modifying the
effluent limitations guidelines for certain categories,
like bauxite refining, without going through procedural
steps mandated under the Clean Water Act.
C. Response to Comments
The Agency has reconsidered the impacts of the 24-hour, 25-
year storm and found that it is a less stringent requirement than
the proposed 2-foot minimum freeboard.
The 24-hour, 25-year storm produces a maximum equivalent of
less than 12 inches of rain in 24 hours.25 Consequently, the
Agency felt that this was a redundant and unnecessary part of the
regulation.
Similarly, the 2-foot minimum requirement also overrides a
24-hour, 10-year storm and the 24-hour, 100-year storm suggested
in the comments.25 Therefore, the Agency sees no need to maintain
the storm requirement unless there is a need for the requirements
to be additive, that is, maintenance of 2 feet of freeboard during
a 24-hour, 25-year storm. Since a key purpose of the freeboard
is to contain such a storm, this additional protection does not
appear warranted. Having less than 2 feet of freeboard during a
5*2.
-------
storm does not present a problem as long as the precipitation is
contained, and the facility is expeditiously returned to having a
minimum 2 foot freeboard.
A similar rationale applies to a commenter's suggestion
that total containment be provided/ sufficient to include
(additively) precipitation from the wettest year on record, a 24-
hour, 25-year storm, and a minimum 2 feet of freeboard. No
specific rationale for the requirement was provided in the comment.
However, this comment raises an issue of how freeboard can be
maintained if precipitation exceeds evaporation and the impoundment
is not otherwise leaking or discharging. If an owner/operator
has no mechanism for controlling the level in the impoundment,
presumably it would rise continuously under such conditions, even
if no wastes were being added to it.
To control this situation, the Agency believes that many
impoundments will have to be equipped with some mechanical means
of level control in order to maintain freeboard and prevent
overflow of wastes. For example, impoundments will either have
to have an effective mechanism for level control, such as NPDES
permitted discharge system, or a mechanism for pumping wastes to
another (surge) pond or basin, or a means of collecting any overflow
(e.g., through secondary dikes) and containing or treating it.
However, the Agency prefers to give owners/operators the flexibility
of maintaining the 2 feet of freeboard in any legal way they
choose. Consequently, the Agency has rejected specifying either
level controls or a freeboard sufficient to maintain both storms
and continuous rains over a period of time.
5-3
-------
Another commenter suggested that there should be no minimum
freeboard requirements for NPDES permitted facilities allowed to
discharge the difference between precipitation and evaporation.
If rainfall were the only issue addressed by the freeboard
requirements this would perhaps be a valid approach for those
particular facilities with such capability. However, freeboard
also provides a margin of safety against overflows from pump
malfunctions or operator errors and against wave propagation from
pumping or windstorms. In order to provide protection from
overflows due to these occurrences and to provide an additional
margin of safety during sudden storms the Agency believes that a
minimum freeboard is essential.
In view of the above considerations, the Agency has maintained
the requirement of a minimum 2-foot freeboard for surface
impoundments, but has dropped the reference to the 24-hour,
25-year storm.
The Agency believes that in order to prevent overtopping
and maintain the appropriate freeboard, a surface impoundment may
require the use of a conduit, pipe, or other conveyance for the
discharge of excess wastes. In fact, many treatment systems
consist of two or more impoundments in series, allowing for
aeration or other treatment and settling of solids while the
cleaner fluid flows to the next impoundment. If these wastes are
discharged to waters of the United States, they are subject to
the NPDES requirements of the Clean Water Act. EPA is concerned
about the owner's/operator's awareness of the interface of such a
discharge with the Clean Water Act requirements. Therefore, EPA
-------
has provided an informational comment to the general operating
requirements stating that any such discharge to waters
of the United States is a point source subject to the requirements
of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. Also, the comment further
states that a spill from an impoundment may be subject to Section
311 of the Clean Water Act.
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.222 General Operating Requirements
A surface impoundment must maintain enough freeboard
to prevent any overtopping of the dike by overfilling,
wave action, or a storm. There must be at least 60
centimeters (2 feet) of freeboard.
[Comment: Any point source discharge from a surface
impoundment to waters of the United States is subject
to the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water
Act, as amended. Spills may be subject to Section
311 of the Act.]
6. ISSUE; PROTECTIVE COVER FOR DIKES (Containment System)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulation required that all earthen dikes
have a protective outside cover (e.g., grass, shale, or rock) to
minimize wind and water erosion.
The requirement was not included in the proposed interim
status standards. However, upon reexamination the Agency has
determined that this standard meets the criteria established by
the Agency for interim status standards. Protective cover for
earthen dikes is considered to be standard engineering practice,
55
-------
and many impoundments already have such a cover. Therefore, the
Agency does not believe that a substantial capital cost, or any
interaction with the Regional Administrator, will be necessitated
by this requirement.
The objective of this regulation is to help maintain the
structural integrity of a dike. The potential consequences of
failure to provide adequate protection against erosion by wind
and water is the deterioration of structural stability, possibly causing
breaching of the dike and subsequent release of hazardous wastes
to the environment.
All soils used in dikes will require some type of protection
in zones subject to turbulence and agitation. Such zones can be
created by wind-induced wave action, inlet and outlet increased
hydraulic activity, and aerator agitation. Turbulent zones occur
around the discharge areas where wastes enter the impoundment, at
recirculation pumping stations, and areas around the influent and
effluent connections.
Erosion protection on the interior dike walls can be provided
by cobblestones, broken or cast-in-place concrete, wooden bulkheads,
asphalt strips, etc. The erosion protection selected should provide
both control of shorelines and control of aquatic growth. Exterior
slopes of the dike are also subject to erosion by wind and rain and
require stabilization by a protective cover (e.g., grass, rocks, etc.).
B. Comments on Proposed Regulation
The only comment received on this regulation expressed
support for it as proposed, but did request that EPA point out
-------
that the purpose of protective cover is maintenance of the
structural stability of the dike.
C. Response to the Comments
The Agency believes that the comment provides a very good
and important point. The intention of the proposed regulation
was the protection of the structural integrity of an earthen
dike. However, adding language to manifestly effect the
commenter's suggestion will make this intention more explicit.
Consequently, the final regulatory language specifies the
requirement for preserving the structural integrity of an earthen
dike.
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.223 Containment System
All earthen dikes must have a protective cover, such as
grass, shale, or rock, to minimize wind and water erosion and to
preserve their structural integrity.
7. ISSUE; RESTRICTION ON INCOMPATIBLE WASTES
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulation prohibited placing incompatible
wastes (as defined in Appendix I of the proposed regulation) in
an impoundment.
The requirement was not included in the proposed interim
status standards. However, upon reexamination the Agency has
determined that this standard meets the criteria established by
the Agency for interim status standards.
-------
The objective of the proposed regulation was to prevent
reactions between incompatible wastes that could harm facility
personnel, emit hazardous air contaminants to surrounding
populations, or damage the structural integrity of the impoundment.
Mixing of hazardous wastes that are not compatible with each
other in hazardous waste surface impoundments can result in
environmental problems such as fires and explosions, excessive
heat generation, or production of toxic gases.
For example, mixing alkaline wastes which contain cyanide
and sulfide with acidic wastes will release toxic HCN and H^S
vapors into the environment. Uncontrolled mixing of concentrated
acidic and alkaline wastes could result in violent reactions and
excessive heat generation and subsequent environmental problems.
Mixing of hazardous wastes containing highly reactive components
(e.g., oxidation-reduction agents and organics, etc.) could result
in explosions and fires.
In order to prevent such occurrences, the Agency proposed a
prohibition on placing such wastes together in an impoundment.
The types of wastes which, if mixed, could cause such reactions,
were defined in Appendix I of the proposed regulation.
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
The restriction on incompatible wastes in the proposed
regulations went beyond surface impoundments. Similar restrictions
were included in the proposed regulations for all treatment and
disposal facilities under §250.45, standards for landfills under
§250.45-2, and standards for basins under §250.45-5. The background
documents dealing with those standards contain additional analyses
of comments on this issue.
-------
Those comments which were directed specifically toward
prohibitions on incompatible wastes in surface impoundments are
as follows :
0 Support for the regulation as proposed.
0 Some surface impoundments are designed for treatment of
wastes, such as addition of lime to acid wastes for
neutralization, addition of a reactant for chemical
destruction, etc. Where the impoundments are properly
designed for treatment, such treatment should not be
prohibited.
8 This section as written will prevent controlled
neutralization of certain wastes.
0 Prohibiting the mixing of incompatible waste will prevent
the controlled mixing of incompatible wastes for
beneficial mixing of incompatible wastes for the purpose of
treatment. Neutralization was mentioned in several comments as
such a practice. It was pointed out that such treatment can be
carried out without posing hazards.
The Agency agrees with the comments and has modified the
regulations to allow the mixing of potentially incompatible wastes
or incompatible wastes and materials. This treatment must be
carried out in such a way that it will not generate excessive
heat, or pressure, flammable fumes or gases in sufficient quantities
to pose a risk of fire or explosion, fires or explosive reactions,
violent reactions, toxic mists or dusts, or any reaction that
would damage the structural integrity of the
-------
impoundment or damage human health or the environment. Appendix V
of the final interim status regulation gives examples of pairs of
incompatible wastes which either must not be mixed or which can
be mixed with proper safeguards. It also now includes an expanded
discussion of incompatible wastes, including concerns for increased
solubility and mobility, and the mixing of acids with water and
acids with bases.
D. Final Regulatory Language
Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials,
(see Appendix V for examples) must not be placed in the same
surface impoundment, unless §265.17bis complied with.
8. ISSUE; RESTRICTION ON PLACING IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTES
IN A SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulations, 250.45-3(b), prohibited placing
ignitable, reactive, or volatile waste in a surface impoundment
unless certain conditions in a variance were met as specified in
§250.45. The variance required that it be demonstrated that
airborne contaminants would not exceed a specified concentration,
and that there would be no damage to the structural integrity of
the facility.
This regulation was not included in the proposed interim
status standards. However, after reexamination, the Agency has
determined that it meets the criteria established by the Agency
for interim status standards.
The objective of the proposed regulation was to prevent
damages to the public health and the environment which could
-------
result from fires or explosions in a surface impoundment. Placing
ignitable or reactive wastes in an impoundment presents three
potential problems. One problem is the contamination of the air
through volatilization, since most ignitable and some reactive
wastes have relatively high vapor pressures.
A second problem is that ignitable and reactive wastes can
explode or burn easily, injuring the personnel at the facility
and releasing toxic fumes into the air that can reach surrounding
populations and cause personal and property damage.
The third problem is that fires, or explosions caused by
ignitable and reactive wastes, can damage the structural integrity
of the impoundment and cause rupturing of a dike or liner with
subsequent leaks of hazardous wastes into the ground-water or
surface water. For example, many synthetic liners could be melted
by a fire, and almost any liner could be ruptured by an explosion.
In the proposed regulations, the Agency stopped short of a
complete ban on placing ignitable and reactive wastes in surface
impoundments by providing a variance in a note to the regulation.
The variance would have allowed placing these wastes in impoundments
as long as the permit applicant could provide assurance that the types
of potential damages mentioned above would not occur, i.e.,
excessive volatilization and damages from fires or explosions.
The purpose of the variance was to provide flexibility to facility
owners/operators as long as the practice could be carried out
with minimal potential for damages to public health and the environment.
(.1
-------
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
The restriction on ignitable, reactive, and volatile wastes
in the proposed regulations went beyond surface impoundments. A
general restriction on placement of such wastes in landfills,
surface impoundments, basins, and landfarms was included in
§250.45-2 of the proposed regulations. Standards for landfills
under §250.45-4, and landfarms under §250.45-5 also contained
such a restriction. The reader is referred to the background
documents on these regulations for further analysis of comments
on this issue.
Those comments received which were directed specifically
toward restrictions on ignitable and reactive wastes in surface
impoundments are as follows:
0 Support for the regulation as proposed.
0 Prohibiting storage of ignitable and volative wastes in
impoundments is unreasonable. It will seriously impact all
refineries and disallow use of storm water surge ponds.
0 Petroleum refineries maintain emergency wastewater
retention ponds and storm water retention ponds which
may on occasion contain volatile oils and/or sulfides.
Oil spill contaminant ponds are encouraged by EPA under
Spill Prevention Control Coordination (SPCC) plans, and
these emergency and storm ponds are necessary in water
quality control. EPA should make allowance for such
special situations.
0 Ignitable waste (e.g., inorganic oxidizers) that could
be a hazard in a facility where wastes are indiscriminantly
-------
mixed present no hazard in an impoundment (in aqueous
solution) if minimal good management practices are
followed. The only alternative, incineration, would
likely cause greater environmental damage than placement
in a surface impoundment, where seepage to ground water
presents no known or reasonably conceived harmful consequence.
0 Onsite impoundments are readily controlled to accept
"reactive" waste containing sulfides. The degree of
danger of acidification is the same as it would be in a
closed container. Prohibiting such use of impoundments
and requiring liners for full containment is unreasonable
and unwarranted.
0 There should not be a complete prohibition on any quantity
of ignitable, reactive, or volatile waste. Such wastes
have been handled without major incident. Some quantitative
limitation should be placed on the exclusion, to allow
continued handling of small volumes of these materials
without having to "prove the negative" specified in the
note to the standard.
C. Response to Comments
Germane to the discussion of the comments above is the fact
that the Agency, in response to comments on the variance in §250.45(c)
dealing with volatility, has found it necessary to defer any
requirements relative to controls on volatiles. Similarly, the
variance in 250.45(c) regarding concentration of airborne
contaminants has been deferred and will be reconsidered when the Agency
addresses restrictions on volatile wastes.
(.3
-------
Several commenters suggested that the "prohibition" was
unreasonable/ and they seemed to have overlooked the note to the
standard which allowed for a variance to the prohibition if
certain conditions were met. One of these conditions was that
the concentration of airborne contaminants not exceed a specified
level, a requirement that has now been deferred. The other condition
was that the owner/operator demonstrate that the structural
integrity of the contaminant system would not be damaged.
Although specific comments were not received on this latter
condition of the variance, the Agency did receive a number of
comments broadly addressing the subject of "note" in the regulations.
These comments frequently criticized the notes as being too vague
and not providing sufficient guidance on what would constitute
adequate compliance.
The final interim status regulation is based on the premise
that ignitable or reactive wastes can be handled safely in an
impoundment if "good management practices" are followed, and that
the clearest example of good management practice would be to
render the wastes nonignitable or nonreactive before, or immediately
after, placement in the impoundment. To allow a broader variance
for "good management practice" would not be sufficient to assure
protection against damages unless other types of acceptable good
management practices could be specified. The only practice which
the Agency feels it can define as acceptable at this time is the
practice mentioned above.
The comment regarding quantity limitations to allow handling
of small quantities of ignitable or reactive wastes is already
-------
addressed in the regulations. Subpart A of the final regulations,
§265.l(b), defines a small quantity cutoff, a generation rate
below which wastes are excluded from the requirements of these
interim status regulations. The background document on small
quantities discusses the rationale for the cutoff selected for
ignitable and reactive wastes. The Agency believes that waste
quantities above this limit must be managed in accordance with
the requirements of the regulations. Since the comment on this
issue presented no recommendations for what such quantity
limitations should be for surface impoundments, it is not possible
to determine whether the quantities the commenter had in mind are
within the limit defined in Subpart A.
Commenters also argued that the proposed regulation would
place an unreasonable restriction on storm water surge ponds and
other emergency wastewater retention ponds at oil refineries.
The comments also pointed out that such ponds are encouraged by
EPA under SPCC plans and that they are necessary in water quality
control.
The Agency agrees that such storm surge ponds and emergency
retention ponds are necessary. Further, it would not be possible
to address the conditions associated with these ponds, since the waste
enters the impoundments under emergency circumstances. Consequently,
the Agency has included this special situation as a variance to
the restriction on ignitable wastes.
Finally, comment was received that some "onsite" impoundments
are readily controlled to accept certain reactive wastes (such as
those containing sulfides). The Agency concludes that such types
-------
of reactive wastes can be properly managed in an impoundment if
they are kept separated from those substances with which they
react. This type of control in effect renders the waste to be
nonignitable or nonreactive. Consequently, the final regulation
includes an allowance for this condition by requiring the waste
be treated or rendered non-ignitable or nonreactive prior to or
immediately after entering a surface impoundment.
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.229 Special Requirement for Ignitable or Reactive Waste
Ignitable and reactive wastes must not be placed in a
surface impoundment unless:
(1) The waste is treated, rendered, mixed prior to or
immediately after entering the impoundment so that
(i) the resulting waste, mixture, or dissolution of
material no longer meets the definition of ignitable
or reactive waste under §§261.21 or 261.23 of this
chapter; and (ii) §265.17(b) is complied with; or
(2) the surface impoundment is used solely for emergencies.
9. ISSUE; CLOSURE AND POST-CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
A. Proposed Interim Status Regulations and Rationale
The proposed regulations contained four separate requirements
regarding closure and post closure. They required that, upon
closure:
0 all hazardous waste and residuals must be removed from
the impoundment and disposed of as a hazardous waste,
unless the impoundment meets the landfill requirements
under §250.45-2 of the proposed regulation.
-------
0 for those impoundments which do meet the criteria for
landfills, the hazardous wastes and residuals could be
either removed and disposed as a hazardous waste, or
treated to a nonflowing consistency followed by closure
of the impoundment as a landfill,
0 emptied surface impoundments must be filled with an
inert fill material and seeded with a grass or other
cover crop or converted to another acceptable use.
0 surface impoundments closed as a landfill must meet all
post closure requirements for landfills under §250.45-2(d).
The objective of the above regulation was to prevent
environmental damage from improper closure by only allowing
retention of hazardous wastes and hazardous residuals in impoundments
which were designed and constructed to contain hazardous components
on a long term and permanent basis.
The proper closure of surface impoundments is essential for
protection of public health and the environment. The hazardous
waste or hazardous waste residuals (e.g. liners saturated with
hazardous wastes) remaining in the impoundment after its active
life can become a major source of environmental problems if the
facility fails to contain these wastes.
The damage cases described earlier in this document show
that hazardous wastes in a surface impoundment can be a major
source of environmental damage due to failure of the containment
system and subsequent leaks into the ground water or surface
water. The cost of restoring aquifers after they become contaminated
is prohibitive, and the potential for the ground water to recover
-------
from polluted conditions is generally very low. Consequently, proper
closure of a facility after its useful life is essential in order
to protect public health and the environment.
Leaving waste unattended in an impoundment after closure
could result in a high probability of ground water contamination.
For example, the potential for infiltration of the liner by the
wastes would exist as long as liquid remained in the impoundment.
The hydraulic head created by the waste would promote infiltration.
Rain falling on the facility would continually add liquid which would
both add to the hydraulic head and/or migrate through the liner
materials, possibly carrying with it hazardous constituents. It
is also possible that any synthetic liners used in an impoundment
could ultimately deteriorate after prolonged contact with the waste.
In view of these points, the proposed regulation required
that all hazardous wastes and residuals be removed from an
impoundment. An exception was provided for those impoundments
with a containment system designed in accordance with landfill
requirements.
However, even with such a containment design, the standing
liquid in the impoundment would have to be eliminated in order to
support and to prevent infiltration of precipitation. Thus, the
regulation required that all liquids be treated to a nonflowable
consistency and that the facility be closed in accordance with
landfill closure procedures, which include a properly maintained
cover.
The primary reason that an emptied impoundment was required
to be filled with an inert material was to prevent conversion to
-------
an open dump since the emptied impoundment might be filled with
anything, including trash or other waste. Filling an impoundment
with an inert material would also add to the potential for future
productive use of the land and prevent the accumulation of rainfall
or snow melt in the empty impoundment.
Finally, the proposed regulation required that all post-
closure provisions for landfills be applicable to closed surface
impoundments, since the need for post-closure care would be
identical in either case. The rationale for post-closure
requirements for landfills is presented in the background document
dealing with that subject.
The comments on the proposed closure requirements and
responses to those comments are presented below, organized by
major issues. The final regulatory language for the complete
closure requirement is presented after all comments are discussed.
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
1. Closure as a Landfill
0 Section 250.45-3(e)(2) is inconsistent. It provides for
the removal and disposal of hazardous waste upon final
closeout of impoundments which meet the landfill criteria
under 250.045-2. Assuming that the impoundment meets
the criteria for a landfill, there is no reason to remove
the hazardous waste.
0 The proposed rules should clarify what requirements must
be met for the permanent disposal of hazardous waste in a
surface impoundment.
-------
0 By its nature, a surface impoundment cannot comply with
all regulations of a landfill, therefore, the requirements
which must be met, especially at closure, should be set
forth more explicitly in the regulation.
0 The requirement that waste be removed if a surface
impoundment meets the criteria for a landfill is not
reasonable because if the landfill requirements are met,
closure as a landfill should be allowed.
0 Section 250.45-3(e)(2)(ii) should be clarified so that an
impoundment can be converted to a landfill either at
closure or gradually during the life of a facility by
sectioning off portions of a facility.
0 The requirements for surface impoundments and landfills
should be made more compatible in recognition of fact
that most surface impoundments are designated for
permanent waste disposal. Such categorization would be
more in line with the intent of the Act, which is to
conserve resources and protect the environment.
0 The regulation should allow permanent disposal in any
basin, impoundment, or other facility which meets the
landfill provisions for protection of ground water, or
for existing facilities which can be shown by monitoring
to protect ground water.
2. Feasibility and Desirability of Waste Removal
0 Support the regulation proposed.
0 In cases of metal mining, given the relatively large
size of impoundment, heavy machinery would have to enter
-------
an impoundment to remove the waste. This would create
substantial risk to human health and environment in
several ways, i.e., increase the risk of damage of
structural integrity of impoundment, increase the possibility
of damage to the liner, and increase direct human exposure
to hazardous waste. After removal, hazardous waste
would have to be transported elsewhere for final
disposition, thus increasing hazard to human health and the
environment because of greater amounts of handling and
movement of hazardous waste.
0 Naturally occurring substances, such as crude oil placed
in surface impoundments, should not be included under
landfill requirements of Section 250.45-2. Crude oil,
where covered and worked into soil during closure of
facility, should fall under the land treatment Section
250.45-5 of the proposed regulation. Crude oil will
biodegrade by natural action and will not harm human
health and the environment.
0 If EPA retains the provision for removal of wastes, this
requirement should be emphasized in the preamble.
Surface impoundments, basins, and chemical, physical,
and biological treatment facilities as described in the
draft regulations should be strongly described as being
"intermediate" facilities.
3. Filling of an Impoundment Where Waste Has Been Removed
0 Why is inert fill material specified? There may be
situations in which it would be desirable to partially
"71
-------
fill large impoundments with material which is not inert,
reserving soil materials only for final cover. Change
regulations to read: "... shall be filled, graded, and
seeded..."
c The implication of this paragraph is that a new "inert"
material must be brought in to replace the excavated waste.
An alternative closure method for impoundments with
above-grade dikes is to push the dike into the excavated
space and level the area. The dikes are, in effect, the
"inert" material. The regulation should allow other
construction techniques, such as filling and leveling
with old dike material, in addition to filling with
"inert" material.
0 For generator owned onsite and offsite facilities,
delete this requirement. If hazardous materials have
been removed, there is no necessity for fillings.
C. Response to Comments
1. Closure as a Landfill
Apparently several commenters misinterpreted the closure
options presented in the regulation. The regulation did offer as
an option that a surface impoundment which met the criteria for a
landfill could be closed as a landfill without removal of the waste.
Commenters requested clarification on the specific criteria
that a surface impoundment would have to meet in order to comply
with the closure stipulations in the proposed regulation. One
commenter correctly pointed out that it was not possible for a
surface impoundment to comply with all landfill criteria.
-------
It is evident that the proposed regulation was read by many
commenters to allow existing surface impoundments to close as
landfills under interim status only if they met the proposed
general standards for design and construction of landfills as
well as the standards for closure. Understandably, this drew
strong objections. Such a requirement was not applied to landfills
closing under interim status, and it was not intended to be
extended to surface impoundments. Although it was not well
reflected in the text of the proposed regulation, the Agency's
intent was to require surface impoundments closing under interim
status as landfills to meet only the interim status requirements for
closure of landfills, that is, the closure and post-closure care
requirements for landfills. The present regulations have been
restructured along these lines.
Furthermore, those facilities which will be granted interim
status under these regulations will be existing facilities which
were designed (in most instances) before the proposed regulations
were promulgated. Thus, establishing equivalence with landfill
standards after the fact is both difficult and impractical.
Therefore, the Agency has decided to drop the requirement
of equivalence to landfill criteria as a condition for closing a
surface impoundment without removal of the waste.
Instead, the present regulations allow more flexibility
than the proposed interim status standards. To avoid closing as
a landfill, the owner or operator must remove all hazardous wastes
and residues from the surface impoundment, including (unless he
can show that they are non-hazardous) the impoundment liner (if
-------
any) and underlying and surrounding contaminated soil. However/
the choice whether to remove these materials or to close as a
landfill is up to the owner or operator (subject to the approval
of the Regional Administrator under Subpart G). In addition, the
owner or operator may choose to remove only part of the hazardous
materials and then close as a landfill.
Finally, a comment suggested that the regulation should
allow for gradual closure of a surface impoundment by diking off
a section at a time. The Agency believes that the regulation
does not preclude such a procedure as long as the specific closure
plans are approved by the Agency.
2. Feasibility and Desirability of Waste Removal
The Agency does not agree that removal of waste and waste
residuals would pose a greater environmental threat than permanent
disposal within the impoundment. The probablity of ground water
contamination if wastes remain in an impoundment is evident from
the damage cases presented earlier in this document. On the
other hand, hazardous waste and waste residuals can be removed
from surface impoundments without significant environmental risk.
A number of existing surface impoundments are being periodically
dredged (e.g., settled sludge removed) without known environmental
problems. This, for example, is a commonly used operational
practice for flow-through settling ponds, which would otherwise
quickly lose their capacity if the periodic sludge removal were
not performed.
The comment that waste removal may require a large amount
of time and money is valid in some situations. However, there should
-------
be cases where waste removal is more feasible and cost-effective
than leaving the wastes in place with closure as a landfill. For
those circumstances where complete removal of the wastes is
prohibitively expensive, the regulations provide the owner or
operator with alternatives such as partial removal of wastes and
closure as a landfill or leaving the wastes in place and closing
as a landfill. The purpose of this flexible approach is to
provide the owner or operator with a wide choice of alternatives,
while still assuring adequate protection of human health and the
environment from any hazardous wastes remaining in the impoundment
after closure. The owner or operator's choice of closure plans
may depend in substantial part on just how much material will
have to be removed from the impoundment. The determination of
the amount of material to be removed will be a function of the
amount and mobility of the remaining hazardous wastes, judgments
as to the precise nature of the cover materials needed, and the
post-closure care required. The determinations for closure are
ultimately subject to the approval of the Regional Administrator.
Similarly, the response to the specific comment on metals
mining and processing is largely the same. However, the points
made in that comment regarding damage to the liner and structural
integrity of the impoundment appear not to be relevant. Since the
waste is being removed, the need for maintaining the containment
system no longer exists. The liner itself, particularly a soil
liner, may be contaminated with hazardous wastes, making removal
desirable.
75"
-------
The commenter, who suggested that crude oil should be
exempted from the surface impoundment regulations regarding waste
removal, argues that crude oil worked into the soil should fall
under the land treatment regulations. Since waste crude oil is
not listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart A of the final
regulation, it would not be covered by these regulations unless
it fails one of the criteria of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity,
or toxicity. However, if it is a hazardous waste, the Agency is
skeptical that working it into the soil of a surface impoundment
is an acceptable practice. It is conceivable that a permit
could be obtained to operate a closed surface impoundment
as a land treatment facility. Only under those circumstances
could this commenter's suggestion be carried out. This approach
could be suggested in the owner/operator's closure plan. If the
approach is sufficiently protective, it would be viewed favorably-
Although it was not specifically questioned by any of the
commenters, the Agency believes that it is necessary to clarify
the term "waste residues" in the proposed regulation. The Agency
intended waste residues to include those slimes, sludges, and
similar solids and semi-solids that may accumulate at the bottom
of an impoundment containing liquid wastes. These residuals may
contain very high concentrations of hazardous materials, and in
some cases should be removed and disposed of as a hazardous
-------
waste along with the other hazardous wastes contained in the
impoundment.
Consideration of how to specifically define waste residues
also raised the issue to the Agency of hazardous constituents of
waste that may migrate into a soil liner or natural in-place
soil. Depending on the permeability of such soil, it could, at
least in its upper portions, become highly contaminated with
hazardous constituents. Contamination could extend through the
soil to ground water in some instances.
Such contaminated soil, particularly the highly contaminated
portions, could present a significant danger to public health and
the environment in some instances if left in place and/or not
shielded from infiltration of water. Movement of water through
the soil could cause leaching of contaminants. The probability
of ground water or surface water contamination actually occurring
from such contaminated soil depends on a variety of site specific
factors.
The Agency believes that such factors should be considered
by the owner or operator determining whether a portion of the
soil liner or in-place soil should be removed and disposed along
with the hazardous wastes and waste residues. This would also
become an important aspect for consideration by the Regional
Administrator in the evaluation of the closure plan.
Since the potential for leaching of contaminants from
contaminated soil or waste residuals depends on the infiltration
of moisture, that potential can be reduced or eliminated by
appropriate capping of the site with a cover to minimize
•77
-------
infiltration. The Agency believes that this option should be
considered in the development of a closure plan.
In view of all of the above comments and considerations,
the Agency decided to modify its requirements regarding total
removal of wastes or total removal of hazardous wastes from a
surface impoundment as a closure option.
The new approach affords the flexibility of considering
each facility on a case-by-case basis. In evaluating each closure
plan the Regional Administrator will consider a number of factors
specific to that site which define the adequacy of the proposed
closure procedures to protect human health and the environment.
3. Filling of an Impoundment Where Waste Has Been Removed
Upon review of the comments which questioned the need for
fill in an impoundment where all the wastes have been removed,
EPA has re-evaluated its position. The Agency believes that if
all the wastes have been removed, any subsequent addition of fill
material will not provide any greater protection of human health
and the environment. As a result, the requirement for adding
fill material has been dropped in these regulations for impoundment
which has had all of the hazardous wastes removed. Furthermore,
the Agency agrees with the comments regarding the requirement
that "inert" fill material be used. Few native soils are truly
inert, and the requirement was probably overrestrictive.
Comments also suggested that dikes could be pushed in and
leveled after waste removal. The final regulations do not preclude
this. The pushing in of dikes may be addressed in the closure
plan and/or may be required by the Regional Administrator
depending upon the site-specific situation.
78
-------
In summary, the Agency has adopted a more flexible closure
regulation which provides a greater opportunity for consideration
of site specific factors in designing a closure plan which will
be protective of public health and the environment.
These regulations provide flexibility for closure requirements
and allow the wastes to be left in place. The owner or operator
may elect to remove standing liquids, waste and waste residues,
the liner (if any) and underlying and surrounding contaminated
soil. If any of the above constituents remain in the impoundment,
the owner or operator must both close the impoundment and provide
post-closure care as for a landfill. The closure requirements will
ultimately depend upon the quantity and characteristics of the
hazardous constituents remaining in the impoundment. The major
requirement for an impoundment to be closed as a landfill is that
the waste which remains in the impoundment must be capable of
supporting the final cover. This may be accomplished by a
combination of removing wastes (e.g., the liquid portion) and
treating the residues (e.g., further dewatering, evaporation, or
chemically stablizing or solidifying the residues).
It should be noted that the closure and post-closure
requirements are interim final. The reason for this is because
the landfill closure requirements have changed significantly from
the proposed interim status requirements. Inasmuch as the surface
impoundment closure requirements defer in part to the landfill
closure requirements, the Agency believes it is only appropriate
to indicate that these closure requirements are interim final.
This will provide an opportunity for the Agency to receive and
review comments on the closure requirements.
71
-------
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.228 Closure and Post-Closure [Interim Final]
(a) At closure, the owner or operator may elect to remove
from the impoundment:
(1) Standing liquids;
(2) Waste and waste residues;
(3) The liner, if any; and
(4) Underlying and surrounding contaminated soil.
(b) If the owner or operator removes all the impoundment
materials in paragraph (a) of this Section, or can demonstrate
under §261.3(f) of this Chapter that none of the materials
listed in paragraph (a) of this Section remaining at any stage
of removal are hazardous wastes, the impoundment is not further
subject to the requirements of the Part.
[Comment: At closure, as throughout the operating period, unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance with §261.3(c) or (d]
of this Chapter, that any solid waste removed from the surface
impoundment is not a hazardous waste, he becomes a generator of
hazardous waste and must manage it in accordance with all applicable
requirements of Parts 262, 263, and 265 of this Chapter. The
surface impoundment may be subject to Part 257 of this Chapter
even if it is not subject to this Part.]
(c) If the owner or operator does not remove all the
impoundment materials in paragraph (a) of this Section, or does
not make the demonstration in paragraph (b) of this Section, he
must close the impoundment and provide post-closure care as for a
-------
landfill under Subpart G and §265.310. If necessary, to support
the final cover specified in the approved closure plan, the owner
or operator must treat remaining liquids, residues, and soils by
removal of liquids, drying, or other means.
[Comment: The closure requirements under §265.310 will vary with
the amount and nature of the residue remaining, if any, and the
degree of contamination of the underlying and surrounding soil.
Section 265.117(d) also permits the Regional Administrator to
vary post-closure requirements.]
s\
-------
10. ISSUE; DEFINITION OF LINER
A. Proposed Definition
As proposed, "liner" means a layer of emplaced materials
beneath, a surface impoundment or landfill which serves to restrict
the escape of waste or its constituents from the impoundment or
landfill.
B. Comments on Proposed Definition
1. It is not clear whether requirements using this term
would result in the appropriate barrier on the sides as
well as the bottom of the impoundments and landfills.
Revised definition to read: "liner" means a layer of
emplaced materials (i) beneath or on any of the sides
of a surface impoundment or landfill, (ii) on the sides
or bottom of a surface impoundment or landfill, (iii) on
any of the sides of a surface impoundment or landfill...to
restrict the escape of waste or its constituents from
the impoundment or landfill.
2. Definition is inadequate. "Beneath" should be expanded
to include sides in all cases and top in others. A
liner may encapsulate an entire disposal cell.
3. "Liner" is not defined adequately. By referring to
§250.45-3(c)(3), one can see that a liner is not confined
to "...beneath a surface impoundment...."
4. "Liner" should be defined to include emplaced materials
inside storage tanks, and containers, in accordance
with §250.44(h).
82-
-------
5. The definition should be broadened by specifying that
it includes not only emplaced materials, but naturally
occurring materials which may be found beneath a surface
impoundment or landfill. The permeability requirement
could in many cases be satisfied by naturally occurring
materials which are already in place.
6. Definition should be modified to allow the acceptance
of in-place materials provided the permeability rate is
-7
less than 10 cm/sec.
7. Modify definition to read "... continuous layer...,"
and "...restrict the downward and lateral escape...."
C. Response to Comments
Liners are not required for interim status surface
impoundments. The Agency believes that most existing surface
impoundments are not lined, and it would be impracticable to
require such. Therefore, there is no need to define "liner" in
the interim status standard for surface impoundments. As a
result, no response is required.
11. NEW DEFINITIONS
A definition of "dike" was not included in the proposed regulation
and no comments were received on this point. An understanding
of the term "dike" is essential for meeting the general operating
requirement for freeboard as well as the containment system
requirements. Therefore, EPA has defined the term "dike" for
final interim status. The term "dike" means an embankment ridge
of either natural or man-made materials used to prevent the
movement of liquids, sludges, solids, or other materials.
-------
V. REFERENCES
1. Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on Groundwater Quality
In the United States - A Preliminary Survey. EPA, 57019-78-004,
1978.
2. The Prevalence of Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Chemical
Substances at Selected Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites,
EPA/5301 SW-6341, Oct. 1977.
3. Personal communication. H. Page Fielding, Delaware River
Basin Commission, to Alice Giles, Office of Solid Waste,
April 1975.
4. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection files,
Trenton, New Jersey.
5. Bureau of Water Quality Management files, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resourcs, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
6. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection files,
Trenton, New Jersey.
7- Tracy, J.V., and N.P. Dion. Evaluation of Groundwater
Contamination from Cleaning Explosive-Projectile Casings at
the Bangor Annex, Kitsap County, Washington, Phase II. U.S.
Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations 62-75,
Open-File Report, 1976. p. 44.
8. Personal communication. Edward Simmons, Harrisburg Regional Solid
Waste Director, Bureau of Land Protection, Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources, to Robert Weems and Alice Giles,
Office of Solid Waste, Spring, 1975.
9. Personal communication. Edward Simmons, Harrisburg Regional
Solid Waste Director, Bureau of Land Protection, Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, to Robert Weems and Alice
Giles, Office of Solid Waste, Spring 1975.
10. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste.
Disposal of Hazardous Waste; Report to Congress.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
Preliminary Assessment of Cleanup Costs for National Hazardous
Waste Problems" 1979.
-------
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
internal file.
16. Texas Water Quality Board, Industrial Solid Waste Management,
Technical Guide No. 4 (Ponds and Lagoons) .
17. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Solid Waste
Management Rules and Regulations, Title 25.
18. Oklahoma State Department of Health, Guidelines for Controlled
Industrial Waste Surface Disposal Sites, Chapter V. Ponds and
Lagoons.
19. Upgrading Wastewater Stabilization Ponds to Meet New Discharge
Standards, pg. 25. Symposium Proceedings sponsored by Utah Water
Research Laboratory, College of Engineering,, Utah State
University and by EPA, ORD, November 1974.
20. Process Design Manual for Upgrading Existing Wastewater
Treatment Plants, U.S. - EPA Technology Transfer, October 1974.
21. B.C. Liptak: Environmental Engineer's Handbook, Vol. 1, Water
Pollution.
22. Stevens Company, sales brochure, p. 3.
23. State of California, State Water Resources Control Board, Waste
Discharge Requirements for Nonsewerable Waste Disposal to Land.
Disposal Site Design and Operation Information.
24. Wastewater Engineering: Collection, Treatment, Disposal.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, File on
Hazardous Waste Damage Cases.
26. South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control,
Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, R. 61-79.4.
27. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Solid Waste
Management Facility, Content Guidelines for Plans and
Specifications.
28. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Rules Applicable to
Hazardous Waste Facilities.
29. Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Material Sites, Oil
and Special Materials Control Division, U.S. Evironmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Feb. 1980.
30. Missouri Hazardous Waste Survey Report, Missouri Department
of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, Missouri, Aug. 1979.
31. Jim Detjen and Jim Adams, "5 Military Installations in Kentucky,
Indiana Have Their Problems". The Courier-J6urnal, Louisville,
Kentucky, 1979.
32. Jim Detjen and Jim Adams, "Industrial Wastewater Leaking from Lagoons
Can Be Problem". The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 1979.
-------
-Appendix - Final Regulatory Language
Subpart K - Surface Impoundments
§265.220 Applicability
The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and operators
of facilities that use surface impoundments to treat, store, or
dispose of hazardous waste, except as §265.1 provides otherwise.
[§265.221 Reserved]
§265.222 General operating requirements*
A surface impoundment must maintain enough freeboard to
prevent any overtopping of the dike by overfilling, wave action,
or a storm. There must be at least 60 centimeters (2 feet) of
freeboard.
[Comment: Any point source discharge from a surface impoundment
to waters of the United States is subject to the requirements of
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended. Spills may be
subj'ect to Section 311 of that Act.]
§265.223 Containment system*
All earthen dikes must have a protective cover, such as
grass, shale, or rock, to minimize wind and water erosion and to
preserve their structural integrity.
[§265.224 Reserved]
§265.225 Waste analysis and trial tests*
In addition to the waste analyses required by §265.13,"
whenever a surface impoundment is to be used to:
(1) Chemically treat a hazardous waste which is substantially
different from waste previously treated in that impoundment; or
8C.
-------
(2) Chemically treat hazardous waste with a substantially
different process than any previously used in that impoundment;
the owner or operator must, before treating the different waste
or using the different process:
(1) Conduct waste analyses and trial treatment
tests (e.g., bench scale or pilot plant scale tests); or
(2) Obtain written, documented information on similar
treatment of similar waste under similar operating conditions;
to show that this treatment will comply with §265.17(b).
[Comment; As required by §265.13, the waste analysis plan must
include analyses needed to comply with §§265.229 and 265.230.
As required by §265.73, the owner or operator must place the
results from each waste analysis and trial test, or the documented
information, in the operating record of the facility.]
§265.226 Inspections
The owner or operator must inspect:
(1) The freeboard level at least once each operating day
to ensure compliance with §265.222, and
(2) The surface impoundment, including dikes and vegetation
surrounding the dike, at least once a week to detect any
leaks, deterioration, or failures in the impoundment.
[Comment; As required by §265.15(c), the owner or operator must
remedy any deterioration or malfunction he finds.]
[§265.227 Reserved]
87
-------
§265.228 Closure and post-closure [Interim Final]
(a) At closure/ the owner or operator may elect to remove from*
the impoundment:
(1) Standing liquids;
(2) Waste and waste residues;
(3) The liner/ if any; and
(4) Underlying and surrounding contaminated soil.
(b) If the owner or operator removes all the impoundment
materials in paragraph (a) of this Section, or can demonstrate
under §261.3(f) of this Chapter that none of the materials listed
in paragraph (a) of this Section remaining at any stage of
removal are hazardous wastes, the impoundment is not further subject
to the requirements of this Part.
CComment; At closure, as- throughout the operating period, unless
the owner or operator can demonstrate, in accordance with §26l.3(c)
or (d) of this Chapter, that any solid waste removed from the surfao
impoundment is not a hazardous waste, he becomes a generator of
hazardous waste and must manage it in accordance with all appli-
cable requirements of Parts 262, 263, and 265 of this Chapter. The
surface impoundment may be subject to Part 257 of this Chapter even
if it is not subject to this Part.]
(c) If the owner or operator does not remove all the impound-
ment materials in paragraph (a) of this Section, or does not make
the demonstration in paragraph (b) of this Section, he must close
the impoundment and provide post-closure care as for a landfill
-------
under Subpart G and §265.310. If necessary to support the final
cover specified in the approved closure plan, the owner or
operator must treat remaining liquids, residues, and soils by
removal of liquids, drying, or other means.
[Comment; The closure requirements under §265.310 will vary with
the amount and nature of the residue remaining, if any, and the
degree of contamination of the underlying and surrounding soil.
Section 265.117(d) allows the Regional Administrator to vary
post-closure care requirements.]
§265.229 Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste*
Ignitable or reactive waste must not be placed in a surface
impoundment, unless:
(1) The waste is treated, rendered, or mixed before or
immediately after placement in the impoundment so that (i)
the resulting waste, mixture, or dissolution of material no
longer meets the definition of ignitable or reactive waste
under §§261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and (ii) §265.17(b)
is complied with; or
(2) The surface impoundment is used solely for emergencies.
§265.230 Special requirements for incompatible wastes*
Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials,
(see Appendix V for examples) must not be placed in the same
surface impoundment, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.
[§§265.231 - 265.249 Reserved]
8=1
------- |