BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

       40 CFR Part 265,  Subpart M
      Interim Status Standards for
       Land Treatment Facilities
Developed pursuant to Section 3004 of the

  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

          Office of Solid Waste

              April 30, 1980

-------
                      TABLE OP CONTENTS

                                                               Page

I.    Introduction	  1

     A.   Purpose and Scope of the Land Treatment
          Background Document	  1

     B.   RCRA Mandate for the Regulation	  2

     C.   Key Definitions	  3

II.   Need for Regulation	  5

     A.   Description of the Land Treatment Process	  5

     B.   Environmental Problems Associated with
          Land Treatment	  6

          1.     Surface Water Contamination	  7

          2.     Air Emissions	  7

          3.     Ground-Water Contamination	  10

III. Synopsis of Proposed Land Treatment Standards
     of December 12, 1978	  11

IV.   Comment Analysis and Rationale for the Final
     Regulations	  14

     A.   Changes in Terminology and Definitions	  14

          1.     Changes in Terminology	  14

          2.     Changes in Definitions	  15

     B.   General Comments to the Proposed Land
            Treatment Standards of December 18, 1978	  21

          1.  Issue:  Should land treatment be
                      allowed as a method to manage
                      hazardous waste? 	  21

          2.  Issue:  Should land treatment of
                      highly toxic wastes or environ-
                      mentally persistent organics be
                      allowed? 	  23

          3.  The land treatment regulations are not
              adequate with respect to monitoring and
              testing protocols	  25

-------
     c.
          4.  Issue:  Opposition  to v.- ~i  aces  in
                      the  standards  .   	
          5.  Issue:



          6.  Issue


          7.  Issue
          8.  Issue
            The regulations
            on performance
            ting and design

            Crude oil shoul«
            the land treatm<

            The land treatm
            are based largel
            oily wastes, an<
            priate for othe:

            Preserving land
            objective	
it
1
it

it
aid be based
er than opera-
airements	
Page


 25



 26
 exempted from
regulations	  27
regulations
a control of
e inappro-
stes	
.s  not an RCRA
          9.  Issue:   Land  treatment
                       be based  on deg:
                       by the  waste...
                             •.c  Lations  should
                             :e  3f  hazard  posed
Specific Comments to the  Prc
Standards of December  18,  1<

1.  Issue:  Surface water ri

2.  Issue:  Waste analysis.

3.  Issue:  Growth of  food-c

4.  Issue:  Soil monitoring

5.  Issue:  Recordkeeping ai

    Issue:  Closure	
                                       )C
                                       '£
   ad  Land  Treatment
                                       ia  n crops
 29


 31



 32


 33

 33

 39

 40

 64
          6.
          7.  Issue:  Prohibitions on :
              and  incompatible wastes
   2 porting	   84

   	   86

   table,  reactive,
V.   References 	

VI.  Appendices

     A.   Interim  Status  Standards

     B.   Summary  of  Texas  and  Oklahor
          [Treatment] Guidelines
                                                       97

                                                       102
                                .id Treatment
                                           *
                                and Cultivation
                                 ii

-------
I.   INTRODUCTION



     A.   Purpose and Scope of the Land Treatment Background



          Document



          Pursuant to authorities in Subtitle C of the Resource



Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, EPA has promulgated interim



status standards for treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in



land treatment facilities.  This document provides the rationale



for the standards which have been established.



          Draft regulations on this subject were proposed for



public comment on December 18, 1978 (43 FR 58946-59028).  Numerous



comments on this proposal were received at public hearings and as



written responses.  Synopses of the comments and the Agency respon-



ses to all of the comments received relative to the final interim



status standards for land treatment are addressed in Part IV of



this document.



          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 definitions used in their development.  Part II,



Need for Regulation, explains the basic public health and the environ-



mental rationale supporting a need for regulation in this area.



Part III, Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation, summarizes the



regulation as proposed.  Part IV, Comment Analysis and Regulation



Rationale, comprises the major portion of this document.  It



presents the comments received on the proposed regulations and




the Agency's responses to those comments.  These responses reflect



the rationale used in establishing the proposed standard and the

-------
final rationale for maintaining that standard or altering it in



view of the comments received or any new information which has



been obtained.  It then presents the final regulatory language



resulting from this analysis.



     B.   RCRA Mandate for the Regulation



          Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation



and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976  (P.L. 94-580), requires the



Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 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 and the



environment.  Section 3004 further requires that these standards



are to include, but need not be limited to, requirements respect-



ing:   (1) location, design, construction, and operation of such



facilities;  (2) treatment, storage, or disposal of all hazardous



waste received pursuant to such operating methods, techniques,



and practices as may be satisfactory to the Administrator; and



(3) maintenance of records of hazardous wastes treated, stored,



or disposed, along with satisfactory reporting, monitoring, and



inspection.  Land treatment facilities used for the treatment or



disposal of hazardous wastes are covered by this mandate.



          Subtitle C of the Act, specifically §3005(e), also




provides for a period of interim status to owners and operators



of existing facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal of



hazardous wastes.  Interim status applies to that period between



the effective date of the Section 3004 treatment, storage, and



disposal regulations and the date on which a permit is issued

-------
pursuant to Section 3005 of the Act.  Section 3005 provides that



after the effective date of the regulations, treatment, storage,



and disposal shall not be carried out except in accordance with a



permit issued pursuant to Section 3005.  However, it also estab-



lishes that persons who have applied for a permit, but whose



applications have not been acted on by the time the regulations



become effective, shall be granted interim status.



          A complete rationale for establishing interim status



standards and responses to the public comments on that subject are



presented in the background document entitled "General Issues



Regarding Interim Status Standards."



          This background document on interim status standards
                                           i


for land treatment addresses the standards applicable to land



treatment facilities during the time a facility is granted interim



status.



     C.   Key Definitions



          The following are key definitions pertinent to the



standards applicable to land treatment facilities.  Definitions



that have changed as a result of public comment or internal Agency



decisions are footnoted and the rationale for the changes are



referenced.



          "Active portion"* means that portion of a facility



where treatment, storage, or disposal operations are being or



have been conducted after the effective date of Part 261 of this



Chapter and which is not a closed portion.  (See also "Closed



Portion" and "Inactive Portion.")
* Revised definition, see background document on definitions.

-------
          "Constituent" or "hazardous waste constituent" means a


constituent which caused the Administrator to list the hazardous


waste in Part 261, Subpart D, of this Chapter, or a constituent


listed in Table 1 of 261.24 of this Chapter.


          "Food-chain crops" means tobacco, crops grown for human


consumption, and crops grown for feed for animals whose products


are consumed by humans.


          "Ground water" means water below the land surface in a


zone of saturation.


          "Hazardous waste" means a hazardous waste as defined in


§261.3 of this Chapter.


          "Incompatible wastes"* means a hazardous waste which is

                      i

unsuitable  for:


                  (i)  Placement in a particular device or facility
                                    i

                      because it may cause corrosion or decay of


                      contaminant 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.


                  (See Part 265, Appendix IV, of th%s Chapter for


                  examples.)
* Revised definition,  see  background document on definitions

-------
          "Land treatment facility"''' means a facility or part of

a facility at which hazardous waste is applied onto or incorporated

into the soil surface; such facilities are disposal facilities if

the waste will remain after closure.

          "Run-off" means any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid

that drains over land from any part of a facility.

          "Run-on"  means any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid

that drains over land onto any part of a facility.

          "Unsaturated zone" or the "zone of aeration" means the

zone between the land surface and the water table.

II.  NEED FOR REGULATION

     A.   How Land Treatment Achieves Environmental Control

          Land treatment is a waste management practice that

involves application of waste onto the soil and/or incorporation

of the waste into the soil, usually in thin layers or applications.

Land treatment facilities frequently utilize common farm practices

such as tilling, contouring, and erosion control techniques.  Farm

equipment is often used to plow or disk the waste into the soil,

and nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers are often added to enhance

microbial degradation of the waste.

          The soil in a land treatment facility functions as both

a biological treatment medium and a physical-chemical filter

medium.  The efficacy of the soil as a waste treatment medium

depends upon maintaining conditions that promote and enhance the
t Formerly "landfarm," revised definition, see discussion in
  Part IV(A)(1) of this document.
  New definition, see background document on definitions.

-------
survival of soil microorganisms.   In addition, certain physical
parameters of the soil must be maintained in order to maximize
the physical-chemical immobilization of inorganic waste
constituents.
          Theoretically, the  soil  has unlimited capacity to
biodegrade nonpersistent organic waste constituents as long as
acceptable conditions are maintained.  In contrast, the capacity
of the soil to physically-chemically filter and immobilize inor-
ganic and persistent organic  waste constituents, even with careful
management, is finite.  Ultimately, any soil used as a chemical-
filter medium will become saturated with nondegradable waste
               »
constituents.  Such a dynamic treatment system requires careful
management during operation,  as well as long-term monitoring and
maintenance if contaminants are to be prevented from migrating to
surface or ground water.  If  appropriate operating and design
parameters are followed, land treatment can be an environmentally
acceptable method for treating certain types of hazardous wastes.
     B.   Potential and Actual Environmental Damages
          Land treatment of hazardous waste is a relatively new
waste management practice and is not in widespread usage.  Knowl-
edge about conditions necessary to promote biodegradation of
wastes and knowledge about soil attenuation capacities is still
being developed as practical  experience is gained in sfche field.
Information on long-term effects of land treatment is virtually
nonexistent.  EPA is not aware of  any studies of land treatment
facilities which have been completed and closed.  At currently
operating land treatment facilities,  environmental monitoring

                                  6

-------
has often been absent, inadequate, or inappropriate.



          Recent State requirements frequently stress groundwater



monitoring and rarely include unsaturated zone monitoring (i.e.,



soil and soil-pore water monitoring).  The consequence of using



groundwater as the sole measure of environmental performance is



that contamination will not be detected until it reaches ground



water.  Remedial measures to prevent further contamination of the



ground water, once contamination has been detected, would be



extremely difficult.



          The absence of air emission monitoring requirements for



hazardous waste land treatment facilities has been documented by



a recent study.1  According to the recent study, there is no



specific mention of protection of air resources at land treatment



facilities in any State regulation.  The study concludes that



there is a strong need for national regulations which recognize



the potential for air pollution from land treatment.



          Because of the lack of long-term experience, the limited



use of land treatment as a waste management practice, and the



lack of appropriate environmental monitoring, there is very little



information on actual public health and environmental impacts of



land treatment.  Although mechanisms for contamination of the



surface water, air, and ground water clearly exist, there are few



documented damage cases involving hazardous waste land treatment.



The following is a discussion of the actual and potential avenues



of contamination and documented damage incidents that have been



associated with hazardous waste land treatment.

-------
          1.   Surface Water Contamination



               Surface water situated near a land treatment site



may be subject to pollution from contaminated run-off resulting



from erosion of the soil-medium or dissolution of wastes from the



active portions (i.e., areas to which waste has been applied).



Because the process of land treatment introduces and concentrates



wastes in the soil surface, run-off water may be contaminated to



the extent that it will impact certain trophic levels in the



aquatic ecosystem. 2.



               One of the  few damage incidents reported in the



literature involved the erosion of contaminated soil from a land



treatment facility as a result of a rainstorm occurring soon after



an oily sludge was applied.  Erosion of the soil-waste medium by



run-off carried contaminants to an onsite lake, resulting in a



fish kill.3



          2.   Air Emissions



               A recent EPA study that evaluated emission control



criteria for hazardous waste management facilities describes one



air-related damage incident resulting from land treatment of oil



refinery waste.^  In this  case, neighbors complained of odors and



there were some reports of damage to paint on nearby houses.



               Although there are few documented cases of air



pollution from land treatment, the potential for release of



significant quantities of  pollutants to the atmosphere exists.



The disposal of oily-type  wastes provides an excellent example of



air pollution potential.   Gases and odors generated increase



initially during spreading operations and subside as microbial






                                  8

-------
decomposition occurs.  However, in the weathering (spreading)



method of disposing of leaded gasoline storage tank wastes, the



vapors can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin.  At the levels



of organically-bound lead (20 to 200 ppm) encountered in the



storage tank sludge, a potential lead-in-air hazard could occur



during the weathering process.4



               Since many of the oily wastes have a high water



content, they are commonly applied to the land by spraying.  This



would allow for aerosol formation and release of waste constitu-



ents.  In addition, air pollution can occur through direct vola-



tilization of constituents contained in the waste after it has



been spread on the land.  Again, because of the high water content



of many oily-type wastes, initial disposal often involves allowing



the water to evaporate from the waste prior to mixing with the



soil.  During this period of time, all constituents of equal or



higher volatility than water will be released to the atmosphere,



and other waste constituents will also evolve due to co-solvent



processes.1



               A third mechanism for air pollution is by entrainment



of particulates through wind erosion.  This latter mechanism may



become increasingly important throughout the life of an active



land treatment site.  Since most oily wastes contain trace elements,



these tend to accumulate in the soil with each additional applica-



tion of waste material.  The initial particles released to the



atmosphere through wind erosion for a new site will contain low



concentrations of trace elements; however, several years after a



site has been in operation, the concentration of trace elements in



soil particles will be much higher-^

-------
               In addition to the potential for creating localized



concentrations of air pollutants which are potentially hazardous



to health, there is a real potential for significantly reducing



air quality through photochemical reactions of constituents



evolving from the disposal site.  This may be of particular



concern in areas where ambient concentrations of photochemical




oxidents are already high, such as in parts of California.1



          3.   Ground-Water Contamination



               The land treatment of non-hazardous waste has



resulted in contamination of ground water by nitrates and phosphates



which were present in the waste or added as fertilizer.5  Hazardous



waste land treatment has the same potential consequences, though



EPA is not aware of any documented ground-water contamination



incidents resulting from the practice.  This lack of documentation



should not be interpreted to mean that hazardous waste land treat-



ment poses no threat to the ground water.  The potential for con-



tamination may be greater for hazardous than nonhazardous wastewater



and sludge, because the contaminants are often present at greater




concentrations.2



               The paucity of data available on land treatment-



related ground-water cases may be a result of inadequate monitoring



and the time required for problems to manifest themselves.



               In light of the many avenues for environmental



damage from land treatment, the Agency strongly believes that regu-



lation of this,practice is necessary.  A land treatment facility



is a dynamic treatment system requiring careful operation and



long-term monitoring and maintenance.  Without proper regulatory





                                  10

-------
control, land treatment can cause significant environmental

damages.

III. SYNOPSIS OF THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS

     The regulations proposesd on December 18, 1978, included

certain standards applicable specifically to land treatment

facilities (§250.45-5) and standards relevant to all facilities

(§250.42,  250.43, and 250.45).  Those portions of the above

standards applicable during interim status were proposed in

§250.40(c)(2).

     The full set of proposed land treatment regulations (§250.45-5)

addressed the following:

     0    restrictions on land treatment of ignitable, reactive,
          volatile, and incompatible waste

     0    restriction against contact of a land treatment facility
          with navigable water

     0    restrictions against location of the treated area within
          five feet of the high water table or within 500 feet of
          a public or private water supply

     0    specifications regarding the soil types acceptable for
          a land treatment facility

     0    minimization of erosion, landslides, and slumping,
          including a maximum slope of five percent

     0    sealing -of caves and wells connected to the subsurface
          environment within a land treatment facility

     0    maintenance of a soil pH of at least 6.5

     0    restriction on the zone of incorporation from becoming
          anaerobic

     0    restrictions on waste application when the soil is
          saturated with water or when the soil temperature is
          below 0°C

     0    restriction on application rates of phosphorus and
          nitrogen

                                11

-------
          soil monitoring/ including determination of background
          conditions at three times the zone of incorporation,
          periodic sampling at that depth to determine if back-
          ground levels have been exceeded, corrective action if
          a significant increase over background has occurred.

     0    restriction on the growth of food-chain crops on the
          treated area of a land treatment facility.

     0    requirement that at closure, the soil of a land treatment
          facility, if it meets the characteristics of a hazardous
          waste, be removed and managed as a hazardous waste.  A
          variance to this requirement provided that the land treat-
          ment facility could be closed in accordance with landfill
          closure requirements if the owner or operator could demon-
          strate to the Regional Administrator that long-term
          environmental protection equivalent to a landfill could
          be achieved.

     The interim status standards specific to land treatment,

proposed in §250.40(c)(2)(XV) of the December 18, 1978, regulations,

included only requirements for closure.  The application of the clo-

sure requirements also included by reference, the soil monitoring

requirements of the full set of proposed land treatment regulations.

Thus, the proposed interim status standards required that:

     0    background soil conditions of the land treatment facil-
          ity be determined by soil analysis in the zone of
          incorporation (new facility) or in similar local soils
          (existing facility).

     0    at closure, if the soil of a land treatment facility
          meets the characteristics of a hazardous waste, it
          either must be returned to its preexisting (background)
          condition, or must be removed and managed as a hazardous
          waste.  A variance to this requirement provided that
          the land treatment facility could be closed in accordance
          with landfill closure requirements if the owner or
          operator could demonstrate to the Regional Administrator
          that long-term environmental protection equivalent to
          that for a landfill could be achieved.     ^

     Additional interim status standards were proposed which were

applicable to all facilities.  Waste analysis and recordkeeping


                                  12

-------
and reporting requirements are included in this category.  As

proposed, these interim status requirements included:

     0    waste analysis to determine the hazardous constituents
          and properties of the waste prior to initial disposal.

     0    verification of certain properties of each shipment of
          waste received; and periodic, comprehensive analysis of
          waste if there were indications of changes in composition.

     0    recordkeeping and reporting, including an operating
          log, a record of the quantity and description of each
          waste handled at the facility, locations where each
          waste is treated or disposed and the method and dates
          of treatment or disposal, the results of the waste
          analysis performed, monitoring data, reports of visual
          inspections, and records of incidents requiring initia-
          tion of a contingency plan.

     Portions of the proposed waste analysis and recordkeeping

regulations, including revisions in responses to the comments,

are included in the general facility requirements of the interim

status regulations and discussed in the background documents

dealing with waste analysis and with manifest, recordkeeping, and

reporting.  The rationale for those portions which have not been

included in the land treatment interim status standards are dealt

with in this document.

     Although not proposed as interim status standards, the Agency

has decided to include other portions of the full set of proposed

standards in the interim status regulations because they serve

important environmental objectives, and generally meet the criteria

for inclusion in interim status.  The Agency feels that these

requirements conform to the criteria described in the background

document entitled "General Issues Regarding Interim Standards" for

in inclusion in interim status standards.  These additional requirements

include:


     0    control of run-on and run-off to active portions of the
          facility
                              13

-------
     0    restrictions on land treatment of ignitable, reactive,
          and incompatible wastes.

          restriction on the growth of food-chain crops on the
          treated area of a land treatment facility

     Comments received relevant to the above requirements are

addressed in the next section of this document.

IV.  COMMENT ANALYSIS AND REGULATORY RATIONALE

     A.   Changes in Terminology/Definitions

          1.   Changes in Terminology

               The Agency has decided to use the term "land

treatment facility" in place of "landfarm."  Although no public

comments were received suggesting a change in terminology/ the

Agency felt it was desirable to use a term which more accurately

describes the purpose of this particular waste management practice,

The terms "landfarm" and "landfarming" misleadingly imply a connec-
                                     >
tion between hazardous waste disposal and crop production or soil

beneficiation.  The term "land treatment," in contrast, implies

that the land or soil is used as a medium to treat hazardous

waste.  This meaning, which is now reflected in the regulations,

is consistent with the Agency's philosophy that the application

of hazardous waste to the soil is a waste management practice

reserved for those waste streams that are treatable in a soil

system.  Any benefit derived from land treating hazardous waste,

beyond that of treatment, is incidental and is not considered an

appropriate justification for allowing the practice.^ Treatment,

in the context it is used here, means a reduction in the hazard

posed by the waste.  This reduction occurs as a result of altera-

tions in the chemical state of the waste via biological and
                             14

-------
chemical interactions occurring in, and enhanced by the soil.



               The Agency acknowledges that the soil has the



capacity to filter and dilute waste.  However, these physical



mechanisms provide little or no net reduction in hazard if they



do not alter the chemical state of the waste.  Consequently, the



use of the soil solely as a filtration or dilution medium is not



considered appropriate for land treatment.



          2.   Changes in Definitions



               The Agency proposed a number of definitions, unique



to land treatment, in the December 18, 1978, regulations.   As a



result of comments received and changes made to the proposed



regulations, some of these definitions have changed or have been



deleted.  Below is a discussion and rationale for any changes



that were made.



               a.   "Attenuation"



                    (i)  Proposed definition



                    "Attenuation means any decrease in the



                    maximum concentration or total quantity of



                    an applied chemical or biological constituent



                    in a fixed time or distance traveled resulting



                    from a physical, chemical, and/or biological



                    reaction or transformation occurring in the



                    zone of aeration or zone of saturation.



                    (ii)  Change made




                    "Attenuation" has been deleted from the ISS



                    definitions.
                                 15

-------
     (iii)  Rationale for change



     The regulation containing the term "attenuation"



     is not part of the interim status land treat-



     ment regulations.



b.   "Fertilizer"



     (i)  Proposed definition



     "Fertilizer" means any substance containing



     one or more recognized plant nutrient(s)



     which is used for its plant nutrient content,



     and which is designed for use or claimed to



     have value in promoting plant growth.



     (ii)  Change made



     "Fertilizer" has been deleted from the ISS



     definitions.



     (iii)  Rationale for change



     "Fertilizer" was not used in the proposed



     regulations but it did appear in the background



     document on landfarming.  The Agency has



     decided to define only those terms needing



     definition, that appear in a regulation.  It



     was therefore an oversight to identify "fertil-



     izer" in the proposed regulations.



c.   "Landfarming of a Waste"



     (i)  Proposed definition



     11 Landf arming of a waste" means application of



     waste onto land and/or incorporation into the



     surface soil/ including the use of such waste
                  16

-------
as a fertilizer or soil conditioner.  Synonyms



include land application, land cultivation,



land irrigation, land spreading, soil farming,




and soil incorporation.



(ii)  Change made



The terminology and definition have been



revised.  The revision is as follows:  "Land



treatment facility" means a facility or part



of a facility at which hazardous waste is



applied onto or incorporated into the soil sur-



face; such facilities are disposal facilities



if the waste will remain after closure.



(iii)  Rationale for change



The Agency, besides changing the terminology



from landfarming to land treatment, has de-



cided to revise the definition of land treat-



ment so that it is the facility, as well as



the practice occurring at that facility,



that is defined.  As previously discussed,



the Agency feels that the new terminology and



revised definition more accurately describe



the purpose of this particular waste management



practice.  The term "landfarming" misleadingly



implies a connection between hazardous waste



disposal and crop production or soil benefi-



ciation .  The term "land treatment" in con-



trast implies that the land or soil is used
            17

-------
as a medium to treat hazardous waste.  Any



benefit derived from land treating hazardous



waste, beyond that of treatment, is incidental



and is not considered an appropriate justifi-



cation for allowing the practice.



     Treatment, as it applies to land treatment,



is considered to be a reduction in the hazard



posed by the waste as a result of biological



and/or physical-chemical soil-waste interactions.



This interpretation of treatment is intended



to promote the concept that land treatment is



a waste management practice reserved for waste



streams which are not treatable in a soil sys-



tem.  The application of waste streams which



are not treatable in the soil can only aggravate



the hazard posed by the waste.



     The synonyms included in the proposed



definition have been dropped.  The Agency



feels that each of these terms may have common



uses or connotations which are different from



the definition of land treatment and, thus,



should not be used as synonyms.



     The Agency has added a clause to the



definition which defines land treatment



facilities as disposal facilities if the



waste applied to the site remains after



closure.  This addition is necessary because
            18

-------
     land treatment facilities involve both treat-



     ment and disposal.  The Agency considers the



     practice to be predominantly treatment but



     realizes that certain waste constituents



     (e.g., heavy metals), even if they are in low



     concentrations in the waste, will accumulate



     in the soil.



d.   "Soil conditioner"



     (i)  Proposed definition



     "Soil conditioner" means any substance added



     to the soil for the purpose of improving the



     soils physical properties by increasing water



     content, increasing water retention,  enhancing



     aggregation, increasing soil aeration, improv-



     ing permeability, increasing infiltration, or



     reducing surface crusting.



     (ii)  Change made



     "Soil conditioner" has been deleted from the



     ISS definitions.



     (iii)  Rationale for change



     The rationale for deleting "soil conditioner"



     from the definitions is the same as for



     "fertilizer."



E.   "Treated Area of a Landfarm"



     (i)  Proposed definition



     "Treated Area of a Landfarm" means that por-



     tion of a landfarm that has had hazardous
                   19

-------
     waste applied to it,, to include the zone of



     incorporation.



     (ii)  Change made



     "Treated Areas  of a Landfarm" has been deleted



     from the ISS definitions.



     (iii)  Rationale for change



     The term "Treated Area of a Landfarm" has



     been replaced with the term "Active Portion."



     "Active Portion" means that portion of a



     facility where treatment, storage, or disposal



     operations are being or have been conducted



     after the effective date of Part 261 of this



     Chapter and which is not a closed portion.



          The Agency has chosen to use active



     portion in place of treated area because the



     use of the former for all facilities makes



     use of the latter unnecessary.  Additionally,



     the definition of active portion specifically



     defines, in a temporal sense, those parts of



     the facility which are subject to Subtitle C



     regulation.



F.   "Zone of Incorporation"



     (i)  Proposed definition



     "Zone of Incorporation" means the depth to



     which the soil on a landfarm is plowed or



     tilled to receive waste.



     (ii)  Change made
                   20

-------
                    "Zone of incorporation" has been deleted from



                    the ISS definitions.



                    (iii)  Rationale for change



                    Due to changes made to the soil monitoring



                    regulations, "zone of incorporation" is no



                    longer used.



     B.   General Comments Relevant to the Interim Status Standards



          Some comments were received that relate to the land



treatment regulation as a whole, rather than to a particular



standard.  These comments are addressed below, followed by comments



on specific parts of the regulation.



          1.    Issue;  Should land treatment be allowed as a



method to manage hazardous waste?



               Comment was received that the proposed EPA



regulations would not protect public health and the environment



nor prevent destruction of valuable land, and that no modifica-



tion to the regulations could be envisioned which would make land



treatment acceptable.  No reasons were given for this position.



               Response;  The literature on land treatment reveals



that a properly operated land treatment facility can provide environ-



mentally sound disposal through the physical, chemical, and biolog-



ical interaction of the soil and the waste.2»6/7,8,9  These inter-



actions result in degradation of organic wastes and immobilization



of metallic contaminants through physical-chemical interactions



with the soil.



               The discussion of soil monitoring, later in this



section, describes evidence that shows that in a properly designed
                                 21

-------
and operated land treatment facility, migration of waste contaminants



beyond the depth to which the waste is incorporated into the soil



should be minimal.



               EPA recognizes, as was discussed in Part II of



this document, that land treatment relies less on physical contain-



ment than other disposal methods.  Also, the concept of spreading



hazardous waste on the land may offer more opportunity for wastes



to enter the environment than other land disposal options.



               EPA has addressed these issues by promulgating



performance oriented monitoring requirements that will quickly



indicate any failure of the land treatment facility to perform in



an environmentally sound manner.  This is the basis of the unsat-



urated zone monitoring requirements of the interim status regula-



tion.  The unsaturated zone monitoring requirements will allow



the owner or operator, or the Regional Administrator to quickly



identify any waste migration that would post a potential threat



to public health and the environment through ground-water



contamination.



               The interim status regulations also include



standards to prevent surface water contamination and specify



certain operating and design and closure requirements to ensure



that facility operation will not contaminate ground water or



surface water or otherwise threaten public health.  The Agency is



confident that these regulations, having undergone*a thorough



public and Agency review, will be fully protective of public



health and the environment.
                                 22

-------
          2.   Issue:  Should land treatment of highly toxic



wastes or environmentally persistent, organics be allowed?



               The preamble to the proposed regulations suggested



that environmentally persistent organics should not be land



treated in concentrations that would result in accumulation of



these organics in the soil.  The practice was not banned because



of the difficulty in defining "environmentally persistent organics,"



Comment was requested on how this characteristic might be defined



generically, and whether the burden should be shifted to the



owner or operator to show than an organic applied in a certain




concentration will be degraded within a certain amount of time.



               Conunenters made the following points about this



issue:



     0    Prior to land treatment of persistent organics, owners



          or operators using land treatment should be required to



          show that the half-life of persistent organics be one



          year or less before land treatment is allowed.



     0    A definition of persistent organics should be included



          as part of the regulations under Section 3001 of the



          Act.




     0    The burden of proof that such materials are amenable to



          microbial action in soil should be on the owner or operator.




     0    There should be no prohibition on environmentally persis-



          tent organics, since the closure requirements of the



          regulations (removal of contaminated soil from the land



          treatment facility) and soil monitoring will sufficiently



          discourage their land treatment.






                                  23

-------
     0    Environmentally persistent organics should not be land



          treated because within days or weeks after application,



          these toxins could begin entering the environment



          through erosion.



     0    The definition of environmentally persistent organics



          should include a half-life related to the time the



          wastes are incorporated into the land (e.g., 50% of



          the waste must degrade within one year from the date



          it is applied).



     0    Land treatment of materials which are banned from use,



          because they are considered dangerous in even minute



          quantities, should be disallowed in a land treatment



          facility.  The potential for dispersion of such materials



          by wind and surface water run-off is a major concern.  If



          such materials are land treated, massive environmental and



          public protest will ensue in light of "LD-50 values of



          pesticides on fish and their penchant for bioaccumulation."



               Response;  It is evident from the above comments on



environmentally persistent organics that there was no clear public



concensus on this issue.  Given the diversity of these comments



and the fact that the Agency does not feel that it has sufficient



information at this time to establish any prohibitions on land



treatment of environmentally persistent wastes, the interim status



standards do not address those wastes.  Similarly, the Agency lacks



sufficient information at this time to support restrictions for



land treatment of "highly toxic wastes."
                                 24

-------
               However, the Agency believes that it is important



to further investigate the land treatment of environmentally per-



sistent and highly toxic wastes to determine if special restric-



tions should be applied.  The Agency plans to deal with this issue



in future regulations on land treatment.



          3.   Issue;  The land treatment regulations are not



adequate with respect to monitoring and testing protocols



               A commenter pointed out that because of potential



dangers associated with landspreading of sewage sludge and other



wastes, EPA should adopt stronger monitoring and testing protocols.



               Response:  The commenter did not suggest alternative



monitoring and testing (presumably waste testing) procedures, nor



were reasons given that the proposed procedures did not appear to



be adequate.  There was no elaboration on the "potential" dangers



referenced.  Specific comments received on the proposed soil



monitoring procedures and responses to them are presented later



in this section.  Comments on general waste analysis procedures



are presented in the background document dealing with that subject.



               4.   Issue;  Opposition to variances in the standards



A discussion of waste analysis requirements specific to land



treatment is discussed later in this document in Part IV(c)(2).



A commenter suggested that the variances in the proposed land



treatment regulations provided too little control and would result



in potential danger to ground water and surface water.



                    Response;  The commenter did not indicate



specific variances of concern or the reasons that damages might



result.
                                  25

-------
                    The interim status standards generally do not



include regulations containing variances because they require



interaction with the Agency as a part of the permitting process.



               5.   Issue;  The regulations should be based on



performance requirements rather than operating and design requirements



                    A commenter pointed out that the technology



of land application of complex organic wastes is in its infancy



and advances in knowledge are being made rapidly.  Therefore,



operational standards will limit potential for innovation and



advances.  It was suggested that performance can adequately be



measured by -monitoring of soil, ground water, and surface water.



The commenter also suggested that although variances are provided



in the regulations, it is doubtful that they would actually be



granted by the permitting authority-



               Response;  A number of comments were received on



the subject of performance standards versus operating standards.



These comments related to all parts of the proposed regulation,



including the comment above on land treatment.  Under RCRA, EPA



is authorized to set both performance and operational standards,



depending on the applicability of either approach to the environ-



mental problem being addressed by the regulations.



                    The Agency believes that pure performance



standards for land treatment can result in failure*to adequately



protect the environment.  For example, the standard might require



only that the ground water be monitored to ensure no degradation



beyond the primary drinking water standards.  One failure of this



approach would be that numerous organic and some metallic substances
                                   26

-------
are placed in land treatment facilities which are not covered at



this time by the drinking water standards, but which may cause



damage to public health.  A second failure is that by the time



ground-water contamination is detected in a land treatment



facility, the entire soil profile would be contaminated, making



removal action difficult and expensive.



                    However, other performance measures can be



constructively employed.  The Agency believes that the regulations



should use such performance standards where feasible in an effort



to provide maximum flexibility to owners or operators.  As the com-



menter suggested, the technology of land treatment is still in an



early stage of development, and flexibility in the standards is



desirable as long as environmental protection can be maintained.



                    The changes to the land treatment regulations



made as a result of this and other comments reflect increased



flexibility.  This is particularly true in the key areas of food-



chain crops, monitoring, and closure.



               6.   Issue:  Crude oil should be exempted from the



land treatment regulations



                    A commenter suggested that crude oil does not



contain concentrations of metals normally found in other waste



oils that have been refined or used in industrial processes.  The



commenter stated that crude oil properly applied adds nutrient to



the soil, and that the Bureau of Land Management uses oil field



wastes to aid in restoration of rights-of-way.



               Response;  EPA has no data to substantiate that



waste crude oil, which is hazardous under Subpart C of Part 261
                                  27

-------
can be applied to the land without impacts on the environment.

The commenter provided no data or references to substantiate the


claims in the comment, except the general reference to the Bureau


of Land Management.


                    The Agency contacted the Bureau of Land


Management, Division of Right-of-Way, and learned that they had


no knowledge of such an activity within BLM.10  The BLM regional


office dealing with oil and gas surface protection indicated that


in some areas, BLM has "recommended" spraying an oil film on


sandy areas to prevent blowing of sand.  However, pure crude oil,


not waste oils, were recommended for this technique. H  It was


also indicated by another BLM regional office that waste oils are


commonly used for road oiling to reduce dust.12


                    The above very limited practices are not


considered land treatment of waste oils from oil production


operations as defined previously since dust control, not waste


treatment, is the concern.  Unless an area is designated as a


hazardous waste land treatment facility, it may not be used for


oils classified as hazardous.  Furthermore, the Agency believes

that the significant issue is not whether waste crude oil has


lower concentrations of metals than other waste oils, but whether


there is documented evidence that application of that waste, or

                                                   f
any waste which fails the test for hazardousness under Part 261


of the regulations, causes no contamination of ground water or


surface water when placed in a land treatment facility.  Although


waste crude oil usually contains lower concentrations of heavy


metals than do other waste oils, a combination of high application
                                   28

-------
rates and multiple applications can cause a significant buildup



of heavy metals in the soil.  Thus, the Agency does not concur



with the recommendations of the commenter-



               7.   Issue;  The land treatment regulations are



based largely on control of oil wastes, and are inappropriate for



other wastes



                    A commenter stated that EPA's regulations are



based on Texas' and Oklahoma's land treatment regulations, which



emphasize regulation of oily waste and are, therefore, not



applicable to other industrial sludges which may be no more harm-



ful than POTW sludges.  The regulations should be revised to



consider persistence of contaminants and their availability for



crop uptake, and the effect of proper crop management on the



leaching potential of contaminants.  Iowa's rules on municipal



sludge disposal should be used as a model.



               Response;  EPA's land treatment regulations were



developed for all types of hazardous wastes and are not designed



around State standards for oily waste.  State guidelines of Texas



and Oklahoma (see Appendix I) did provide an important data base



for the national regulations because of the experience of those



States in regulating land treatment facilities.  However, the



final Federal interim status standards differ substantially from



the regulations of either of these States.  Furthermore, the



Texas guidelines are applicable to all types of industrial waste-



waters and sludges, not just oily wastes.  EPA also had as an



information base for these regulations numerous studies, listed



in the references, and the recently promulgated regulations under
                                   29

-------
Section 4004 of RCRA for landspreading of non-hazardous wastes,



including POTW sludge.  The background documents, and associated



references for the Section 4004 regulations also provide a basis



for these regulations.




                    The Agency does not consider the Iowa



regulations for POTW sludge to be totally appropriate for land



treatment of hazardous waste.  However, the Agency has incorporated



into the "Food-Chain Crops" Section of the interim status regulation



specific standards for cadmium.  While these standards are not



identical to the Iowa standards, there is similarity in that they



both prescribe a specific loading rate.  Iowa's approach controls



the amount of waste that can be applied based on the concentration



of specific constituents, while the Agency's approach limits only



the amount of cadmium that can be applied and not the waste.



                    The Agency was able to develop specific



standards for cadmium because of the significant amount of field



experience and research that'has been done in this area.  This is



not the case with other constituents covered by the land treatment



regulations under Subtitle C of RCRA.  Information is very limited



on factors such as attenuation of various substances in the soil



and uptake in plants.  Without such information, the regulations



cannot be tailored to such factors as persistence of contaminants,



availability for crop uptake, effect of proper crop management,



etc.  Hopefully, the Agency will be able to revise the regulations



in this direction over time as more information is gained from



the regulated community and various research studies on the per-



formance of land treatment facilities.
                                 30

-------
                    Additional considerations of the Agency



regarding crop growth on land treatment facilities are discussed



in the comments on food-chain crops later in this section.



          8.   Issue;  Preserving land is not an RCRA objective



               Commenting on the discussion in the preamble to



the December 18, 1978, proposed regulations, a commenter noted



that a stated objective of the regulations, preventing conversion



of huge tracts of productive land to land with limited potential



for productive use, was not a reasonable Federal objective under



RCRA.  Also noted was that the amounts of land involved to date



are not "huge" compared to other types of land use, such as



housing, wilderness areas, and industrial sites.



               Response:  This issue relates primarily to the



requirements for closure, which are discussed later in this



section.  EPA would agree that the adjective "huge" overstates



the amount of land currently involved in land treatment.  How-



ever, the practice could grow substantially as a waste management



practice, depending on its relative costs compared with other



treatment and disposal practices.  The Agency believes that it is



in the best interests of the nation, and within the Congressional



intent that, in development of land disposal practices under



RCRA, considerations be given to the impact of those practices on



future land use.  Also, it would be narrow-sighted and counter-



productive to ignore broad Congressional and administration



priorities in developing regulations under a particular law.



These regulations, however, do not restrict the amount of land



which can be used as land treatment facilities, nor are they






                                  31

-------
specifically aimed at controlling land use per se.  The Agency is
establishing requirements in the land treatment Subpart to assure
that the land treatment objective is accomplished, to protect
various environmental media (surface water, air, and ground water),
and to protect food-chain crops.  Land use may be affected by
regulations designed to protect public health and the environment.
          9.   Issue;  Land treatment regulations should be based
on the degree of hazard posed by the waste
               A commenter stated that some hazardous waste can
be land treated safely and with beneficial effects to the soil
and crops, while other hazardous waste (highly toxic, nonbiode-
gradable) should not be land treated.  Therefore, not all criteria
for determining "hazardous waste" for land treatment should be
weighed equally.
               Response:  The commenter offered no examples or
specific  suggestions relative  to the general comment.  There
were also no data or references provided.  Thus, the response
must also be relatively general.
               Ideally, the Agency would be able to develop a set
of detailed, tailored standards for land treatment of various
wastes, including acceptable levels of various contaminants in
the soil and in crops.  Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art of
land treatment will not support such regulations.  Information is
                                                 .>
generally not available to "fine tune" the system as proposed.
(This is discussed in more detail in response to comments regarding
growth of food-chain crops.)
               Some waste-class distinctions have been made in
                                  32

-------
the regulations, such as the restrictions on ignitable, reactive,



and incompatible wastes.



     C.   Specific Comments to the Proposed Land Treatment



Standards of December 12, 1978



          1.   Issue;  Surface water run-off



               a.   Proposed regulation



                    Prior to beginning this discussion it is



necessary to briefly describe the new terminology that will be



used.  The Agency believes that the term "run-off" as used in the



proposed regulation concerning the construction of "diversion



structures to divert all surface water run-off from the active



portions of a facility" was confusing.  Therefore the term "run-



on" has replaced the term "run-off" in these situations.  That



is, as used in these regulations, run-on is water which runs onto



the active portions of a land treatment facility or landfill from



other portions of the facility or from outside of the facility -



Run-off is rainwater, leachate, or other liquid which flows from



the active portions of a disposal facility.



                    Requirements for -control of surface water run-



off and run-on were not included in the proposed interim status



standards for land treatment facilities.  However, those require-



ments were specified in the proposed full set of standards in



§250.43(b) and (c) .  These regulations required the owner or



operator to construct diversion structures capable of preventing



run-on from entering a land treatment facility.  A variance to



this requirement was allowed where an owner or operator could



demonstrate to the Regional Amdinistrator than run-on would not
                               33

-------
enter the site and come in contact with the hazardous waste.  The




proposed regulations also required the owner or operator to



collect and confine run-off from active portions of the facility



to a point source before discharge or treatment.




     B.   Comments to the Proposed Regulation



          The background document for Interim Status Standards for



Landfills discusses the proposed General Facilities Standards con-



cerned with discharges from hazardous waste facilities  (§250.43(a)),



diversion structures for control of run-on  (§250.43(b)), and



control of run-off from active portions  (§250.43(c)).



     C.   Response to Comments



          A discussion of the comments received on the proposed



run-on and run-off requirements is presented in the background



document on landfills.



          In these interim status regulations land treatment



facilities will be subject to the same requirements as  landfills




regarding surface run-on and run-off.  Run-on must be diverted



away from the active portions of the land treatment facility.



Run-off from the active portions must be collected.  If the




collected run-off is a hazardous waste it must be managed as a



hazardous waste.  If it is not a hazardous waste it may still



need to be analyzed, treated, or otherwise managed to comply with



Subtitle D of RCRA or the Clean Water Act.        *



          EPA believes that run-on and run-off controls are



necessary at land treatment facilities because this disposal



option involves the placement of hazardous waste on or  just



beneath the soil surface.  Because the waste is exposed during






                                    34

-------
the application and incorporation process, the potential for loss



via surface water erosion is initially high.  During site operation,



the potential for run-off to become contaminated is directly



related to the frequency and rate of waste application.  In the



long term, the potential for contaminating run-off is further



increased as refractory waste contaminants become concentrated



in the surface soil.



          The release of dissolved or suspended waste contaminants



or contaminated sediment from a land treatment facility can have



severe ecological consequences.  One damage case, involving con-



tamination of a lake by run-off from an oily waste land treatment



facility, has already been documented.^  At another oily waste



land treatment site in Texas, surface run-off from experimental



plots were found to contain 30-100 mg/1 of oil.^  The study



concluded that "oil and nutrient contents of the rainfall run-off



water from the soil cultivation Cland treatment] process can be



relatively high, and this discharge water should receive treatment



before entering public waterways."  This conclusion was supported



by another study which cited the low tolerance of aquatic organisms



to certain trace elements as the major reason for controlling run-



off.2



          The Agency acknowledges that the surface area of the



active portions of a land treatment facility will generally be



large, relative to the active portions of landfills.  Consequently,



more extensive run-on diversion structures and run-off collection



systems will be needed at land treatment facilities.  The overall



impact of run-on and run-off controls is expected to be somewhat
                           35

-------
tempered since most land treatment facilities already have



diversion structures and collection systems. 36  The Agency does



not anticipate that all the run-off that is collected at land



treatment facilities will require treatment prior to discharge.



Evidence in the literature suggests that if the waste is thoroughly



incorporated into the soil, contamination of run-off can be



minimized or prevented.  At an oily waste land treatment facility



in Texas, Raymond and his co-workers found that after thorough



waste incorporation, there was no significant difference between



the quality of run-off from experimental and control plots.37




Agricultural pesticide run-off studies have shown that run-off



quality improves with the length of the storm event and with the



length of time since the last pesticide application.2  These



phenomena are paralleled in land treatment facilities.



          These studies strongly suggest that run-off may need



treatment only during certain periods, for example, run-off that



is collected at the beginning of a storm event or immediately



after waste has been applied.  Once wastes have been incorporated



into the soil, and the wastes have been degraded or the soil



surface stabilized by crusting or vegetation, collected run-off



is expected to require little or no treatment.



          A 12-month delay for compliance with these regulations



is given so that existing facilities may construct new run-off



control systems or upgrade existing systems, including those for



run-off treatment and disposal.



     D.   Final Regulatory Language
                                36

-------
§265.272  General Operating Requirements [Interim Final]



          (a)  Hazardous waste must not be placed in or on a land



treatment facility unless the waste can be made less hazardous or



non-hazardous by biological degradation or chemical reactions



occurring in or on the soil.



          (b)  Run-on must be diverted away from the active



portions of a land treatment facility.



          (c)  Run-off from active portions of a land treatment



facility must be collected.



[Comment:  If the collected run-off is a hazardous waste under



Part 261 of this Chapter, it must be managed as a hazardous waste



in accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts 262, 263,



and 265 of this Chapter.  If the collected run-off is discharged



through a point source to waters of the United States, it is



subject to the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water



Act, as amended.]



          (d)  The date for compliance with paragraphs (b) and



(c) of this Section is 12 months after the effective date of this



Part.



          2.   Issue;  Waste Analysis



               a.   Proposed Regulation and Rationale



                    The waste analysis requirements in §250.43 of



the proposed regulations applied waste analysis to all treatment,



storage, and disposal facilities, including land treatment.  The



waste analysis requirements included:  determination of the



hazardous constituents and properties of the waste prior to



initial disposal; verification of certain properties of each
                                37

-------
waste shipment received; and periodic, comprehensive analysis of
waste if there were indications of changes in composition.
                    The reasoning behind the proposed recordkeeping
requirement is discussed in the background document on waste
analysis.  In brief, the purpose was to ensure that a facility
owner or operator had sufficient current information to manage
the waste without endangering human health and the environment.
                (b)  Comments/Responses to Comments
                    Comments on the proposed waste analysis
requirements are discussed in the background document on waste
analysis.  As a result of these comments/ the Agency has restruc-
tured the waste analysis requirements.  The final interim status
regulations for waste analysis, §265.13, require each owner or
operator to develop a waste analysis plan that specifies what
analyses are necessary to comply with the regulations.  This
approach provides significantly more flexibility for the
owner/operator.  The Agency has also included some minimal waste
analysis requirements that are specific to the type of waste
management facility.
                    For land treatment, the Agency considers the
waste analyses  essential:
                     0    determination of the concentrations of
                         arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, mercury,
                         selenium, and silver if these substances
                         are present in the waste at levels which
                         exceed the maximum concentrations for
                         characteristics of EP toxicity, contained
                         in Table I of §261.24;
                                    38

-------
                    0    determination of the concentrations of



                         any substance which caused the waste to



                         be listed as a hazardous waste; and



                    0    determination of the concentrations of



                         arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury if



                         food-chain crops are grown.



                    The first two waste analysis requirements are



necessary to determine whether the waste is amenable to disposal



in a land treatment facility, i.e., treatable in a soil system



and prevents waste constituents from migrating through the soil



into ground water.  The owner or operator of a land treatment



facility must be aware of the presence of hazardous waste consti-



tuents in the wastes he manages in order to use appropriate tech-



niques (e.g., modified application rates, pH controls, fertilizing)



to properly manage the waste.



                    The information obtained from waste analysis



is also needed to determine appropriate application rates and to



develop the unsaturated zone monitoring plan required under §265.278,



                    The rationale for requiring the owner or



operator to determine the concentrations of arsenic, cadmium,



lead, and mercury, if food-chain crops are being grown on the



site are presented in the discussion on food-chain crops later in



this document.



     C.   Final Regulatory Language



§265.273  Waste Analysis



          In addition to the waste analyses required by §265.13,



before placing a hazardous waste in or on a.land treatment
                                39

-------
facility, the owner or operator must:




          (a)  Determine the concentrations in the waste of any



substances which exceed the maximum concentrations contained in



Table I of §261.24 of this Chapter that cause a waste to exhibit



the EP toxicity characteristic;




          (b)  For any waste listed in Part 261, Subpart D, of



this Chapter, determine the concentrations of any substances



which caused the waste to be listed as a hazardous waste; and



          (c)  If food-chain crops are grown, determine the



concentrations in the waste of each of the following constituents:



arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury, unless the owner or operator



has written, documented data that show that the constituent is



not present.




[Comment:  Part 261 of this Chapter specifies the substances for



which a waste is listed as a hazardous waste.  As required by



§265.13, the waste analysis plan must include analyses needed to



comply with §§265.281 and 265.282.  As required by §265.73, the



owner or operator must place the results from each waste analysis,



or the documented information, in the operating record of the



facility.]



     3.   Issue;  Growth of food-chain crops



          A.   Proposed Regulation and Rationale



               The proposed regulations prohibited growing of



food-chain crops on the treated area of a land treatment facility.



This requirement/prohibition was not included in the proposed



interim status standards.  However, after further consideration,



the Agency has decided that this standard meets the criteria
                                 40

-------
established by the Agency for interim status standards and serves



important environmental objectives.



               The purpose of the proposed regulations was to



protect humans from consuming toxic materials that may contaminate



human or animal food grown on land to which hazardous waste has



been applied.



               Several routes exist by which food-chain crops



grown on land treatment facilities may be contaminated by hazardous



waste constituents.  These are:  (1) uptake by plants of the



hazardous constituent from the soil, and transfer to the edible



portion of the plant, (2) adherence of a waste to crop surface,



and (3) ingestion of the waste by grazing animals.



               There are many factors which influence the degree



to which various hazardous constituents may be transferred along



these routes.  These include:  the chemical, physical, and biological



characteristics of the waste; the method of application; the rate



of application; season; climate; soil characteristics (including



soil type, moisture content, pH, cation exchange capacity of the



soil (CEC), hydrous-oxide content, and biological and microbio-



logical activity); the type of crop grown; the method of planting;



time and method of harvest, etc.



               The information available on the extent to which



organic or inorganic substances are actually translocated to



crops is limited.  Many of the studies which have been done are



the subject of a great deal of controversy.  For example, many



studies failed to include pH effect on metal accumulation, thus



the knowledge of pH effect on metal accumulation is insufficient.
                                41

-------
Also, there are varying opinions on the validity of extrapolating

greenhouse data to represent actual field conditions.

               In addition to the difficulties involved with

predicting and controlling the various factors which influence

the transfer of hazardous constituents to food chain crops, there

is only limited information available regarding "safe" levels of

various substances in crops.  Although the Food and Drug Adminis-

tration expresses concern about the growing of food chain crops

on waste amended soils, no quantitative guidance, except for

PCBs*, has been given as to what levels of toxic metals or other

hazardous constituents in crops would protect human health.

               Also, presentations in the literature on this

subject do not always clearly distinguish plant toxicity from

animal toxicity.  It is recognized that toxic effects to crops

can provide some protection for crop consumers (animal and human).

However, accumulation of hazardous constituents in crops without

signs of plant toxicity creates the opportunity for human exposure

to potentially harmful substances.  The reported levels of

hazardous constituents in crop tissues are sometimes subject of

misinterpretation.  Care is not always taken to distinguish

between data on the edible and nonedible portions of the crop.

However, even the "nonedible" portions of the crop may be used

for animal feed so that a particular hazardous constituent may

still enter the food chain.  Also, nonharvested portions of
* Finished animal feeds are the only crops for which FDA has
  set a PCB tolerance level.  This tolerance level is 1.2 ppm
  in feeds that are given to animals consumed by humans.
                                42

-------
the crop may remain in the soil where the hazardous constituents



could contribute to increases in soil levels.



               While the state of knowledge about translocation



of hazardous constituents to crops is incomplete, the Agency does



have information to suggest that there is a significant cause for



concern that translocation of some of the hazardous constituents



to food crops could endanger public health.



               The cause of the Agency's concern regarding growth



of food-chain crops on land treated with waste is exemplified by



a variety of actual incidents, studies, and projections.   It



should be noted that although many of the incidents described



here do not relate specifically to land treatment of hazardous



wastes, the concerns they raise are still pertinent to this



program.  The concerns relate to ingestion by animals, vaporization



or direct adherence to crops, and plant uptake.



               It is known, for example, that almost any hazardous



waste could be translocated through direct ingestion by grazing



animals.  Soil is ingested by grazing animals along with herbage



from the adhering to leaves, from soil on roots, and from earth-



worm casts.  In the case of a land treatment site, the soil is



likely to be a mixture of soil and waste.  Factors influencing



soil/waste ingestion include the type of animal, the type of soil



and type of forage, stock density and other management variables,



rainfall, and earthworm populations. 15,16




               Grazing animals have been estimated to ingest soil



in amounts ranging from 2 to 14 percent of the diet.17  Healy has



shown that soil can make up as much as 8 percent of the dry matter

-------
intake of grazing cattle.18  Furthermore, cattle have been observed




grazing on land used for the application of industrial sludges.19



               In 1976, in Bloomington, Indiana, municipal sludge



laden with PCBs was applied to pasture land which was grazed by a



single dairy cow.  The PCB levels of the sludge ranged from 240



to 1,700 ppm and soil levels in the pasture reached 200 ppm PCBs.20



As a result of grazing in this pasture, the cow's milk contained



5 ppm PCBs (fat basis), and was thus not fit for human consumption.



(The FDA tolerance for unavoidable PCBs in milk shipped interstate



commerce is 1.5 ppm.)



               Other instances of the transfer of toxic organic



compounds from pasture soil to grazing animals have been reported.



In Gossimer, Louisiana, hexachlorobenzene was accidentally



spilled onto pasture land, resulting in the impoundment of 20,000



cattle, until levels of the contaminant in these animals were



reduced.21  In Maryland, heptachlor used for the control of



weevils in alfalfa was later found to have contaminated the milk



of grazing animals.22  Harrison et al., have shown that soil



containing DDT residues can supply considerable amounts of total



DDT to ewes and that these residues can be transferred to lambs.2^



               Some organic wastes may vaporize and redeposit on



the tissue of plants.  While few studies have been done in this area,



information has been developed which shows that lipephilic (oil)



crops like soybeans tend to take up lipophilic hyrdrocarbons like



chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides.  Also, the surface of the



leafy plants can become contaminated with small amounts of these



materials, resulting primarily from their vaporization from
                                    44

-------
the soil and redeposit on the plants.  The risks of the contamination



in this instance is under study.24




               The adherence of toxic substances to crops is



another avenue for transfer.  The likelihood of surface contamina-



tion occurring is greatest when liquid waste are applied to crops.



An example of surface contamination is a case where DDT was once



applied routinely to sweet corn in large amounts to control the



corn ear worm.  It has since appeared on the surface of carrots



grown in the same fields, and has made those carrots unsuitable



for sale.21




               Nearly all of the published'work on adherence of



land-applied wastes to growing crops is based on application of



municipal sludge.  However, Batey, et al.. found high levels of



copper and zinc in or on crops sprayed with swine manure slurries.25




Boswell found high levels of cadmium, lead, and chromium on



foliage following application of municipal sludge filter cake.25



Chaney and Lloyd have shown that municipal sludge applied to



pasture grass can, shortly after application, result in the adhered



sludge making up 30 percent of the dry weight of the crop.26  Rain-



fall and weathering over an 80-day period did not remove much of



the sludge from the grass.  However, the 80 days of growth



permitted a dilution of the weight of the sludge to the weight of



the crop.  Still, at the end of the 80-day period, 5 percent of



the dry weight of the grass was actually found to be adhered



sludge.  This study was performed in the rainy east, and therefore,



one would expect that sludge application to grasses in more arid




regions would result in even greater adherence of the sludge to
                                 45

-------
the crops.  A greenhouse study by Jones et al., using simulated



rainfall, resulted in similar conclusions to those of Chaney and



Lloyd.27  once the sludge had dried on the grass, rainfall was




not effective in reducing the amount of adhered sludge.  Rainfall



was found only to be effective if it occurred immediately after



sludge was applied.




               Heavy metals, such as cadmium, molybdenum, selenium,



mercury, and lead, can be absorbed by crops from the soil of land



treatment facilities.  The uptake of mercury and lead by most



crops, however, is not nearly of the magnitude of these other



metals.



               Cadmium may be taken up by plants even though only



very low levels exist in the soil.  The transfer of cadmium from



the soil to plants is well documented in the background document



supporting EPA1s recently promulgated Criteria for Classification



of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.  Crops such as



leafy vegetables or root crops take up significantly greater



amounts of cadmium than do grains or grasses.



               Maintaining a near-neutral pH on a land treatment



facility to control plant uptake of most heavy metals can lead to



an increase in the uptake of molybdenum and selenium.  These two



metals are more soluble at neutral and basic pH's.  Molybdenum's



toxicity has been a serious problem in livestock food production



in certain areas of the western United States.  Forages grown on



naturally wet, alkaline, or neutral soils can contain toxic concen-



trations of molybdenum.28  Certainly, the land application of



wastes high in molybdenum to such soils would aggravate this




naturally-occurring problem.






                                 46

-------
               In Oregon, a study using shredded municipal waste



at an application rate of 900 metric tons per hectare resulted in



a significant uptake of molybdenum by alfalfa.  The levels reached



would have been potentially hazardous to livestock if only one



feed source was used.29



               Land treated wastes do not generally increase



levels of mercury in plants.  However, Van Loon found very con-



siderable levels of mercury in tomatoes where municipal sludges



(the highest containing 25 ppm mercury) were used.27,32  Results



of Yugoslav studies showed that mercury levels of most plants



were low ( 1 to 50 ppb) compared to the mercury content of soils



in which they grew (100 to 600 ppm).  Carrots, grasses, and some



weeds had more mercury (800 ppb) than other plants.  Jackson



found that mercury in the tops of barley and soybean plants whose



roots were in a mercury solution came from mercury vapor released



from the roots, rather than from translocation.  If mercury vola-



tilizes from waste-treated soils, plants could absorb it.30



               Significant increases in the lead content of some



crops as a result of soil application of lead have been reported,



particularly in soils deficient in phosphate.  Because of the



buffering capabilities of soils and plant roots, as well as



absorption and precipitation phenomena, most lead in soils is not



likely to be translocated to the above-ground portions of plants.



However, uptake to the above-ground portions can be appreciable



following changes in the environmental and physiological condition



of the plant.33  in fact, investigations of existing land treatment



sites have indicated that significant increases can occur in the
                                  47

-------
lead content of crops, such as clover and various grasses.30



               In general, a minimal amount of toxic organic



compounds are absorbed by plant roots and transferred to other



parts of the plant.  Organics with large molecules, such as pesti-



cides and PCBs, do not tend to pass the semipermeable membrane of



plant roots.  Consequently, plants posses the ability to exclude



large organic molecules added to soils, which result in minimal



impact on the quality of forage and grains.32  An exception is



organochlorine pesticides which are absorbed by plant roots and



transferred to other parts of the plant, but at a very low rate



compared to the concentration in the soil.3-*



               The absorption of PCBs by plant roots and trans-



location within plants is considered minimal, but some studies



have reported what appeared to be low levels of plant uptake as a



result of heavy application rates.34  These studies further



suggest, however, that PCBs are not actually taken up by the plant



but, rather, are physically adsorbed on the surface of the roots.32



               The examples do suggest that there are known cases



where translocation of toxic substances to crops has occurred,



and that there is a significant potential for contamination of crops



from soils treated with hazardous wastes to crops grown on that soil,



               Although not legally required, the Agency also



examined the benefits to be gained from growing food-chain crops



in treated soils.  The Agency believes that such benefits are mini-



mal.  Certainly the very small amount of land so used is not needed



for good growth from a national perspective.  It represents a



negligible portion of the total productive land for crop





                             48-49

-------
growth available in this country.  Furthermore,  there are other

productive uses of such land,  for example,  crop  farming of non-food-

chain crops, if crop growth is desired.  The Agency recognizes that

growth of food-chain crops can result in a  source of revenues to

help defray disposal costs.  However, the Agency does not believe

that such revenues minus the cost of growing and marketing the

crops, especially in light of the cost of waste  and crop monitoring

and other controls needed to ensure protection of public health,  are

significant to the economic viability of land treatment.

     The Agency considered the alternative  of specifying safe

application rates of various wastes to the  soil  for growth of food

crops.  The Agency also considered establishing  safe levels of various

substances in plants and requiring crop monitoring to control

potential hazards.  As the above discussion points out,  the data

and information base available for such an approach does not exist.

     In view of all of the above considerations,  the Agency concluded

that it should ban the growth of food-chain crops on hazardous

waste land treatment facilities.

     B.   Comments on the Proposed Regulation

          0  The term "food-chain crops" means tobacco;  crops
             grown for human consumption; or crops grown for pasture,
             forage, or feed grain for animals whose products are
             consumed by humans.

          0  The regulation is too restrictive.   If studies of
             plant tissue residues and crop uptake demonstate that
             the crop will not take up the  hazardous constituents,
             growth should be permitted.

          8  The restriction will abolish the practice of growing
             food chain crops at land treatment  facilities.  EPA
             should require tests to determine if crops grown on
             such land are suitable for consumption by humans or
             livestock
                                  50

-------
Growth of food-chain crops should be permitted if, after
study over two growing seasons, the consumable part of
the crop can be shown to be non-toxic.

The regulation is too restrictive.  It should be
replaced with a requirement for monitoring of crop
uptake of hazardous constituents.

The regulation is too restrictive.  The regulations
should take into consideration the hazardous characteristics
of the waste, the nature of the soil, and the substance
being taken up by crops. Growth should be allowed.

The regulation should be based on application rates of
waste, rather than a prohibition.  EPA should develop
regulations controlling application and specifying
testing requirements.

The issue is blown out of proportion.  Many hazardous
wastes are phytotoxic, which makes growth of any crop
impossible.  However, other wastes are amenable to land
treatment on crop land.

Growth of food-chain crops should not be prohibited
without qualification.  Certain crops and grasses have
assimilative capacity for a variety of potential
hazardous waste, e.g., bermuda grasses.  Without their
use, land treatment facilities would have to be bigger.

The prohibition is inconsistent with EPA's position on
POTW sludge.  Textile sludges present no greater toxic
potential than POTW sludges.

Studies have shown that land treatment of utility ash
and sludge do not result in unsafe levels of potentially
hazardous contaminants in crops.  Gypsum and fly ash
are used routinely to correct soil deficiencies.  An
exception should be provided where reasonable evidence
and studies show that there is no substantial hazard
to human health.

The regulation would prohibit using waste lime as a
soil conditioner on crop lands.  Waste limes from the
sugar beet refining process or from lime kilns have
high levels of CaCO3 (85 percent) and MgC03 (5 percent),
which neutralize acid soils.  Waste lime from beet
processing has been in use for 25 yeafirs.

Crude oil does not have as high a concentration of
heavy metals as other waste oils.  It has been
demonstrated that waste crude oil adds nutrient value
and that it is perfectly safe to grow crops on land so
treated.
                     51

-------
          0  The regulation would eliminate land treatment of waste
             for beneficial uses, i.e./  as agricultural fertilizers.
             It would raise disposal costs by 700 percent.  Thus,
             •there is a poor risk and benefit ratio for a ban.

          0  The prohibition is totally appropriate, since there is
             very little information on toxics and persistent
             organics beyond the work on metals in POTW sludges.
             Until data are developed on crop uptake of these other
             toxins, land contaminated with them should not be used
             for agricultural purposes.

     C.  Response to the Comments

     1.  Food chain crops should be defined.

         A definition for "food chain crops"  was provided in the

proposed rules on page 58997, Section 250.41( b) (33) .  The same

definition is included in the final interim status regulations.  The

definition reads:  "Food chain crops" means:  tobacco? crops grown

for human consumption; or crops grown for pasture, forage, or feed

grain for animals whose products are consumed by humans."  This

definition does not preclude the growing of a crop which is normally

consumed by humans or animals if the crop is  only grown as a ground

cover and then plowed under.

     2.  Monitor crop uptake.

         The option of analyzing a crop for uptake of hazardous

constituents is conceptually attractive, but  presents certain

problems in practice. The most basic problem  is that the Food and

Drug Administration has not established crop  tolerance levels for

most of the hazardous constituents of concern; hence, there is no

standard of comparison.

     However, the Agency does believe that crop monitoring represents

an acceptable general approach when comparing hazardous constituents

in the crops to background levels.  Comparing crops grown on land
                                 52

-------
treatment facilities with crops grown in nontreated soils is the

only feasible way of applying crop monitoring in most situations,

due to lack of defined tolerance levels.  The revised regulatory

language permits an owner or operator to present such data to the

Agency as a part of the support for a claim that growth of a crop

on a land treatment facility presents no danger to public health.

     3.  Prescribe acceptable application rates.  Base the standard
         on the characteristics of the waste/ the soil, and the
         crop being grown.  Many wastes are amenable to land
         treatment on cropland.

         This approach, perhaps coupled with crop monitoring, would

be an ideal approach if the state-of-the-art would support it.

     Unfortunately, this is not the case.  Except for cadmium,

information on acceptable application rates is not available for

combinations of soil, hazardous wastes, and crops.  Consequently,

this approach is not feasible as a general approach at this time.

Such an approach is used for cadmium, however, because there is

sufficient data to support it.  However, the Agency believes that

it is important to begin to develop this information through monitorir

of conditions in a land treatment facility.  Furthermore, the Agency

believes that an owner or operator should have the opportunity to

demonstrate to the Agency that it has developed such information

for a particular situation.  This concept is embodied in the interim

status standards.

     4.  Certain crops and grasses have assimilative 'capacity for
         potentially hazardous substances, e.g., bermuda grasses.
         The regulation should be qualified to allow their growth.

         The proposed regulation is not without qualification in

that only food chain crops are restricted.  Crops which are not

used for human consumption or consumed by animals whose products are


                                  53

-------
not consumed by humans are not restricted.  Therefore, a crops such

as burmuda grass can be grown at a land treatment site for the

purpose of assimilating waste components or providing ground cover-

In this case, the grass could not be used as an animal feed for

animals whose products are consumed by humans.  Because a food

chain crop is defined by its end use, crops which may normally be

considered food chain crops can be grown on the landfarm if adequate

measures are taken to prevent its consumption by humans or animals

whose products are consumed by humans.

     5.  The prohibition is inconsistent with Subtitle D regulations.
         Textile sludges present no greater hazard to crop growth
         than wastewater treatment sludge.

         The Agency agrees that the approaches are currently

different.  However, the cadmium standards established in the

Criteria have been incorporated into the interim status standards

in order to have consistency between those two regulations.  The

requirements concerning PCB in the Criteria were not included at

this time.  This issue will be resolved as part of the consideration

between the RCRA programs and the Agency program for handling PCB

under the Toxic Substance Control Act.  Also, the interim status

standards will provide an owner or operator the opportunity to

present data showing that crop growth on such waste is safe.

     6.  Utility ash and sludge is beneficial to some solids;
         presents no hazard to crops.

         The interim status standards will allow an owner or operator

to grow food chain crops at a land treatment facility, provided he

has data indicating that such a practice does not pose a threat to

public health.  Therefore, an owner or operator at a land treatment

facility receiving utility ash and/or sludge may grow food chain crops

provided he can document that such crops are safe.


                                 54

-------
     7.  The regulation would prohibit using waste lime as a soil
         conditioner on crop lands.

         The Agency acknowledges the point raised by this comment

and has exempted waste lime from this prohibition if it is only

clasified as a hazardous waste due to its high pH.  This provision

is specified in Part 261.

     8.  Crude oil adds nutrient value to the soil, and crop growth
         on land so treated is safe.

         As with all waste which is classified hazardous, the interim

status standards will allow an owner or operator to grow food chain

crops at a landtreatment facility provided he has data indicating

that such a practice does not pose a threat to public health.

     9.  The prohibition wold eliminate land application of hazardous
         waste for use as agricultural fertilizers and raise disposal
         costs by 700 percent.

         No data to support the claim of a 700 percent cost increase

were provided, and the Agency disagrees strongly with this estimate.

Since the prohibition only applies to the growing of crops for

human consumption or for consumption by animals whose products are

consumed by humans, the Agency does not believe that this restriction

will result in a major impact on the landfarming of hazardous

wastes.  Because food chain crops often have a higher market value

than non-food-chain crops, there may be some reduction of income from

landfarms.  However, because many non-food-chain crops are often

grown on less productive lands, the agricultural fertilizer value

of the hazardous wastes may be better utilized by these crops.

Thus, the Agency sees no clear or significant benefit from growing

food chain crops.
                              55

-------
     10.  Summary



          The Agency proposed a ban on the growth of food-chain



crops at hazardous waste land treatment facilities.  After reviewing



comments, EPA decided that during the interim Status period, food-chain



crops may be grown, provided that certain requirements are met.



The Agency's decision not to continue with the ban during the



interim status period is based on the following reasons:  First,



there exist insufficient data to indicate that the growth of food-chain



crops at a hazardous waste land treatment facility would always



create a risk to those who consume such crops.  Second, banning the



growth of food-chain crops, would be inconsistent with the regulatory



approach taken to protect food-chain crops under Subtitle D of



RCRA.  These regulations were finalized as the Criteria for



Clasification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (40



CFR 257) on September 13, 1979.



     The Agency believes it would be unjustified to impose a ban on



the growth of food-chain crops at land treatment facilities if



there were convincing evidence that the crops can be grown without



posing a significant public health risk.  It is conceivable that a



substance in a hazardous waste may not be taken up by certain



food-chain crops, or after a period of treatment, the substance



may degreade into products non-hazardous to humans.



     For example, some wastes may be used to control pH of the



soil, and there may be a significant body of data which supports



that such a use does not pose a public health risk.  The Agncy does



not wish to prohibit such uses of waste, realizing that the waste may



simply be replaced with commercial product containing the same



chemical constituents as the waste.





                             56

-------
     The cadmium standards detailed in the Criteria do not set


limits for food-chain crops, but instead prescribe annual application


rates and limits on cumulative loading based on the specific health


risk posed by cadmium.  As a result, a waste, regardless of the


cadmium concentration, may be applied to land on which food-chain


crops are grown.  Compliance with the Criteria can be achieved


merely by applying less waste. The Agency believes it would be


unjustified in banning the growth of food-chain crops at facilities


receiving waste that is hazardous due to cadmium, since such a waste


can be applied in a manner that would not violate the standards


prescribed in the Criteria.


     The Agency, while not considering a ban appropriate because of


the reasons mentioned, had to deal with the task of how to structure


the regulations to permit the growth of food-chain crops, and at


the same time be assured that public health would be protected.  In


order to achieve this, the Agency devised a two-part test to determine


whether food-chain crop growth on land treatment facilities is


acceptable.  The two-part test requires the owner or operator,


prior to growing a crop, to demonstrate that the hazardous waste


constituents in the waste, as well as arsenic, lead and mercury


will not (1) be transferred to the edible portion of the crop by


plant uptake, by direct contact or by transfer to food-chain animals;


or  (2) occur in greater concentrations in the crop than in crops
                                                     sft

grown on control soils under similar circumstances in the region.


     In order to demonstrate comparability, an owner or operator


must use actual field studies.  A test plot would be considered


an acceptable field study.  Also, the conditions under which the


comparable crops are grown must be similar to the conditions found



                             57

-------
at the facility-  For example, soil type, soil moisture, soil pH,



soil nutrients, photo period and length of growing season, must be



similar at both facility and control sites.  The owner or operator



must also document the sample selection criteria, sample size



determination, analytical methods and statistical procedures used to



make the demonstration.  In order to determine the compliance prior



to waste application, the owner or operator must pre-test samples of



the crop using the type of waste and application rate that will be



used at the facility.  The sample must be that portion of a crop



which would be consumed, e.g., corn kernel, wheat grain etc.



     The two-part test approach is based on the premises that since



the Agency does not have a clear specification of the "no risk"



level of such contaminants in food crops, it is reasonable to assume



that the level of such contaminants presently in food crops is



acceptable.  However,- future research data may indicate that health



tolerances in food crops should be higher or lower than the average



levels otherwise present in such crops.



     Arsenic, lead,, and mercury were specifically identified



because of their relatively high toxicity to humans and evidence



that they can be taken up by crops (38).  Mercury can enter plants



through the roots and be readily translocated throughout the plant.



Arsenic tends to accumulate in the roots of most crops, which is a



concern when root crops such as radishes, carrots, etc., are grown.



When in high concentrations in the soil, lead has been shown to



translocate to crops.



     The Agency is concerned that there are other hazadous substances



in the wastes, e.g., toxic organics, that may be taken up by crops.





                               58

-------
The difficulty in identifying toxic organics is due to the lack of

data in this area.  Most crop studies have addressed only inorganics:

thus there is a paucity of data on the uptake of toxic organics by

crops.  However, the Agency will identify other hazardous substances

of concern as information becomes available.

     In order to be consistent with the Criteria for the Classification

of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, the standard

developed in those regulations for cadmium has been incorporated

into the interim status regulation.  Thus the cadmium standard

present in the Criteria will be applicable to hazardous waste land

treatment facilities.

     The Criteria include two approaches for the land application

of wastes containing cadmium.  The first approach incorporates four
                                      *
site management controls; control of the pH of the waste and soil

mixture; annual cadmium application limits that are reduced over

time; cumulative cadmium application limits based on soil cation

exchange capacity (CEC); and restriction of the cadmium concentration

in waste applied to facilities where tobacco, leafy vegetables and

root crops are grown.

     The second approach allows unlimited application of cadmium

provided that four specific control measures are taken: first, the

crop grown can only be used as animal feed.  Second, the pH of the

soil must be maintained at 6.5 or above for as long as food-chain

crops are grown.  Third, a facility operating plan must describe

how the animal feed will be distributed to prevent human ingestion:

Fourth, future owners are provided notice (through provisions in

land records of property deed) that there are high levels of cadmium

in the soil and that food-chain crops should not be grown.


                            59

-------
     The Agency has added a provision to the interim status



regulations that requires owners or operators of land treatment



facilities on which food-chain crops have been grown, or are going



grown, to notify the Regional Administrator within sixty (60) days



after the effective date of the regulations if they intend to grow



food-chain crops in the future.  In addition a note in the regulation



apprises an owner or operator, who for the first time grows food-



chain crops after the effective date of the regulation, that he has



made a change in process and must notify the Administrator under



Section 122.23(c)(3) of the consolidated permitting regulations.



These notification procedures are designed to give the Regional



Administrator notice of those facilities that are engaging in the



environmnentally sensitive activity of applying hazardous waste to



food-chain crops.  This information will assist the Regional



Admnistrator in the establishment of priorities for permitting.



     It is the Agency's firm belief that growth of food-chain crops



on land contaminated with hazardous waste is an issue which should



be dealt with cautiously, and should be practiced only where there



is convincing evidence that it poses no threat to public health.



In the opinion of the Agency there is little need to grow food-



chain crops at land treatment facilities.  The small amount of land



use for land treatment represents a negligible portion of the total



productive land available for crop growth in the Unitd States.



Furthermore, there are other productive uses of the land, such as



ornamental horticulture, growth of fiber crops or other non-food crops



     The Agency recognizes that growth of food-chain crops can



result in a source of revenue to help defray disposal cost.  However,





                              60

-------
the Agency does not believe that such revenues, minus the cost of



growing and marketing the crops, are significant to the economic



viability of landtreatment, especially in light of the cost of



monitoring wastes and crops and other controls needed to ensure the



protection of public health.



D.  Final Regulatory Language



     §265.276  Food-chain crops



     (a)  An owner or operator of a hazardous waste land treatment



facility on whirh food-chain crops are being grown, or have been



grown and will be grown in the future, must notify the Regional



Administrator within 60 days after the effective date of this Part.



[Comment;  The growth of food chain crops at a facility which has



never before been used for this purpose is a significant change in



process under §122.23(c)(3) of this Chapter.  Owners or operators



of such land treatment facilities who propose to grow food chain



crops after the effective date of this Part must comply with



§122.23(c)(3) of this Chapter.]



     (b)(l)  Food chain crops must not be grown on the treated area



of a hazardous waste land treatment facility unless the owner or



operator can demonstrate, based on field testing, that any arsenic,



lead, mercury, or other constituents identified under §265.273(b):



     (i)  Will not be transferred to the food portion of the crop



by plant uptake or direct contact, and will not otherwise be ingested



by food chain animals  (e.g., by grazing): or



     (ii)  Will not occur in greater concentrations in the crops



grown on the land treatment facility than in the same crops grown



on untreated soils under similar conditions in the same region.
                              61

-------
     (2)  The information necessary to make the demonstration

required by paragraph (b)(l) of this Section must be kept at the

facility and must/ at a minimum:

     (i)  Be based on tests for the specific waste and application

rates being used at the facility; and

     (ii)  Include descriptions of crop and soil characteristics,

sample selection criteria, sample size determination, analytical

methods, and statistical procedures.

     (c)  Food chain crops must not be grown on a land treatment

facility receiving wasts that contains cadmium unless all requirements

of paragraph (c)(1)(i)  through (iii) of this Section or all

requirements of paragraph (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this Section

are met.

     (1)  (i)  The pH of the waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or

greater at the time of each waste application, except for waste

containing cadmium at concentrations of 2 mg/kg (dry weight) or less;

     (ii)  The annual application of cadmium from waste does not

exceed 0.5 kilograms per hectare (kg/ha)  on land used for production

of tobacco, leafy vegetables, or root crops grown for human

consumption.  For other food chain crops, the annual cadmium

application rate does not exceed:

                                       Annual G3
                                    Application Pate
	Time Period	(kg/ha)	

Present to June 30, 1984	2.0
July 1, 1984 to Dec.  31, 1986	1.25
Beginning Jan. 1, 1987	0.5
                                 62

-------
     (iii)  The cumulative application of cadmium from waste does

not exceed the levels in either paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A) of this

Section or paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this Section.



                              Maximum cumulative application (kg/ha)
  Soil cation                 Background soil pH  Background soil pH
exchange capacity               less than 6.5      greater than 6.5
  (meq/lOOg)


less than 5	        5                5
5-15	        5               10
greater than 15	        5                20


     (B)  For soils with a background pH of less than 6.5, the

cumulative cadmium application rate does not exceed the levels

below:  Provided/ that the pH of the waste and soil mixture is

adjusted to and maintained at 6.5 or greater whenever food chain

crops are grown.


Soil cation exchange capacity            Maximum cumulative
      (meq/lOOg)                         application (kg/ha)


   less than 5	          5
   5_!5	         10
   greater than 15	         20


     (2) (i)  The only food chain crop produced is animal feed.

        (ii)  The pH of the waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or greater

at the time of waste application or at the time the crop is planted,
                                                     #
whichever occurs later, and this pH level is maintained whenever

food chain crops are grown.

        (iii)  There is a facility operating plan which demonstrates

how the animal feed will be distributed to preclude ingestion by
                                  63

-------
humans.  The facility operating plan describes the measures to be

taken to safeguard against possible health hazards from cadmium

entering the food chain, which may result from alternative land use.

     (iv)  Future property owners are notified by a stipulation in

the land record or property deed which states that the property has

received waste at high cadmium application rates and that food

chain crops should not be grown, due to a possible health hazard.

[Comment:  As required by §265.73, if an owner or operator grows

food chain crops on his land treatment facility, he must place the

information developed in this Section in the operating record of

the facility.]

     4.  Issue;  Soil monitoring

         a.  Proposed Regulation and Rationale

             The proposed interim status regulations required soil

monitoring only as it related to closure.   Those requirements will

be discussed in the section of this document dealing with closure.

The other soil monitoring requirements of the proposed regulations

were not included in the proposed interim status standards.  However,

after further consideration, the Agency has determined that soil

monitoring serves an important environmental objective and meets

the criteria established by the Agency for interim status standards.

Soil monitoring is necessary during interim status because it is an

indicator of how well the land treatment process is working.

     The proposed soil monitoring requirements included:

     0  Determine background soil conditions by taking one soil core
        per acre in the area to be treated at a depth of three times
        the depth of the zone of incorporation, or 30 centimeters,
        whichever is greater.  The bottom one-third of the soil core
        must be analyzed for the hazardous constituents in the waste.
                                    64

-------
        At new facilities, the cores must be taken prior to beginning
        operation.  At existing facilities, the cores must be taken
        within six months of the effective date of the regulations.

     0  Soil conditions in the treated area of a landfarm must be
        determined by taking one soil core per acre semiannually at
        three times the depth of the zone of incorporation, or 30
        centimeters, which is greater.  The bottom one-third of the
        core must be analyzed for the hazardous constituents in the
        waste.

     0  If soil monitoring shows that the concentration of a
        hazardous constituents significantly exceeds background
        levels, the owner/operator must: (1) notify the Regional
        Administrator within seven days, (2) determine the areal
        extent of vertical contaminant migration, and (3) discontinue
        all land treatment in the contaminated area until corrective
        measures are taken.

     There were three basic elements to this proposed procedure,

each with a separate rationale. These elements were the sampling

procedure (i.e., number of samples), the depth of the core samples,

and the corrective action required.  The sampling procedure was

based largly on subjective reasoning of how many samples would be

required to obtain an adequate representation of the soil in the

landfarm.  The requirement was not based on a statistical test.

     The corrective actions specified were based on the assumption

that migration of contaminants to a depth of three times the depth

of the zone of incorporation constituted a potential threat to

public health and the environment, and that no further land treatment

should occur until this situation was corrected, as determined by

the Regional Administrator.

     Perhaps the most significant element of the requirement was

the selected depth of three times the depth of the zone of

incorporation as the "performance standard" for the facility.  This

standard was based on a number of technical studies which suggested
                              65

-------
that in a properly designed and operated land treatment facility,



there should be little or no migration of contaminant beyond the



zone of incorporation.



     The Agency has identified a considerable amount of literature



and empirical data indicating limited waste migration at hazardous



waste land treatment facilities.



     A literature review by Page6 in 1974, evaluated the potential



hazards of the application over 10 years of sewage treatment plant



wastes to agricultural soils.  Page found that in most soils, the



percentage of heavy metals (Ag, Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb,



Sn, and Zn), applied in the form of sludge which move beyond the



depth of tillage, is quite small.  This same phenomenon has been



observed in field studies where oily hazardous waste has been land



treated.  Meyers and Huddleston^ applied oil refinery waste (API



Separator Sludge, tank bottoms, slop oil) at three different



application rates over a period of three years.  The study indicated



no significant leaching or migration of organic or inorganic waste



constituents.  Similar findings were reported by Kincannon? in his



review of an 18-month field study conducted in 1971.  Three types



of oil feed materials were selected to represent different combinations



of hydrocarbon types.  The oil types included oil tank bottoms,



buncker C fuel oil, and waxy oil.  Neither oil nor nutrients (added



as fertilizer) migrated vertically during the study.



     A recent state-of-the-art study^ on land treatment of municipal



and industrial wastes found no incidents of water pollution at any of



the six sites studied.  Soil sampling at these sites suggested that



heavy metals and trace elements appear to be retained in the zone



of incorporation.






                                66

-------
     The middle section  (middle one-third of core) is the buffer

zone.  Even though data  indicate that the extent of migration of

waste contaminants is generally limited to the zone of incorporation,

a buffer zone was provided to allow for the effects of variability

within a site,  (e.g., the depth of the zone of incorporation may

vary from six to eight inches).

     The lower  section (bottom one-third of core) represents the

indicator zone.  The presence or absence of waste contaminants in

this zone would indicate whether or not a land treatment facility

is functining properly.

     An approach similar to that proposed by EPA was arrived at

independently by an EPA  contractor that recently performed a state-

of-the-art study on land treatment practices.2  The report stated
                                      i
that "a landfarm site must be properly monitored to ensure that

waste constituents are retained in the layer of incorporation.

This can be accomplished by collecting soil samples at three depths

(0 to 30 cm, 30 to 60 cm, and 60 to 90 cm) prior to site activation,

and at 3 to 6-month intervals thereafter.  Soil samples collected

should be analyzed for those constituents present in the waste

which may result in water pollution problems."  The only major

difference between this  and the EPA approach is the contractor's

recommendation  of a fixed core sample depth.  The Agency considered

the variable depth related to the depth of tillage to be more

flexible in accommodating the different tillage methods that

currently exist among sites.
                                  67

-------
b.  Comments on the Proposed Regulations

1.  Soil Monitoring vs. Ground-water Monitoring

0   Neches1  land treatment research supports EPA's conclusions
    that soil monitoring will detect any migration long before
    ground-water monitoring could detect it.

0   Ground-water monitoring at land treatment facilities is
    unnecessary, especially with the proposed siting and
    surface controls outlined in §250.45-5(b)  and (c) .

0   Because our own data has shown little migration, we strongly
    support soil monitoring in lieu of ground-water monitoring.
    If, at some later time, soil monitoring indicates significant
    migration, ground-water monitoring could be commenced.

0   Because the published literature clearly shows little
    migration, we strongly support soil monitoring lieu of
    ground-water monitoring.

0   The proposed soil monitoring program is not adequate to protect
    ground water resources.  Some potential ground-water
    contaminants migrate slowly through soils; however, there
    are many potential contaminants that can migrate very
    quickly through soils, depending on soil conditions and
    waste characteristics.  Situations could exist where
    potential ground-water contaminants would migrate to ground
    water and not be detected by semiannual soil monitoring.

0   EPA could not identify a single incident of ground-water
    contamination resulting from land treatment of hazardous
    wastes,  which would indicate that the soil monitoring
    requirements are overly restrictive and should be replaced
    by test wells at the property line.  Soil monitoring should
    be performed, but for day-to-day operations, not for
    compliance monitoring.

2.  Soil Monitoring

A.  Sampling Procedure (Number of Samples? Extent of Analysis)

0   Analyzing for all hazardous components is unreasonable  and
    expensive.  Should analyze only "as necessary" to detect
    vertical migration of wastes.  It is beyond present day
    knowledge to analyze for all hazardous constituents since:

    - many wastes are very complex and variable in composition

    - quantitative analysis may not show biological activity
      or chemical form of some components.
                            68

-------
-  very few labs have the expertise or equipment to do
   quantitative analysis of soil samples, and there are
   few standardized analysis procedures

Because of the above, should analyze for indicators of
tracers, such as bromide.

Should analyze for degradation products rather than wastes,
as applied.  Should change the regulation to "analysis as
necessary to detect vertical migration of hazardous
constituents."

Accumulation of waste constituents in the soil should be
compared with "acceptable" levels of those constituents
rather than with background.

The number of samples and extent of analysis is excessive
for low hazard wastes, and would be expensive ($200-$400
per sample).  Should analyze only for major species unless
migration is detected.  For example, large treatment areas
with uniform terrain and cover crop would hardly require
so many samples and would result in redundant data.
Analyzing for all constituents which make the waste
hazardous is overkill, also.  (Comment listed 28 substances
which potentially would have to be monitored for fly ash
and scrubber sludge.)  Should analyze for major species
initially, such as Ca, Na, 364, etc.  If migration is
indicated, then more extensive trace analysis could be done.

No methods were provided for obtaining core samples, and
there is an absence of analysis methods and methodology
for determining background condition.  Should require a
minimum of 10 background samples and not less than one per
acre.

Soil monitoring and comparison to background analyses is
too vaguely described.  Suggest that a periodic report of
analyses be required and that the definition of "significantly
exceeded background levels" be more scientifically
specified.

Should define significant increase over background.
Suggest defining significant increase in terms of number
of samples, i.e.:      /
                             Significant Increase
         No. of Samples        over Background

               1                    1.2
               2                    1.4
               3                    1.6
               4                    1.8
                      69

-------
One sample per acre is arbitrary and unreasonable.  Soil
samples are time-consuming and expensive/ and should be
minimized.  Five samples are sufficient—one on each corner
and one in the center of the facility, for plots of 50
acres or less.

For background purposes, one core per acre is excessive
and expensive.  Should sample the four corners and middle
of the treated area.  If these samples show inconsistencies,
then additional samples could be taken.

The cost of sampling large land treatment areas will be
exorbitant and for no good reason.  Uniformity of the
soils in the tract can be determined by sampling of the
four corners and middle of the site.

Should allow a variance for the owner or operator to show
that his sample will give representative results.

Far fewer than one soil core per acre would accomplish
adequte testing at three times the depth of the zone of
incorporation.  Testing of each acre, if necessary, should
be confined to the actual zone of incorporation.

Background and treated soil conditions car be determined
without requiring one core per acre.  A more rational and
reasonable requirement would be one soil core per 10 acres,
but not less than one core per treated area.

The total number of soil core samples to be analyzed
annually is excessive and should be reduced by either
taking fewer samples per total acreage as acreage increases,
or lengthening the sampling frequency froms semiannual to
annual.  Suggest the following to give adequate quantities
of soil core samples to be analyzed:

   one core per acre for 5 acres or less

   one core per 1.5 acres for 6 to 9 acres

   one core per 2 acres for 10 to 30 acres

-  one core per 4 acres for greater than 60 acres

One soil core per acre represents considerable redundancy.
Samples should be taken to represent specific areas
receiving specific wastes at particular application rates.
An area receiving a specific waste mix at a uniform
application rate throughout the area.should be treated as
a single unit for soil sampling and analysis.

Testing of a subsample of composited samples from several
different locations in an area receiving a particular waste
at a particular application rate should be allowed.


                         70

-------
B.  Sampling at Three Times the Depth of the Zone of Incorporation

e   Limiting migration to three times the depth of the zone of
    incorporation is arbitrary and unreasonable.  Application
    to the surface should not be more limited in penetration
    limits than deeper application.  Migration limits should
    be based on case-by-case conditions and should allow the
    owner/operator to demonstrate that no ground water threat
    exists.

0   Limiting migration to three times the depth of the zone of
    incorporation is not acceptable.  Should allow migration
    to a depth safely above the shallowest usable ground water.
    Some land treatment faciities may be "underlain by a hundred
    feet of non-water-bearing soil capable of absorbing
    contaminants.

0   Application of wastes with high solids content will raise
    the surface of the land treatment facility gradually,
    eventually causing problems with the definition of the
    zone of incorporation.  Suggest that core depths be
    determined from the initial depth and location of the zone
    of incorporation.

0   A fixed core depth, such as three feet, should be established
    from the initial level of the zone of incorporation.  The
    reason is to take advantage of the assimilative capacity
    of the soil to arrest transport of contaminants, yet
    provide a reasonable depth for monitoring to assure that
    the transport is not excessive.  These requirements have
    nothing to do with the depth to which the soil was plowed,
    so should not be tied to that depth.  This overcomes the
    problem of defining a (sample) depth when waste is not
    plowed at all.

0   Surface soils should be sampled as protection for the land
    treatment facility operator, since soil composition can
    change dramatically with depth and composition of surface
    soils are subject to change due to various manmade activities
    and emissions.

0   The soil monitoring requirements should be broadened to
    include anaerobic operations.  Aerobic and anaerobic
    operations do not occur in the same locations in the soil
    profile and final monitoring should not be'done until
    after the last operation in the sequence.  An example is
    denitrification.  A high nitrogen waste would yield nitrate
    in the aerobic zone within 12 inches of the zone of
    incorporation.  Further down, the nitrate will denitrify
    (convert to nitrogen gas) under proper conditions.  Soil
    monitoring locations do not relate to the zone of
    incorporation in this case.
                             71

-------
The limitation on significant increase of hazardous
contaminants below the zone of incorporation is in conflict
with the planned dilution of certain inorganic ions in the
ground water, i.e., chloride.  A waste may be hazardous
because of its concentrations of chloride or sulfate. It is
well recognized that the chloride does not degrade and
will eventually dilute in the ground water.   This should
be recognized in the regulations.

We agree with the depth of three times the depth of the
zone of incorporation, or 30 centimeters, whichever is
greater, for taking soil samples.

Corrective Action

Requiring land treatment facilities to cease operations
and perform corrective actions upon detecting an increase
above background may force land treatment facilities to
close when no threat to underground drinking water supplies
or human health exists.  Instead of requiring that operations
be discontinued, EPA should require that the magnitude of
the threat to area ground water be determined and that,
based on this analysis, the Regional Administrator may
order the land treatment facility to be closed and/or
corrective action taken.  Requiring the owner/operator to
cease operations and take corrective action is justified
if human health and the environment are endangered.
However, a significant increase over background does not
necessarily constitute a threat.  Soil monitoring should
be used to indicate when further investigation is warranted
to determine if corrective action is necessary.

This comparison with background and corrective action
restricts the mechanism by which land treatment functions.
Concentrations of constituents added to a landfarm will
certainly increase in the zone of incorporation and, to
lesser extent, at the depths cited.  Otherwise, such
constituents would have had to be discharged either to
ground or surface waters.  The fact that background levels
have been exceeded in no way demonstrates that the soil's
capacity for assimilation has been reached.  The regulation
should establish "safe levels" at which constituents can be
applied and assimilated.

The requirement that operations be discontinued until the
Regional Admiminstrator determines what actions are to be
taken is unnecessarily strict and violates due process.
It is too stringent because it ignores the possibility of
analytical error, the importance of the finding in the
particular circumstance, and the consequences of the close-
down decision.  It should be sufficient to require immediate
notice to the Administrator and, perhaps, the requirement
to conduct more frequent sampling and analysis.  The
                       72

-------
         Regional Administrator always has recourse to the imminent
         danger provisions of RCRA Section 7003.  The proposal
         violates due process rights of the owner/operator, as no
         standards are established for RA determinations, nor is
         the RA required to make his determination within a particular
         time.  Thus, the RA has absolute discretion, both as to
         when he will make a decision and what the decision will be.

     0   Merely detecting contaminants below the zone of incorporation
         does not constitute a threat to ground water.  The
         regulations seem to assume that any migration of contaminants
         to poses a hazard to ground water.  This assumption is not
         true.  Soil monitoring is a useful tool that should not be
         relied upon totally to provide ground, water protection.

     "   In the event that a significant increase of hazardous
         constituents appears below the tilled depth, what is the
         recommended correction procedure?  Complete removal and
         landfilling of the fill?  Is it presumed that this senseless
         approval of land spreading of hazardous waste is an attempt
         to justify the advocation of extensive and almost uncontrolled
         sewage sludge farming?

     C.  Response to the Comments

     1.  Soil Monitoring Versus Ground-Water Monitoring

         Comments received on this issue clearly favored some form

of soil monitoring over ground-water monitoring, however, several

commenters felt that ground-water monitoring was also necessary.

These commenters contended that soil monitoring had certain

limitations (e.g., low reliability) of detecting highly mobile

contaminants, "and should not be solely relied upon to provide

protection of our ground-water resources."  The Agency recognizes

that rapidly migrating contaminants could be missed by soil monitoring.

Recently, researchers at Texas A&M have discovered that organic

compounds migrated through field tests plots at a rate that was three

times faster than water.14  The waste applied to the test plots was

API separator sludge and is commonly land treated at many oil

refineries.
                                73

-------
     Additional impetus for ground-water monitoring came indirectly



from the commenters who were dissatisfied with the Agency's



interpretation of what constituted contamination.  The regulations



required remedial measures if contaminants migrated to three times



the depth of the zone of incorporation.  This facet of soil



monitoring, which will be discussed in detail later, was considered



to be arbitrary and precluded using the full capacity of the soil



to attenuate waste.  Ground-water monitoring, as required for



landfills and surface impoundments, would provide a more consistent



and clear determination of environmental impact at land treatment



facilities.



     Given the concern over the limitations of soil monitoring and



the claim that the Agency's interpretation of contamination is



arbitrary, ground-water monitoring is now required at land treatment



facilities during interim status.  The requirements are the same as



for surface impoundments or landfills.



     Besides the issues raised in the comments the Agency is



requiring ground-water monitoring for three reasons.  First, many



of the land treatment facilities covered under interim status have



not operated under the philosophy of "limited waste migration."



Contaminants at these sites are likely to have already migrated



beyond three times the depth of the zone of incorporation.  Soil



monitoring, as proposed, would provide no information on the depth,



concentration, or type of contaminants that have migrated beyond



the depth to which soil cores are taken.  Second, at existing



facilities new unsaturated zone monitoring (both soil and soil-pore



water monitoring) is not reliable in indicating if contaminants have
                                 74

-------
already migrated to ground water and what impact they may have on

ground water.  The only sure way to know at existing facilities is

to monitor ground water.  Third, soil monitoring will be used as an

indicator of how well the treatment process is working.  As a

result, the soil monitoring requirements have been modified to

provide more flexibility than the proposed regulations.  These

changes and the rationale for them are discussed below.

     2.  Soil Monitoring

         Responses to the comments on the proposed soil monitoring

regulations are discussed collectively to facilitate presentation

of the revised monitoring scheme for land treatment facilities.

     One of the most prevalent points made by commenters was that

the sampling frequency should be other than one core per acre.

Most of the commenters felt that the one soil core per acre

requirement was excessive and the cost exorbitant.  Several

alternative sampling schemes were suggested, including:

     0  The number of soil cores should be variable until more
        research can be performed.
     •X

     0  A minimum of 10 cores and not less than one core per acre
        should be required, regardless of site size.

     0  An incentive to take more than one core per acre could be
        provided by making what constitutes a significant increase,
        a function of sample size, i.e., if one core per acre is
        taken, then an increase in the level of a contaminant of
        1.2 times background would be considered a significant
        increase: if two cores per acre were taken, then a significant
        increase would be 1.4 times background, etc.

     0  For landfarms of 50 acres or less, take one core near each
        corner of the site and one from the center.

     0  Take one soil core per 10 acres, but not less than one soil
        core per treated area.
                                 75

-------
     0  The number of soil cores taken per acre should be a function
        of landfarm size, e.g.,:

        Landfarm Size (in acres)        Core Per Unit Area

                    5                         1 core/acre
                   6-9                      1 core/1.5 acres
                  10-30                     1 core/2 acres
                  31-60                     1 core/3 acres
                   >60                      1 core/4 acres

     0  Allow compositing of samples taken at one core per acre in
        areas where only one type of waste or waste mix is applied
        at a uniform rate.

     Each of the above proposed sampling schemes, as well as the

approach proposed in the regulations, is deficient in not being

linked to a test of statistical significance for comparison with

background levels.  The Agency felt that the soil monitoring scheme

had to have a statistical basis since it was a regulatory tool used

in determining if punitive action would be taken against a facility.

Because of the Agency' s decision to require ground-water monitoring

at land treatment facilities, soil monitoring will not play a

punitive role during interim status.  Soil monitoring will still be

required, however, it will be structured differently and will be

used to determine the effectiveness of the land treatment process.

     Commenters suggested analyzing for tracers or indicator

substances, rather than for the broader range of hazardous components

that could be in a waste.  Cost was cited as a reason for this

suggestion.  Lack of sufficient analytical capacity and procedures

was also mentioned.  It was suggested that due to waste degradation,

the form of chemical components might change, making it uncertain

what actual hazardous constituents were present.

     The Ajency does not agree that there is a lack of analytical

capacity of procedures to carry out a comprehensive analysis.  No
                                 76

-------
evidence was presented to support that contention, and the experience

of the Agency strongly suggests that this is not the case.

     The point about waste degradation may well be valid particularly

regarding organic wastes.  Ideally, one would have sufficient data

on land treatment to predict the degradation products and include

them in the waste analysis.  Unfortunately, such data is not

available, but the revised soil analysis requirements should begin

to develop such information.  Some predictions of degradation

products possibly could be made during the permit process on a case-

by-case basis.  However, during the interim status period, such

interaction is not possible.  Thus, for interim status, the Agency

sees no reasonable solution to the problem of degradation products.

     Use of indicator substances does have merit from a cost and
                                   t
simplicity standpoint.  Conceptually, if one could select a substance

in the waste which was known to migrate in the soil at least as

rapidly as any other substances in the waste, then it could be

monitored as an indicator.  If that substance was detected as having

migrated, then a more comprehensive analysis for other substances

should be carried out.

     However, the Agency has decided not to allow use of indicator

substances during interim status.  One reason is that the Agency

has not yet been able to devise a set of indicator substances that

reflect the success of waste treatment in the soil.  During the

permitting process, an owner or operator could present data to the

Agency supporting a particular indicator for a particular situation.

However, this interaction is not possible during interim status.
                                77

-------
      The  second major  reason  for  rejecting  indicator  substances  is



 that  in order  to  specify proper permit  conditions,  the  Agency needs



 the information which  would come  from a more  comprehensive  analysis.



 One of the major  difficulties with developing land  treatment



 regulations  is that  it is a relatively  new  waste management process,



 and there is limited data on  the  manner in  which waste  so treated



 is rendered  safe  to  human health  and the  environment.   Thus,



 knowledge of how  all of the hazardous constituents  in the waste  are



 moving in the  soil is  important to the  coming permitting process.



 It is possible that  the information gathered  by the time the  permit



 is to be  issued will support  the  use of one or more indicator



 substances.  The  Agency believes  that the constituents  to be



 monitored under §265.273 are  sufficiently few as not  to cause undue



 burden.



      The  issues of soil-core  depth and  corrective action are



.discussed together since they are closely related.  The regulations



 proposed  that  soil cores be taken to a  depth  of three times the



 zone  of incorporation.  If migration of contaminants  was detected,



 as indicated by an increase in waste constituents over  background



 levels in the  bottom one-third of the core, then the  owner  or operator



 was to cease operation in the affected  area,  notify the Regional



 Administrator, and determine  corrective action.



      Some commenters objected to  the monitoring depth of three




 times the zone of incorporation as being  less desirable than  a



 fixed core depth.  Three feet was suggested.   It was  argued that



 depth of  tillage  was not relevant in determining environmental



 performance.  In  contrast, several commenters felt  the  support for



 the proposed monitoring depth was appropriate.




                                  78

-------
     The proposed monitoring depth was critized for the corrective



action required if migration to that depth occurred.  Commenters



argued that the fact that migration to the specified depth had



occurred was not an indication of actual or potential environmental



damage, and that the corrective action proposed was overly stringent



and unjustified.



     In consideration of the comments received on soil monitoring,



and upon further analysis of the alternatives available the Agency



has revised its approach to monitoring the environmental performance



of land treatment facilities.  The environmentally sensitive nature



of land treatment requires the owner or operator to have an accurate



picture of the treatment process at work in the soil.  EPA has



decided that such an objective requires a more comprehensive monitoring



plan than was proposed.  Consequently, the new monitoring plan will



be more comprehensive than previously proposed.  The plan will



require soil monitoring/ using soil cores, and in addition, the



owner or operator will be required to monitor the soil-pore water,



using lysimeters or similar devices.  This new monitoring scheme,



now called "unsaturated zone (zone of aeration)" monitoring, although



requiring an additional type of monitoring, is structured so that it



will provide the owner or operator with the flexibility necessary



to develop a site-specific monitoring plan.



     Although lysimeter monitoring was not proposed, it is necessary,



because, as commenters pointed out, soil monitoring will not detect



rapidly migrating waste constituents.  Given the comments on



contaminant migration, and indications from an EPA-sponsored study



that some organic compounds are apparently capable of rapid
                               79

-------
migration1^, it is evident that soil monitoring may not adequately




detect contaminant migration and that soil-pore water monitoring



may also be needed.  The need for more comprehensive monitoring is



further justified by the fact that land treatment facilities



characteristically lack liners.



     Unlike landfills and surface impoundments the use of lysimeters



or similar devices is feasible at land treatment sites.  Lysimeters



can be installed at land treatment facilities in the area where



waste has been applied.  This is not practical for existing surface



impoundments and landfills.  In addition, the relatively shallow



depth of waste application at land treatment facilities permits



lysimeters to be replaced at both existing and new facilities, when



they become clogged or otherwise nonfunctional.  Furthermore, land



treatment facilities do not have artificial liners which would



interfere with the placement of lysimeters.  The advantage of



monitoring soil-pore water is that this type of monitoring will detect



contaminants passing through the soil, whereas soil monitoring does



not detect what passes through, but what has been left behind.  The



timing of soil-pore water sampling is very important.   The sample(s)



must be taken when soil-pore water from waste application is present



in the sampling device.  This is a function of when the waste is



applied, the water content of the waste, precipitation, soil



permeability, and depth of the lysimeter.



     Soil-pore water monitoring in combination with soil and ground-



water monitoring will provide comprehensive knowledge about the



performance of the facility and its ability to protect ground water.



This monitoring approach will also provide information on the mass






                               80

-------
balance (i.e., location, distribution, concentration) of contaminants



in the soil system.  This type of information is not only necessary



from a regulatory  (environmental performance) standpoint, but is



requisite to understanding how a land treatment system functions.



Using the monitoring data as feedback on the performance of a site,



an owner or operator can more effectively manipulate operating variables



in order to optimize the performance of the site (e.g., waste



application rates, tilling frequency, and pH controls).



     The regulations for unsaturated zone monitoring are structured,



as discussed previously, to provide the owner or operator with the



flexibility necessary to design a monitoring program which takes



into account site-specific factors.  The regulation includes a list



of factors and relationships that must be taken into account when



developing the plan.  The owner or operator must maintain all data



collected and make it available for review upon request by the



Regional Administrator, and must submit all the data in conjunction



with Part B of the application for a permit in accordance with



Section 122, Subparts A and B.  The unsaturated zone monitoring



information will be particularly useful in developing the closure



and post-closure care plans.  This approach is intended to accommodate



inherent differences between sites, and stimulate innovation of



more efficient monitoring methods and plans.



     3.  Summary



         The Agency has revised the monitoring requirements at




hazardous waste land treatment facilities.  Because of concerns



raised by some commenters over the inability of soil monitoring to



detect highly mobile contaminants, the Agency decided to require
                                 81

-------
ground-water monitoring at land treatment facilities.  Further

impetus for ground-water monitoring came from a need for a more

clear determination of what constitutes contamination at a land

treatment facility.  Additionally, the Agency needed a mechanism

for evaluating the total impact that interim status land treatment

facilities had on the environment.  This evaluation was considered

necessary in light of the fact that most land treatment facilities

have not operated under the previously proposed philosophy of

limited waste migration.

     Significant changes were made to the proposed soil monitoring

regulations in response to both public and in-house comments.  The

proposed soil monitoring scheme has been replaced with a more

comprehensive unsaturated zone monitoring scheme.  Soil-pore water

monitoring, using lysimeters or similar devices is required in

addition to soil monitoring.  Although the new scheme is more

comprehensive than the pro.posed regulations, it is structured to giv«

the owner or operator the flexibility necessary to develop a site-

specific monitoring plan.

     D.  Final Regulatory Language

     §265.278  Unsaturated Zone (zone of aeration) Monitoring

               [Interim Final]

     (a)  The owner or operator must have in writing, and must
           p.
implement/ an unsaturated zone monitoring plan which is designed

to:

     (1)  Detect the vertical migration of hazardous waste and

hazardous waste constituents under the active portion of the land

treatment facility, and
                                82

-------
     (2)  Provide information on the background concentrations of



the hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents in similar but



untreated soils nearby; this background monitoring must be conducted



before or in conjunction with the monitoring required under paragraph



(a)(1) of this Section.



     (b)  The unsaturated zone monitoring plan must include, at a



minimum:



     (1)  Soil monitoring using soil cores, and



      (2)  Soil-pore water monitoring using devices such as lysimeters.



      (c)  To comply with paragraph  (a) (1) of this Section, the



owner or operator must demonstrate  in  his unsaturated zone monitoring



plan that:



      (1) The depth at which soil and soil-pore water samples are to



be taken is below the depth to which the waste is incorporated into



the soil;



      (2)  The number of soil and soil-pore water samples to be



taken is based on the variability of:



      (i)  The hazardous waste constituents (as identified in §265.273(a)



and (b) in the waste and in the soil;  and



      (ii)  The soil types(s); and



      (3)  The frequency and timing  of  soil and soil-pore water



sampling is based on the frequency, time, and rate of waste



application, proximity to ground water, and soil permeability.



      (d)  The owner or operator must keep at the facility his



unsaturated zone monitoring plan, and  the rationale used in developing




this plan.
                                 83

-------
     (e)  The owner or operator must analyze the soil and soil-pore



water samples for the hazardous waste constituents that were found



in the waste during the waste analysis under §265.273 (a) and (b).



[Comment; As required by §265.73, all data and information developed



by the owner or operator under this Section must be placed in the



operating record of the facility.]



     5.  Issue;  Recordkeeping and reporting



     A.  Proposed Regulations and Rationale



         The proposed regulations included in §250.45-5, recordkeeping



and reporting requirements, are applicable to all treatment,  storage,



and disposal facilities, including land treatment.•  The requirements



included: an operating log, a record of the quantity and description



of each waste received, locations in the facility where each waste



was treated or disposed and 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.



     The rationale for these requirements is presented in the



background document dealing with the manifest, recordkeeping, and



reporting requirements of the interim status regulations.



     B.  Comments/Respoonse to Comments



         Comments on the proposed recordkeeping and reporting



requirements are discussed in the background document on Manifest



System, Recordkeeping and Reporting. In structuring the final



interim status regulations, the Agency has elected to include some



of the proposed recordkeeping requirements in the sections of the



regulations which address specific types of facilities.  Such
                                 84

-------
recordkeeping is needed to allow the owner or operator and the


Regional Administrator to evaluate the facility's compliance with


other requirements of the land treatment Subpart.


     For land treatment facilities, recordkeeping requirements have


been incorporated relative to the location where each different


waste is placed in the facility, when it was placed there, and at


what rate.  This information will assist, through the use of mass-


balance analysis, in determining whether the treatment objective of


the facility is being met.  The Agency believes that these requirements


are an integral part of facility oprations.  These records may be


needed to assist the owner or operator in emergency situations or


enforcement officials who may be called upon to investigate problems.


In most cases such recordkeeping will be routinely performed to


satisfy or supplement monitoring and closure requirements.


     The recordkeeping requirements for land treatment facilities


are not expected to be burdensome since the types of waste and


treatment areas are typically limited at any one land treatment


facility.


     Additional recordkeeping requirements relative to results


obtained from unsaturated zone monitoring, food-chain crop testing


or monitoring, and monitoring or analysis carried out under the


closure plan are specified in comments following certain of the


land treatment regulations.  The owner or operator is required to

                                                   *
place the data and information in the operating record of the


facility.  A discussion of the facility operating record and the


rationale for the inclusion of the data and information specified


in the comments following some of the land treatment regulations
                                 85

-------
is discussed in the background document on Manifest System,



Recordkeeping/ and Reporting.



     C.-  Final Regulatory Language



         §265.279  Recordkeeping



         The owner or operator of a land treatment facility must



keep records of the application dates, application rates, quantities,



and location of each hazardous waste placed in the facility, in the



operating required in §265.73.



     6.  Issue;  Closure



     A.  Proposed Interim Status Regulations and Rationale



         The proposed regulations provided two basic options for



closure of a land treatment facility.  One option was to return the



soil in the treated area to its prexisting condition, as determined



by background soil analysis or analysis of similar local soils.



The other option was to remove the contaminated soil from the



facility if that soil met the characteristics of a hazardous waste.



(If it did not fail the hazardous waste characteristics, no further



action was required.)  However, a variance to the second option



provided an option to close the facility as a landfill if the owner



or operator could demonstrate that the design or location provided



long-term integrity and environmental protection equivalent to a



landfill, as specified in the proposed regulations.



     One objective of the requirement to return the soil to its



preexisting condition or remove it, was to prevent the conversion



of huge tracts of productive land to land having limited potential



for future use.  In addition, the Agency has limited data on the



fate and long-term effects of the hazardous contaminants in a land
                                86

-------
treatment facility.  There was concern that the contaminants would

eventually be carried away by surface runoff or would migrate to

ground water.

     There was some precedent in state regulations for the proposed

approach.  The Texas Department of Natural Resources incorporates a

similar approach in some of the permits issued for land treatment

facilities.  If the results of tests comparing the leachate from

treated soil with untreated soil suggest a potential threat of

hazard to surface water/ the Texas DNR requires the removal of soil

to a depth of 12 inches.

     The variance for closure as a landfill was based on the

assumption that if appropriate liners, monitoring/ and cover were

provided, the facility would not present a significant potential

for environmental damage.  While this and the other closure options

take a conservative posture on closure, the Agency felt that it had

no information to suggest that other approaches would be protective.

This is due to the fact that/ to the knowledge of EPA, no hazardous

land treatment facility has been closed to date.

     B.  Comments on the Proposed Regulations

     1.  Return of Soil to Original Condition

     0   Requiring return of soil to its original condition is
         beyond RCRA authroity.  There is nothing in RCRA or its
         legislative history to support this requirement.

     0   Land treatment may improve some soils/ so return to original
         condition would be considered counterproductive.

     0   Requiring that land be returned to its original condition
         is unreasonable, impractical, and prohibitivly expensive
         and will eliminate land treatment.

     0   The regulations should consider return to productive use,
         i.e., capable of supporting indigenous vegetation.


                                 87

-------
     0   The term "preexisting conditions" is vague and indefinite,
         and the regulations fail to establish standards by which
         the condition of the land upon closure may be established.

     0   Return to original soil condition is unnecessary because
         land treatment facilities can be returned to productive use
         as long as levels of contaminants in the soil are not a
         problem for those uses, and the amount of land used or
         contemplated is not a significant portion of productive land

     e   Requiring return of the soil to its preexisting condition
         discriminates against industry, since land treatment of
         POTW sludges has no such restrictions.

     2.  Use of the Extraction Procedure* (EP) on Soil

     0   The EP may not appropriately identify contaminated soil.
         It will underestimate the contamination of the soil, since
         it does not test for all hazardous contaminants, only those
         in the EPA Drinking Water Standards .

     0   The dcecision to remove soil should include factors such
         as:  the chemical and physical characteristics of the
         contaminants, the soil's ability to support vegetation,
         the potential for erosion,  the site location, and the
         intended future use of the land.

     0   The EP is not appropriate for clay soils,  which often
         contain cadmium and selenium in their natural state.  Thus,
         the EP may show virgin soil to be hazardous.

         Should use water rather than the acid in the soil EP
         because water is the "natural leachant" from precipitation
         and runoff.

     0   Naturally-occurring soils would fail the EP (data not
         provided) .

     3.  Soil Removal; Closure as a Landfill

     0   The potential expense of removal of soil or closure as a
         landfill is extreme and would create a serious threat to
         land treatment of industrial wastes.

     0   To remove and landfill the soil in a land treatment facility
         would so increase the overall cost of land treatment that
         it would become economically noncompetitive with a landfill
         or other disposal options.   This would eliminate land
         treatment as a disposal method.  (No data provided.)
*The Extraction Procedure is described i §250.13(d)  of Subpart A
 in the December 19, 1978, proposed regulations.


                                 88

-------
The removal of soil can result in problems of accelerated
erosion that would negate any questionable advantage of
removal.

Suggested Alternative Closure Requirements

Soil should be allowed to remain only when soil erosion is
negligible for 50 to 100 years and an impermeable soil
structure exists.

Closure regulations should specify the objective of closure,
when it should begin, and certain minimum conditions.
Determination of when closure should begin should be basad
on waste characteristics and soil properties, particularly
assimilation capacity.  It is recommended that closure
regulations require:

-  closure so that no further maintenance is necessary

-  treating the soil to achieve a pH of 6.5 (minimum)

-  vegetable cover

-  control of erosion; maintenance of dikes

-  removal of any soil incapable of supporting vegetation or
   which presents a threat to human health and the environment

Should consider specifying pH maintenance and other "onsite"
measures to prevent migration.

Should require only soil monitoring for closure because
return to original condition is too difficult, and removal
would not eliminate the disposal problem.  Additional
protection could be provided by the type of soil and the
berm around the treated area.

Should not look at the increase of contaminants in the
soil, but whether the soil presents a hazard to ground
water or whether crops grown on the soil would have
dangerously elevated concentrations.

Closure should relate to the level of potential environmental
harm.

Closure should require prevention of escape of absorbed
metals by runoff, plant uptake, or wind.

Should leave closure desig'n criteria to the owner/operator,
since proper design is site-specific.
                          89

-------
     0   It is not true that, left unattended, contaminants of the
         soil filter media will eventually be carried off by surface
         runoff or will migrate to ground water.  It is also not
         true that such occurrences will be significant, especially if
         plant cover is established.  Under some conditions, soil
         should be left as it is.

     0   EPA's position for soil removal is inconsistent since EPA
         admits no documented cases of ground-water contamination,
         yet says that if soil is left unattended, contaminants
         will eventually migrate.

     C.  Response to the Comments

     1.  Return of Soil to Preexisting Condition

         The Agency agrees with may of the points made by commenters

and has removed this requirement from the final regulations.  There

was a stong consensus in the comments that such a requirement was

impractical and would effectively terminate land treatment as a

waste management option.  Furthermore, the Agency was unable to

identify methods of returning soil to its preexisting condition,  or

to adequately define how the Agency would judge whether this has

been achieved.  The Agency also concluded that this was not a

necessary condition for future productive use of the land.  Finally,

and most importantly, the Agency believes that alternative closure

requirements which are more practical can achieve protection of the

environment.

     2.  Use of the Extraction Procedure (EP)

         The proposed regulations referred to the extraction

procedure (EP), defined in Subpart A of the proposed regulations,

as the method to determine if soils in a land treatment facility

are hazardous at the time of closure.  If the EP showed the soil  to

be hazardous then the owner or operator was to close the site by

either removing the contaminated soil or closing the site as a landfill
                                90

-------
     Comments on the use of the EP suggested it was inappropriate,

but for diametrically opposite reasons.  Some commenters felt the

EP would underestimate contamination because it covered only a few

contaminants, while other commenters felt the EP would overestimate

the contamination of the soil because it was to harsh on extractant.

     Two commenters expressed concern that the EP would show certain

virgin soils to be hazardous.  No data was provided to corroborate

the comments.

     Based upon the comments and a reevaluation of its position,

the Agency found that the EP, as proposed in Subpart A, is not

appropriate  as the sole indicator of whether the soil should be

removed or the facility closed like a landfill.

     The Agency considered altenative soil tests, but was unable to

identify any which had both broad application and the ability to

unequivocally indicate that the soil of a land treatment facility is

contaminated to the extent it would need to be removed.

     The major drawback of using a simple soil test is that it does

not take into account the various extrinsic factors that play an

integral role in determining the hazard posed by the soil.  This part

was made in  the comments.  One commenter suggested that the decision

to remove the soil of a land treatment facility should include

factors other than the EP results.  The following factors were
                                                                     i
idenrified:  chemical and physical characteristics of the contaminants,

the soil's ability to support vegetation, the potential to support

vegetation,  the potential for erosion, site location, and intended

future use of the land.
                                91

-------
     The Agency has decided to use an approach similar to the one



suggested in the comments.  The Agency has identified four



environmental objectives and a number of factors that the owner or



operator of a land treatment facility should consider to meet the



objectives, when deciding on the disposition of the soil from the



active portion(s)  of the site.  A detailed discussion is presented



below.



3.   Waste Removal; Closure as a Landfill



     Although most of the closure comments focused on return of the



soil to its preexisting condition, a few comments addressed waste



removal and closure as a landfill.  The tenor of these comments



was that these requirements would be too costly and would make land



treatment noncompetitive.  No data were provided to support these



claims.



     The Agency agrees that these proposed closure options will



result in increased costs for land treatment.  However,  the conten-



tion that land treatment will become noncompetitive as a result of



cost is not tenable.  The cost of all waste management practices



will increase as a result of the Subtitle C regulations, and the



Agency expects land treatment to remain a viable waste management



otion  for certain waste streams.  Additionally, it is not the



objective of the closure regulations to ensure that land treatment



remains competitive, in the economic sense.  Rather, the objective



is to ensure that the closure requirements prevent the dispersion



of contaminants into the environment.



     The real issue is whether there is a need for such a restrictive



approach.  Because of the dearth of information available on closing
                            92

-------
land treatment facilities, and the relatively young age of this



waste managment practice, the Agency has not been able to unequivocably



demonstrate the need for such a restrictive and rigid closure



approach.  As a result, the Agency has removed these closure



requirements from the final regulations in favor of a more flexible



approach, described below.



     4.  Alternative Closure Approaches



         A number of alternative closure approaches were suggested



in the comments.  Many of these approaches may have merit in a



given situation.  Most depend on a case-by-case assessment.



     The Agency believes that it is both feasible and desirable to



base the closure requirements on such individual assessments.  The



owner or operator should be allowed to make a case that a given

                                   *

closure procedure will suit his particular situation and provide
                                                     *


adequate environmental protection.  This type of approach is necessary



because of the current lack of experience with land-treatment



closure and the consequent lack of a data base to adequately support



particular closure requirements.



     Therefore, the Agency has substantially revised the closure



requirements for land treatment facilities.  The new requirements



specify that the owner or operator must develop and implement a



facility closure plan.  The terms of that plan are enforceable



against the owner or operator.  The plan must address four objectives:



(1)  controlling the migration of hazardous waste and hazardous



waste constituents into ground water; (2) controlling the release



of contaminated runoff to surface water; (3) controlling the release



of airborne particulate contaminants; and (4) compliance with the



standards established for food-chain crops.  In meeting these



                                93

-------
objectives the owner or operator must consider a range of factors



affecting th facility's ability to meet the objectives.  Relative



to ground-water protection/ these factors include: depth to ground



water; ground-water use; geological profile; amount and pH of



precipitation; type, concentration, and extent of migration of



contaminants in the soil; expected rate of contaminant migration



including any data from laboratory leaching studies using the soil



in the facility; soil characteristics, including cation exchange



capacity, total organic carbon, and pH; feasibility of removing the



contaminated soil at a later time if migration continues and appears



like to contaminant ground water; comprehensiveness of proposed



monitoring following closure; and proposed post-closure care,



including maintenance of unsaturated zone monitoring, restricting



site access, and future land use.



     Relative to surface water protection, the factors include:



surrounding geography and land use, surrounding surface water uses



and quality, amount and pH of rainfall, use of cover or vegetation



to minimize erosion of contaminated soil, maintenance of diversion



structures to prevent surface runoff from entering the active



portion( s), facilities for collecting and treating any runoff, etc.



     Regarding wind erosion, the Regional Admnistrator will evaluate



the use of vegetation or cover to prevent soil erosion and control



the release of airborne particulate contaminants.



     The owner or operator must also develop a post-closure care plan



The terms of this plan are also enforceable against the owner or



operator.  Under these interim status regulations the post-closure



care plan must provide for maintenance of monitoring systems,






                               94

-------
restriction of access as appropriate for post-closure use, and



control of the growth of food-chain crops to the same degree as



required for an active facility.



     D.  Final Regulatory Language



         § 265.280  Closure and post-closure [Interim Final]



     (a)  In the closure plan under §265.112 and the post-closure



plan under §265.118, the owner or operator must address the following



objectives and indicate how they will be achieved:



     (1)  Control, of the migration of hazardous waste and hazardous



waste constituents  from the treated area into the ground water;



     (2)  Control of the release of contamnated run-off from the



facility into surface water;



     (3)  Control of the release of, airborne particulate contaminants




caused by wind erosion; and



     (4)  Complaince with §265.276 concerning the growth of food-




chain crops.



     (b)  The owner or operator must consider at least the following



factors in addressing the closure and post-closure care objectives




of  paragraph  (a) of this Section:



     (1)  Type and  amount of  hazardous  waste and hazardous waste



constituents applied to the land treatment facility;



     (2)  The mobility and the expected rate of migration of the



hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents;



     (3)  Site location, topography, and surrounding land use, with



respect to the potential effects of pollutant migration (e.g.,



proximity to ground water, surface water and drinking water sources);



      (4)  Climate,  including  amount, frequency, and pH of





                               95

-------
precipitation;



     (5)  Geological and soil profiles and surface and subsurface



hydrology of the site, and soil characteristics, including cation



exchange capacity, total organic carbon, and pH;



     (6)  Unsaturated zone monitoring information obtained under



§265.278; and



     (7)  Type, concentration, and depth of migration of hazardous



waste constituents in the soil as compared to their background



concentrations.



     (c)  The owner or operator must consider at least the following



methods in addressing the closure and post-closure care objectives



of paragraph (a) of this Section:



     (1)  Removal of contaminated soils



     (2)  Placement of a final cover, considering:



     (i)  Functions of the cover (e.g., infiltration control, erosion



and runoff control, and wind erosion control), and



     (ii)  Characteristics of the cover.- including material,  final



surface contours, thickness, porosity and permeability, slope,



length of run of slope, and type of vegetation on the cover;



     (3)  Collection and treatment of runoff;



     (4)  Diversion structures to prevent surface water runon from



entering the treated area; and



     (5)  Monitoring of soil, soil-pore water, and ground water.



     (d)  In addition to the requirements of §265.117, during the



post-closure care period, the owner or operator of a land treatment



facility must:



     (1)  Maintain any unsaturated zone monitoring system, and






                                 96

-------
collect and analyze samples,from this system in a manner and



frequency specified in the post-closure plan;




     (2)  Restrict access to the facility as appropriate for its



post-closure use; and



     (3)  Assure that growth of food-chain crops complies with



§265.276.



     7.  Issue;  Special Requirements for Ignitable, Reactive and



         Incompatible Wastes



     A.  Proposed Regulations and Rationale



        The proposed regulations prohibited placing ignitable,



reactive, volatile, and incompatible wastes in a land treatment



facility, but allowed a variance if the owner or operator could



demonstrate that airborne contaminants would not exceed a specified



concentration, and that the attenuation capacity of the facility



would  not be adversely affected through heat generation, fires,



or explosions.



     This regulation, although not proposed as an interim status



standard, meets the criteria established by the Agency for interim




status standards.



     The objective of the proposed regulation was to prevent damages



to human health and the environment which could result from fires



or explosions in a land treatment facility.  Placing ignitable or



reactive wastes in a land treatment facility presents at least two




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
                                 97

-------
wastes can explode or burn easily, injuring the personnel at the

facility and releasing toxic fumes that can reach surrounding

populations and cause personal and property damage.  Fires and

explosions can also adversely affect the attentuation capacity of

the facility.

     A recent study^ has shown that, during land treatment operations,

fires and explosions can occur.  Potential ignition sources include

electrical sparks from machinery operating on the facility, accidents

or errors such as smoking near the facility,  and extreme heat

generation from reactive or incompatible sources.

     Mixing of hazardous wastes that ara not compatible with each

other in a hazardous waste land treatment facility can result in

similar types of environmental problems.  Such mixing can cause

fires and explosions, excessive heat generation, or generation of

toxic gases.  This could endanger facility personnel or populations

in the vicinity of the impoundment,  or it could adversely affect

the attentuation capacity of the facility.

     B.  Comments on the Proposed Regulations

         The restrictions on ignitable, reactive, and incompatible

wastes in the proposed regulations went beyond land treatment.

Similar restrictions were included in the proposed regulations for

all treatment and disposal facilities under §265.22, and standards

for basins under §250.45-5.  The background documents dealing with

those standards contain additional analysis of comments on this issue.

     Those comments directed specifically toward land treatment

facilities are as follows:

     0   The restriction on ignitables should be revised to allow
         land treatment if the waste is no longer ignitable after
         incorporation into the soil.

                                98

-------
         Many hazardous wastes classified as ignitable or reactive,
         or which are incompatible when combined, may lose these
         properties when mixed with the soil due to dilution,
         absorption, or other mechanisms.  Thus land treatment of
         such wastes should not be prohibited.

     0   A land treatment facility can act as a destruction mechanism,
         rendering a waste nonhazardous through slow oxidation.
         Ignitable, nitrated organics are particularly amenable to
         slow oxidation in soils.  This would be a safer disposal
         method than rapid oxidation through incineration.  The
         hazard of most concern is placing the material without
         incident during handling.  An absolute prohibition against
         land treatment of ignitables, reactives, or incompatibles
         in any concentrations or quantities is inappropriate.

     0   Land treatment is an attractive way to dispose of hazardous
         oily wastes.  The exclusion of land treatment of ignitables
         should be lifted.  This can be done safely with little or
         no "fire hazard.

     0   The proposed regulations will preclude land treatment as a
         viable alternative, since many wastes are ignitable, reactive,
         or volatile, and corrosive,wastes cannot be land treated
         due to pH.  The variance is not likely to be viewed favorably
         by permit officials.

     C.  Response to the Comments

         Relevant 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
                                                                   t
restrictions on volatile waste.  The reader is referred to the

background document on tanks and basins for further discussion of

this issue.

     The comments on ignitable waste suggest that incorporation of

such wastes into the soil is, in itself, an effective way of

rendering these wastes nonignitable.  The flgency concurs with this
                               99

-------
suggestion.  However, as a comment suggested, the safety of handling



the waste, i.e., incorporating it into the soil, is still an issue.



However, the Agency has no damage cases indicating that this has



been a problem in practice up to this time.  Nevertheless, one way



of eliminating or reducing this handling hazard would be to treat



or mix the waste prior to land treatment,  so that the resulting



material is no longer ignitable.  This practice would provide the



greatest margin of safety.



     A similar logic would apply to land treatment of reactive or



incompatible wastes.  In an attempt to find a method of rendering



such wastes nonreactive, the Army Material Development Command, at



Bdgewood Aresenal in Natick, Massachusetts has safely land-treated



reactive wastes.^5  While other characteristics of the particular



waste, (i.e., nonbiodegradability), reduced the attractiveness of



land treatment, safe handling,- and rendering the wastes nonreactive




did seem possible.



     In view of these considerations, the regulations have been



revised to include conditions under which such wastes can be land



treated.



     D.  Final Regulatory language



     §265.281  Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste



     Ignitable or reactive wastes must not be land treated, unless



the waste is immediately incorporated into the soil so that (1) 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 (2)  §265.17(b) is complied with.
                                100

-------
                            REFERENCES
1.  TRW.  Evaluation of Emission Control Criteria  for Hazardous
    Waste Management Facilities.  Contract No.  68-01-4645, U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency, April 1978.

2.  SCS Engineers.  Land Cultivation of Industrial Wastes and Muni-
    cipal Solid Wastes:  State-of-the-Art Study.   Volume Ie  Con-
    tract No. 68-03-2435, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
    August  1978.

3.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Report  to Congress:
    Waste Oil Study. April  1974.

4.  Hatayama, H.K., and D.  Jenkins. *An Evaluation of  the Weathering
    Method  of Disposal of Leaded Gasoline Storage  Tank Wastes:   A
    Summary.* In:   Proceedings of the  National  Conference about
    Hazardous Waste Management, San Francisco,  February  1-4,  1977.
    In  press.

5.  Adriano, D.C.,  et  alv 'Effect of Long-Term Land  Disposal by
    Spray  Irrigation  of Food  Processing Wastes  on  Some Chemical
    Properties  of  the  Soil  and Subsurface Water/*  J. Environ.  Qual.,
    4:242-248,  1975.

6.  Page,  A.LV  Fate  and  Effects  of Trace Elements in  Sewage  Sludge
    when Applied to Agricultural  Lands.  A Literature  Review  Study,
    EPA-670/2-74-005,  U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency, January
    1974.

7.  Kincannon,  C.B.,  Oily Waste Disposal by  Soil Cultivation  Pro-
    cess,   EPA-R2-72-100, U.S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
    December 1972.

8.  Huddleston, R.L.  "Treatment of  Oily Wastes  by  Land Farming/
    Presented  at the  RSMA Meeting,  "Disposal  of Industrial  and Oily
     Sludges by  Land Cultivation," Houston, Texas,  January  18-19,
     1978.

9.  Raymond,  R.L.,  J.O. Hudson, and V.W.  Jamison,  "Assimilation  of
    Oil by Soil Bacteria"   In:  Proceedings  of  the 40th  Midyear  API
    Meeting,  1975.

10.  Telephone  communication on November  11,  1979,  with Mr.  Bruce
    Conrad, Division  of Rights-of-Way, Bureau of Land  Management,
    Washington, D.C.
                                 102

-------
11.   Telephone communication on November 11,  1979,  with Mr. Richard
     Hopkins,  Oil and Gas Surface Protection,  Bureau of Land Manage-
     ment, Cheyenne,  Wyoming.

12.   Telephone communication on November 11,  1979,  with Mr. Lloyd
     Fergeson, Bureau of Land  Management,  Salt Lake City, Utah. _

13.   Meyers,  J.D., and R.L. Huddleston,  "Treatment  of Oily Refinery
     Wastes by Landfarming^'  For presentation at the 34th Annual
     Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, May 8-10,  1979.

14.   Personnel communication with Dr.  Kirk Brown, Texas A&M Uni-
     versity,  College Station, Texas,  January 24, 1980.

15.   Healy, W.3., Ingested Soil and Animal Nutrition? pp. 84-90.  In
     Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association, 34, 1972.

16.   Letter from R.L. Chaney,  USDA Plant Physiologist, submitted to
     EPA as comments on Proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid
     Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices,  May 12, 1978.

17.   Jelinek,  C.F., G.L. Brattde, and R.B.  Read, Jr., "Management of
     Sludge Use on Land, FDA Considerations '' presented at Association
     of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies Conference on Sludge Manage-
     ment, Houston, Texas, April 13, 1976.

                 tr                               ^
18.   Healy, W.B., Ingestion of Soil by Dairy Cows,  New Zealand Jour-
     nal of Agricultural Research, Vol.  11, No. 2,  1968, p. 498.

19.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Land Cultivation of Indus-
     trial Wastes and Municipal Solid Wastes:  State-of-the-Art
     Study, Volume II, 1978, 157 p.

20.   Bergh, A.K., and R.S. Peoples,"Distribution of Polychlorinated
     Biphenyls  in a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plan and Environs,
     The Science of the Total Environment, 1977.

21.  Personal communication with Dr. P.  Kearney, USDA, Beltsville,
     Maryland.

22.  Personal communication with Dr. A.M. Decker, University of
     Maryland,  College Park, Maryland.

23'.  Harrison,  D.L., J.C.M. Mol, and W.B. Healy.  New Zealand  Journal
     of Agricultural Research,  13, pp.  664-672.

24.  Personal communication with Dr. G. Fries, USDA,  Beltsville,
     Maryland.
                                 103"

-------
25.  Chaney, R.L., and P.M. Giordano. "Microelements as Related to
     Plant Deficiencies and Toxicities," pp. 235-279.  In L.F. Elliott
     and F.J. Stevenson (ed.), Soils for Management of Organic Wastes
     and Wastewaters. Soil Science Society of America, Madison,
     Wisconsin, 1977.

26.  Chaney, R.L., and C.A. Lloyd,  Adherence of Spray-Applied,
     Liquid, Digested Sewage Sludge to Tall Fescue," submitted to EPA
     as comments on Proposed Criteria for Classification of Solid
     Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices.

27.  Jones, S.G., K.W. Brown, L.E. Deuel, and K.C. Donnelly, "influ-
     ence of Simulated Rainfall on the Retention of Sludge Heavy
     Metals by the Leaves of Forage Crops') Journal of Environmental
     Quality5 Vol. 8, No. 1, 1979, p. 69.

28.  Allaway. W.H., "Food Chain Aspects of  the Use of Organic Resi-
     dues" pp. 282-298.  In L.F. Elliot and F.J. Stevenson (ed.),
     Soils  for Management of Organic Wastes and Wastewaters, Soil
     Science Society of American, Madison, Wisconsin, 1977.

29.  Kardos, L.T., C.E. Scarsbrook, and V.V. Volk, "Recycling Ele-
     ments  in Wastes through Soil - Plant  Systems," pp. 300-324.  In
     L.F. Elliot and F.J. Stevenson (ed.), Soils for Management of
     Organic Wastes  and Wastewaters. Soil  Science Society of America,
     Madison, Wisconsin, 1977.

30.  Kirkham, M.B.,"Trace Elements in Sludge on Land:  Effect on
     Plants, Soils,  and Groundwater," pp. 209-247.  In R.C. Loehr
     (ed.), Laud as  a Waste Management Alternative, Ann Arbor Science
     Publishers,  Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977.

31.  U.S. Environmental-Protection Agency,  Reviews of the Environ-
     mental Effects  of Pollutants:  VII Lead, 1979.

32.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Sludge Treatment and Dis-
     posal, Volume 2,  1978,  155 p.

33.  Pahren, H.R., J.B. Lucas, J.A. Ryan,  and G.K. Dotson,  An
     Appraisal of the Relative Health Risks Associated with Land
     Application  of Municipal Sludge',' presented at 50th Annual Con-
     ference of  the  Water Pollution Control Federation,, 1977.

34.  Iwata, Y. et al.  "Uptake of PCB (Aroclor 1254) from Soil by Car-
     rots under Field Conditions* Bulletin of Environmental Contami-
     nation and Toxicity, Volume 2, 1974.
                                 104

-------
35.   Personal communication.  George Marienthal,  Department of
     Defense, Washington, D.C., to L.A.Weiner,  Office of Solid
     Waste.  October 19, 1977.

36.   Phung, H.T., D.E.Ross, and R. E. Landreth,  'Land Cultivation of
     Industrial Wastewater and Sludges/1  Proc.  National  Conference
     on Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Wastewaters and
     Residues.  1977 (in press).

37.   Raymond, R. L. , J. O. Hudson, and V.W.  Jamison,  "oil  Degradation
     in Soil/  Applied and Environmental  Microbiology, 31:4,  522-535,
     April 1976.

38.   Elfuing, D.C., Hascheck, W.M., Stehn,  R.A.,  Bache,  C.A.   and
     Lisk, D.J., "Heavy Metal Residues in  Plants Cultivated on and
     in Small Mammals Indigenous to Old Orchard Soil/' Archives of
     Enviromental Health, 33(2), 95-99  (1978).
                                 105

-------
       APPENDIX A

INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
   FOR LAND TREATMENT

-------
                    Subpart M - Land Treatment



§265.270  Applicability



     The regulations in this Subpart apply to owners and oper-



ators of hazardous waste land treatment facilities,  except as



§265.1 provides otherwise.



[§265.271 Reserved]



§265.272  General operating requirements [Interim Final]



     (a)  Hazardous waste must not be placed in or on a land



treatment facility unless the waste can be made less hazardous



or non-hazardous by biological degradation or chemical reactions



occurring in or on the soil.



     (b)  Run-on must be diverted away from the active portions



of a land treatment facility.



     (c)  Run-off from active portions of a land treatment facility



must be collected.



[Comment;  If the collected run-off is a hazardous waste under



Part 261 of this Chapter/ it must be managed as a hazardous waste



in accordance with all applicable requirements of Parts 262, 263,



and 265 of this Chapter.   If the collected run-off is discharged



through a point source to waters of the United States, it is



subject to the requirements of Section 402 of the Clean Water



Act, as amended.]



     (d)  The date for compliance with paragraphs (b) and (c)



of this Section is 12 months after the effective date of this




Part.
                              A-l

-------
§265.273  Waste analysis

     In addition to the waste analyses required by §265.13,

before placing a hazardous waste in or on a land treatment facility,

the owner or operator must:

     (a)  Determine the concentrations in the waste of any sub-

stances which exceed the maximum concentrations contained in Table I

of §261.24 of this Chapter that cause a waste to exhibit the EP

toxicity characteristic;

     (b)  For any waste listed in Part 261, Subpart D, of this

Chapter, determine the concentrations of any substances which

caused the waste to be listed as a hazardous waste; and

     (c)  If food chain crops are grown, determine the concentra-

tions in the waste of each of the following constituents: arsenic,

cadmium, lead, and mercury, unless the owner or operator has

written, documented data that show that the constituent is not

present.

CComment;  Part 261 of this Chapter specifies the substances for

which a waste is listed as a hazardous waste.  As required by

§265.13, the waste analysis plan must include analyses needed to

comply with §§265.281 and 265.282.  As required by §265.73, the

owner or operator must place the results from each waste analysis,
                  \
or the documented information, in the operating record of the

facility.]

[§265.274 Reserved]

[§265.275 Reserved]

§265.276  Food chain crops [Interim Final]

     (a)  An owner or operator of a hazardous waste land treatment

facility on which food chain crops are being grown, or have been


                               A-2

-------
grown and will be grown in the future,  must notify the Regional



Administrator within 60 days after the  effective date of this



Part.



CComment;  The growth of food chain crops at a facility which has



never before been used for this purpose is a significant change



in process under §122.23(c)(3) of this  Chapter.  Owners or oper-



ators of such land treatment facilities who propose to grow food



chain crops after the effective date of this Part must comply



with §122.23(c)(3) of this Chapter-]



     (b)(l) Food chain crops must not be grown on the treated



     area of a hazardous waste land treatment facility unless the



     owner or operator can demonstrate, based on field testing,



     that any arsenic, lead,  mercury, or other constituents



     identified under §265.273(b):



          (i)  Will not be transferred  to the food portion of the



          crop by plant uptake or direct contact,  and will not



          otherwise be ingested by food chain animals (e.g.,  by



          grazing); or



          (ii) Will not occur in greater concentrations in the



          crops grown on the land treatment facility than in the



          same crops grown on untreated soils under similar



          conditions in the same region.



     (2)  The information necessary to  make the demonstration



     required by paragraph (b)(1) of this Section must be kept at



     the facility and must,-at a minimum:



          (i)  Be based on tests for the specific waste and



          application rates being used  at the facility; and
                              A-3

-------
          (ii) Include descriptions of crop and soil character-

          istics, sample selection criteria/ sample size deter-

          mination, analytical methods, and statistical procedures.

     (c)  Food chain crops must not be grown on a land treatment

facility receiving waste that contains cadmium unless all require-

ments of paragraph (c)(l)(i) through  (iii) of this Section or all

requirements of paragraph  (c)(2)(i) through (iv) of this Section

are met.

     (1)  (i)  The pH of the waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or greater

          at the time of each waste application, except for waste

          containing cadmium at concentrations of 2 mg/kg (dry

          weight) or less;

          (ii) The annual application of cadmium

          from waste does, not exceed 0.5 kilograms per hectare
                                   i
          (kg/ha) on land used for production of tobacco, leafy

          vegetables, or root crops grown for human consumption.

          For other food chain crops, the annual cadmium application

          rate does not exceed:

                                                Annual Cd
                                             Application Rate
                 Time Period                      (kg/ha)


          Present to June 30, 1984	2.0
          July 1, 1984 to Dec. 31, 1986	1.25
          Beginning Jan. 1, 1987	0.5


          (iii)  The cumulative application of cadmium from waste

          does not exceed the levels in either paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(A)

          of this Section or paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(B) of this Section.
                               A-4

-------
               (A)
                         Maximum cumulative application (kg/ha)

    Soil cation
exchange capacity        Background soil pH   Background soil pH
   (meq/lOOg)              less than 6.5       greater than 6.5


less than 5	       5                   5
5-15	       5                  10
greater than 15	       5                  20


               (B)  For soils with a background pH of less than

               6.5, the cumulative cadmium application rate

               does not exceed the level s below:  Provided, that

               the pH of the waste and soil mixture is adjusted

               to and maintained at 6.5 or greater whenever food

               chain crops are grown.
Soil cation exchange capactiy          Maximum cumulative
         (meq/100g)                    application (kg/ha)
       less than 5	           5
       5-15	          10
       greater than 15	          20


     (2)   (i)  The only food chain crop produced is animal feed.

          (ii)  The pH of the waste and soil mixture is 6.5 or

          greater at the time of waste application or at the time

          the crop is planted, whichever occurs later, and this

          pH level is maintained whenever food chain crops are

          grown.
                                  A-5

-------
          (iii)  There is a facility operating plan which demon-

          strates how the animal feed will be distributed to

          preclude ingestion by humans.  The facility operating

          plan describes the measures to be taken to safeguard

          against possible health hazards from cadmium entering

          the food chain/ which may result from alternative land

          uses.

          (iv)  Future property owners are notified by a stipu-

          lation in the land record or property deed which states

          that the property has received waste at high cadmium

          application rates and that food chain crops should not

          be grown/ due to a possible health hazard.

[Comment;  As required by §265.73, if an owner or operator grows

food chain crops on his land treatment facility/ he must place
                                  i
the information developed in this Section in the operating record

of the facility.]

[§265.277 Reserved]

§265.278  Unsaturated zone (zone of aeration) monitoring

          [Interim Final]

     (a)  The owner or operator must have in writing, and must

implement, an unsaturated zone monitoring plan which is designed


to:

     (1)  Detect the vertical migration of hazardous waste

     and hazardous waste constituents under the active portion of

     the land treatment facility, and
                               A-6

-------
      (2)  Provide information on the background concentrations



     of the hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents in



     similar but untreated soils nearby; this background monitoring



     must be conducted before or in conjunction with the monitoring



     required under paragraph (a)(l) of this Section.



      (b)  The unsaturated zone monitoring plan must include/ at



a minimum:




      (1)  Soil monitoring using soil cores, and



      (2)  Soil-pore water monitoring using devices such as



     lysimeters.



      (c)  To comply with paragraph (a)(l) of this Section, the



owner or operator must demonstrate in his unsaturated zone mon-



itoring plan that:



      (1)  The depth at which soil and soil-pore water samples are



     to be taken is below the depth to which the waste is



     incorporated into the soil;



     (2)  The number of soil and soil-pore water samples to be



     taken is based on the variability of:



          (i)  The hazardous waste constituents (as identified



          in §265.273(a) and (b)) in the waste and in the soil;



          and



          (ii)  The soil type(s); and



     (3)  The frequency and timing of soil and soil-pore water



     sampling is based on the frequency, time, and rate of waste



     application, proximity to ground water, and soil permeability.
                               A-7

-------
     (d)  The owner or operator must keep at the facility his



unsaturated zone monitoring plan, and the rationale used in



developing this plan.



     (e)  The owner or operator must analyze the soil and soil-



pore water samples for the hazardous waste constituents that



were found in the waste during the waste analysis under §265.273



(a) and (b).




[Comment;  As required by §265.73, all data and information



developed by the owner or operator under this Section must be



placed in the operating record of the facility.]



§265.279  Recordkeeping



     The owner or operator of a land treatment facility must keep



records of the application dates, application rates, quantities,



and location of each hazardous waste placed in the facility, in



the operating record required in §265.73.



§265.280  Closure' and post-closure [Interim Final]



     (a)  In the closure plan under §265.112 and the post-closure



plan under §265.118, the owner or operator must address the



following objectives and indicate how they will be achieved:



     (1)  Control of the migration of hazardous waste and



     hazardous waste constituents from the treated area into




     the ground water;



     (2)  Control of the release of contaminated run-off from



     the facility into surface water;



     (3)  Control of the release of airborne particulate



     contaminants caused by wind erosion; and
                               A-8

-------
      (4)   Compliance with  §265.276 concerning the growth



      of food-chain crops.



      (b)   The owner or operator must consider at least the following



factors in addressing the  closure and post-closure care objectives



of paragraph  (a) of this Section:



      (1)   Type and amount  of hazardous waste and hazardous waste



      constituents applied  to the land treatment facility;



      (2)   The mobility and the expected rate of migration



      of the hazardous waste and hazardous waste constituents ;



      (3)   Site location, topography, and surrounding land use,



      with  respect to the potential effects of pollutant



      migration (e.g./ -proximity to ground water, surface water and



      drinking water sources);



      (4)   Climate, including amount, frequency, and pH of



      precipitation;



      (5)   Geological and soil profiles and surface and subsurface



     hydrology of the site, and soil characteristics, including



      cation exchange capacity, total organic carbon, and pH;



      (6)   Unsaturated zone monitoring information obtained



      under §265.278; and



      (7)   Type, concentration, and depth of migration of hazardous



     waste constituents in the soil as compared to their background



      concentrations.



      (c)  The owner or operator must consider at least the following



methods in addressing the  closure and post-closure care objectives



of paragraph (a)  of this Section:
                               A-9

-------
      (1)  Removal of contaminated soils;



      (2)  Placement of a final cover, considering:



          (i)  Functions of the cover (e.g./ infiltration control,



          erosion and run-off control, and wind erosion control), and



          (ii) Characteristics of the cover, including material,



          final surface contours, thickness, porosity and



          permeability, slope, length of run of slope, and type



          of vegetation on the cover;



      (3)  Collection and treatment of run-off;



      (4)  Diversion structures to prevent surface water run-on



      from entering the treated area; and



      (5)  Monitoring of soil, soil-pore water, and ground water.



      Cd)  In addition to the requirements of §265.117, during



the post-closure care period, the owner or operator of a land



treatment facility must:



      (1)  Maintain any unsaturated zone monitoring system, and



      collect and analyze samples from tVs system in a manner



      and frequency specified in the post-closure plan;



      (2)  Restrict access to the facility as appropriate for its



      post-closure use; and



      (3)  Assure that growth of food chain crops complies with



      §265.276.



§265.281  Special requirements for ignitable or reactive waste*



      Ignitable or reactive wastes must not be laad treated, unless



the waste is immediately incorporated into the soil so that (1)



the resulting waste, mixture, or dissolution of material no
                               A-10

-------
longer meets the definition of ignitable or reactive waste under



§§261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and (2) §265.l7(b) is complied



with.



§265.282  Special requirements for incompatible "wastes*



     Incompatible wastes, or incompatible wastes and materials,



(see Appendix V for examples) must not be placed in the same



land treatment area, unless §265.17(b) is complied with.





[§§265.283 - 265.299  Reserved}
                                A-ll

-------
               APPENDIX B

     SUMMARY OF TEXAS  AND OKLAHOMA
LAND CULTIVATION  [TREATMENT] GUIDELINES

-------
                                                     APPENDIX B

                               SUMMARY OF TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA LAND CULTIVATION GUIDELINES
                                                          GUIDELINE  (SUMMARY STATEMENT)
                     ITEM
                                          TEXAS
                                                OKLAHOMA
          o  Soils
w
i
o Topography
          o  Climate
          o Surrounding Land Use
          o Ground-water Conditions
o Should be deep, prefer high
  clay and organic content and
  have large surface area
  (best soils are classed as CL,
  OL, MI, C1I, and Oil under
  the Unified Soil Classifica-
  tion System)

o Prefer surface slopes less
  than 5 percent, greater than
  0 percent

o High net evaporation, median
  mean temperature, moderate
  24-hr, 25-yr frequency maxi-
  mum rainfall

o Sparsely populated, or provide
  buffer and locate downwind
  from nearby residences

o Avoid shallow, potable ground
  water.  If not possible, pro-
  vide vegetative cover, avoid
  high application rates, moni-
  tor ground water-quality
o Should be deep, have large
  total surface area and have
  high clay and organic content
  (best soils are classed as CL,
  OL, MI,  CH, and OH under
  the Unified Soil Classifica-
  tion System)

o Slope should be less than 5
  percent  greater than 0 percent
                                                                o High net evaporation,  median
                                                                  mean temperature,  moderate
                                                                  24-hr,  50-yr frequency maxi-
                                                                  mum rainfall

                                                                o Sparsely populated,  or provide
                                                                  buffer  and locate  downwind
                                                                  from nearby residences

                                                                o Avoid shallow,  potable ground
                                                                  water.   If not  possible,  pro-
                                                                  vide vegetative  cover, avoid
                                                                  high application rates,
                                                                  rigidly monitor ground-water
                                                                  quality

-------
                                                APPENDIX B (Continued)
                                                           GUIDELINE (SUMMARY STATEMENT)
                     ITEM
           o Waste Restrictions
           o Application Rates
w
i
to
              TEXAS
            OKLAHOMA
o Not addressed
o Minimum waste composition
  analysis:  Cl, PO/j, Total N,
  Zn, Cu, Ni, As, Ba, Mn, Cr,
  Cd, B, Pb, ilg, Se, Na, Mg, Ca
                                       o Determine soil cati-on exchange
                                         capacity (CEC)
                                       o Total metals application over
                                         site life should be less
                                         than 50 percent of CEC of
                                         top 1 ft of site's soil.

                                       o If crop grown and harvested
                                         at site, total metal appli-
                                         cation in 30-yr period
                                         should be less than 5 per-
                                         cent of CEC.
o Water soluble, inorganic
  industrial wastes should not
  be land cultivated

o Minimum waste composition
  analysis:  Zn, Cu, Ni, As,
  Ba, Mn, Cr, Cd, 0, Pb, Hg,
  Se, Na, Mg, Ca, Cl, P04,
  Total N

o Determine soil CEC if any of
  the elements in waste composi-
  tion analysis above are pre-
  sent

o Not addressed
                                    o Not addressed

-------
                                                 APPENDIX  B (Continued)
                                                            GUIDELINE  (SUMMARY  STATEMENT)
                      ITEM
              TEXAS
            OKLAHOMA
            o Application Kates
              (concluded)
o Total N applied in waste, less
  than 125 Ib/ac/yr
03
I
                                        o Annual  free water  applied  in
                                          the waste  should  be less  than
                                          annual  evaporation rate
                                        o Not addressed
                                        o Not  addressed
o Total N applied in waste, no
  more than 125 Ib/ac/yr, or the
  maximum amount utilized or
  assimilated by vegetative
  cover

o Total free water applied should
  be no more than the net evapor-
  ation for time period between
  applications

o Oily waste application rate
  must be such that soil-waste
  mixture contains no more than
  10 percent oil by weight

o Recommended application rate
  for oily wastes at established
  (over 6 mo old) sites:
  - 35 bbl oil/ac/mo—without
    fertilizer
  - 60 bbl oil/ac/mo—with
    fertilizer

-------
                                     APPENDIX B (Concluded)
                                                GUIDELINE (SUMMARY STATEMENT)
          ITEM
              TEXAS
            OKLAHOMA
o Operational
  Restrictions
o Mixing Frequency
o Mixing Depth
o All runoff must be contained
  (use dikes or lined control
  collection basin) unless dis-
 * charge permit is obtained.
  Collection basin should con-
  tain 25-yr> 24-hr maximum
  rainfall

o Soil pll must be maintained at
  above 6.5 while the site is
  active

o Mix waste into soil as soon
  as possible

o Vegetation for human or animal
  consumption must be analyzed
  for metals contained in the
  waste before feeding.
o Not addressed
o Not addressed
o All runoff must be contained
  unless discharge permit is
  obtained (use dikes or lined
  central collection basin)*
  Collection basir must contain
  all site runoff from a 50-yr,
  24-hr maximum rainfall
                      /
o Soil pll must be maintained at
  above 6.5 whi'e site is active
o Mix waste into soil as soon
  as possible

o Vegetation for human or animal
  consumption must be analyzed
  for metals and any elements in
  the waste which are known to be
  concentrated'by the plant spe-
  cies before use or sale

o Dependent on rainfall.  Recom-
  mended practice is to mix twice
  monthly for first 2 months,
  then once every other month

o Sludge should be mixed into
  soil to a depth of 6 to 12 in.

-------