BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE REGULATIONS
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
40 CFR PARTS 264 AND 265
SUBPART B - GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS
SECTION 264.13 - GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
SECTION 265.13 - INTERIM STATUS STANDARDS
FOR GENERAL WASTE ANALYSIS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
APRIL 29, 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PART I: THE PROPOSED REGULATION
RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION 1
I. Introduction 1
II. RCRA Authority for the Regulation 4
III. Key Definitions 6
IV. Damage Cases 7
V. State Regulations 9
SUMMARY AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARDS 12
I. Proposed Standard 250.43(f) 12
II. Proposed Standard 250.43(g) 14
III. Proposed Standard 250.43(h) 16
PART II: BASIS FOR THE FINAL REGULATION
ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE PROPOSED STANDARDS 18
I. Comments which pertain to all of the
waste analysis standards 18
Issue #1: The generator's responsibilities 18
Issue #2: The manifest 21
Issue #3: Redundancy with the Section 3001
waste analysis standards 23
Issue #4: Facilities regulated under §402
of the Clean Water Act 24
Issue #5: The hazards associated with
sampling and analyzing the waste 26
-------
Page
II. Comments which are specxfic to the
individual waste analysis standards 28
A. Proposed Standard 250.43(f) 28
Issue fl: The level of detail that is
required in the analysis 28
Issue f2: The frequency of the required
analysis 35
Issue 13: The confidentiality of the chemical
composition of the waste 37
Issue f4: Miscellaneous comments 40
B. Proposed Standard 250.43(g) 42
Issue #1: The frequency of the retesting
requirement 42
Issue f2: Miscellaneous comments 47
C. Proposed Standard 250.43(h) 48
Issue f1: The four properties for which
the wastes must be analyzed 48
Issue 12: Sampling each truckload of
similar waste • 50
Issue #3: The "Note" to the standard 53
FINAL REGULATION LANGUAGE 55
References 59
111
-------
_ 1 w
PART I; THE PROPOSED REGULATION
RATIONALE FOR THE REGULATION
I. Introduction
This is one of a series of documents providing support
and background information for regulations issued under
Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA). This background document is divided into two parts.
The first part contains introductory material which addresses
the Congressional authority for the regulation, key definitions
used in the regulation, examples of damage incidents which
illustrate the need for the regulation, a description of
precedents for the regulation set by State and/or other
Federal statutes, and a summary of the regulation as originally
proposed. The second part of this document summarizes and
responds to comments received that relate to the proposed
regulations, and indicates the Agency's final regulations and
their rationales.
On December 18, 1978, the Agency proposed permanent
status standards for analysis of hazardous waste, 43 Federal
Register 59000. These standards were not included in the set
of standards, specified in 43 Federal Register 58995, appli-
cable to facilities during the interim status period (i.e.,
the time from a facility's application for a permanent status
permit until the Agency's final decision on the permit appli-
cation) . The Agency excluded the proposed requirements for
waste analysis from the set of standards applicable during
the interim status period because the proposed waste analysis
-------
- 2 -
standards were: (1) keyed to compliance with permit conditions,
and (2) subject to variances which required interaction with
the Agency.
One commenter asked that the permanent status standards
for waste analysis be made applicable during the interim
status period, pointing out that the Agency has predicted
d43 Federal Register 58984) that the ultimate permitting
process may take several years to complete.
The fact that most facilities will have interim status
for several years makes the Agency agree with the commenter
that standards for waste analysis should apply to facilities
during the interim period. This is necessary to ensure that
facilities are operated in an environmentally sound manner by
requiring that facility personnel analyze hazardous waste for
properties which may affect the management methods used at
the facility.
Several of the standards that were proposed for interim
status did indirectly require facility personnel to know the
chemical and physical properties of the waste they managed.
For example, proposed §250.44(i) (specified as an interim
status standard in proposed §250.40(c)(2)(ix)) prohibited
hazardous waste being stored in an unwashed container or
tank that had previously held a material with which it was
incompatible. To determine whether the waste was incom-
patible with the previous contents of a tank or container,
the chemical and physical properties of the waste needed to
-------
- 3 -
be known, which thus required the facility operator to obtain
an analysis of the waste. Similarly, proposed §250.43-3(b)(9)
(specified as an interim status standard in proposed
§250.40(c)(2)(ii)) prohibited smoking or the presence of an
open flame near ignitable or reactive waste. To determine
whether the waste exhibited either of these two properties,
the facility operator needed to obtain an analysis of the
waste.
Thus, although the proposed §250.43 standards for waste
analysis were not specified as interim status standards in
the proposed rules, many of the proposed §250.40(c)(2) interim
status standards implicitly required the facility operator to
obtain an analysis of the waste to comply with these standards.
The waste analysis standards have been modified so that
they can be implemented directly by the regulated community
with little need for consultation with, or interpretation by,
the Agency. In addition, compliance with the waste analysis
standards is not keyed to compliance with permit conditions.
Thus, the two problems with including the waste analysis
standards in the set of proposed interim status standards
have been resolved.
However, compliance with permit conditions is required
for compliance with the Part 264 permanent status standards
for waste analysis. This is the difference between the waste
analysis standards specified in Part 265 (interim status stan-
dards) and Part 264 (permanent status standards). Because
-------
- 4 -
the two sets of standards are otherwise identical, this
document pertains to both the Part 264 and Part 265 waste
analysis standards.
Because of the need to protect human health and the
environment by ensuring that facilities with interim status
obtain sufficient information on the properties of the wastes
which they manage, and because many of the proposed interim
status standards implicitly required facility operators to
possess this information, the Agency is-including the waste
analysis standards in the Part 265 interim status rules.
The text of the Part 264 and Part 265 standards for
waste analysis is contained at the end of this document.
II. RCRA Authority for the Regulation
In Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as substantially amended by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, as amended,
(42 U.S.C. §§6901 et seq.), the Congress of the United
States mandates the Administrator of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate regulations
to establish such standards for hazardous waste treatment/
storage or disposal facilities as may be necessary to
protect human health and the environment.
Section 3004(3) of RCRA states that the standards
to be promulgated by the EPA must include requirements
for -
"treatment, storage, or disposal of all such
waste received by the facility pursuant to such
-------
- 5 -
operating methods, techniques, and practices as
may be satisfactory to the Administrator;"
In other words, Section 3004(3) of RCRA authorizes
the Administrator to establish standards which will
ensure that hazardous waste facilities are operated so
that the waste which is managed at these facilities
will not pose a threat to human health or the environment
The Agency believes that, in order to ensure that
facilities are operated in an environmentally sound
manner, facility personnel must be familiar with the
characteristics of the waste which they manage. This
means that the waste must be analyzed for properties
which may affect the management methods used at the
facility. EPA is promulgating these regulations jointly
under the authority of Section 3004 and under Section
2002(a)(l) of RCRA, which authorizes the Administrator
to "prescribe...such regulations as are necessary to
carry out his functions under this Act [RCRA]".
-------
- 6 -
III. Key Definitions
The following terms, which are defined in Part 260
are pertinent to this area of regulation:
"Representative Sample" means a sample of a
universe or whole (waste pile, lagoon, ground
water) which can be expected to exhibit the
average properties of the whole or universe.
This definition has changed slightly from the
definition of "representative sample" specified in
§250.4l(a)(73) of the proposed rules. The rationale
for the changes made to the definition is contained
in the background document entitled "Definitions".
"Movement" means hazardous waste transported
to a facility in an individual vehicle.
This term has been added to the list of defin-
itions contained in the proposed rules. The Agency's
rationale for including it in the final rules is
contained on pages 52-53 of this document.
-------
- 7 -
IV- Damage Cases
The following damage cases illustrate that human
health and the environment have been endangered when
facility personnel lacked sufficient information on the
characteristics of the waste which they attempted to
manage. These cases provide additional support for
establishing standards for waste analysis.
(1) In the summer of 1974, a bulldozer operator
experienced dizziness and eye irritation while
burying drums at a sanitary landfill in Michigan.
He left the bulldozer, and upon returning found
the machine in flames. The fire was caused by
ignition of flammable wastes in the drums that he
was burying. The landfill operator had unknowingly
received flammable wastes from a waste hauler.^
(2) An employee of a Dakota County (Minnesota)
landfill was seriously burned when a caterpillar
tractor that he was operating crushed and ignited
a container of flammable solvent. The container
was not suspected to contain flammable waste
because the landfill was not licensed to dispose
of flammable waste. The employee suffered burns
over 85% of his body and was hospitalized in in-
tensive care for four and one-half months.2
Damage incidents (1) and (2) illustrate that
facility personnel must know the identity and the
chemical properties (e.g., flammability) of the wastes
which they are assigned to manage.
(3) A sanitary landfill in Minnesota received
approximately twenty 55-gallon drums of sodium
arsenite for disposal in their designated liquid
disposal area. After the waste had been disposed
of, a State agency informed the landfill operator
that sodium arsenite is a very toxic defoliant
and that the barrels would have to be dug up and
sent to a hazardous waste disposal facility. The
search involved extensive excavation, required
4 1/2 months, and cost the operator about $22,000.3
-------
- 8 -
Damage incident (3) illustrates that merely
knowing the identxty of a waste provides insufficient
information to manage the waste in a manner protective
of human health and the environment. In this case,
had the facility operator known of the toxic nature of
the defoliant received at the facility, the operator
might have realized that his landfill lacked the con-
tainment properties needed to dispose of such a waste.
(4) In 1975, a load of empty pesticide containers
was delivered to a hazardous (chemical) waste
disposal site in Fresno County, California. Not
listed on the manifest, and therefore unknown to
the site operator, several full drums of an
acetone-methanol mixture were included in the
load. When the load was compacted by a bulldozer,
the acetone-methanol waste ignited, engulfing the
bulldozer in flames. The ensuing fire resulted in
the dispersion of pesticide wastes.'*
This damage incident illustrates that waste which
is received at a facility must be inspected in order
to determine that the waste matches the identity of the
waste designated on the accompanying manifest.
(5) In July of 1975, a waste hauler and five
employees at a landfill in Baltimore County,
Maryland, were hospitalized when a tank con-
taining industrial waste liquid was dumped into
an earth-covered area of a landfill. The men were
injured from fumes (hydrogen sulfide) which were
released when the waste liquid started to enter
the landfill. It is uncertain whether the fumes
resulted from the waste coming into contact with
a substance in the landfill with which it was
incompatible, or whether the waste left the
generator's site in an unstable form. Although a
chemist at the generator's site allegedly tested
the waste's properties before it left the plant,
the waste hauler noticed that, upon opening the
tank's valve to allow the waste to enter the
landfill, the waste was a darker color than usual.
-------
- 9 -
This damage incident illustrates the importance of
conducting even simple non-analytical tests (i.e., visual
inspection of the waste's color) to determine the identity
of incoming waste managed at facilities. In this damage
case, had the waste hauler checked the waste's color
before he opened the valve to allow the liquid to enter
the landfill, he might have realized thjat the waste was
different than that normally received at the landfill,
and that further analysis of the waste's characteristics
was necessary.
V. State Regulations
The Agency reviewed the hazardous waste regulations
of several States to assess the State governments'
perceived need to establish standards which ensure that
hazardous waste is analyzed before it is treated, stored,
or disposed at hazardous waste facilities. The Agency
believes that the following discussion of the standards
prescribed by the States of California,^ Minnesota,7
and Washington,8 reflects the State governments' belief
that waste analysis standards for this purpose should
be established.
The State of California uses a manifest system
comparable to that prescribed in the proposed RCRA
rules, except that California requires that the generator
provide a description of the waste, which includes the
type of waste, chemical composition, and special handling
-------
- 10 -
instructions on the manifest. (With regard to waste
description, the RCRA standards only require that the
manifest indicate the waste's identity and special
handling instructions).
The States of Minnesota and Washington have similar
waste analysis standards for generators of hazardous waste.
However, Minnesota's regulations also include the following
additional requirements for generators:
1. generators must reevaluate their waste when they
have reason to believe that the composition of
the waste is altered so that the results of the
previous evaluation are no longer representative
of the waste.
2. in the disclosure (similar in purpose to the
RCRA. manifest), the-generator must describe:
- anticipated fluctuations in the chemical
composition of the waste
- the source of the data or information used
to identify the hazardous properties of the
waste
- if tests were conducted to evaluate the
waste, the disclosure must also describe
1. the sampling procedure and the reasons
for determining that the sample is
representative of the waste?
2. the results of all tests conducted;
and
-------
- 11 -
3. a discussion of the accuracy and
precision of any tests conducted.
In addition to requirements which pertain to the
generator, California also requires that operators of
off-site facilities inspect incoming waste to ensure
that the delivered waste has essentially the same pro-
perties as identified by the generator on the manifest.
-------
- 12 -
SUMMARY OF AND RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
Proposed Standard 250.43(f)
^•* Summary of Proposed Standard
The proposed standard required owners or operators
to obtain a detailed chemical and physical analysis of
each hazardous waste handled at the facility at the
time of initiating management of the waste. The
analysis had to identify the characteristics of the
waste which must be known in order to comply with:
the requirements of the Section 3004 standards, or
the conditions of the permit issued to the
facility under Section 3005.
A "Note" to the standard stated that the scope of the
analysis could be limited by the information needed to
manage the waste with the processes or methods used at
the facility- The "Note" also allowed the owner or
operator to use existing information to compile the
data needed to comply with requirements of the standard,
rather than requiring new testing in all cases.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
The purpose of the standard was to ensure that
owners or operators possess sufficient information on
the characteristics of the wastes which they manage to
be able to treat, store, or dispose of their wastes in
a manner which will not pose a threat to human health
or the environment.
-------
- 13 -
Unlike the State regulations summarized above, which
require that generators provide the owners or operators
with the information needed to manage the waste (i.e.,
chemical composition of the waste), the Agency chose
not to impose such a requirement on generators in the
RCRA rules. Instead, the proposed Section 3002 regu-
lations gave generators the option of either:
(1) analyzing their waste in accordance with proposed
§250.13, or
(2) declaring their waste to be hazardous, in which
case, generators did not have to comply with the
proposed §250.13 waste analysis requirements.
i
Accordingly, the Section 3004 waste analysis stan-
dards required that owners or operators obtain a detailed
•
analysis of each waste which they intend to manage.
The word "obtain" was used in the standard in order to
inform owners or operators that they could either:
(1) perform the waste analysis themselves, and pre-
sumably pass the costs of the analysis back onto
the generator, or
(2) acquire the analysis from the generator, who might
already have analyzed the waste to comply with proposed
§250.13, or who might have done other analyses to
determine the characteristics or composition of
the waste, or who might have such information from
his production process.
-------
- 14 -
The Agency wanted to inform owners or operators that
they did not have to conduct analyses for properties of
certain wastes, where a data base on these properties had
been developed prior to the effective date of the regu-
lations . For example, if owners or operators routinely
measured the vapor pressure of wastes which they receive,
or if the vapor pressure of a particular waste had been
documented in the literature, the Agency wanted to inform
owners or operators that they could use this existing
information as part of the data base which they must
collect on their wastes. For this reason, a "Note" was
added to the standard which stated that the required
analysis could be "limited based upon...existing available
evidence regarding the waste's composition".
II. Proposed Standard 250.43(g)
A. Summary of Proposed Standard
The proposed standard required that, at least
annually., the owner or operator had to obtain or repeat,
as necessary, a detailed analysis of each waste managed
at the facility.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
The characteristics of a waste tend to vary if
the process which generates the waste is modified.
For example, the type of ash which is generated by a
furnace varies with the type of fuel burned in the
furnace.
-------
- 15 -
The effectiveness of certain types of management
methods is highly sensitive to variations in waste
stream characteristics. Inaccurate information on the
characteristics of the waste handled at the facility,
may either damage the facility (e.g., placing corrosive
waste into a steel tank may damage the structural
integrity of the tank), or result in inadequate manage-
ment of the waste (see damage case (3) on page 7 of
this document).
The intent of the proposed standard was to assure
quality control of the wastes managed at facilities by
requiring that the detailed analysis of the waste (re-
quired in §250.43(f)) be repeated as often as necessary
to ensure that the facility's information on the wastes'
characteristics was accurate and up-to-date. The standard
specified that the analysis be repeated "as necessary",
to allow for the fact that some waste management processes
(e.g., incineration) are more sensitive than others to
variations in waste stream quality, and thus, some facil-
ities ' waste streams need to be monitored more frequently
than others.
The standard did specify that the analysis be
repeated at least annually, because the Agency believed
that the characteristics of most waste streams vary within
the course of a year, and therefore, owners or operators
should determine whether such variations would influence
-------
- 16 -
the effectiveness of the methods used at the facility
to manage the waste.
III. Proposed Standard 250.43(h)
A. Summary of Proposed Standard
The proposed standard required that each truckload,
shipment, or batch of hazardous waste managed at a
facility be sampled and analyzed for at least the
following four properties:
physical appearance
specific gravity
pH
vapor pressure
A "Note" to the standard allowed less frequent sampling
and analysis of waste managed on-site, if it could be
demonstrated that no loss in facility operations would
result from less frequent sampling at on-site facilities.
B. Rationale for the Proposed Standard
Inadvertent mixups, or deliberate misrepresentation
of the wastes sent to a facility, may pose a threat to
human health and the environment because such waste may
be incompatible with other wastes, or-with the processes
or methods used at the facility to manage hazardous
waste.
The purpose of the standard, therefore, was to
ensure that the wastes received at a facility are those
which are identified on the labels or accompanying
-------
- 17 -
manifests. Accordingly, the standard required that
owners or operators perform qualitative tests on the
wastes received at a facility in order to determine the
identity of the wastes. The choice of the four proper-
ties for analysis was based on the Agency's belief that
analysis for these properties would be quick, inexpensive,
and suitable to determine the identity of most wastes
managed at hazardous waste facilities.
The Agency recognized, however, that the potential
for deliberate misrepresentation of the identity or
characteristics of a waste is slight at on-site facil-
ities. Therefore, a "Note" was added to the standard
which relaxed the requirement to determine the identity of
each batch of waste at on-site facilities.
-------
- 18 -
PART II; BASIS FOR THE REGULATION
ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE PROPOSED STANDARDS
I. Comments which pertain to all of the waste analysis
standards
Issue #1: The generator's responsibilities
a. Summary of Comments
1. The generator should be required to provide the owner
or operator with the information needed to comply
with the waste analysis standards because the
generator is more familiar with the properties of
the waste than is the owner or operator, and thus,
it will be less expensive for the generator to
conduct the required analysis.
2. The generator should be made responsible for any
inaccuracies or omissions in the information that
he gives to the owner or operator.
b. Response to Comments
1. As explained in Part I of this document, the
proposed waste analysis standards of Sections 3001
and 3002 allowed generators to declare their waste
to be hazardous, in which case, they were exempt
from the actual testing requirements of proposed
i*
§250.13. (See the Background Document on the
final Section 3002 standards. Part 262, "General
Requirements Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
-------
- 19 -
Waste", for the rationale for the Agency's decision
which allows generators not to analyze their waste.)
Since generators were not required to conduct
analyses to characterize their wastes, it would
have been inconsistent for EPA to require generators
to provide information which could only be acquired
through analysis.
The commenters' suggestion that EPA require
generators to conduct the Section 3004 waste analysis
requirements is based on the premise that all or
most generators are more familiar with the proper-
ties of their waste than are owners or operators,
and thus, it would be less expensive to require
generators to conduct the required analyses. The
Agency believes on the other hand, that although
many,generators may be familiar with the properties
of the waste which they generate, there are many
companies which generate waste about whose properties
the generators Icnow little. In the latter case,
it is doubtful that these companies will purchase
analytical equipment, and the cost of sending
their waste to commercial laboratories for analysis
would be comparable to the cost of analysis at
facilities with on-site labs, or facilities which
sub-contract their analytical work.
-------
- 20 -
Furthermore, although generators may have some
knowledge about the chemical properties of their
waste, the properties owners or operators need to know
to manage a waste go beyond chemical composition.
For example, to treat a waste, one needs to know
not only the constituents of the waste, but also
the compatibility of the waste with the techniques
and chemical reagents used at the facility in the
treatment process. The Agency believes that, in
many cases, generators will not possess the latter
type of information regarding the wastes properties.
If the generator does possess such information,
presumably he will give it to the owner or operator
in order to save himself the expense of having the
owner or operator perform the analysis. Also, by not
mandating that either the generator or the owner or
operator perform the analysis (note that the require-
ment of Section 3004 is that the owner or operator must
obtain an analysis) the owner or operator can contract
with the generator to provide certain information,
or even to provide the analysis whenever the generator
can do so more efficiently than the owner or operator
can. If the generator refuses necessary information,
the owner or operator can decline to«i*eontract to
accept the waste.
-------
- 21 -
Thus, it is the Agency's belief that the
approach taken in the proposed rules provides a
means more flexible, and yet as equally cost effec-
tive as that suggested by the commenter, to ensure
that owners or operators obtain the information needed
to manage hazardous waste.
2. Section 3008(d) of RCRA states that "any person
who knowingly...makes any false statement or repre-
sentation in any...document...used for purposes of
compliance with this subtitle shall...be subject
to..." the penalties described in the section.
Thus, where a generator knowingly provides the
owner or operator with inaccurate information on the
waste which he sends to a facility, EPA may bring
enforcement actions against the generator.
Where the generator has unknowingly supplied
the owner or operator with inaccurate information on
the properties of the waste, tort law will allocate
the liability for accidental human health or envi-
ronmental damage which may result from the owner or
operator's mismanagement of the waste.
Issue #2; The manifest
a. Summary of Comments
1. The standards should be deleted because the infor-
mation contained on the manifest provides the
owner or operator with sufficient information to:
-------
- 22 -
- comply witli the waste analysis standards
ascertain the parameters necessary for the
method of treatment, storage, or disposal
utilized at the facility.
2. All information pertinent to the management of the
waste should be contained in the manifest,
k* Response to Comments
1. The proposed manifest requirements include no
provisions which require that the generator describe
either the chemical composition or the compatibility
characteristics of the waste sent to hazardous waste
facilities. Thus, in the proposed rules, the infor-
mation provided on the manifest does not provide
owners or operators with sufficient information to
comply with the Section 3004 requirements.
2. The manifest was not designed to provide owners or
operators with information needed to manage waste
sent to facilities. Rather, the manifest was
designed to control the movement of waste from the
generator's premises to off-site facilities, and to
contain information necessary to respond to an
emergency involving the waste en route.
In order to reduce the paperwork requirements
for generators who transport their waste, the
Agency adopted the Department of Transportation's
(DOT's) shipping paper requirements (with some
-------
- 23 -
modifications) for the tracking system to be used in
the RCRA program. To include waste management inform-
ation on the manifest would require DOT to change their
shipping form, which DOT is reluctant to do since this
would affect the Nation's entire hazardous material
transportation system. To avoid thwarting the plan to
"• '•
devise a common EPA/DOT document to track the transport-
ation of hazardous waste, the Agency has decided not to
require generators to supply waste management inform-
ation on the manifest in the final rules. In addition,
as discussed above, some generators will be unable to
supply this information because they are unfamiliar
with the owner'SiOr operator's management practices.
Issue #3; Redundancy with the Section 3001 waste analysis
standards
a. Summary of Comments
The Section 3004 waste analysis standards appear to
require an analysis and assessment entirely independent
>r
of that required in the standards for analysis in
proposed §250.10 - 250.13. The standards should clarify
that the analysis required in the Section 3001 regulations
satisfies the requirements for waste analysis required
in the Section 3004 regulations.
b. Response to Comments
As explained in response to comments under Issue #1,
the information needed to characterize a waste (as
required in proposed §250.13) may overlap with, but is
not identical to, the- information needed to manage a
-------
- 24 -
waste (as required in proposed §250.43). Thus, the
analysis required in the Section 3001 regulations does
not fully satisfy the requirements for waste analysis
in the Section 3004 regulations.
However, the standard has been revised to clarify
that data developed to comply with the Section 3001
regulations may be included in the data base compiled
by the owner or operator to comply with the Section 3004
waste analysis standards.
Issue #4; Facilities regulated under §402 of the Clean
Water Act
a. Summary of Comments
1. Waste streams regulated under §402 of the Clean
Water Act (e.g., NPDES facilities) should be exempt
from the waste analysis standards because they
overlap with the NPDES permit requirements.
2. Waste streams contained in closed sewer systems,
treated on-site, and discharged in compliance with
an NPDES permit should be exempt from the waste
analysis standards.
b. Response to Comments
1. To ensure that the treated waste stream complies
with the permissible pollutant levels specified in
the NPDES permit, the standards prescribed under
§402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) require analysis
of the waste stream (for certain named components)
before it is discharged to surface waters.
-------
- 25 -
The Section 3004 waste analysis standards, on
the other hand, are designed to ensure that waste
which enters a NPDES facility is compatible with
the treatment processes and chemical reagents used
at the facility, and with the construction materials
of the containment device (e.g., tank or lagoon)
in which the waste is to be treated. Thus, the
waste analysis which is required under §402 of
the CWA serves a different purpose than that
required under Section 3004 of RCRA; in the former
case, the analysis is concerned with the properties
of the effluent waste stream, whereas in the second
case, the analysis is concerned with the properties
of the influent waste stream. Since both sets of
analyses are needed to ensure that waste is treated
in an environmentally sound manner, the Agency
rejects the suggestion to exempt NPDES facilities
from the Section 3004 waste analysis standards.
2. The final standards exclude waste treated within a
totally enclosed treatment facility (which often will
be a pipeline) from the requirements of Parts 264 and
265. The Agency's rationale for this exclusion is
provided in the Part 264/265 preamble discussion of
Subpart P - Chemical, Physical, and Biological
Treatment Facilities.
-------
- 26 -
Issue #5: The hazards associated with sampling and
analyzing the waste
a. Summary of Comments
The standards should be deleted because site
sampling will:
- in many cases, subject the disposal operators
to the potential hazards associated with
opening and sampling mis-marked containers
increase environmental and employee exposure
to the waste.
b. Response to Comments
The Agency recognizes that sampling and analyzing
hazardous waste entails certain hazards because facility
personnel must handle the waste in order to sample and
analyze it. The potential for accidents can be minimized
by the careful controlled sampling and analysis of hazar-
dous waste. The §264.16 training standards require
that facility personnel receive enough instruction so
that they can perform their duties in a manner which
will not endanger human health or the environment.
Thus, facility personnel assigned to analyze hazardous
waste, or to inspect incoming waste to determine that
it matches that which is identified on the> acompanying
manifest, must be trained in the special handling pro-
cedures which their jobs entail.
-------
- 27 -
The Agency acknowledges that even with this
additional training, some risks associated with opening
and sampling mis-marked containers remain. However,
the Agency believes that the danger posed by exposure of
the public to hazardous waste which is mismanaged because
of a lack of information on the waste's properties, can be
t
much more serious than the danger posed by exposure of
the facility personnel to waste which is mis-labeled.
Unlike the public or the environment, facility personnel
can prepare for unforeseen occurrences (like the arrival
of a mislabeled container at the facility) by complying
with the final Subpart C standards for Preparedness and
Prevention. In addition, the Agency expects that the
likelihood of a mislabeled container arriving at a
facility will be small because, if a generator knowingly
mislabels a waste, he is subject to the penalties speci-
fied in §3008(d) of RCRA.
Therefore, like the proposed rules, the final
rules require that waste be sampled and analyzed to the
extent necessary to manage the waste in a manner which
will not endanger human health or the environment.
-------
- 28 -
Comnieht.s which are specific to the individual waste
analysis standards
A. Proposed Standard 250.43(f)
Issue tl: The level of detail that is required in the
analysis
a" Summary of Comments
1. The nature and scope of the required analysis, is
vague since it depends on permit conditions, which
will not be part of the standard, and an interpre-
tation of the entire Section 3004 standards. The
standard should specify that the analysis must:
- be in sufficient detail to quantify those
characteristics of the waste which may render
it a hazardous waste under proposed §250.13
or §250.14.
- specify the parameters for ground-water moni-
toring listed in proposed §250.43-8(c)(5).
2. The requirement to "identify the hazardous charac-
teristics of the waste" is potentially onerous
because some of the wastes which appear in proposed
§250.14 are so listed because they contain mutagenic,
carcinogenic, teratogenic, or bioaccumulative sub-
stances. A detailed chemical and physical analysis
would not identify these hazardous characteristics
of the waste. Therefore, the required analysis
should be limited to that information needed to
-------
- 29 -
treat, store, or dispose of the waste in compliance
with the Section 3004 standards which pertain to
the management methods used at the facility.
3. For uranium overburden and waste rock, the analysis
submitted in the permit application should fulfill
the requirement of the standard.
b. Response to Comments
1. Because the information needed to treat, store, or
dispose of waste differs with the methods used to
manage waste (e.g., the information needed to in-
cinerate waste differs from that needed to neutra-
lize waste), the Agency purposely wrote non-specific
waste analysis standards in the proposed §250.43
General Facility Standards. However, the Agency
agrees with the general thrust of the commenters'
argument that the regulations shouldf where possible,
be more detailed regarding the standards for waste
analysis. For this reason, in addition to the
general facility standards for waste analysis, the
final rules also include, in each technical section
of the regulations, minimum waste analysis standards
specific to the management method regulated in the
section. For example, the §265.345 standards for
incineration contain specific minimum parameters
(e.g., halogen and sulfur content and certain
heavy metals) for which,waste must be analyzed
before it is incinerated. However, since most
-------
- 30 -
waste can be landfilled in compliance with the
Section 3004 standards without knowing the halogen
or sulfur content of the waste, the §265.303 waste
analysis standards for landfills do not require
that the waste's halogen or sulfur content be
known before the waste is landfilled.
By including the more detailed informational
requirements in the technical sections of the
regulations, while leaving the more general infor-
mational requirements in the general facility
section of the regulations, the Agency believes
that the regulations are specific enough so that
owners or operators will know what is expected of
them, and yet are flexible enough so that an owner
or operator will only be required to conduct analyses
which are appropriate for the management methods
used at his facility.
As explained on page 20 of this document,
the information which is needed to characterize a
waste (as required in the Section 3001 regulations)
is not synonymous with the information needed to
manage a waste (as required in the Section 3004
regulations). Therefore, the revised rules do not
specify that the analysis required in the Section 3004
regulations must quantify the characteristics of
the waste which render it hazardous under proposed
§250.13 or §250.14.
-------
- 31 -
EPA rejects the suggestion that analysis for
the parameters specified in proposed §250.43-8(c)(5)
should be substituted for the waste analysis required
in proposed §250.43(f). The purpose of the required
analysis in proposed §250.43-8(c)(5) was to determine
if ground water has been contaminated with pollutants
emanating from hazardous waste facilities. The
parameters which must be known to make this deter-
mination differ from those which must be known to
manage waste. For example, measuring the specific
conductance of ground water may be an appropriate
mechanism to monitor the variations in pollutant
levels therexn, but knowing the specific conductance
of a waste will not help an owner or operator deter-
mine if hxs treatment process can effectively neutra-
lize the waste.
Two additional reasons for not requiring
owners or operators to analyze their waste for the
parameters specified in §250.43-8(c)(5) of the
proposed ground water and leachate monitoring
standards are:
a. analysis for the majority of the parameters
specified in the proposed ground-water moni-
toring standard can only be conducted in an
aqueous media, which makes a requirement to
determine these parameters for non-liquid
waste inappropriate; and
-------
- 32 -
b. §250.43-8(c)(5)(vi) required that the ground
water be analyzed for the concentrations of
the prxncipal hazardous constituents, or
indicators thereof, found in the largest
quantity in the hazardous waste disposed at
the facility. Clearly, it would be inappro-
priate to analyze every waste for the principal
constitutents of each waste managed at the
facility, since every waste managed at a
facility does not have a chemical composition
which is similar to the chemical composition
of all of the wastes managed at the facility.
Therefore, the final rules do not require
that the analysis required in the Section 3004
•
regulations specify the parameters listed in
§250.43-8(c)(5) of the proposed rules.
The proposed standard required that owners or opera-
tors identify the hazardous characteristics of the
waste which must be known to comply with the
requirements of Section 3004, or with the require-
ments of a permit issued under the provisions of
Section 3005. The requirements of Section 3004
are concerned with the management of hazardous
waste, and the conditions specified in the facility's
permit will only be concerned with ensuring that
waste is managed in accordance with the Section 3004
-------
- 33 -
standards. The effectiveness of very few waste
management techniques will be adversely affected
by a facility operator's ignorance of the carcino-
genic, mutagenic, teratogenic, or bioaccumulative
properties of the waste. For example, the fact that
a waste is mutagenic has little to do with the
strength of the chemical bonds that hold the waste
together, and thus, the ability of an incinerator
to destroy a waste by breaking its chemical bonds,
will not be affected by whether or not the waste
is a mutagen. Therefore, the Agency disagrees
with the commenter's criticism that the proposed
wording of the standard infers that analysis for
these properties is required to comply with the
standard.
The Agency agrees that the required analysis
should be limited, for the most part, to the infor-
mation needed to comply with the Section 3004
standards which pertain to the management methods
used at the facility. However, because the regu-
lations cannot be written to take into account
all of the idiosyncrasies of all management methods
used at all facilities, the Agency believes that
it should use the facility permit as an auxiliary
mechanism to the Section 3004 standards to impose
additional requirements specific to unusual waste
-------
- 34 -
management situations. For example, the ability
of a facility to treat a particular type of waste
may be adversely affected by the presence of a
particular contaminant (e.g., the contaminant may
combine with the reagent intended to catalyze the
treatment process, thereby rendering the reagent
useless). In a case like this, the Agency may
want to include a specific requirement in the
facility's permit to analyze waste to be treated
for the particular contaminant. Similarly, in
other cases, the permit writer may want to include
specific conditions to analyze for other consti-
tuents or properties of the waste. Therefore, in
addition to the information needed to comply with
the Section 3004 standards, the Agency believes
that the provision to require analysis for parameters
specified in the permit should be retained in the
Section 3004 waste analysis standards.
However, since permits will not be issued to
facilities with interim status, the §265.16 interim
status standards for waste analysis do not contain
provisions for compliance with waste analysis
requirements specified in the facility's permit.
Regarding the comment on uranium overburden and
waste rock, the Agency cannot say whether the
analysis submitted in the permit application
-------
- 35 -
satisfies the requirements of the final waste
analysis standards until after the Agency reviews
the facility's permit application. If the permit
writer believes that the analysis submitted in
the permit application provides the facility
operator with sufficient information to manage the
waste in a manner which complies with the Section
3004 standards, and with any special conditions
to be specified in the facility's permit, then the
the Agency agrees that the analysis submitted in
the permit application may fulfill the requirements
of the waste analysis standards.
Issue #2: The frequency of the required analysis
a. Summary of Comments
1. The requirement for performing the analysis at the
time of "initiating management of hazardous waste"
is unclear for wastes whose management at a parti-
cular facility antedates the effective date of
these regulations.
2. The standard should specify a compliance schedule
(e.g., 180 days after the effective date of the
rules) for these wastes, due to the anticipated
shortage of qualified personnel and laboratories
to conduct waste analyses.
3. The requirement to conduct a detailed analysis of
each batch of hazardous waste received at a facility
should be relaxed for batches which contain wastes
of relatively constant composition..
-------
- 36 -
b. Response to Comments
1. The Agency agrees that the phrase "at the time of
initiating management of the waste" was confusing in
the proposed rules. The intent of the standard was to
require a detailed analysis of every type of waste
which is managed at the facility before the actual
management of the waste begins.* In order to take
into account those wastes managed before the effective
date of the regulations, the phrase "at the time of
initiating management of the waste1' was inserted in
the proposed standard to inform owners or operators
that they would have to analyze the types of waste
previously managed at the facility before the effect-
ive date of the regulations in order to continue to
manage these types of waste after the effective date
of the regulations. However, since all waste manage-
ment activities which have been conducted before, and
which continue to be conducted after the effective
date of the regulations, are required to be in com-
pliance with all of the applicable Section 3004
standards, there is no need to reiterate this fact
in each standard. Therefore, the phrase "at the
time of initiating management of the waste" has
been eliminated from the final rules. It should be
* Although storage is a form of waste management, the Agency
recognizes that it may be necessary to store waste for a
minimal amount of time (probably no more than a few hours)
at facilities before analyzing it.
-------
- 37 -
understood, however, that a detailed analysis must
be, or have been, performed for each waste which the
facility continues to manage.
2. The Agency disagrees with the suggestion that a
compliance schedule should be devised for waste
whose management at facilities antedates the effec-
tive date of the regulations. The Agency believes
that the alleged shortage of qualified personnel
and laboratories to conduct the required analysis
is not so severe that the turn-around time for
wastes sent to laboratories for analysis will
exceed six months (which is the time between the
promulgation date and the effective date of the
regulations).
3. The Agency recognizes that the proposed wording of
the standard was unclear because it doesn't specify
whether owners or operators are required to perform a
detailed analysis on every batch of a particular
waste, or only on representative batches of the
waste. The intent of the standard was to require
the latter type of analysis. To clarify this
point, the final standard requires that the detailed
analysis be performed on a representative sample
of the waste to be managed.
-------
- 38 -
Issue #3; The confidentiality of the chemical composition
of the waste
a. Summary of Comments
1. Requiring the owner or operator to obtain a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of the hazardous
waste will make it difficult to protect proprietary
information related) to the composition of the waste.
2. If the analysis is provided to the owner or operator
from the generator, a mechanism should be provided
to the generator, so that the furnishing of detailed -
information can be treated as confidential, if
requested.
b. Response to Comments
1. The Agency believes that the appropriate format to
use to address problems concerning confidentiality
of information provided by generators to owners or
operators, is a contract rather than a regulation.
If a generator believes that the dissemination of
the chemical composition of his waste to outside
parties will be advantageous to his competitors,
the Agency believes that the generator should
enter into a contractual agreement with the owner or
operator, whereby the owner or operator must treat as
confidential the information which thg generator
provides to him, or which the owner or operator
obtains from a lab concerning the generator's waste.
-------
- 39 -
It is, of course/ possible that it will be
necessary for the Agency to learn of the contents
of such information in .order to enforce the Section
3004 hazardous waste regulations. In such a case,
Section 3007(b) of RCRA provides that this infor-
mation may be treated as confidential if it
concerns or relates to trade secrets,
processes, operations, style of work,
or apparatus, or to the identity,
confidential statistical data, amount
or source of any income, profits, losses,
or expenditures of any person, firm,
partnership, corporation, or association;
[18 U.S.C. §1905]
EPA has protected such information through the
regulations of 40 CFR Part 2, §2.305, as amended
September 8, 1978, which provide that information
which companies indicate they wish treated as
confidential will be released only if EPA finds,
after opportunity for a contested hearing, that
the release of this information is not "likely to
cause substantial harm to the company's competitive
position" [40 CFR §2.208(e)(1)].
Because legitimate interests in the confidentiality
of the chemical composition of a generator's waste
will be protected by contractual provisions and by
EPA's existing confidentiality regulations, it is
unnecessary to provide a separate mechanism in the
Section 3004 rules whch addresses the confidentiality
of this type of information. The Agency believes
-------
- 40 -
that the need to protect human health and the environ-
ment from the mismanagement of hazardous waste over-
rides the need for further mechanisms to protect
proprietary information related to the composition
of a generator's waste.
Issue #4; Miscellaneous comments
a. Summary of Comments
1. The "Note" to the standard should be deleted
because it eliminates some of the specificity of
the proposed standard.
2. The analysis should have to be certified, and EPA
should immediately review the analysis and comment,
if necessary, on its acceptability.
3. The standard should specify the methods to be used
in obtaining samples of the waste for analysis.
b. Response to Comments
1. The Agency agrees that the "Note" to the standard
could be interpreted to eliminate some of the
specificity of the standard. The only part of the
"Note" which has been retained in the final rules
is that provision which allows the owner or operator
to include data developed before the effective
date of the regulations in the data base which
must be compiled to comply with the*standard. The
Agency acknowledges that the rest of the "Note"
contributes little to the standard, and thus, has
eliminated it from the final rules.
-------
- 41 -
The Agency agrees that it would be desirable for
EPA to review the results of each waste analysis
to ensure that the analysis contains the information
needed to manage a waste. Unfortunately, the
number of reviews which EPA would have to conduct
if it required owners or operators to obtain EPA
review of their test results before waste could be
managed, makes such a requirement impractical
because EPA lacks sufficient manpower to provide a
timely turn-around of the test results.
Although EPA cannot examine each waste analysis
to ensure that all information necessary for proper
management of the waste has been obtained, the
Agency has, however, decided to require owners or
operators to develop and maintain a waste analysis
plan. The plan will perform the same function as
the suggested requirement. At a minimum, the plan
must describe:
(a) the parameters for which each waste will be
analyzed and the rationale for the selection of
these parameters (i.e., how analysis for these
parameters will provide sufficient information
on the waste's properties to manage the waste in
a manner which complies with the Section 3004
standards) ;
(b) the test methods which will be used to test
for these parameters; and
-------
- 42 -
(c) the sampling method which will be used to
obtain a representative sample of the waste
to be analyzed.
Because this plan will be reviewed when the
facility's application for a permit is evaluated,
the Agency believes that this review process will
encourage owners or operators to conduct thorough
analyses of the waste which they manage.
3. The Agency agrees that the standards should specify
the methods to be used to obtain samples of the
waste for analysis. Therefore, the final standards
require that the samples be obtained using either:
i
(i) One of the sampling methods described in
Appendix I of the Part 261 rules; or
m
(ii) An equivalent sampling method.
[Comment; See §261.20(c) for related discussion.]
B. Proposed Standard 250.43(g)
!
Issue #1; The frequency of the retesting requirement
a. Summary of Comments
1. The annual retesting requirement is inadequate
for operations highly dependent on consistent
waste stream quality (e.g., incinerators).
2. The minimum annual testing requirement is an
unnecessary expense. The retesting of a waste
should only be required when:
- the process or operation generating the
waste changes, or
-------
- 43 -
it is reasonably known that the compo-
sition or characteristics of the waste
has changed.
3. The annual retesting requirement should be deleted
because provisions for retesting are included in
proposed §250.10(d)(l)(iii).
4. The provision, for repeated analysis is inconsistent
with Section 3005(c) of RCRA, under which an owner or
operator may be afforded a specified period of
_ time for bringing his facility into compliance with
the Section 3004 requirements. Therefore, the
provision for repeated analysis should not apply
to facilities whose permits include compliance
schedules.
5. The Agency should clarify:
- what is meant by the phrase "as necessary"
- whether the permit writer or the owner or operator
determines the frequency of the analysis
whether, in the latter case, will failure
to perform sufficient monitoring be cause for
enforcement action?
- whether sampling annually will protect the
owner or operator from enforcement action.
b. Response to Comments
1. The proposed standard required that at least
annually, an owner or operator must obtain or repeat,
as necessary, a detailed analysis of each waste
-------
- 44 -
managed at the facility. Thus, for management
methods highly dependent on consistent waste stream
quality, the standard required that the analysis
be repeated as often as necessary to ensure that
the waste would be managed in a manner which would
not endanger human health or the environment. The
decision as to how often within the year the analysis
would have to be repeated to comply with the stan-
dard was left up to the owner or operator. For the
most part, this decision is still left up to the
owner or operator in the final rules (some of the
technical sections of the final rules — e.g.,
Subpart 0, Standards for Incinerators — specify
minimum frequencies with which the analysis must
be repeated). However, the owner or operator is
required to specify how often he intends to repeat
the analysis in the facility's waste analysis
plan and permit application.
The Agency believes that the properties of most
waste streams vary within the course of a year, and
therefore, owners or operators should re-analyze waste,
at least annually, to determine if such variations
will influence the effectiveness of the methods used
at the facility to manage waste. However, if the
owner or operator is correct in his belief that the
properties of the waste which he manages will not
change, then the Agency agrees that to re-analyze the
-------
- 45 -
waste annually would be unnecessary. Therefore,
the minimum annual retesting requirement has been
deleted from the final rules. However, the final
rules do require that, at a minimum, waste must be
re-analyzed (l) when the owner or operator is
notified, or has reason to believe, that the process
or operation generating the waste has changed, and
(2) for off-site facilities, when the results of
the spot-check tests required in the final §264.1.3 (c)
of the regulations indicate that the hazardous
waste received at the facility does not match the
waste designated on the accompanying manifest or
shipping paper.
3. The provisions for retesting in proposed
§250.10(d)(1)(iii) referred to the waste analysis
required in proposed §250.13, and thus did not
apply to the waste analysis requirements of Section
3004 (see discussion on page 30 of this document).
However, the provision for retesting specified in
proposed §250.lO(d)(l)(iii), which requires that
the analysis be repeated "when there is a significant
change in their feed materials or operations which
may alter the test results", is comparable to the
provision for retesting specified in the final
Section 3004 waste analysis requirements.
4. As explained in the response to comments received
on proposed §250.43(f), the Agency believes that
-------
- 46 -
the 6 month grace period between the promulgation
and the effective dates of the regulations, should
provide adequate time to perform the analysis re-
quired in the Section 3004 standards. Therefore,
since the Agency believes that it will be unneces-
sary to provide facilities additional time to comply
•with the waste analysis standards, including those
facilities on a compliance schedule for other as-
pects of the regulations, the Agency disagrees with
the comment that the provisions for re-analysis of
waste are inconsistent with Section 3005(c) of
RCRA.
The Agency has deleted the phrase "as necessary"
from the final rules, and has specified minimum
conditions for re-analysis, as described in the
response to comment #2 of this section.
During interim status, the owner or operator
will determine how often his waste should be re-
analyzed, and will include that information in the
facility's waste analysis plan. When the facility's
permit application is evaluated, the permit writer
will review the facility's waste analysis plan,
and will modify the provisions of the plan where
he thinks that the owner or operator has selected
an inappropriate time interval for re-analysis of
the waste managed at the facility.
-------
- 47 -
In the case of interim status, during which
the owner or operator is the sole decision-maker
regarding the frequency with which waste should be
re-analyzed, if an accident occurs at the facility
due to inaccurate or out-dated information on the
properties of the waste, the enforcement actions
which may be brought against the facility may
depend on whether the owner or operator selected the
time interval for waste re-analysis in good faith.
If it can be determined that the owner or operator
knowingly specified too long a time interval for
waste re-analysis, then the Agency may subject the
facility to the penalties specified in Section
3008 of RCRA.
Since the Agency has deleted the minimum
retesting requirement from the revised rules,
annual waste analysis alone will not immunize
owners or operators from enforcement action.
Issue #2; Miscellaneous Comments
a. Summary of Comments
1. The words "waste stream" should be replaced by the
words "hazardous waste", because "waste stream" has
not been defined.
2. The standard should be deleted because the analysis
is already included in proposed §250.23.
-------
- 48 -
b. Response to Comments
1. The Agency agrees that, since the term "waste stream"
has not been defined, the term "hazardous waste"
should be used rather than the term "waste stream".
"Waste stream" has been deleted from the final
rules.
2. The proposed §250.23 standards deal with reporting
requirements applicable to generators. The Agency
fails to see how these standards have anything to
do with the Section 3004 waste analysis standards
for hazardous waste management facilities, and
thus rejects the suggestion to delete the latter
because- they allegedly overlap with the proposed
generator reporting requirements.
C. Proposed Standard 250.43(h)
Issue #1: The four properties for which the wastes must be
analyzed
a. Summary of Comments
1. The choice of the four properties for measure-
ment seems arbitrary, and their importance is
unclear.
2. The properties to be analyzed for may not be
necessary or appropriate for all categories of
waste. Therefore the standard should^ be revised
so that:
-------
- 49 -
- provisions for a variance from the required
analysis are afforded in the standard
- the properties to be analyzed for are deleted
from the standard, and the selection of the
properties of the waste to be analyzed is left
up to the facility management
- the waste is analyzed by the method specified
by the generator as suitable for determining
the waste's identity.
3. There is no assurance that any of the four tests
will determine the actual identity of the waste.
Additionally, the identity of the waste is of
secondary importance in determining the charac-
teristics of the waste which impact waste management.
b. Response to Comments
1-3 The choice of the four properties for which analysis
was required in §250.43(h) in the proposed rules, was
based on the Agency's belief that analysis for these
properties would be quick, inexpensive, and suitable to
determine the identity of most waste managed at hazardous
waste facilities. However, the Agency agrees that
measuring for these properties may be inappropriate for
certain categories of waste (e.g., measuring the specific
gravity of a solid tells the owner or operator little about
the properties of the waste which would determine its
identity). Therefore, in response to comments, the
-------
- 50 -
four properties to be analyzed for have been deleted
from the standard. Instead, the final rules require
that the owner or operator specify the tests which will be
used to determine the identity of incoming waste managed
at the facility. The Agency will review the tests
selected by the owner or operator to determine the identity
of the wastes managed at the facility when the facility's
permit application is evaluated. Where the permit
writer believes that the facility's waste analysis plan
is inadequate, he will modify the plan to include pro-
cedures which he believes are appropriate to determine the
identity of incoming waste to the facility.
Issue #2; Sampling each truckload of similar waste
a. Summary of Comments
1. The requirement to sample each truckload of uniform
waste is unreasonable because:
— it is expensive in terms of manpower and
laboratory costs
- the waste stream characteristics are not
likely to vary
- changes in the waste stream's characteristics
will be noted on the manifest.
Therefore, facilities which receive large numbers
of truckloads of uniform waste should not be required
to sample each truckload unless:
-------
- 51 -
- the process or operation which generates the
waste changes
- the batch differs significantly from those
which were previously received at the facility
a change in the waste's constituents is noted
on the manifest.
2. Where it can be demonstrated that multiple truck-
loads of waste have uniform physical and chemical
characteristics:
- enough testing should be done to assure
proper facility operation
- sampling of only a small percentage of the
transport loads, or sampling only once or
twice a week, should be required
- analysis of only random samples should be
required to determine possible changes in the
waste stream characteristics.
3. The use of the term "shipment" should be clarified.
Response to Comments
1 & 2 The Agency believes that the owner or operator should
determine the identity of each truckload managed at the
facility. However, where the owner or operator is confident
that the contents of each truck contains waste which has
uniform chemical and physical properties, the Agency
doesn't believe that sampling each truckload of waste is
necessary to determine the waste's identity. In cases like
-------
- 52 -
this, a visual comparison of the waste's color and
texture with waste in other trucks may suffice to ensure
that the incoming waste in each truck is the same.
Therefore, the requirement to sample each truckload
of waste has been deleted from the standards. In its
place, the final rules require that the waste analysis
' •• K-
plan developed by the owner or operator, must describe the
tests to be used, and the frequency with which these
tests wil.1 be conducted, to determine the identity of
incoming waste managed at the facility. In addition,
for those management methods which are highly sensitive
to fluctuations in waste stream quality (e.g., inciner-
ators ),' minimum frequency requirements for these tests
(e.g., each truckload) will be prescribed in the specific
waste analysis standards contained in the technical
sections of the regulations.
The commenters' statement that "changes in the
waste stream's characteristics will be noted on the
manifest" is incorrect (see discussion on page 22 of
this document).
3. The Agency agrees that in many of the proposed rules
in which the term "shipment" was used, it was unclear
whether the requirements pertained to each truckload of
a waste, each convoy (i.e., more than one truck) of a
waste transported on any one day, or each convoy of a
waste transported over several days. To eliminate this
-------
- 53 -
ambiguity, the Agency has added the definition of
"movement" to the final Part 260 rules.
"Movement" is defined as "hazardous waste trans-
ported to a facility in an individual vehicle". An
example of a "movement" is a truckload of waste. Unlike
the proposed rules, the term "shipment" is not used in
the final rules to refer to truckloads or other similar
aggregates of transported waste. The word "shipment" is
a "term-of-the-art" used in the transportation industry
which has a meaning different than that of the Agency's
use of the term in the proposed rules. To avoid the
potential confusion which might result from EPA using
the term "shipment" differently than the way the trans-
portation industry uses it, the term "movement" has been
added to the final rules to refer to waste transported
in an individual vehicle.
Issue #3: The "Note" to the standard
a. Summary of Comments
1. The "Note" should apply to off-site, as well as
on-site facilities.
2. The "Note" should apply to off-site facilities:
owned or controlled by the generator
-------
- 54 -
solely operated for the disposal of a par-
ticular generator's waste
- where a disposal contract exists between
a generator, carrier, and disposer of a
specific waste.
3. The "Note" should be deleted because analysis is
the key to proper waste management.
b. Response to Comments
1. Because the potential for deliberate misrepresen-
tation of the identity of a waste is minimal at
on-site facilities, the final standard for deter-
mining the identity of received waste only applies
to off-site facilities.
2. The Agency disagrees that the off-site facilities
mentioned by the commenters should be exempt from the
standards for waste determination because the poten-
tial for a mixup of a waste's identity is signifi-
cantly greater if the waste is transported off-site.
However, the Agency believes that the modification
made to the standard, which allows the owner or
operator to tailor the facility's waste analysis plan
to contain those tests needed to determine the iden-
tity of waste managed at the facility, provides
enough flexibility so that the owners or operators
of the types of off-site facilities mentioned by
the commenters will be able to devise a program
-------
- 55 -
which is appropriate to the waste management
needs of these facilities.
The "Note" to the proposed standard did not relax
the requirement for on-site facilities to conduct
a detailed analysis of the wastes which they manage.
The "Note" simply relaxed the requirement to deter-
mine the identity of each batch of' waste managed at
these facilities. The Agency believes that because
these facilities are required to analyze the wastes
which they generate/manage, it is unnecessary to
require them to re'-determine the identity of these
wastes. Therefore, the final rules for waste
determination only apply to off-site facilities.
-------
- 56 -
FINAL REGULATION LANGUAGE
§264.13 General Waste Analysis
(a)(l) Before an owner or operator treats, stores, or dis-
poses of any hazardous waste, he must obtain a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of a representative
sample of the waste. At a minimum, this analysis must
contain all the information which must be known to
treat, store, or dispose of the waste in accordance
with the requirements of this Part or with the con-
ditions of a permit issued under Part 122, Subparts A
and B, and Part 124 of this Chapter.
(2) The analysis may include data developed under Part
261 of this Chapter, and existing published or docu-
mented data on the hazardous waste or on hazardous
waste generated from similar processes.
[Comment; For example, the facility's records of analyses
performed on the waste before the effective date of these
regulations, or studies conducted on hazardous waste
generated from processes similar to that which generated
the waste to be managed at the facility, may be included
in the data base required to comply with paragraph (a)(l)
of this Section. The owner or operator of an off-site
facility may arrange for the generator of the hazardous
waste to supply part or all of the information required
by paragraph (a)(l) of this Section. If the generator
does not supply the information, and the owner or operator
chooses to accept a hazardous waste, the owner or operator
is responsible for obtaining the information required to
comply with this Section.3
(3) The analysis must be repeated as necessary to ensure
that it is accurate and up to date. At a minimum, the
analysis must be repeated:
(i) When the owner or operator is notified, or has
reason to believe, that the process or operation
generating the hazardous waste has changed; and
(ii) For off-site facilities, when the results of
the inspection required in paragraph (a)(4) of
this Section indicate that the hazardous waste
received at the facility does not match the
waste designated on the accompanying manifest
or shipping paper.
(4) The owner or operator of an off-site facility must
inspect and, if necessary, analyze each hazardous waste
movement received at the facility to determine whether
it matches the identity of the waste specified on the
accompanying manifest or shipping paper.
-------
- 57 -
(b) The owner or operator must develop and follow a written
waste analysis plan which describes the procedures which
he will carry out to comply with paragraph (a) of this
Section. He must keep this plan at the facility. At a
minimum, the plan must specify:
(1) The parameters for which each hazardous waste will
be analyzed and the rationale for the selection of
these parameters (i.e., how analysis for these
parameters will provide sufficient information on
the waste's properties to comply with paragraph
(a) of this Section);
(2) The test methods which will be used to test for
these parameters;
(3) The sampling method which will be used to obtain a
representative sample of the waste to be analyzed.
A representative sample may be obtained using
either:
(i) One of the sampling methods described in
Appendix I of Part 261 of this Chapter; or
(ii) An equivalent sampling method.
[Comment; See §261.20(c) of this Chapter for related
discussion.]
(4) The frequency with which the initial analysis of
the waste will be reviewed or repeated to ensure
that the analysis is accurate and up to date; and
(5) For off-site facilities, the waste analyses that
hazardous waste generators have agreed to supply.
(c) For off-site facilities, the waste analysis plan required
in paragraph (b) of this Section must also specify the
procedures which will be used to inspect and, if necessary,
analyze each movement of hazardous waste received at the
the facility to ensure that it matches the identity of
the waste designated on the accompanying manifest or
shipping paper. At a minimum, the plan must describe:
(1) The procedures which will be used to determine the
identity of each movement of waste managed at the
facility; and
(2) The sampling method which will be used to obtain a
representative sample of the waste to be identified,
if the identification method includes sampling.
CComment! Part 122, Subpart B, of this Chapter requires
that the waste analysis plan be submitted with Part B of the
permit application.]
-------
- 58 -
§265.13 General Waste Analysis
(a)(l) Before an owner or operator treats, stores, or dis-
poses of any hazardous waste, he must obtain a detailed
chemical and physical analysis of a representative
sample of the waste. At a minimum, this analysis must
contain all the information which must be known to
treat, store, or dispose of the waste in accordance
with the requirements of this Part.
(2) The analysis may include data developed under Part 261
of this Chapter, and existing published or documented
data on the hazardous waste or on waste generated from
similar processes.
[Comment: For example, the facility's records of analyses
performed on the waste before the effective date of these
regulations-, or studies conducted on hazardous waste
generated from processes similar to that which generated
the waste to be managed at the facility, may be included
in the data base required to comply with paragraph (a)(l)
of this Section. The owner or operator of an off-site
facility may arrange for the generator of the hazardous
waste to supply part or all of the information required
by paragraph (a)(l) of this Section. If the generator
does not supply the information, and the owner or operator
chooses to accept a hazardous waste, the owner or operator
is responsible for obtaining the information required to
comply with this Section.]
(3) The analysis must be repeated as necessary to ensure
that it is accurate and up to date. At a minimum, the
analysis must be repeated:
(i) When the owner or operator is notified, or has
reason to believe, that the process or operation
generating the hazardous waste has changed; and
(ii) For off-site facilities, when the results of
the inspection required in paragraph (a)(4) of
this Section indicate that the hazardous waste
received at the facility does not match the
waste designated on the accompanying manifest
or shipping paper.
(4) The owner or operator of an off-site facility must
inspect and, if necessary, analyze each hazai^ous waste
movement received at the facility to determine whether
it matches the identity of the waste specified on the
accompanying manifest or shipping paper.
-------
- 59 -
(b) The owner or operator must develop and follow a written
waste analysis plan which describes the procedures which
he will carry out to comply with paragraph (a) of this
Section. He must keep this plan at the facility- At a
minimum, the plan must specify:
(l) The parameters for which each hazardous waste will
be analyzed and the rationale for the selection of
these parameters (i.e., how analysis for these para-
meters will provide sufficient information on the
waste's properties to comply with paragraph (a) of
this Section);
(2) The test methods which will be used to test for
these parameters;
(3) The sampling method which will be used to obtain a
representative sample of the waste to be analyzed.
A representative sample may be obtained using either:
(i) One of the sampling methods described in
Appendix I of Part 261 of this Chapter; or
(ii) An equivalent sampling method.
[Comment: See §261.20(c) of this Chapter for related
discussion.]
(4) The frequency .with which the initial analysis of
the waste will be reviewed or repeated to ensure
that the analysis is accurate and up to date;
(5) For off-site facilities, the waste analyses that
hazardous waste generators have agreed to supply; and
(6) Where applicable, the methods which will be used
to meet the additional waste analysis requirements
for specific waste management methods as specified
in §§265.193, 265.225, 265.252, 265.273, 265.345,
265.375, and 265.402.
(c) For off-site facilities, the waste analysis plan required
in paragraph (b) of this Section must also specify the
procedures which will be used to inspect and, if neces-
sary, analyze each movement of hazardous waste received
at the facility to ensure that it matches the identity
of the waste designated on the accompanying manifest or
shipping paper- At a minimum, the plan must describe:
(1) The procedures which will be used to determine the
identity of each movement of waste managed at the
facility; and
(2) The sampling method which will be used to obtain a
representative sample of the waste to be identified,
if the identification method includes sampling.
-------
- 60 -
References
1. Confirmed by telephone by Cindy Giansante, Environmental
Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1979
with Colton B. Phillips, Sanitary Supervisor, Genessee
County Health Department, Michigan.
2. Hazardous Waste Generation - Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. Barr Engineering Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
October, 1973, p. B-2.
3. St. Paul Dispatch, "Search for Toxic Wastes Buried at
Pine Bend Landfill Continues", September 2, 1975.
Confirmed by telephone by Cindy Giansante, Environmental
Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1979
with Dave Gurney, Environmental Health Engineer; Dakota
County Highway Department; Hastings, Minnesota.
4. Confirmed by telephone by Cindy Giansante, Environmental
Scientist, EPA, Washington, D.C., on November 14, 1979
with Jerry Gavin, Life Scientist, EPA, Region 9, San
Francisco, California.
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste
Disposal Damage Reports. Office of Solid Waste.
EPA/530/SW-151.3, June, 1976, pgs. 10-12.
6. California: Title 22 (Register 77, No. 42 - 10-15-77)
Division 4. Environmental Health, Chapter 2. Minimum
Standards for Management of Hazardous and Extremely
Hazardous Wastes, Section 60231 - 60233.
7. Minnesota Hazardous Waste Management Rules (February 3,
1978).
8. Washington: Hazardous Waste Disposal, Chapter 70.105.030,
1976.
GPO 688-081
------- |