BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
40 CFR Part 265, Subpart N
Interim Status Standards for Landfills
Developed pursuant to Section 3004
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
May 2, 1980
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
B. RCRA Mandate for the
C. Definitions
II. NEED TO REGULATE
Regulation
A. Potential for Environmental Damage
B. Actual Damage Incidents
III. SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED REGULATION
A. Summary of Proposed Regulations
B. Summary of Proposed Interim Status Standards
C. Additional Standards to be Included for
Interim Status
IV. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMENTS
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
ISSUE:
REFERENCES
Appendix A
Definition
De finition
Definition
of Landfill
of Cell
of Liner
of Leachate
of Cover Material and Final Cover
Run-on Control
Run-off Control
De finition
Definition
Surface Water
Surface Water
Wind Dispersal
Waste Analysis
Surveying and Recordkeeping
Closure of Landfill
Post-Closure Care
Ignitable or Reactive Waste
Incompatible Wastes
Disposal of Bulk Wastes
Containerized Liquids
State Regulatory Programs for Liquid
Hazardous Waste
Page
1
1
1
3
6
8
29
31
34
36
37-
37
38
41
43
44
44
48
56
57
59
64
76
82
88
92
106
'116
119
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose and Scope
Under the authority in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, EPA is promulgating interim status
standards for storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous waste
in landfills.
Draft regulations were proposed for public comment on
December 18, 1978. Comments were received at public hearings and
in writing. This document provides the rationale for the
regulations and responds to the comments received.
This document is divided into four parts, followed by
references and appendices. Part I, Introduction, describes the
purpose and scope of this document, the legislative authority for
the regulations, and key definitions used in their development.
Part II, Need for Regulation, explains the basic public health
and environmental problems which show the need for regulation in
this area. Part III, Synopsis of the Proposed Regulation,
summarizes the proposed regulations. Part IV, Analysis of Issues,
comprises the bulk of this document. For each issue, it discusses
the proposed regulation and its rationale, comments received and
the Agency's response including any new information obtained, and
the final regulatory language.
B. RCRA Mandate for the Regulation
Section 3004 of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-580)(RCRA) required EPA to promulgate
regulations establishing standards, applicable to owners and
operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
-------
facilities, as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment. Section 3004 further required that such standards
include, requirements respecting (1) the location, design,
construction, and operation of hazardous waste treatment, disposal
or storage facilities, (2) records of hazardous wastes treated,
stored, or disposed, and (3) reporting, monitoring, and inspection.
Landfills are common means of disposing of hazardous wastes, and
are therefore covered by Section 3004.
Section 3005(e) also provides a period of interim status for
owners and operators of existing facilities for treatment, storage,
and disposal of hazardous wastes. After the effective date of
the regulations, treatment, storage, and disposal may not be
carried out except in accordance with a permit issued under
Section 3005. However, persons who have applied for a permit and
who have notified EPA of their activities, shall be granted
interim status and treated as though a permit had been issued.
Interim status thus applies between the effective date of treatment,
storage, and disposal regulations and the date on which a permit
is issued to a particular owner or operator.
A complete rationale for establishing interim status standards
and responses to the public comments on that subject are presented
in the preamble to the Parts 264 and 265 regulations and in the
background document entitled "General Issues Concerning Interim
Status Standards."
This background document on interim status standards for
landfills addresses the specific standards applicable to landfills
during the time a facility is under interim status.
-------
C. Definitions
Definitions pertinent to the landfill regulations are:
(1) "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".)
(2) "Closed portion" means that portion of a facility which an
owner or operator has closed in accordance with the approved
facility closure plan and all applicable closure requirements.
(See also "active portion" and "inactive portion".)
(3) "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.
(4) "Container" means any portable device in which a material is
stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled.
(5) "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous
waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or
hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment
or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including
ground waters.
(6) "Disposal facility" means a facility or part of a facility
at which hazardous waste is intentionally placed into or on any
land or water, and at which waste will remain after closure.
-------
(7) "Existing hazardous waste management facility" or "existing
facility" means a facility which is in operation, or for which
construction has commenced, on or before October 21, 1976.
Construction has commenced if:
(1) The owner or operator has obtained all necessary Federal,
State, and local preconstruction approvals or permits;
and either
(2a) A continuous physical, on-site construction program has
begun, or
(2b) The owner or operator has entered into contractual
obligations — which cannot be cancelled or modified
without substantial loss -- for construction of the
facility to be completed within a reasonable time.
(8) "Facility" means all contiguous land, and structures, other
appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treating,
storing, or disposing hazardous waste. A facility may consist of
several treatment, storage, or disposal operational units (e.g.,
one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them)
(9) "Free liquids"* means liquids which readily separate from
the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature and pressure.
(10) "Ground water" means water below the land surface in a zone
of saturation.
(11) "Hazardous waste" means a hazardous waste as defined in
§261.3 of this Chapter.
( 12 )" Inactive portion" means that portion of a facility which is
not operated after the effective date of Part 261 of this Chapter.
(See also "active portion" and "closed portion".)
* Revised definition. See discussion in Part IV of this document.
4
-------
(13) "Incompatible waste" means a hazardous waste which is
unsuitable for:
(i) Placement in a particular device or facility because it
may cause corrosion or decay of containment materials (e.g.,
container inner liners or tank walls); or
(ii) Commingling with another waste or material under
uncontrolled conditions because the commingling might produce
heat or pressure, fire or explosion, violent reaction, toxic
dusts, mists, fumes, or gases, or flammable fumes or gases.
(See Part 265, Appendix V, of this Chapter for examples).
(14) "Individual generation site" means the contiguous site at or
on which one or more hazardous wastes are generated. An individual
generation site, such as a large manufacturing plant, may have
one or more sources of hazardous waste but is considered a single
or individual generation site if the site or property is contiguous.
(15) "Landfill"* means a disposal facility or part of a facility
where hazardous waste is placed in or on land and which is not a
land treatment facility, a surface impoundment, or an injection well
(16) "Landfill cell"* means a discrete volume of a hazardous
waste landfill which uses a liner to provide isolation of wastes
from adjacent cells or wastes. Examples of landfill cells are
trenches and pits.
(17) "Leachate"* means any liquid, including any suspended
components in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained
from hazardous waste.
* Revised definition. See discussion in Part IV of this document
-------
(18) "Liner"* means a continuous layer of natural or man-made
materials, beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment,
landfill, or landfill cell, which restricts the downward or
lateral escape of hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents,
or leachate.
(19) "Operator" means the person responsible for the overall
operation of a facility.
(20) "Owner" means the person who owns a facility or part of a
facility.
(21) "Partial closure" means the closure of a discrete part of a
facility in accordance with the applicable closure requirements
of Parts 264 or 265 of this Chapter. For example, partial closure
may include the closure of a trench, a unit operation, a landfill
cell, or a pit, while other parts of the same facility continue
in operation or will be placed in operation in the future .
(12) "Run-off"* means any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid
that drains over land from any part of a facility.
(23) "Run-on"** means any rainwater, leachate, or other liquid
that drains over land onto any part of a facility.
(24) "Solid waste" means a solid waste as defined in §261.2 of
this Chapter .
II. NEED TO REGULATE
A. Potential for Environmental Damage
EPA files contain many examples of environmental damage from
improper land disposal of hazardous waste. Although damage to
* Revised definition. See discussion in Part IV of this document,
** New definition. See discussion in Part IV of this document.
-------
ground water is the most common occurrence, improper land disposal
has resulted in surface water and air pollution as well. The
following discussion describes reported incidents involving the
contamination of all these media as well as public health damage
that has occurred.
An EPA ground water report, entitled "The Prevalence of
Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances At Selected
Industrial Waste Disposal Sites,"^ investigated the likelihood of
ground water contamination at hazardous waste land disposal sites .
In this study, ground waters at 50 land disposal sites which
received large quantities of industrial waste were sampled and
analyzed. The sites selected were all located East of the
Mississippi River, were representative of typical industrial land
disposal facilities, and were situated in a wide variety of
geologic environments. No previous contamination of ground water
with hazardous substances had been reported at these facilities
before sampling, and waste disposal had been in progress for a
minimum of 3 years. At 43 of the 50 sites migration of one or
more hazardous constituents was detected in the ground water.
Twelve potentially hazardous inorganic constituents were detected
in ground waters above background concentrations. The five most
frequently occurring were selenium, barium, cyanide, copper, and
nickel in that order. Organic substances that were identified in
ground waters included PCBs, chlorinated phenols, benzene and
der'ivitives , and organic solvents .
At 26 sites, potentially hazardous inorganic constituents in
the ground water from one or more of the monitoring wells exceeded
the EPA drinking water limits. Of the potentially hazardous
-------
substances, selenium most frequently exceeded drinking water
limits, followed by arsenic, chromium, and lead.
Conclusions drawn from the study are:
1. Ground-water contamination at industrial land disposal sites
is a common occurrence.
2. Hazardous substances from industrial waste land disposal
sites are capable of migrating into and with ground water.
3. Few hydrogeologic environments are suitable for land disposal
of hazardous waste without some risk of ground-water
contamination.
4. Continued development of programs for monitoring industrial
waste land disposal sites is necessary to determine
impact on ground-water quality.
5. Many old industrial waste disposal sites, both active
and abandoned, are located in geologic environments
where ground water is particularly susceptible to contamination.
6. Many waste disposal sites are located where the underlying
aquifer system can discharge hazardous substances to a
surface-water body.
B. Actual Damage Incidents
Numerous incidents of damage which resulted from improper
land disposal are contained within EPA files. Some of those
documented damage cases which support the need for these regulations
are summarized below.
-------
Ground Water Contamination
A landfill in Jackson Township, New Jersey was closed after
it had contaminated approximately 100 drinking water wells.
Analysis of water samples showed the presence of chloroform,
methylene chloride, benzene, toluene, trichloroethylene,
ethylbenzene and acetone. Residents claim that premature
deaths, kidney malfunctions, kidney removals, recurrent
rashes, infections and other health related problems are due
to the contaminated water supplies.2
An industrial landfill in South Brunswick, New Jersey has
been identified as the source of contamination of a number
of residential wells adjacent to the facility. Significant
levels of chloroform, toluene, xylene, trichloroethane and
trichloroethylene have been found in well water.^
A New Hanover County, North Carolina landfill which has
accepted municipal and industrial wastes since 1972 has
contaminated an underlying aquifer and several domestic
wells to the extent that the water is hazardous for human
consumption and other uses. Chemicals found in the residential
wells at levels sufficient to adversely affect human health
and the environment include tetrachloroethylene, benzene,
vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene and 1,2-dichloroethane,
all carcinogens, as well as methylene chloride and lead. In
addition the presence of chlorides, dichlorophenol,
chlorobenzene, iron, manganese, phenol and zinc, have rendered
the water unfit for human consumption due to extreme bad
taste or odor.4
-------
A company which engages in the distillation, recovery and
disposal of industrial solvents in Southington, Connecticut
has, through its improper handling, storage and disposal of
hazardous wastes, contaminated the groundwater causing the
closure of three of the city's six wells. Chemicals found
in the wells at levels which may adversely affect human
health include: tetrachloroethylene, chloroform,
trichloroethylene, 1,1,1,-trichloroethane, dichloroethane
and carbon tetrachloride. In addition, soils and crops in
the vicinity show very high levels of lead, reportedly from
open burning of wastes at the site. 5
Chemical wastes in barrels were buried in two Plainfield,
Connecticut gravel pits which resulted in groundwater
contamination. The owner of the site was fined $25,000 and
is paying for site cleanup, estimated at $750, 000-^
Wastes from a chemical company in Canton, Connecticut were
disposed of in a dump between 1969 and 1972. Solvent type
chemicals including carbon tetrachloride, methyl ethyl
ketone, trichloroethylene and chloroform have contaminated
eleven Canton wells. The estimated costs of extending water
lines from nearby communities range from $145,000 to $379,000.
The present owner of the dump has been ordered to clean up
the site.''7
Tannery waste disposed of in the Saco, Maine town dump
resultd in the contamination of private drinking water wells
with chromium, iron and manganese.8
\0
-------
Illegal dumping of chemical wastes in Rehobeth, Massachusetts
resulted in the contamination of private wells and threatened
a reservior. Among the chemicals identified were toluene,
trichloroethylene and ethyl acetate. The site was cleaned
up by the State at a cost of $125, 000. 9
Chemicals dumped into a gravel pit near Lunenburg, Massachusetts
has resulted in the contamination of both deep and shallow
wells. Among the chemicals identified are benzene and toluene.
Disposal of benzene, toluene, dichloroethylene, and other
organics by an organic chemcial manufacturer in Acton,
Massachusetts led to the loss of 45 percent of the municipal
water supply. The company has agreed to pay for cleanup.H
Seventeen private wells adjacent to a landfill at Exeter,
New Hampshire were found to be contaminated with phenols,
one of which was 750 times drinking water standards. The
town has approved a $200,000 bond issue to supply public
water to the area.12
The Bristol, Rhode Island landfill has three illegal dump
sites of chemical wastes. Toluene and trichloroethylene
have been found at the site. The adjacent marshland and at
least eleven wells have been contaminated by the site.13
A Cumberland, Rhode Island landfill has been implicated in
the closing of four municipal wells which became contaminated
by tetrachloroethylene and 1,1,1,-trichloroethane.14
A Deptford Township, New Jersey landfill which accepted
chemical wastes resulted in the contamination of well water
with cyanides and phenols at levels twice the recommended
drinking water standards. In addition, fires have been
-------
reported at the site and workers have complained of skin and
eye irritation as well as nausea.^5
Local residents began complaining in 1975 about water
contamination in the area of a South Brunswick, New Jersey
landfill. The site had accepted all types of chemical
wastes, and significant amounts of organic chemicals were
detected in six nearby wells. The State ordered the site
closed; however, damage to the aquifer is estimated at $300,000.-°
The 102nd Street landfill in Niagara Falls, New York was
utilizd for the disposal of hazardous wastes from the 1940's
to 1972. Lindane and tetrachlorobenzene and phenol have
been found to have migrated from the disposal site. The
estimated cost to clean the site is $ 16, 500, 000. 17
The " S" area landfill in Niagara Falls, New York was utilized
for the disposal of hazardous wastes between 1947 and 1975.
Tetrachloroethylene and benzene hexachloride are migrating from
the site and are entering the public drinking water supply.
Remedial measures to clean this site are estimated at $ 50, 000, 000.
In mid 1979, a mixture of waste oil and organic chemicals
were found to be pouring from an abandoned mine shaft into
the Susquehanna River at Pitts ton, Pennsylvania. The river
is used for recreational purposes and for downstream drinking
water supplies. To date approximately $500,000 has been
expended on the site and $850,000 is needed for site assessment.
and emergency containment. It is estimated that $10,000,000
will be needed to fully remedy the problem. 19
12.
-------
A landfill in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania which received
industrial wastes contaminated a well which supplied water
to about 50 homes. Excessive levels of phenols, ethyl actate
and trichloroethylene were present in the well water.20
Rainwater and groundwater percolating through a landfill in
Wilmington, Delaware produced a leachate containing high
concentrations of iron, chlorides, ammonia, heavy metals and
dissolved organics. The leachate migrated from the site and
into the deeper Potomac aquifer used extensively in New
Castle County for a water supply. At a cost of over $1,000,000
the County has installed wells to intercept contaminated
groundwater in order to prevent the contamination of the
public water supply wells.21
Investigation of a landfill in Hillsborough County, Florida
showed volatile organic groundwater contamination of six
wells, three of which were for private residences and two wells
which served as community water supplies. Pending a long
term solution, the County Health Department has instituted a
bottled-water distribution program.22
A landfill in New Hanover County, North Carolina which
received industrial wastes has been shown to have contaminated
17 private wells in the vicinity. Approximately twenty
additional private wells are in danger of becoming contaminated.
The County is providing drinking water to residents with
affected wells and plans are proceeding to provide a permanent
outside water supply to the area. Court action is also
proceeding against the State, County and operators of
the landfill.23
-------
Leachate from a landfill accepting industrial waste near
Aurora, Illinois has contaminated nine wells. Owners of the
wells were forced to hook-up to the city of 1-forth Aurora1 s
water lines.24
An industrial landfill near Elkart, Indiana is the suspected
source of contamination of six private wells with chromium
at levels over 100 times the EPA drinking water standards.
The problem was "remedied" by digging deeper wells. A recent
USGS study is evaluating the extent of groundwater contamination.25
In 1973, high levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) were found
in the well of a private residence near Oscoda, Michigan.
CVer the following five years, seven other private residential
wells and an industrial well became contaminated. The
suspected source is -t-he open dumping of TCE on the site of a
nearby auto parts plant. Public water has been supplied to
the residents at a cost of $140,000.26
Two illegal dumpsites in Oakland County, Michigan have been
named as the source of PCB's, toxic solvents and other
chemicals found in local wells in August 1979, Approximately
2000 drums were dumped at the sites 12 to 14 years ago. The
cost to remove the drums from the site is estimated at $500,000.27
Extremely high levels of PCB's in fish have resulted in an
advisory against consuming fish from 129 miles of the
Sheboygan, Mullet, and Onion Rivers in the State of Wisconsin.
One suspected source of the chemical is the Tecumseh Products
Company, which used wastes containing 10,000 parts per
million PCB's as fill in the Sheboygan River floodplain.
-------
Remedial measures have been initiated by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.28
Instead of properly disposing of some drums containing
unidentified residues, a disposal company dropped them at a
dump locatd in Cabazon, California. A heavy rain unearthed
the drums, which gave off poisonous gases and contaminated
the water.29
An old gravel quarry near Spokane, Washington was used to
disposing aluminum processing wastes until closed by a county
order. The shallow perched water table has been contaminated
by chlorides. The county has issued an order directing
remedial actions at the site. The owner has agreed to do
additional groundwater monitoring and to evaluate alternative
remedial measures.30
Water that had been used to wash RDX (a high explosive) out
of shells leached from a dump in Kitsap County, Washington
and contaminated groundwater. The U.S. Navy spent $150,000
on a monitoring program', final costs might reach $1,000,000.31
Grasshopper bait, a pesticide containing arsenic trioxide,
was being buried on a farm near Perham, Minnesota between
1934 and 1936. In 1972, 36 years later, a well was drilled
near the burial site to supply water for employees in a
newly built office facility. Eleven of the thirteen employees
of the facility became ill from arsenic poisoning. Two
required hospitalization and treatment. One lost the use of
his legs for about six months due to severe neuropathy.
Analysis of the well water revealed arsenic levels of 21,000 ppb
-------
(The USPHS drinking water standard is 50 ppb). The area of
disposal was located twenty feet from the well. Estimated
costs for solving the problem range form $2500 to $25, 000.32
A landfill near Montague, Michigan began operations in the
1950s and continued until 1970. A variety of materials
were buried at the site including brine softening sludge,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, asbestos, and flyash. Approximately
400,000 cubic yards of wastes were disposed and the ground
water has been contaminated as a result of improper operations.
A disposal site in Salt Lake City received waste tars and
acidic bitumens from the 1920s until 1957. The volume of
waste received is at least 37,000 cubic yards. Ground water
contamination by oil and grease has been detected both up
gradient and downgradient from the site due to ground water
mounding at the site. 33
A landfill in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, has been the
depository of large quantities of organic and inorganic
industrial wastes. In 1973, this landfill was ordered by
the State not to accept any more industrial wastes since
laboratory analysis of samples from nearby observation wells
established the existence of a ground water pollution problem
involving several chemical contaminants. Lead concentrations
in the observation wells have been analyzed up to 18 ppra.
(The U.S. Public Health Service mandatory drinking water
standard for lead is 0.05 ppm.) A municipal water supply
-well field, situated within 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) of the
area of contamination, has not been affected; however, it is
being regularly monitored because of the obvious threat.34
-------
A disposal site in Hardernan County, Tennessee received
pesticide wastes from 1964 to 1972. Compounds disposed
include endrin, dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, and isodrin.
Evidence of water contamination was discovered as early as
1967. Several private wells have been abandoned. Total
costs to clean up the area are estimated at nearly $6,000,000.35
In 1974 in Dover Township, New Jersey a total of 148 private
wells were condemned because they contained hazardous organic
chemicals. Sources of the contaminants include the Township
landfill and an illegal chemical waste dump on which hundreds
of thousands of gallons of petrochemical wastes had been
stored and dumped. ^->
A creosoting company near Minneapolis operated a disposal
site between 1917 and 1972. In the 1930's a tar-like taste
was detected in municipal and private wells which were
abandoned for deeper ground water. In 1973, phenolic
compounds were detected in the deeper municipal wells. At
least $20,000,000 will be required to clean up the ground water.
A variety of drummed chemical wastes were buried in the Hyde
Park (N.Y.) Dump between 1953 and 1975. This site replaced
the Love Canal Dump when that site closed. Toxic materials
have been found in monitoring wells near the site. 35
A chemical manufacturing company has been dumping arsenic-
containing wastes since 1953 at the la Bounty Damp Site along
the Cedar River in South Charles City, Iowa. This chemical
fill covers approximately 3.5 acres and contains an estimated
27,000,000 cubic feet of chemical sludge. In addition to
various forms of arsenic, the site also contains phenols,
-------
orthonitroalinine, nitrobenzene, etc. The situation poses a
serious threat because the underlying fractioned limestone
bedrock is where 70 percent of Iowa residents obtain their
drinking and irrigation water. At one point toxic chemicals
from La Bounty were found in the drinking water at Waterloo,
50 miles downstream on the Cedar River. In December 1977,
the company was ordered by the Iowa Department of Environmental
Quality to close its shop and cease dumping at LaBounty.
The estimated cost of removal of these toxic wastes is about
$20,000,000.36
Surface Water Contamination
Between 1940 and 1970, the PCB-contaminated waste oil was
dumped on land close to the Housatonic River at Pittsfield,
Massachusetts. Surface water runoff has resulted in very
high PCB levels in the river.37
Approximately 1,000 gallons of petroleum based cleaning
fluids were damped at a landfill in Haywood County, North
Carolina in 1974 and leaked into a tributary of Homing Creek.
Cattle died after drinking from the polluted water.38
Leachate from a company's toxic chemical dump near Sheffield,
Illinois has been charged by the Illinois Attorney General's
office with causing a major fish kill in a lake near Sheffield.39
Powdered pesticides, including DDT, toxaphene, .lindane and
Alpha and Beta Benzene Hexachloride, killed several hundred
fish in a Southeast Austin pond. The pesticides had been
dumped in paper bags into an Austin, Texas landfill.
Bulldozers constructing a baseball field unearthed the
chemicals, and rain washed them into the pond. In August, 1979
-------
construction in the park ceased while officials removed the
contaminated soil.40
Until approximately June 1970, Beech Creek, Waynesboro,
Tennessee, was considered pure enough to be a source of
drinking water. At that time, waste polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) from a nearby plant began to be deposited in the
Waynesboro city dump site. Dumping continued until April 1972.
Apparently the waste, upon being off-loaded at the dump, was
pushed into a spring branch that rose under the dump and
then emptied into Beech Creek. Shortly after depositing of
such wastes began, an oil substance appeared in the Beech
Creek waters. Dead fish, crawfish, and waterdogs were found,
other wildlife which used the creek were also affected (e.g.,
two raccoons were found dead). Beech Creek had been used
for watering stock, fishing, drinking water, and recreation
for decades. Presently, the creek seems to be affected for
at least 10 miles (16 kilometers) from its source and the
pollution is moving steadily downstream to the Tennessee
River. Health officials have advised that the creek should
be fenced off to prevent cattle from drinking the water.33
A number of disposal sites near Pickens, S.C. have received
PCB-contaminated equipment, capacitors, and transformers.
PCBs have been found in the waters near these sites .
Approximately $2,000,000 will be needed to clean up the area.35
-------
3. Ground and Surface Water Contamination
0 Leachate from a Morristown, Tennessee dump containing
municipal refuse, DDT, DDE, ODD and dieldrin polluted nearby
wells and odors emanated from a leachate-polluted stream.
TVA produced a final closing plan which included a two foot
final cover and plastic covering of the pesticide disposal area.43
Between 1971 and 1973 a chemical company near St. Louis,
Michigan disposed of wastes containing at least 161,400
pounds of PBB's into a Gratiot County landfill. Significant
traces of PBB's and various levels of other contaminants are
presently being found in ground and surface water in and
around the landfill site. A slurry wall trench system to
contain the wastes is being developed.4^
0 A chemical company buried tons of brine, asbestos, fly ash
and deadly pesticides on its factory site near Montague,
Michigan. Included in this were as many as 20,000 drums
that were leaking wastes resulting from the manufacture of
the pesticide precurser C-56. In 1979, State offices
discovered the highest levels of dioxin ever measured in
Michigan. Chemicals from the landfill have leached into the
groundwater, contaminating private wells and into White Lake
which flows into Lake Michigan less than a mile away. The
chemical company has agreed to install a purge well system
to intercept contaminated water before it reaches White
Lake. Cleanup estimates range from $15,000,000 to $ 300, 000, 000-43
-------
Since 1948, a company at Jacksonville, Arkansas manufactured
chlorophenoxy herbicides including 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.
Chemical wastes, such as dioxin and chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides, are buried at eight locations. Traces of
dioxin were discovered in the sediment of a nearby creek and
a downstream bayou; both of which have been quarantined by
the state health department. Soil contamination has been
documented. The cost to cleanup the site may exceed $ 4,000, 000.44
A petroleum processor in Baton Rouge, Louisiana has dumped
hazardous wastes into a waste disposal site. Heavy rains
transported the chemicals to an adjacent 550 acres of farmland
which damaged vegetation and killed 160 cattle. Cleanup
costs are expected to be substantial.^5
The Stringfellow Class I Disposal Site operated near Glen
Avon, California from 1957 to 1972. During that time
32,000,000 gallons of waste were received containing sulfuric,
nitric, and hydrochloric acids, zinc, lead, mercury, and
chromium. Toxic contaminants have been transmitted to the
ground and surface waters and air pollution from the
evaporation sprayers has been suspected.35
In May 1974, three dead cattle were discovered on a power
company1 s recently acquired farm property near Bryan,
Illinois, and pathological examination established that the
cattle had died of cyanide poisoning. Further investigation
revealed that the approximately 5-acre area, which is a part
of a large property set aside for a nuclear power plant, had
been for several years a repository of large quantities of toxic
-------
industrial wastes. The former owner of the property used it
to dispose of industrial waste his hauling company collected.
The power company hired a consultant to study the environmental
damage on the property and to recommend clean-up procedures.
The subsequent study documented extensive harm to wildlife
and vegetation. Nearby soils and surface and ground waters
were heavily contaminated with cyanide and chromium. It is
not yet known when farm crops can safely be harvested on the
affected property again.35
Major Public Health Damage Caused By Chemicals Migrating from
Disposal Site
An old landfill on Neville Island, Pennsylvania which had
received municipal refuse and miscellaneous industrial wastes
was being made into a public park when site development was
indefinitely stopped in the spring of 1979 after complaints
of a high rate of health problems among workers. A field
investigation of chemicals uncovered at the park included
benzene, phenols, cyanide, mercury, coal tar residues and
parathion.^'
The most highly publicized contamination incident by toxic
chemicals occurred at the Love Canal industrial waste site
in Niagara Falls, New York. Chemical wastes were disposed
of at the site for approximately 25 years, until about 1953.
Only of late have problems at the site become known to the
public. Eighty-two chemicals, 11 of which are suspected or
known carcinogens, were found on the surface and leaking
into the basements of homes that were constructed in the
area. Two hundred thirty-nine families in the immediate area
2.2-
-------
were evacuated, and their homes were purchased by the State
government; in February 1979, about 100 more families — those
with pregnant women or children under two years of age living
within a 20 square block area around the canal — were urged
to relocate. The report of the New York State Health
Commissioner, which appeared in August of 1978, cited "growing
evidence of ...subacute and chronic health hazards as well
as spontaneous abortions and congenital malformations." A
subsequent State Health Department study, released in February
1979, showed a higher than expected frequency of miscarriages,
birth defects, and low birth weights.
Between $3 and 4 billion in lawsuits have been filed by
victims seeking compensation for health and property damage.
An additional $8,000,000 from the State and EPA is being
used to contain the wastes on-site in an effort to minimize
or eliminate additional damage. The site was declared a
Federal disaster area, making this the first time that Federal
disaster relief funds were made available for a man-made disaster
5. Explosions and Fires
0 Used chemical drums were dumped in a Carrollton, Kentucky
landfill and later retrieved by a man for use as garbage
cans. When using a torch to cut the tops off the drums, the
chemicals inside exploded. The flying debris severed the
foot of a 5 year old boy.48
0 In Chester, Pennsylvania, a chemical fire at an industrial
disposal site resulted in the hospitalization of firemen
overcome by toxic fumes. Volatile organics including
methacrylic acid and a variety of aromatic hydrocarbons were
Z3
-------
identified at the site. In addition, a water sampling
program revealed concentrations of chromium, copper, nickel
and lead substantially in excess of drinking water standards.
The minimum cost to clean up the site is estimated at Si,250,000.
A combination of aluminum dust, magnesium chips and concentrated
phosphorus ignited while being compacted at a landfill near
Everett, Washington in 1974. Firemen applied water, which
worsened the situation; two firemen were subsequently thrown
from a front end loader, but escaped injury. Firefighters
extinguished the surface fire but the fire burned underground
until it expended its fuel.-*0
Two sites in Gary, Indiana operated by the same firm in the
mid-1970's accepted general industrial hazardous waste
including plating wastes, solvents, acids and cyanide. Both
sites were scenes of explosions and fires. The cause of one
of the fires has been established as the result of mixing
acid solvents. The owner has abandoned both sites and the
extent of contamination of the soil and ground and surface
water has not yet been determined. At least $6,000,000 will
be required to clean up the two sites.35
In October 1975 an equipment operator at a disposal site in
Cook County, Illinois, struck a drum filled with ethyl
acetate. The man died three days later as a result of second
and third degree burns.36
A load of empty pesticide containers was delivered to a
disposal site in Fresno County, California. Unknown to the
site operator, several full drums of an acetone/methanol mixture
24
-------
were included in the load. When the load was compacted by a
bulldozer, the barreled waste ignited, engulfing the bulldozer
in flames. The operator escaped unharmed, but the machine
was seriously damaged. In the ensuing fire pesticide wastes
were dispersed.36
At a dump in Contra Costa County, California, a large number
of drums containing solvents were deposited in a landfill.
In the immediate area were leaky containers of concentrated
mineral acids and several bags containing beryllium wastes
in dust form. The operators failed to cover the waste at
the end of the day. The acids reacted with the solvents
during the night, ignited them and started a large chemical
fire. There was possible dispersion of beryllium dust into
the environment. Inhalation, injestion or contact with the
beryllium dust by personnel could have led to serious health
consequences.3°
A disposal site in central California accepted a load of
solid dichromate salts and dumped it in a pit along with
pesticide formulations and empty pesticide containers. For
several days thereafter, small fires erupted in the pit due
to the oxidation of the pesticide formulations by the
dichromate. Fortunately, the site personnel were able to
extinguish these fires before they burned out of control.
There were no injuries, or property or equipment damage.36
-------
6. Toxic Fumes Resulting from Mixing of Incompatable Wastes
In IDS Angeles County, a tank truck emptied several thousand
gallons of cyanide waste onto refuse at a sanitary landfill.
Another truck subsequently deposited several thousand gallons
of acid waste at the same location. Reaction between the
acid and the cyanide evolved large amounts of toxic hydrogen
cyanide gas. A potential disaster was averted when a local
chlorine dealer was called to oxidize the cyanide with
chlorine solution.36
0 At a sanitary landfill near Dundalk, Maryland, a 2,000-gallon
liquid industrial waste load containing iron sulfide, sodium
sulfide, sodium carbonate and sodium thiosulfate, along
with smaller quantities of organic compounds, was discharged
into a depression atop a earthcovered area of the fill.
When it reached eight to ten feet below the point of discharge,
the liquid started to bubble and fume blue smoke. The smoke
cloud quickly engulfed the truck driver and disabled him.
Several nearby workers rushed to his aid and were also
disabled. During the clean-up operation, one of the county
firefighters also collapsed. All six of the injured were
hospitalized and treated for hydrogen sulfide poisoning.
The generation of hydrogen sulfide was probably due to the
incompatibility of the waste with some of the landfill
materials since the pH of the waste was measured to be 13
' before it left the plant. It may also have been caused by
the instability of the waste.36
-------
In July 1978 a truck driver died as a result of unloading
chemicals at a Louisiana disposal site. At least 16,000,000
gallons of material contaminated with sulfur compounds,
alkyl chloride, and sulfuric acid have been accepted at the
site. A minimum of $17,000,000 will be required to clean up
the site.36
7. Explosive or Hazardous Gases Migrate from Landfill
c Volatilization of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) from landfilled
wastes as well as from direct emissions into the air from
industrial plants in Darrow, Louisiana resulted in the
settlement of HCB on pastures. This led to the bioaccumulation
of HCB in the tissues of grazing cattle. Evidence of
widespread contamination resulted in a quarantine of livestock
produced over a 100 square mile area.^1
0 In the spring of 1975, residents near the Lees Lane landfill
in Louisville, Kentucky experienced flash fires around water
heaters and unusual gas odors in their homes. The landfill
has received municipal and industrial wastes, including
vinyl chloride wastes, for a number of years. Methane gas
was being generated in explosive levels in the landfill and
migrating into nearby homes resulting in seven families
being evacuated. Studies are now underway to determine the
most appropriate way to control the gas migration. A gas
recovery system is being considered.34
27-
-------
8. Formation of Water Soluble Toxic Substances from
Ruptured DrumsT
In Riverside County, California, several drums of phosphorus
oxychloride, phosphorus thiochloride and thionyl chloride
were improperly dropped off at a dump. Later during a flood,
the drums were unearthed, ruptured, and washed downstream.
They released hydrogen chloride gas and contaminated the water.36
9. Wind Dispersal of Hazardous Waste
° Since 1867, asbestos product manufacturers have accumulated
nearly 2 million cubic yards of assorted industrial wastes
in open piles in a small Pennsylvania town. The original
generator of the wastes went out of business in 1962. Since
then, two other companies have been responsible for enlarging
the spoils piles. The atmosphere around the piles contains
asbestos fibers, as a result of wind erosion. An air
monitoring program, conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in October 1973, indicatead ambient
background levels of asbestos to be 6 ng/m3. An asbestos
level of 9.6 ng/m3 was found at a playground near the largest
waste pile. Values obtained near active disposal piles
range from 114 to 1,745 ng/m3. A high pH level in a nearby
stream has resulted from the piles. The State has ordered
and gotten compliance for closing the site. The ongoing (as
of October 1979) closure plan includes halting additions to
the piles, stablizing the piles, reducing erosion and runoff
• by planting vegetation on the piles, and fencing them off.
The State is confident that the piles now present no human
health hazard. ^2
-------
A similar asbestos waste pile exists at Tfyde Park, Vermont.
The pile was approximately 400 feet high, approximately 2600
feet long, and approximately 1000 feet wide as of September
1973. At that tijne the site contained 20 million metric
tons of tailings. The site had been in use for 15 years at
that time. Percentages of chrysotile asbestos in samples of
debris from the tailings pile ranged from 12.7 to 21.1.
Ambient concentrations (away from the site) ranged from 3 to
13,600 ng/m^; average concentration was about 1300 ng/m^.
Windblown emissions from the tailings pile averaged 500
ng/m^. In this case emissions from mining, milling, and
roadways probably contributed significantly to ambient
concentrations.52
III. SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS
The proposed regulations for landfills were specified in
Section 250.45-2 of the proposed hazardous waste regulations
published in Federal Register on December 18, 1978 (43 FR 58946-59028).
The landfill regulations were divided into the following sub-sections :
a) Site selection
b) Construction and operation
c) Closure, and
d) Post-closure care.
In addition, certain requirements applicable to all facilities,
such as waste analysis and recordkeeping and reporting were
specified in General Facility Standards, §250.43 and in §250.45,
of the proposed regulations.
-------
Those portions of the above landfill standards applicable
during interim status were proposed in §250.40, "Purpose, Scope,
and Applicability."
The content of the proposed full set of landfill regulations
/
is summarized below. It is followed by a summary of the portions
of those standards which were proposed as applicable during
interim status. Then a synopsis is presented of those portions of
the General Facility Standards proposed as applicable to landfill
disposal during interim status which are now addressed in the
landfill interim status standards. Finally, additions to the
interim status standards are listed, with a brief explanation of
the rationale for these additions.
-------
A. Summery of Proposed Regulations
1) Site Selection
The proposed regulations specified that:
o The landfill not be in direct contact with navigable water.
o The bottom of the landfill liner be at least five feet above
the historical high water table.
o The landfill be at least 500 feet from a functioning public
'or private water supply or livestock supply.
Variances to the second and third of these requirements were al-
lowed based on demonstration by a permit applicant to the Regional
Administrator that water contact or contamination could otherwise be
prevented, and that a ground-water monitoring system was in 'place and
was being maintained.
2) Construction and Operation
Requirements included:
o Minimization of erosion, landslides, and slumping.
o Compatibility of the liner with all waste to be landfilled.
o Recording the exact location of each hazardous waste and the
dimensions and contents of each cell with respect to
permanently surveyed bench marks.
o Disposing of incompatible wastes in separate landfill cells.
o Surrounding each container of liquid waste by an amount of
sorbent material capable of absorbing all of the liquid con-
tents of the container.
o Prohibition of ignitable, volatile, and reactive waste from
being placed in a landfill unless it could be demonstrated
that airborne contaminants would not exceed certain levels
and the structural integrity of the impoundment containment
system would not be damaged through heat generation, fires,
or explosions.
-------
o Prohibition on placing bulk liquids, semi-solids, and sludges
in a landfill unless the waste is evaporated and/or
stabilized or treated in the landfill to reduce its liquid
content or increase its solids content so that a nonflowing
consistency is achieved to eliminate the presence of free
liquids.
o Diversion structures to prevent surface run-off from entering
the facility unless the owner/operator can show that run-off
would not enter the facility.
o Collecting and treating surface water which has been in con-
'tact with the active portions of the landfill, or disposing
of the run-off as a hazardous waste unless it is found not to
be hazardous per the Subpart A criteria, or discharging in
accordance with NPDES requirements.
o Installation of a gas collection system where gases are gen-
erated in a landfill, unless it can be demonstrated that
there would be- no fire or explosion potential.
o Minimum requirements for daily cover (six inches), unless
otherwise justified by the owner/operator.
o Required containment system design, including:
- specification regarding natural in-place soils
- two alternative designs, specifying:
- number and placement of liners
- soil liner thicknesses and permeabilities
- use of a leachate collection and removal system
- minimum thicknesses, permeability, and lifetime of
artificial liners
- limitations on soil types acceptable for use in the
impoundment
- installation of a. leachate collection system.
Variances to several of these requirements were allowed if the
permit applicant could demonstrate equivalent performance of alter-
nate designs to the Regional Administrator.
-------
o Requirement for ground-water and leachate monitoring systems.
o Specifications for the design of a leachate collection and
removal system.
o Requirements for removal of leachate from a leachate collec-
tion system.
o Specification of maximum permeability for soil underlying a
landfill liner system.
3) Closure
The proposed regulations required:
o Placing a final cover over the landfill consisting of:
- at least 15 centimeters (6 inches) of clay soil with a per-
meability of less than or equal to 1 x 10-7 cm/sec,
underlying:
- 45 centimeters (18 inches) of soil capable of supporting
indigenous vegetation, of which
- the top 6-inches must be topsoil.
A variance was provided allowing different soil thicknesses and
permeabilities if it could be demonstrated that equivalent perform-
ance would be achieved.
o Where trees or other deep rooted vegetation is to be planted
on the completed landfill, the final cover must consist of at
least 3-feet of soil overlying the 6-inch clay soil cap,
unless it could be demonstrated that such vegetation would
not penetrate the 6-inch clay cap.
o The final grade of the cover must not exceed 33 percent.
Where final grades exceed 10 percentj horizontal terraces
were required sufficient to withstand a 24-hour, 25-year
storm. (Spacing of the terraces was also specified.)
o Alternative grades and terracing were permitted if it could
be demonstrated that pooling and erosion would be prevented.
33
-------
4) Post-closure Care
The regulations required the following during the post-closure
period of 20 years:
o Maintenance of the soil integrity, slope, and vegetative cov-
er of the final cover and all diversion and drainage
structures.
o Maintenance of the ground-water and leachate oonitoring sys-
tems .
o Maintenance of surveyed bench marks.
o Maintenance of any gas collection and control systems,
o Restricting access to the landfill.
A variance to these requirements permitted the owner/operator to
demonstrate that certain of -these requirements could be discontinued
before the end of the post-closure period.
o The post-closure requirements also prohibited construction of
buildings for habitation over any landfill where radioactive
waste had been disposed.
B. Sunszsrv of Proposed Interim Status Standards
The proposed interim status standards for landfills included the
following parts of the above standards:
1) Operating Requirements
o Recording the exact location of each hazardous waste and the
dimensions and contents of each cell with respect to
permanently surveyed bench marks.
o Disposing of incompatible wastes in separate landfill cells.
o Surrounding each container of liquid waste by an amount of
sorbent material capable of absorbing all of the liquid con-
tents of the container.
2) Closure (All of the closure requirements listed above.)
3) Post-Closure Care (All of the post-closure care requirements listed above.
34
-------
4) Applicable General Facility Standards
In addition to the above requirements the proposed interim
status standards included certain waste analysis, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements which were applicable to all facilities.
These requirements were listed under the heading of Manifest
System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting requirements in the proposed
regulations and interim status standards, but have now in part
been incorporated into the interim status standards for landfills.
Additional manifest, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to all facilities described separately in Subpart E of
the final Interim Status Standards.
The proposed waste analysis, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements included:
° Waste analysis to determine the hazardous constituents
and properties of the waste prior to initial disposal;
verification of certain properties of each shipment of
waste received; and periodic comprehensive analysis of
waste if there were indications of changes in composition;
" Recordkeeping and reporting to include an operating log,
a record of the quantity and description of each waste
received, locations where each waste was treated or
disposed and the methods and dates of treatment or
disposal, the results of the waste analysis performed,
monitoring data, reports of visual inspections, and
records of incidents requiring initiation of a contingency
plan .
35-
-------
C. Additional Standards to be Included for Interim Status
Finally, there were certain requirements proposed in the
full regulations for landfills, but not in the proposed interim
status standards, which the Agency feels should be added to the
interim status requirements.
The rationale the Agency has used in selecting those standards
to be applicable during interim status is described in the preamble
to the Parts 264 and 265 regulations and the background document
entitled "General Issues Concerning Interim Status Standards,"
Since the interim status standards apply prior to the time a
permit application is acted upon, the applicable standards have
generally been limited to those which would not involve interpretation
or prior approval by the permitting official, involve large
capital expenditures, or require more than six months for
compliance. As they have been reformulated, the requirements for
ignitable, reactive, and incompatible wastes now come within
these criteria.
However, these criteria were only guidelines in developing
the interim status standards, and exceptions have been made for
requirements of unusual importance where the benefits to be gained
from early implementation were judged to substantially outweigh
the disadvantages. The Agency believes that the regulations
listed below meet this standard for reasons which are outlined in
the detailed discussions of the individual regulations:
0 Restrictions on placing bulk or containerized liquids or
wastes containing free liquids in landfills
0 Collection and management of surface water run-off from active
portions of the landfill
-------
Also, the following requirements, which were not part of the
proposed full set of standards or the proposed interim status
standards for landfills, have been added to the current interim
status standards :
Control of wind disperal of hazardous waste,
Special requirements for empty containers.
The rationale for these additional standards is explained in the
applicable sections of Part IV of this background document.
Except for allowing an additional 12 months to meet the requirements
for control of run-on, run-off, and disposal of liquid wastes or wastes
containing free liquids, the Agency believes that these requirements
meet the general criteria for interim status standards.
IV. DISCUSSION OF THE COMMENTS
ISSUE: DEFINITION OF LANDFILL
A. Proposed Definition
"Hazardous Waste Landfill" means an area in which hazardous
waste is disposed of in accordance with the requirements of
§250.45-2.
B. Comments Received
Several commenters noted that "hazardous waste landfill" and
"sanitary landfill" are defined. However, within the regulations
"landfill", which is not defined, is the most commonly used
designation. They point out that this could lead to confusion
since the requirements for the two types of landfills are
substantially different.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments
EPA agrees that "landfill" is the most common term used
throughout the regulations. Since these regulations are entirely
concerned with the proper management of hazardous waste, EPA has
3?
-------
,decided to define only the term "landfill" in terms of disposal
of hazardous waste, for the purpose of these regulations. This
clarifies that "landfill" always refers to a hazardous waste
landfill and enables use of the abbreviated terminology in the
text of the regulation. Any time the term "sanitary landfill" is
meant, it is not abbreviated to "landfill."
In addition, the definition of the term landfill" has been
modified. Rather than referring to the landfill standards to
define the term, the revised definition defines it as a
hazardous waste disposal facility which is not a land treatment
facility, a surface impoundment, or injection well.
D. Revised Definition
"Landfill" means a disposal facility or part of a facility
where hazardous waste is 'placed in or on land which is not a land
treatment facility, a surface impoundment, or injection well.
ISSUE: DEFINITION OF CELL
A. Proposed Definition
As proposed, "cell" means a portion of waste .in a landfill
which is isolated horizontally and vertically from other portions
of waste in the landfill by means of a soil barrier which meets
criteria specified in Section 250-45-2(b) ( 14).
B. Comments on Proposed Definition
1) Some commenters felt the regulations should define landfill
cells and subcells. Two similar definitions for each of these
were proposed:
0 "landfill cell" means the discrete volume of land excavated
and lined and intended for long-term storage and isolation
of hazardous solid waste.
-------
D tt '
"Landfill cell" means the discrete volume of land prepared
and intended for long-term storage and isolation of
hazardous solid waste.
"Landfill subcell" means a discrete volume within the
landfill cell dike to provide segregation of incompatible
hazardous waste.
Landfill subcell" means discrete volume within the
landfill cell to provide segregation of incompatible
hazardous waste.
2) Rather than address the whole landfill facility, it was
suggested that the regulations for closure, post-closure care, and
financing be specifically tailored to fit the individual
characteristics of each part of the site (cell) in terms of
engineering and financial arrangements. Thus, all references in
the regulations under Part 250 to landfills should be changed to
landfill cells unless the word landfill refers to facility. This
would "better reflect actual technology in use today at disposal
facilities," and would "conform to the permit concept of individual
landfill cell permit requirements and closure procedures ."
3 ) There are other suitable materials in addition to soil
that can be used for a barrier in the definition of "cell."
4) "Landfill" (integral to this definition) was not defined.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments
' The term "cell" was defined in the proposed regulation for
use with the section dealing with the disposal of incompatible
wastes in separate cells. Commenters apparently suggested adding
subcells because of the emphasis they placed on cells as discrete
-------
entities which could be separately closed and covered by separate
financial arrangements. The final regulation incorporates such a
concept of cells as discrete entities and as a volume providing
isolation of incompatible wastes. Under this approach, the
concept of a subcell is unnecessary, because a subcell would meet
the definition of cell.
As suggested by the comments, the reference to "a portion of
waste in a landfill" was replaced by "the discrete volume of a
landfill..." This makes the cell a part of the disposal facility
rather than a volume of waste and helps in addressing individual
cells in the regulatory and permit framework. It may be appropriate
to apply different engineering and financial arrangements for the
closure and post-closure care (also the design and operation) of
the separate cells in those instances where a landfill cell is
essentially a "mini-landfill." This, however, is restricted to
those instances where such individual treatment does not interfere
with the ability of the landfill owner or operator or EPA or
State permit-writer/inspector to design, operate, maintain, or
monitor the whole facility, and where the individual cells or
group of cells are large enough that it makes sense to address
them separately (e.g., to close out portions of the facility).
In the regulations, we have not addressed this issue explicitly
(i.e., how to close, etc. an individual cell), but the concept of
a "closed portion" and the flexibility of the closure and financial
responsibility arrangements allows this approach. For example,
separate permits may be issued for separate portions of a facility
whsre the site is so large that two totally different hydrogeological
regions are encountered, two totally different types of hazardous
-------
wastes are being disposed of, one portion is operating for a
period of time then closed out and another part opened, etc.
We agree there are other suitable materials in addition to
soil that can be used as a barrier in a cell. Therefore, the
term "soil barrier" has been deleted and only "isolation" with
use of a liner is required.
D. Revised Definition
"Landfill cell" means the discrete volume of a landfill
which uses a liner to provide isolation of waste from adjacent
cells or waste.
ISSUE: DEFINITION OF LINER
A. Proposed Definition
"Liner" means a layer of emplaced materials beneath a surface
impoundment or landfill which serves to restrict the escape of
waste or its constituents from the impoundment or landfill.
B. Comment on the Proposed Definition
1) It is not clear whether requirements using this term
would result in the appropriate barrier on the sides as
well as the bottom and in some cases the top of the
impoundments and landfills. A liner may encapsulate an
entire disposal cell.
2) The definition of liner should be broadened by specifying
that it includes not only emplaced materials, but
naturally occurring materials which may be found beneath
a surface impoundment or landfill.
3) Liner should be defined to include emplaced materials
inside storage tanks and containers.
-------
C. Analysis and Response to Comments
EPA concurs with the comments received on the proposed definition
of liner. After review of the comments and the proposed definition,
the sole use of the term "beneath" may not convey placement of a
liner on the bottom and sides of the facility, which was originally
intended. Obviously this is necessary in order to adequately
restrict not only downward but also lateral escape of waste,
waste constituents, or leachate from the landfill or surface
impoundment.
The omission of natural or naturally occuring in-place
materials from the definition was an over sight by EPA. This is
evident by the fact that requirements throughout the proposed
land disposal regulations specify that liners be constructed of
natural soil material or man-made (artifical) materials. The
revised definition is further broadened by defining liner as "a
continuous layer of natural or man-made materials...", thus
eliminating any confusion about liner material having to be
in-place to be "natural." In other words a liner can be a layer
of any material which functions to restrict the escape of wastes,
waste constituents, or leachate. The Agency decided to refer to
liners inside storage tanks and containers by the term "inner liner."
A discussion of this term may be found in the background document
for §260, General Definitions.
D. Revised Definition
"Liner" means a continuous layer of natural or man-made materials,
beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment, landfill, or
landfill cell, which restricts the downward or lateral escape of
hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents, or leachate.
-------
ISSUE; DEFINITION OF LEACHATE_
A. Proposed Definition
"Leachate" means the liquid that has percolated through or
drained from hazardous waste or other nan emplaced materials and
contains soluble, partially soluble, or miscible components
removed from such waste.
3. Comments on Proposed Definition
1) The word "miscible" should be changed to "immiscible".
2) The word "contains" should be changed to "which may
contain", because liquids which percolate through waste
may not always pick up components of the waste.
C. Analysis of and Response to Comments
The Agency agrees that the word " Immiscible" , rather than
"miscible", is the correct word to use when referring to the
insoluble components contained in a liquid. However, the wording
of the revised definition does not use either terra because leachate
may contain both immiscible (insoluble) and miscible (soluble)
components. Therefore, to simplify the definition, it has been
revised to "..., including any suspended components in the liquid..
To clear up any confusion concerning the use of the word
"contains" in the proposed definition, it is not used in the
revised wording of the definition. The Agency believes that
leachate results when-any liquid drains from or percolates through
hazardous waste and that the leachate includes any suspended
components in the liquid.
-------
D. Revised Definition
"Leachate" means any liquid, including any suspended components
in the liquid, that has percolated through or drained from hazardous
waste .
ISSUE: DEFINITIONS OF COVER MATERIAL AND FINAL COVER
A. Proposed Definitions
1) "Cover material" means soil or other material that is
used to cover hazardous waste.
2) "Final Cover" means cover material that is applied upon
closure of a landfill and is permanently exposed on the
surface .
B. Comments on Proposed Definition
No comments were received on these definitions.
C. Final Definition
The Agency believes that it is essentially obvious what the
meaning of these terms are, they take no special or unusual meaning
in the regulation that is not conveyed by the words themselves
without any definition. Therefore, they are not defined in the
final regulation.
ISSUE: SURFACE WATER RUN-ON CONTROL
^•' Definition
The proposed regulations did not define or use the term
"run-on." Rather, the term "run-off" was used to refer both to
water running onto a facility from outside the facility, and ro
water running off the facility. Since these two types of run-off
are treated differently in these regulations, the Agency decided
that it would be clearer if it adopted different terms for the-.
-------
Thus, "run-on" is defined to mean "any rainwater, leachate, or.other
liquid that drains over land onto any part of facility." Further
discussion of the term "run-on" is included in the discussion of
the term "run-off."
B. Proposed Regulation
The regulations proposed for general status, although not
for interim status, required that run-on (as the term is currently
defined) be diverted away from the active portion of a landfill
by diversion structures capable of handling a 24-hour, 25-year
storm unless the owner or operator could demonstrate to the permit
writer that the local topography would prevent run-on from entering
the facility (§§250.43(b) and 2 50. 45-2 ( b) (7 )) . The purpose of
this standard was to minimize the amount of liquids entering the
landfill facility. Run-on controls prevent (1) erosion, which
may damage the physical structure of the landfill, (2) the surface
discharge of wastes in solution or suspension, and (3) the downward
percolation of run-on through wastes, creating leachate. Control
is accomplished by constructing diversion structures to prevent
surface water run-on from entering the active portion of the
landfill facility.
Precipitation can create large amounts of surface water•
runoff which can enter or even flood a landfill. Landfills which
are below surrounding grade are particularly vulnerable since they
can. serve as sinks for the collection of rainfall or snowmelt
run-on. This water may damage the physical structure of a
landfill through erosion or carry away wastes in solution or
suspension. Sufficient water may collect to allow overflow (run-off)
of hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents to surface
-------
water. Futhermore, any water which is allowed on the surface of
a landfill may percolate downward through wastes creating leachate
and contributing to the static head within the site. To avoid
these potential environmental threats, every effort should be
made to minimize run-on into landfills. This may be achieved by
the construction of dikes or drainage ditches capable of diverting
run-on from landfill. The diversion capacity of control structures
should be based on a prediction of maximum storm frequency for
the active life of the facility.
C. Discussion of Comments
See page 49 for a list of summarized comments received on
the standard.
Comment was received that the proposed regulation implied
that all run-on would have to be diverted from the landfill, and
that the regulations should specify the capacity of "the diversion
structure in terms of the useful life of the landfill.
The Agency believes that the main area of concern for
protection of human health and the environment is the active
portion of the landfill, not the landfill facility as a whole (as
may have been suggested by the language of the proposed regulation).
It is at active portions that run-on is most likely (1) to seep
into the exposed waste, contributing to the formation of leachate,
or (2) to erode wastes, or constituents of them, carrying them
away in run-off. The Agency requires in these regulations that
all surface water run-on be diverted from active portions.
Diversion of run-on may be accomplished by locating the active
portion in areas where the topography naturally prevents run-on
-------
to the active portions of the landfill, or by sloping or contouring
the land, building ditches and culverts, or building dikes. The
capacity of diversion structures should be determined by the
owner or operator considering site topography, size of drainage
area, and size of the active portions.
Comments were received suggesting that the proposed standards
be modified to allow the owner or operator the flexibility to
either divert surface water run-on or collect and treat all of
the surface run-off, as long as Clean Water Act effluent limitations
were complied with. The Agency disagrees. EPA believes that
such a standard allows the unnecessary infiltration of water into
the landfill.
The Agency has determined that diversion of run-on is
appropriate for inclusion '"in the interim status standards. Run-on
control is for active portions only. The Agency expects that
run-on diversion structures, where needed because of topography,
will most likely be earthen dikes or berms, or ditches, which can
be erected with earth moving equipment commonly found a-t landfills .
These structures can be temporary, and can move with the active
portions as material is added to the landfill. Such structures
can be designed and maintained adequately during interim status
without case-by-case review by permitting officials.
A 12 month delay is allowed for compliance with this
requirement so that operators will have the adequate tine to
make any necessary topographic and hydrologic determinations and
complete construction.
D. Final Regulatory Language
See the following section on surface water run-off control.
-------
ISSUjE; SURFACE WATER RUN-OFF CONTROL
A. Definition
The proposed regulations defined run-off to mean "that
portion of precipitation that drains over land as surface flow."
No comments were received on the definition itself. However, the
proposed general regulations and these regulations specify different
requirements for run-off from the active portion of the facility,
and for what is now called "run-on" -- liquid flowing over land
toward the facility. Thus the Agency has chosen a different term
for the latter .
In addition, the Agency's concern with run-on and run-off
extended to more than precipitation, and included leachate and
other liquids that may flow over the surface, either from or onto
s. facility.
Since run-off usually has been in contact with waste or
leachate seeps from active portions, and since run-off sometimes
is collected via a leachate collection system, it is usually
contaminated. Thus, it is usually impossible to differentiate
between rainwater run-off and leachate run-off at the active
portion of a landfill. Because of this, the proposed definition
of "run-off" has been revised to "any rainwater, leachate, or
other liquid that drains over land...". This change clarifies
that more than just precipitation must be collected.
B. Proposed Regulation
The regulations proposed for general status, although not
for interim status, required that run-off that has been in contact
with active portions of the facility must be collected and treated
-------
or disposed of as a hazardous waste unless it was analyzed and
found not to be a hazardous waste, or unless it was collected and
discharged under an NPDES permit (§250.45-2(a) (8 ) ) . In addition,
the structures to accomplish this were required to be able to
handle the run-off expected from a 24-hour 25-year storm (§250. 43 (c) ) .
The objective of these requirements was to reduce the potential for
off-site migration of contaminated run-off to land or to waters
of the United States. There have been a number of damage incidents
caused by mismanaged or uncontrolled contaminated run-off from
landfills. Several of these incidents are briefly described above.
These damage cases indicate that run-off from active portions of
hazardous waste landfills can cause serious adverse impacts to
land and surface waters. In contaminating streams, run-off from
landfills frequently results in fishkills and destruction of
other aquatic life. During the period 1963-1974, forty-seven
separate fishkills caused by run-off from waste disposal were
recorded by EPA. Based on this evidence, EPA believes that it is
imperative that run-off from active portions of hazardous waste
landfills be controlled.
C. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
Commenters made the following points:
Should add a statement to provide stilling basins for
suspended solids.
Change the rainfall even to a 24-hour, 10-year storm so that
it will be consistent with NPDES.
The regulation is too vague as to alternatives to confinement
of surface water run-off. Suggest allowing run-off to be:
(1) deep welled in accordance with a UIC permit.
-------
(2) placed in a permitted surface impoundment, and
(3) landfarmed at a permitted site.
The proposed landfill standards should have allowed lawful
discharges to POTW s.
0 The proposed regulations improperly eliminated deepwell
disposal or ocean dumping.
Landfills which accept only containerized wastes should be
exempt from any surface run-off requirements.
0 Standards should be modified to permit the owner or operator
the election of either to divert surface run-off or collect
and treat surface run-off as long as the effluent limitations
are compiled with.
0 Language in standards and background document lead to the
belief that all surface run-off would have to be collected.
D. Response to Comments -
A number of comments were received concerning the requirements
for diversion and collection capacity for run-off from active
portions of a facility. The Agency believes that the 24-hour,
25-year storm is a general minimum for adequate protection of
human health and the environment. Some minimum is needed to
ensure a reasonable level of protection; the 25-year storm is not
an unreasonably burdensome capacity to achieve, and anything less
than 25 years would likely occur during facility operation or
before the facility is closed according to all applicable closure
regulations. However, because the quantity of run-off which can
be 'produced at any one site is dependent on the site specific
situation, including amount of precipitation, site topography,
location of the active portions, etc., no general requirements
1-1 • ^r, or diversion capacity can be established
specifying a collectiion or aiv^L^j-^ L
-------
as a national standard for the final interim status standards.
Comments suggested a requirement that stilling basins should
be provided for suspended solids. It is EPA's position that the
owner or operator should have flexibility in determining which
type of treatment and/or discharge scheme is to be used for the
collected run-off. It is incumbent upon the owner and operator
to provide the necessary compliance of the chosen scheme with any
applicable regulations promulgated by the Agency. EPA's concern
is for the protection of human health and the environment.
Therefore the owner or operator should be free to choose how the
collected surface water run-off will be dealt with such that any
applicable EPA requirements will not be violated. EPA also
acknowledges the concern of the comment that the proposed regulation
did not allow for the alternatives of deep well injection,
placement in a surface impoundment, or land treatment of collected
run-off. As stated previously, the owner or operator should
have the flexibility of determining the fate of the collected
water run-off within a framework of the requirements of any
applicable Federal environmental regulations. The final Interim
Status Standards allow this flexibility.
Comment was received that the proposed landfill standards
should have allowed lawful discharges to a publicly-owned treatment
works. It is important to note that the Clean Water Act and its
associatd regulations have the authority for regulating such
discharges. The proposed regulations did not limit the authority
of the Clean Water Act. Rather, the proposed regulations were
intended to provide documentation of the possibility of a interface
with any Clean Water Act provisions.
51
-------
Another comment stated that the proposed landfill regulations
improperly eliminated deep well disposal or ocean dumping. The
authority for these options more properly falls under authorities
of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, respectively. Therefore, the proposed
landfill regulations did not address these methods.
One commenter said that landfills which accept only
containerized hazardous waste should be exempt from any surface
waste run-off requirements. The Agency does not agree with this
comment. Hazardous liquid and solid wastes which are containerized
and disposed of in a landfill have a substantial potential for
leakage. Leakage can result through mishandling and mismanagement
of drums or containers during storage and transportation; or by
inadvertant use of a container which is incompatable or inappropriate
for use with the waste it will contain; or by use of a new or
recycled container which is defective ; or through final placement
within the landfill. Such leakage will contaminate run-off from
the active face of the landfill, leading to as great a potential
for damage to human health and the environment via off-site
migration as run-off from active portions of landfills which
accept non-containerized wastes. Based on the evidence presented
above, EPA believes that it is imperative that run-off from active
portions of hazardous waste landfills be controlled during the
interim status period. Even though such a requirement may not,
in entire, meet the general interim status criteria, the documented
magnitude and serious nature of the problems which have resulted
from uncontrolled surface water run-off and the relatively
-------
simple and inexpensive methods that are able to be implemented.
without interaction with a permit officical, justify that this
regulation be included in the landfill requirements during
interim status .
Run-off control is accomplished by (1) minimizing run-off
and (2) collecting and managing run-off from active portions .
Run-off is minimized by (1) preventing run-onn, (2) minimizing
the size of the active portion, and (3) preventing disposal of
liquid wastes in the landfill.
There are two basic types of landfill operations: trench
method and area fill method. Using an area fill method it is
good practice at the beginning of each operating day to
construct a depression, pit, or shallow trench at the base of the
active face of the landfill large enough to collect the amount
of surface water run-off or leachate expected to be produced at
the active face. In this manner any contaminated surface water
is collected, and during the day or at the end of the day the
soil from the construction of the depression, pit, or shallow
trench, or other absorptive material, can be used to absorb the
collected liquid. The resulting mixture can then be added to the
active portion.
If the method of operation is a trench, then the run-off
from the active face is contained within the trench. Managing
the contaminatad liquids which have collected in the trench during
an operating day can be done in a variety of ways. For example,
if a leachate collection and removal system is not present, in-
place mixing with absorptive material can be done, or the liquid
can be removed and treated by absorption or solidification and placed
-------
back in the fill. The liquid can also be removed from the trench
and stored, treated, and then disposed of or discharged. If a
leachate collection, removal and management system is present and
operating properly, all contaminated liquid (run-off, leachate)
will usually be collected, removed and managed as leachate from
the trench. However, when landfills using either the trench or
area methods become large and substantially above grade, both run-off
and leachate seeps, which often occur on the outer slopes of the
fill need to be collected. Run-off which does emerge from active
portions may be collected by ditches, berms, and culverts which
direct it (sometimes by sump pump) to surface impoundments,
basins, tanks, or treatment facilities. These collection devices
may consist of temporary structures around active portions.
Once collected, a number of options exist for treating and
disposing of run-off. These are the same options which exist for
managing liquid wastes and leachate and include deep well injection,
land treatment, treatment in surface impoundments (evaporation,
aeration, chemical treatment, etc.) dewatering or mixing with an
absorbent material and disposal in the landfill, percolation
through a filtering or attenuation medium (e.g., charcoal, clay,
soil, sand), or discharge to a sewer or other treatment facility.
The proposed landfill standards required that if surface
water came into contact with the active portions of a facility,
it was to be collected and managed as a hazardous waste unless it
was analyzed and found not to be hazardous.
-------
The Agency received essentially no objections to the proposed
requirement that run-off from active portions of landfills be
collected and treated in some fashion. Most of the comments on
the proposed standards concerned the capacity of the collection
or treatment systems or the final disposition of the run-off that
the proposed regulations required. These comments have been
discussed previously in this background document. The current
regulation does not limit the method of treatment of run-off.
The regulation requires run-off from active portions to be
collected. The collected run-off is a solid waste from an
industrial activity (the operation of the landfill) and the owner
or operator must determine whether it is a hazardous waste in
accordance with Section 262.11 of this Chapter. If the collected
run-off is a hazardous was'te it must be managed as a hazardous
waste. Even if it is not a hazardous waste, good management
practices may still require some degree of treatment or use of
other techniques as previously discussed, although such practices
are not required by these regulations. A 12 month delay for compliance
with these regulations is given so that existing facilities may
construct new run-off systems or upgrade existing systems,
including those for run-off treatment and disposal. If collectead
run-off is discharged to waters of the United States, owners or
operators of facilitis must have or apply for an NPDES permit
under the Clean Water Act.
I. Final Regulatory Language
§265.302
(a) Run-on must be diverted away from the active portions
of a landfill.
-------
(b) Run-off from active portions of a landfill 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 requirements
of Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.]
(c) The date for compliance with paragraph (a) and (b) of
this Section is 12 months after the effective date of this Part.
ISSUE: WIND DISPERSAL
A requirement of the owner or operator of a hazardous waste
landfill to manage the landfill so that wind dispersal of the
hazardous waste is controlled was not proposed for inclusion in
either the interim or general standards. However, at public
meetings following the publication of the proposed regulations,
the fact was brought to light that piles are sometimes used for
storing and disposing of wastes, some of which may be hazardous.
Subpart L (Waste Piles) grew out of these comments, and also
includes a requirement for controlling wind dispersal.
Dispersal of landfilled hazardous wastes by wind is not
often a problem. The Agency's major concern in requiring the
control of wind dispersal is large waste piles which constitute
disposal and thus come under the landfill regulations. The Agency
is aware of at least two cases in which wind dispersal from piles
of asbestos wastes created a health hazard. The example of the
Pennsylvania asbestos waste piles graphically demonstrates the
need for control of blowing wastes from piles. An air monitoring
-------
program, conducted by EPA in October 1973, indicated ambient
background levels of asbestos, a known carcinogen, to be 6 ng/m3
was found at a playground near the largest waste pile. It
therefore seems prudent to require that, where landfilled hazardous
waste is subject to wind dispersal, the landfill be managed so
that wind dispersal is controlled. Appropriate methods may vary
from waste to waste, and the Agency believes that the owner or
operator of the facility is best able to develop an adequate,
cost-effective technique to meet this requirement. The Agency
believes that this requirement should typically not require major
capital expenditures, does not require any case-by-case determination
by the Regional Administrator, and can be accomplished within six
months. It is therefore appropriate for inclusion in the interim
status standards. Since it was not proposed, it is being
promulgated interim final, and the Agency solicits comments on it.
Interim Final Regulatory Language
§265.302
(d) The owner or operator of a landfill containing hazardous
waste which is subject to dispersal by wind must cover or otherwise
manage the landfill so that wind dispersal of hazardous waste is
controlled .
ISSUE; WASTE ANALYSIS
The proposed regulations included in § 250-43 (f-h) , waste
analysis requirements, apply to all treatment, storage and disposal
facilities, including landfills. The waste analysis requirements
included: determination of the hazardous constituents and properties
of each waste shipment received, and periodic comprehensive
analysis of waste if there were indications of changes in composition.
-------
The reasoning behind the proposed waste analysis requirement
is discussed in the background document on waste analysis. in
brief, the purpose was to ensure that a facility owner and operator
had sufficient current information to manage the waste without
endangering human health and the environment.
Comments on the proposed waste analysis requirements are
discussed in the background document on -waste analysis. As a
result of those comments the Agency restructured the waste analysis
requirements. The final interim status regulations for waste
analysis require each owner or operator to develop a waste analysis
plan which proposes the analysis which is necessary to comply
with the regulations (see §265.13). This provides flexibility
for the owner and operator. The Agency has also included in the
regulations for some types of facilities additional waste analysis
requirements beyond those in the general section. However, for
landfills the Agency does not believe that any additional
requirements are necessary. As a comment in the landfill
regulation mentions, the general waste analysis regulation
requires owners and operators to:
Determine whether the waste has the characteristics of
ignitability or reactivity in order to comply with the
restrictions on these wastes in §265.312 and §265.17(b)
Conduct sufficient analysis of the waste to comply with the
waste compatibility requirements of §265.313 and §265.17(b)
The comment also refers to §265.73, which requires the owner
or operator to record the results from any waste analysis in the
operating record.
-------
ISSUE; SURVEYING AND RECORDKEEPING
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed standards required the owner or operator of a
hazardous waste landfill to record the exact location of each
hazardous waste and the dimensions of each landfill cell, along
with its contents, with respect to permanently surveyed bench
marks .
The objective of this regulation was to ensure the availability
of information that would be useful especially in emergencies and
other contingencies and also in landfill operation, closure, and
damage assessment. Securing this information appeared to be a
relatively easy task. With the dimensions and bench marks
determined for a particular landfill, a simple grid system could
be utilized to record exact locations and contents of cells.
Permanent records containing the exact location and the
contents of each landfill and each landfill cell will provide a
means for tracking down sources of contamination in case of any
damage incident resulting from the landfill operation. Knowing
the exact location, and contents of each landfill cell will help
the owner or operator determine the hazardous waste responsible
for any detected ground water, surface water, or air contamination.
The potential for further damage and methods of correction may also
be more readily identified.
Information on the exact location and contents of each
landfill cell are also useful in post-closure care activities.
For example differential settlement of surface caps or changes in
leachate quality could be traced to particular wastes. In addition,
5"-'
-------
as new technologies develop to neutralize or degrade wastes, they
may be applied in-situ to certain landfilled wastes. Such
treatment may enable the reduction in or termination of long-
term maintenance when the disposed wastes are shown to be no
longer hazardous.
Permanent records for location and contents of landfill
cells would also ensure that incompatible wastes have minimal
chance of coming in contact with each other. They would also
reduce the chance of filled and covered cells being structurally
disturbed from subsequent inadvertent landfilling in the immediate
area of those cells .
Recording the exact location and contents for a landfill
could aid in resource recovery efforts for a particular hazardous
waste should it become economically feasible to excavate and
reuse that waste.
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
0 This standard requires recording the exact location of each
hazardous waste and the dimensions of each cell with respect
to permanently surveyed bench marks . It appears that it
would be nearly impossible and also unnecessary to record
the exact location of each hazardous waste. It is sufficient
to know the contents of each cell and the exact location of
each cell.
° Landfills that receive only one type of waste whose composition
does not vary significantly should be exempted from the
requirement to record where different batches are placed.
Include in the regulation that these requirements do not
apply retroactively to existing landfills.
-------
as new technologies develop to neutralize or degrade wastes, they
may be applied in-situ to certain landfilled wastes. Such
treatment may enable the reduction in or termination of long-
term maintenance when the disposed wastes are shown to be no
longer hazardous .
Permanent records for location and contents of landfill
cells would also ensure that incompatible wastes have minimal
chance of coming in contact with each other. They would also
reduce the chance of filled and covered cells being structurally
disturbed from subsequent inadvertent landfill ing in the immediate
area of those cells .
Recording the exact location and contents for a landfill
could aid in resource recovery efforts for a particular hazardous
waste should it become economically feasible to excavate and
reuse that waste .
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
0 This standard requires recording the exact location of each
hazardous waste and the dimensions of each cell with respect
to permanently surveyed bench marks. It appears that it
would be nearly impossible and also unnecessary to record
the exact location of each hazardous waste. It is sufficient
to know the contents of each cell and the exact location of
each cell.
Landfills that receive only one type of waste whose composition
does not vary significantly should be exempted from the
requirement to record where different batches are placed.
Include in the regulation that these requirements do not
apply retroactively to existing landfills.
-------
There are other methods of operating landfills than by
placing wastes in cells. For example, wastes may be blended
with soils so that there are not isolated "cell" sections of
landfills. These regulations should permit such operations.
In order to facilitate waste material inventories for each
landfill, a cross-referencing of the landfilled materials
with appropriate manifest numbers should be required.
C, Response to the Comments
After carefully considering comments to this standard, the
Agency believes that identifying the specific location of each
cell can be accomplished adequately by use of a three-dimensional
grid system. However, recording the exact location of each waste
within a cell would be an unreasonable and unnecessary task.
Identifying "exact locations" would be extremely time consuming
and technically difficult. Furthermore, over time, internal
subsidence and/or shifting can be expected within a landfill,
causing changes in "exact location." General locations will be
adquate to facilitate remedial action, in-situ treatment, and
resource recovery efforts, and to ensure that incompatible wastes
do not come in contact with one another, and should not be unduly
burdensome. For most circumstances at multi-waste landfills, the
Agency believes that 3 meters accuracy should be sufficient for
use with a grid system. However, the size of the units of the
grid would generally be a function of the number of waste types
and' amounts and number of locations of each waste type at a facility.
In addition, EPA did not intend that the owner or operator
of a landfill should record and report the location of each batch
of waste disposed. The recording and reporting of the location
-------
of each waste type is all that is necessary.
It would obviously be difficult or impossible, unless adequate
records exist, for existing facilities to record and report the
location of waste types disposed prior to the effective date of
these regulations, and this is not required. The Agency suggests,
however, as a good management practice, that owners and operators
record approximate waste or cell locations when such information
is readily available.
EPA recognizes that there are other methods of operating a
hazardous waste landfill than by placing wastes in cells as the
term is commonly perceived, i.e., "isolated cell" sections of
landfills. For this reason and in order to write regulations on
a national scale which apply to a wide variety of operational
techniques, EPA defined "cell" to mean "the discrete volume of a
hazardous waste landfill which uses a liner to provide isolation
of waste from adjacent cells or waste. Defined in this manner,
the term "cell"
-------
• can mean a separate isolated "cell" within a large landfill or it
could mean the entire landfill trench, etc. as long as it provides
containment (isolation) both horizontally and vertically.
The comment suggesting cross referencing landfilled materials
with their appropriate manifest numbers, is now reflected in
§265.73. Thus, this suggestion has been incorporated into the
regulation.
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.309
The owner or operator of a landfill must maintain the
following items in the operating record required in §265.73:
(a) On a map, the exact location and dimensions, including
depth, of each cell with respect to permanently surveyed benchmarks;
and
(b) The contents of each cell and the approximate location
of each hazardous waste type within each cell.
ISSUE: CLOSURE OF A LANDFILL
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed regulation specified three types of closure
requirements:
1. Final Cover
The proposed standard required the owner or operator of a
hazardous waste landfill to place a final cover over the entire
landfill at the time of closure. The cover had to consist of a
top layer of 45 cm (18 in) of soil capable of supporting vegetation
(the top 15 cm (6 in) must be topsoil and a lower layer consisting
of at least 15 cm (6 in) of soil with a permeability less than or
-------
equal to 1 x 10 7 cm/sec. A note was provided stating that the
owner or operator could use soils of different
thicknesses and permeabilities as long as he could show that they
would provide equivalent control and protection of human health
and the environment.
2. Final Grade
The proposed regulation required that the final grade of the
final cover must not exceed 33 percent. It also required that
where final grades exceed 10 percent, horizontal terraces be con-
structed with sufficient width and height to withstand a 24-hour,
25-year storm at every 10 feet of rise in elevation when the
slope is greter than 20 percent. A note following the standard
allowed the owner or operator to have a final grade of different
construction or slope if he could show that water would not pool
on the final cover and the erosion would be minimized.
3. Deep Rooted Vegetation
The proposed standard required that final cover must consist
of a soil layer of 15 centimeters (6 inches) underlying at least
1 meter (3 feet) of soil capable of supporting indigenous vegetation
if trees or other deep rooted vegetation are to be planted on the
completed landfill. A note following the standard allowed less
soil in the upper layer of cover if the owner or operator could show
that the roots of the vegetation would not penetrate the underlying
6 inch clay-type soil.
-------
The major objectives of the cover requirement were to prevent
(to the extent practicable) infiltration of moisture into the
landfill, to control escape of harmful gases and vapors from the
landfill, prevent erosion of wastes or contaminated soils or the cover
itself, to restore the land to a more useful condition for future
productive use. Minimizing moisture infiltration is necessary to
prevent build-up of a hyrdaulic head in the landfill that would
contribute to leaching of contaminants to the ground water. (See
discussion in this document on bulk liquids.)
Clay was specified for the initial or bottom soil layer
primarily because of characteristics which make it suitable for
preventing moisture infiltration and containing gases and vapors.
Table 1 summarizes the results of a study which compared different
soils for use as landfill cover material.(54) The results show
that clay was rated highly for these two objectives.
However, clay was not rated so highly in supporting vegetation.
Also, clay does not perform well in minimizing moisture or contain-
ing gases if cracks extend through the cover. The study noted
that this occurs when clay dries out. Consequently, the regulations
specified that the clay be overlain with a layer of soil capable
of supporting indigenous vegetation. This layer would also serve
to help maintain moisture so that the clay would not dry out.
A permeability of 1 x 10~7 cm/sec was selected for the clay,
based in part on a Corps of Engineers study, Design and Construction
of Cover Materials for Solid and Hazardous Waste. (D5' In reviewing
the information from this study the Agency concluded that a permea-
bility of 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec provided reasonably effective control
-------
TABLE 1
SUITABILITY OF VARIOUS SOIL TYPES FOR
USE AS LANDFILL COVER MATERIAL1(54)
Soil Type
Function
Prevents roderity from
burrowing or tunneling
Keeps flies from emerging
Minimizes moisture
Clean
Gravel
G
P
P
Clayey -Silty
Gravel
F-G
F
P-F
Clean
Sand
G
P
P
Clayey -Silty
Sand
P
G
G-E
Silt
P
G
G-E
Clay
P
E2
E2
entering landfill
Minimizes gas venting
through cover
Provides pleasing
appearance and control
of blowing paper
P-F
1E, Excellent; G, good; F, fair; P, poor.
^Except when cracks extend through cover.
3Only if well drained.
G-E
G-E
Su PI J<>
Ve n t s
gan3
rts vcgct
decom pos
at ion P
it ion E
G
P
P -F E
G P
G-E F-G
P P
-------
of moisture infiltration. Furthermore, less perme-cLe soils are
much more difficult to find, and could require extensive haulinc.
In view of the need to make the regulations practical, the Agencv
felt that cover materials should be relatively widely available.
Furthermore, combined with other cover requirements such as grading
to prevent pooling of water on the cover, the Agency believed that
a practical moisture control would be obtained. The cover depth of
six inches of clay was determined to be the minimur. thickness
required to provide the desired functions.
Grading of final cover is important in order to promote run-
off and minimize infiltration and erosion. The general topographic
contours of the completed landfill surface should be controlled by
carefully locating waste cells. The final cover should then be
compacted and graded to inhibit the ponding of water on the landfill
surface because any standing water will allow greater quantities of
moisture to infiltrate the cap.
The maximum slope of 33 percent was based on a review of
various literature on erosion and discussion with experts. This
information suggested that control of erosion on ar.y greater slope
would be extremely difficult. The terracing requirements were
based on a similar analysis, particularly regarding erosion control
in agriculture.
The requirement of a minimum of 3-feet of soil if trees or other
deep rooted vegetation are planted is based on reccr-.en.3ations in
EPA's guidelines for "Sanitary Landfill Design and Operation." ( -4)
The purpose of the additional cover is to prevent ce.-.etration of the
clay cap by roots.
-------
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
1. Final Cover
0 This standard will result in grossly ineffective long
terra containment in landfills. A 15 centimeter (6 inch)
final cover is totally inadequate for isolating hazardous
waste from the environment. (Many commenters suggested a
minimum of 2-feet of clay cover.)
Other strategies for minimizing infiltration, other than
a final cover, are not clearly emphasized in the regulation
These strategies are establishment of a dense, vegetative
cover and the promotion of surface run-off.
0 This standard should permit flexibility of closure
techniques depending on the planned subsequent use of
the site. For example, an industrial plant site may
have good and valid reasons for a surface which will
not support any vegetation. Furthermore, to require
support for "indigenous" vegetation is not necessary
since any ground cover which is suitable to the purpose
of preventing erosion, should be acceptable.
0 Change permeability requirement to less_than or equal
to 1 x 10~° cm/sec, rather than 1 x 10~/ cm/sec. (No
rationale)
0 Change note to read: A final cover using different
materials, thicknesses, and permeability may be used.
0 The requirement for 6 inches of top soil is unnecessarily
restrictive in some situations. Denuding other areas to
reestablish vegetation over the disposal facility is
counterproductive.
2. Final Grade
0 The 10 percent slope limitation should be raised to 15
percent before requiring terracing, since 15 percent
slopes are manageable without additional measures.
A minimum slope should be required to assure run-off and
offset differential settlement within the landfill. Two
recommendations are: one percent, the other three percent.
The note which follows (c)(3) provides for flexibility in
design and, also, is the only requirement which prohibits
cover designs which allow ponding on the surface of the
landfill. This should be made part of the regulation.
-------
Requiring horizontal terraces on grades greater than
10 percent is overkill. A grade of 10 percent is quite
gentle in itself. A terrace each 50' to 100' between
slopes of 20 to 30 percent is almost as much as one slope
can stand.
3. Deep Rooted Vegetation
This standard allows ineffective long-term containment in
secure landfills. Deep rooted vegetation on closed land-
fills will seriously impair the waste containment capabi-
lities of a landfill.
0 Tall growing vegetation species are likely to have deep
roots as well. It is suggested that they also be included
in this standard or a new standard written to limit their
growth.
0 There is no rational basis for prohibiting tree roots
from penetrating the soil layer where products from the
particular species are not used for huraan consumption.
C. Response to^the Comments
A number of comments on the three parts of the closure stand-
ards requested that the regulation provide greater flexibility in
designing final cover for a landfill. For example, it was pointed
out that different combinations of cover materials, thicknesses,
and permeabilities could achieve equivalent results. In addition,
valid objections were raised to some of the specified requirements.
For example, a multitude of comments were received concerning the
ineffectiveness of the proposed 6-inch clay cover thickness. A
variety of other thicknesses were recommended. Similar objections
were received to some of the requirements for final grade, particu-
larly regarding terracing.
• The Agency feels that these commenters have made valid points.
However, the proposed regulation contained notes which would have
provided the flexibility to use alternative designs, achieving
-------
equivalent control. These alternatives appeared to have been
largely overlooked. However, they did not totally address some of
the comments which objected to the basic level of control specified,
such as six inches of clay cover.
After carefully considering the comments received and reanalyzing
the issue as a whole, the Agency has decided to change the approach
to the regulations for partial and final landfill closure. The
revised approach will provide significantly greater flexibility to
owners and operators in designing a final cover. The specific
limits proposed would probably not be appropriate for all situations.
The conditions at each site should weigh more heavily than perhaps
the proposed regulation would have allowed in determining an appro-
priate cover requirement. The final regulations provide this flexi-
bility, by requiring that certain objectives be addressed in
developing a closure plan and designing a final cover. The specified
objectives are: (1) control of pollutant migration from the facility
via ground water, surface water, and air, (2) control of surface water
infiltration, including prevention of ponding, and (3) prevention
of erosion. The overriding objective for any closure plan is the
adequate control of pollutant migration from the facility. Within
this purpose, control of surface water infiltration and prevention
of erosion are those objectives which if addressed, specific to the
case intended, and implemented and managed properly will result in
a successful application of the closure plan, within an acceptable
degree of confidence.
In an effort to inform the owner and operator what detailed
-------
information the Agency believes is necessary to adequately define
the degree of control necessary for proper closure at any landfill
site, the regulation lists a minimum set of technical factors which
must be considered in addressing the above control objectives.
There are six listed factors; two are concerned with the waste
disposed of at the site, three are concerned with the site location,
and one factor is concerned with characteristics of the final cover
design.
The type and amount of hazardous waste and hazardous waste
constituents in the landfill must be addressed along with their
nobility and expected rate of migration. This gives the owner and
operator, as well as the permitting official, an opportunity to
evaluate a degree of hazard associated with the disposed waste. A
factor concerned with site location, topography and surrounding
land use, with respect to the potential effects of pollutant migration
must also be addressed. The concern here is the proximity to
usable ground water, surface water, and drinking water sources.
Addressing and evaluating this factor, along with the others, will
enable an evaluation of the present and future degree of risk,
especially to human health, associated with the site. Climate,
especially the amount, frequency, and pH of precipitation, is the
second factor concerning site location which must be addressed.
The amount and frequency of precipitation which may occur at a
particular site will effect the degree of control of surface
water infiltration and run-off, which may be necessary, and may
effect the characteristics of the final cover. The third factor,
concerning the actual site location, which needs to be addressed,
V
-------
is the geological and soil profiles and surface and subsurface
hydrology of the site. The more one knows of the hydrogeology of a
site the more one can accurately make determinations and sound pre-
dictions of the long-term risks or lack of risk a hazardous waste
disposal site will present to human health and the environment.
The final factor which is required to be addressed in the development
of a closure plan is the cover design characteristics, which include
cover materials, final surface contours, porosity and permeability,
thickness, slope and length of run of slope, and type of vegetation.
The function and design of a final cover is very important and
should be a result of an evaluation and assessment of all the above
factors. It is the cover function and design which will be
the control feature for surface water infiltration and, for the
most part, prevention of erosion. Therefore, the final cover plays
an integral part in the long-term control of pollutant migration
from the landfill facility. The cover design should take into
account the number of layers of materials to be used and the
indigenous vegetation. It should avoid or make allowances for deep
rooted vegetation, and prevent water from pooling on the surface.
Along with the above mentioned factors, the design will depend on
the availability and characteristics of on-site or nearby soils.
Depending upon the site-specific factors, the final cover design
could simply be the placement, compaction, grading, sloping and
vegetation of on-site soils, or could be a more complex design such
as a combination of compacted clay or membrane liner placed
over a graded and sloped base and covered by topsoil and vegetation.
-------
The final regulation requires (in Subpart G) the approval,
disapproval, or modification of the closure plan by the Regional
Administrator, after opportunity for public comment. This process
is necessary to assure that closure plans will achieve the object-
ives specified with an adequate degree of confidence. The Agency
intends to provide guidance in the form of manuals, not only to
permit writers but also to owners and operators, to assist them in
developing and evaluating these closure plans. A similar approach
is being taken for closure of surface impoundments and land treat-
ment facilities.
Because it has been modified substantially, the regulation on
landfill closure is being promulgated interim final and the Agency
will consider additional comments on it. As previously mentioned,
many comments on the proposed regulation severely criticized it for
being too inflexible. The Agency believes that the present regulation
responds to these comments by creating an extremely flexible system
under which all pertinent characteristics of an individual facility
can be considered in determining how it should be closed. Since
the system leaves so much latitude for the creation of individual
closure plans, those plans, as mentioned above, will need to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis by Regional Administrators to
assure that the objectives of the regulations are achieved.
The Agency believes that the importance of proper closure
justifies this interaction with the Regional Administrator during
the interim status period. The closure and post-closure requirements
are essential for protection of human health and the environment in
the long-term (after post-closure care period). The importance of
-------
proper closure and post-closure care, especially at hazardous waste
landfills, is demonstrated by the numerous damage incidents which
have occurred and have been documented. A number of these have
been included in the background document for general closure and
post-closure care (Subpart G) for interim status. All of these
incidents have shown that unless certain precautions such as a
stable and properly designed cover and future site use controls are
taken, there is a high likelihood of future ground water, surface
water, or air contamination or direct exposure of the public to
hazardous waste .
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.310 Closure and Post-Closure (Interim Final)
(a) The owner or operator must place a final cover over the
landfill, and the closure-plan under §265.112 must specify the func-
tion and design of the cover. In the post-closure plan under
§265.118, the owner or operator must include the post-closure care
requirements of paragraph ( d) of this Section.
(b) In the closure and post-closure plans, the owner or
operator must address the following objectives and indicate how
they will be achieved :
(1) Control of pollutant migration from the facility via
ground water, surface water, and air;
(2) Control of surface water infiltration, including prevention
of pooling; and
' (3) Prevention of erosion.
(c) The owner or operator must consider at least the following
factors in addressing the closure and post-closure care objectives
-------
of paragraph ( b) of this Section:
(1) Type and amount of hazardous waste and hazardous waste
constituents in the landfill;
(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
source s) ;
(4) Climate, including amount, frequency, and pH of precipi-
tation ;
(5) Characteristics of the cover including material, final
surface contours, thickness, porosity and permeability, slope,
length and run of slope, and type of vegetation on the cover; and
(6) Geological and soil profiles and surface and subsurface
hydrology of the site.
ISSUE: POST CLOSURE CARE
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed standard required the owner and operator of
a hazardous waste landfill, during the 20-year post-closure care
period, to perform various site maintenance activities at the
facility. The standard required the following activities:
0 Maintain soil integrity, slope, and vegetative cover of
the final cover and all diversion and drainage structures,
0 Maintain and collect and analyze samples from the ground
water and leachate monitoring systems,
0 Maintain surveyed bench marks,
-------
When present, maintain and monitor the gas collection and
control system, and,
Restrict access to the landfill as appropriate for its
post-closure use.
There was a note accompanying this standard which explained
that the owner or operator could discontinue portions of post-
closure care earlier than the 20-year period, if he or she could
demonstrate to the Regional Administrator that such care is no
longer necessary.
The proposed standard also required that no buildings for the
purpose of habitation be built on hazardous waste landfills where
radioactive waste have been disposed.
At hazardous waste landfills, where wastes are not removed
during site closure, there remains a potential long-term threat to
human health and the environment. During the active operation of a
landfill, the interim status standards or the practices specified
in a permit would substantially minimize the potential for escape
of hazardous waste constituents. Some of these design and operating
methods must also continue during post-closure for a number of years.
Soil integrity and slope and vegetative cover of the final
cover must be maintained in order to minimize the infiltration of
surface waters which would increase the likelihood of leaching of
hazardous constituents to the ground water. Ground-water monitoring
systems must also be maintained after closure to indicate any migra-
tion of contaminants to the ground water. This monitoring would
enable detection and subsequent correction of a failure of a landfill
containment system.
-------
The maintenance of survey bench marks during the post-closure
period would enable the location of specific wastes if it were to
become necessary to remove or further isolate such waste or a por-
tion of the landfill. This could occur if significant increases in
waste constituents were found in samples analyzed from the ground
water. Also, the record of the location of wastes in the landfill
could be beneficial if it ever became desirable to remove a particu-
lar waste for reuse or recovery.
Where installed, gas collection and control systems must also
be maintained during the post-closure period. The potential for
gas generation in the landfill exists for long periods of time.
Therefore the venting and control of such gases must be maintained
during post-closure to reduce the risk of fires and explosions and
to reduce the potential for air contamination.
Because of the presence of hazardous waste at landfills, EPA
was of the opinion that site access must be restricted. rfowever,
the degree of restriction will be determined by the proposed post-closure
use as approved by the Regional Administrator.
In the proposed regulations, the owner and operator of the landfill
was given the opportunity to demonstrate that all or part of the
post-closure care and maintenance for a particular site need not
continue for the entire post-closure care period. The Agency feels
that such an avenue for deviation must be available to provide
flexibility in the regulation to deal with site specific-conditions.
The purpose of the restriction on buildings was to prevent
radiation exposure to inhabitants of dwellings built on closed
-------
landfills where radioactive waste had been disposed of as defined
in Sub part A.
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
Comments received on the post-closure care requirements
addressed the post-closure care time period and the associated
variance discussed above. Similar comments were received in response
to the general post-closure requirements in §250.43-7 of the proposed
regulations. These comments and responses to them are addressed in
the background document dealing with interim status standards for
closure and post-closure. The final interim status regulations
regarding the period of time during which post-closure care is
required are addressed in the Subpart G standards.
The following comments were received on the restrictions on
construction of buildings intended for habitation as proposed in
§250.45-2(d)2:
0 The use of land for the purpose of hazardous waste disposal
should be recognized as being incompatible with any futurre
use of that property involving continued contact by humans
and the regulations should effect this concern.
0 Any kind of disturbance of the ground surface over a
hazardous waste landfill will reduce the infiltration
resistance of the cover.
This standard is inconsistent with the standards in
250.46-4(b)(2) and 250.46-3(c)(2) which deal with phosphate
and uranium wastes.
-------
C. Response to the Comments
No comments on the technical post-closure care requirements
specific to landfills were received. Although some comments were
received concerned with the General Facility post-closure care
requirements and concerned specifically with the post-closure care
requirements for surface impoundments, and because some of these
comments could apply to landfill post-closure care as well, the Agency
has determined that certain revisions are necessary.
Maintaining a leachate monitoring system during the post-
closure period at a hazardous waste land disposal facility has been
deleted from this requirement. The state-of-the-art technology for
monitoring leachate in the unsaturated zone of a landfill is
unreliable (see Surface Impoundment Background document for more
detailed discussion.) Therefore, no requirements for leachate
monitoring have been included in the final regulations.
On the other hand, a requirement has been added to the post-closure
standards to maintain and monitor a leachate collection and removal
system if there is one present in the landfill and to remove and
treat or dispose of any leachate collected in the system during
the post-closure period. The potential for the generation of
leachate within the landfill will continue long after the site is
closed. The Agency believes that in order for the liner system to
achieve maximum control of hazardous waste constituents, leachate
must be removed as it is generated within the landfill. Also, a
knowledge of the quantity and quality of leachate generated will
give the owner or operator and other interested parties a good
indication of the degree of waste degradation within the landfill,
-------
thus enabling decisions to be made concerning need for continued
post-closure care.
Regarding the issue of construction of buildings, the Agency agrees
that the restrictions regarding radioactive waste overlap those
described for uranium and phosphate waste. Since these two waste
streams were the basis for the regulations, the restrictions are
expected to be placed in the regulations dealing with disposal of
uranium and phosphate mining and processing waste, and have been
dropped from the regulations for landfills. EPA expects to
promulgate reguirements for such wastes in its Phase II regulations.
The Agency also agrees with the comments stating that maintaining
the integrity of the final cover, along with other structural
components of the landfill system is necessary to minimize or
prevent migration of waste constituents from within the landfill.
The need to have reliable ground-water monitoring data to enable
one to assess the quality of the ground water beneath and in the
proximity of the facility is also important for any future judgements
to be made concerning the safety of the site.
The Agency does not believe that it is necessary to ban any
future use of the site which may involve the property to be in
contact with humans. However, the Agency does believe that it is
necessary to restrict the activities on or in close proximity to
the facility which may potentially reduce the control capabilities
of the facility or the capabilities of the monitoring system which
are used to determine the safety of the site and its impact on human
health and the environment. The final regulation ( §265 .117 ( c) )
requires the Regional Administrator to approve any such activities
under specified criteria.
6 I
-------
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.311(d)
In addition to the reguirements of §265.117, during the post-
closure period the owner or operator of the hazardous waste landfill
must:
1) Maintain the function and integrity of the final cover as
specified in the approved closure plan;
2) Maintain and monitor the leachate collection, removal, and
treatment system (if there is one present in the landfill)
to prevent excess accumulation of leachate in the system;
[Comment: If the collected leachate is a hazardous waste
under Part 261 of this Chapter, it rr.ust be managed as a
hazardous waste in accordance with all applicable reauirements
of Parts 262, 263, 265 of this Chapter. If the collected
leachate 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.]
3) Maintain and monitor the gas collection and control system
(if there is one present in the landfill) to control the
vertical and horizontal escape of gases;
4) Protect and maintain surveyed bench marks; and
5) Restrict access to the landfill as appropriate for its
post-closure use.
ISSUE: IGNITABLE AND REACTIVE WASTE
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed standard prohibited disposal of ignitable and
reactive wastes in a hazardous waste landfill unless certain
conditions specified in a variance were met. The variance required
that it be demonstrated that airborne contaminants would not exceed
a specified concentration, and that there would be no damage to the
structural integrity of the facility from heat, fires or explosions.
This regulation was not included in the proposed interim status
regulations. However, after further analysis, the Agency has
-------
concluded that the requirement meets the criteria established by the
Agency for interm status standards. It is widely recognized and
accepted good operation procedure to minimize the potential for
intense heat generation, fires, or explosions during and after
landfill disposal of ignitable or reactive wastes. Such restrictions
would not require a substantial capital cost or interaction with the
Regional Administrator, by the owner or operator, to adequately implement
The objective of the proposed regulation was to prevent damages
to public health and the environment which could result from fires
or explosions in a landfill facility. Placing ignitable or reactive
wastes in a landfill presents at least three potential problems.
One problem is the concentration of the air through volatilization,
since most ignitable and some reactive waste have relatively high
vapor pressures .
-------
A second problem is fhat- ie-,-r «--vi j
v j.c.u j.b unat ignitable snd reactive wastes can ex-
plode or burn, injuring the personnel at the facility and releasing
toxic fumes into the sir that can reach surrounding populations and
cause personal and property damage.
The third problem is that fires, or explosions caused by ignit-
able and reactive wastes can damage the structural integrity of the
landfill and cause rupturing of a cell or liner with subsequent leaks
of hazardous wastes into the ground water or surface water. For
example, many synthetic liners could be melted by a fire, and almost
any liner could be ruptured by an explosion of sufficient strength.
Several of the damage cases listed in Part II of this document
are the result of land disposal of ignitable and reactive wastes. In
some of these cases ignition was caused by mixing of incompatible
wastes which generated extreme heat. In others ignition occurred
from contact of machinery with containers of reactive or ignitable
waste.
In the proposed regulations the Agency stepped short of a com-
plete ban on placing ignitable and reactive wastes in landfills by
providing a variance in a note to the regulation. The variance would
have allowed placing these wastes in landfills as long as the permit
applicant could provide assurance that the types of potential damages
mentioned above would not occur i.e., excessive volatilization and
damages from fires or explosions. The purpose of the variance was to
provide flexibility to facility owners and operators as long as the
-------
practice could be carried out with minimal potential for damages to
public health and the environment.
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulation
The restriction on ignitable, reactive, and volative wastes in
the proposed regulations went beyond lar.dfill disposal. A general
restriction on placement of such wastes in landfills, surface
impoundments, basins, and land treatment facilities was included in
§250.45(c) of the proposed regulations. Standards for surface
impoundments under §250.45-2, basins under §250.45-4, and land
treatment facilities under §250.45-5 also contained such a restriction.
Those comments received which were directed specifically toward
restrictions on ignitable and reactive wastes in landfills are as
follows:
Banning the disposal of ignitable waste in hazardous waste
landfills is unreasonable. Effec-ive landfill operation
can dispose of such waste in a way which eliminates the
principal hazards associated with the waste, e.g., by
blending with landfill soil. Operators should not be denied
this option.
0 Banning the disposal of all reactive wastes in hazardous
waste landfills is unreasonable. For example certain
monomers such as methyl methacrylate may be classified as
reactive because they are auto pel ynnerizable. Some of these
materials slowly convert to the polymer and in essence
become non-hazardous after landfiiling. The disposer should
be allowed to landfill these materials without treatment.
0 Many wastes which according to the criteria will be classified
as ignitable or reactive are appropriately disposed of in a
secure landfill. A list of such could be developed, so as
not to unduly impede such practices.
C. Response to the Comments
Relevant to the discussion of the ccrr.mer.ts above is the fact
that the Agency, in response to comments en -he note in §250.45 (c)
-------
dealing with volatility, has found it necessary to defer any
requirements relative to controls on volatiles. Similarly, the
note in 250.45(c) regarding concentration of airborne contaminants
was inappropriate under the circumstances and has been deleted.
The reader is referred to the preamble sections on "Volatile
Wastes" and "Ignitable, Reactive, and Incompatible Wastes" for
further discussions of these issues.
Several comments suggesting that the "ban" was unreasonable
seemed to have overlooked the note to the standard which allowed a
variance to the prohibition if certain conditions were rr.et . One of
these conditions, regarding concentration of airborne contaminants
has been removed, as explained above. The other condition was that
the owner or operator demonstrate that the structural integrity of
the land disposal facility would not be damaged.
Comment was received suggesting that incorporation of such
wastes into the soil is in itself an effective way of rendering
these wastes non-ignitable, and should be allowed in the regulation.
The Agency, for the most part, agrees that there are effective
methods which will eliminate the characteristic of ignitability or
reactivity accociated with a hazardous waste. Thus, mixing the
waste with soil or other materials before or immediately after the
waste is placed in to the landfill is allowed if the resulting
mixture is neither ignitable nor reactive. The resulting "treated"
waste must meet the general requirement for handling ignitable,
reactive, and incompatible wastes (see §265.l7(b}).
-------
A commenter suggested that certain wastes '-ay become nen-
reactive sometime after landf illing, and that their placement in a
landfill should be allowed. The Agency does not concur winh this
suggestion. The major potential danger associated with ignitable
and reactive wastes is their uncontrolled disposal within the
landfill. Thus, the fact that they may lose their reactive property
over time after landfilling would not eliminate this hazard. Thus,
the Agency maintains that some treatment of all reactive wastes
before or immediately after placement in the Landfill is necessary.
Comment was received which suggested that instead of a general
variance to this regulation a specific list of ignitable and reactive
wastes which can be disposed of safely in a landfill should be
developed. The Agency does not believe that it is possible to
develop such a list at this time. It is possible that certain
ignitable and reactive wastes would not present a problem when
finally placed in a landfill and covered. However, there is a
serious question of handling these wastes during the disposal
operation. The Agency feels that it may be possible on a case by
case basis to develop special handling requirements for these wastes
that would allow their safe disposal in a landfill. Ebwever, these
special conditions would have to be defined in the permitting
process, and thus cannot be accomodated in the interim status
standards. In developing the full regulations for land disposal
the 'Agency will consider whether such a variance should be included.
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.312
Ignitable and reactive waste must not be olaced in a landfill,
unless the waste is treated, rendered, or mixei before or immediately
Bt
-------
after placement in the landfill 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) §2 6 5.17 (b) is complied with.
ISSUE: INCOMPATIBLE WA.STES_
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed standard required the owner or operator of a
hazardous waste landfill to dispose of incompatible waste, whether
containerized or non-containerized, in separate landfill cells.
This regulation was not included in the proposed interim status
standards. However, after further examination, the Agency decided
that this regulation meets the criteria for interim status standards
established by the Agency.
Incompatible wastes are wastes which react when they cone in
contact with another waste to create a more acutely dangerous
situation than that posed by the wastes individually. This can
occur when incompatible wastes contact each other during handling
at a facility, during disposal, or after disposal.
When incompatible wastes come in contact with one another they
can generate: (1) heat or pressure, fire, explosion or violent
reaction; (2) produce toxic mists, fumes, dusts, or gases; (3)
produce flammable fumes and gases; (4) car-.age the structural integrity
of the device or facility containing the waste, (5} or through
like means threaten human health and the environment.
These reactions can cause injury or death of workers, members
of the public, wildlife, and domestic ar.ir.als. They can also cause
-------
property and equipment damage, destroy facility containment systems
and contaminate air, water, and land.
The lack of accurate information about the wastes, and the
often indiscriminate handling and disposal of the wastes, contribute
to the high risk of contact of potentially incompatible substances
at hazardous waste landfills. This is supported "by the many
incidents that have already occurred, several of which are documented
in Part II of this document. In each of the cases listed, incidents
occurred during normal handling and disposal operations and were
the result of either lack of accurate information about the waste
or indiscriminate mixing and disposal practices. The reactions
were caused by waste mixing, improper handling of ignitable or
unstable waste, or other improper disposal and resulted in toxic gas
dust emissions, fires, water contamination, injury or death, and
equipnent damage.
To prevent these incidents it is necessary for persons handling
and disposing wastes which may be incompatible to know the contents
of the waste, its incompatible characteristics, arid with which
wastes it is incompatible. The basic control method is to segregate
incompatible wastes so that mixing does not occur.
The California Department of Health restricts disposal of
incompatible wastes in order to insure that they will not come into
contact with one another. California's guidelines for handling of
hazardous waste list incompatible wastes according to the potential
consequences of their intermingling.-^ Disposal standards require
separation of these materials at storage and disposal sites. The
Texas Water Quality Board has similar regulations for control of
incompatible wastes .
-------
B. Comments on the Proposed Regulaticr.
The restriction on incompatible was-es in the proposed
regulations went beyond landfill disposal. A general restriction
on placement of such wastes in landfills, surface impoundments,
basins, and land treatment facilities was included in §250.45(c) of
the proposed regulations. Standards for surface impoundments under
§250.45-3 basins under §250.45-4 and land treatment under §250.43-5
also contained such a restriction.
Those comments received which were directed specifically toward
landfills are as follows:
0 Support for the concept of separate cells for incompatible
wastes. Additional specifications for separation of
incompatible wastes are needed tc reduce the likelihood
that hazardous situations might arise. "Incompatible
wastes, separated by six to twelve inches of soil, might easily
come into contact with each other after a shout period of
time." Therefore, separation by eight feet of soil is
suggested, since "this distance leaves adequate room for
trucks to manuever when em placing the hazardous waste ana
reduces the probability that incompatible waste will combine."
0 The degree of segregation and isolation should be keyed to
the physical and chemical properties of the wastes. Further,
the separating material around certain wastes should be
tailored to match properties; for example, "heavy metal
waste surounded by lime-bearing was-e materials would work
fine".
C. Response to the Comments
It was suggested that incompatible wastes be separated by
eight feet of soil, and that the degree cf separation should be
keyed to the chemical and physical proper-ies of the wastes. The
Agency does not believe that such requirements are necessary because
the proposed regulation requires that incompatible wastes must be
disposed of in separate landfill cells. The definition of a landfill
"cell" specifies that each cell is to "use a liner to provide
-------
isolation of wastes from adjacent cells or wastes". "Liner" is
defined as a continuous layer of natural or man-maie materials,
beneath or on the sides of a surface impoundment, landfill or
landfill cell, which restricts the downward or lateral escape of
hazardous waste, hazardous waste constituents, or lea.ch~.te .
The thickness of such barriers or liner syste-s is not specified
in the regulation because thickness alone does not assure separation.
Other factors, such as liner permeability and porosi-y, and liner
compatibility with the waste, are even more important-. The requirement
for separation is met by designing cell liner systems of sufficient
thickness, permeability, compatibility etc., based or. waste
characteristics, to ensure isolation.
For these reasons EPA- feels that to specify ar. eight foot
separation or base degree of separation on physical and chemical
properties is unnecessary and would not provide for any more
protection than what is proposed. Comments received on other
sections of the proposed regulation indicate that potentially
incompatible wastes can be premixed or treated before or during
disposal so that they are no longer incompatible. Therefore, the
final regulation has been revised to allow the place—ent of
incompatible wastes in the same cell, if they meet the general
requirements for handling incompatible wastes in §265.17(b).
The Agency is considering adding a fifth class of incompatible
waste to the four mentioned above to these regulations. It would
declare incompatible those wastes which would solubilize or otherwise
mobilize another hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituent,
thus increasing the likelihood that the mobilized ---=s-e or constituent
-------
would be leached onto the groundwater. Because the potential scope
of this concept is so broad the Agency currently believes that it
would be most practicable to implement such a regulation by listing
only specified waste combinations as being incompatible. Those
currently under consideration are:
(1) PCBs and organic solvents,
(2) Organic pesticides and organic solvents, and
(3) Metal-containing wastes and acids.
The first material in each of these pairs can be substantially
mobilized by the second, but may be relatively immobile in its
absence. It. therefore seems prudent to dispose of such pairs in
separate landfill cells, land treatment areas, or Impoundments.
The Agency requests comment on this concept of incompatibility, on
these and other possible pairs of wastes which might be listed as
incompatible under this standard, and on circumstances under which
these wastes can safely be commingled in land disposal facilities.
(See the preamble for General Requirements for Ignitable, Reactive
or Incompatible Wastes for further discussions concerning incompatible
wastes)
D. Final Regulatory Language
§265.313
Incompatible wastes or incompatible wastes and materials,( see
Appendix V for examples) must not be places in the same landfill
cell, unless §265.17 (b) is complied with.
ISSUE: DISPOSAL OF BULK LIQUIDS
A. Proposed Regulation_and_Rationale
The proposed standard specified that the owner or operator of
a hazardous waste landfill could not directly dispose of bulk
qz.
-------
liquids, semi-sol ids, or sludges in the landfill. However, if the
owner or operator pretreated and/or stabilized such liquid wastes
before landfill ing or treated and/or stabilized the liquid in the
landfill in a manner which reduced its liquid content or increased
its solids content so that it reached a non flowing consistancy,
the owner or operator could dispose of bulk liquids, semi-solids,
or sludges in a hazardous waste landfill.
The purpose of the proposed regulation is to reduce the presence
of free liquids in a landfill. Free liquids could migrate through
a landfill, possibly mobilizing (solubilizing) other toxic substances
in the process. This leachate has the potential of migrating from
the landfill and contaminating ground water. Free liquids also
contribute to hydraulic head (hydrostatic pressure) which in turn,
contributes to the potential for the leachate to migrate through
the containment system. This phenomenon is explained by Darcy1 s
Law which describes the movement of liquids through porous media.
According to the law, an increase in the hydraulic head, causes an
increase in the velocity of a liquid through a material, assuming
all other parameters are held constant. Thus, the disposal of bulk
liquids, (or semi-solids and sludges containing free liquids) in
hazardous waste landfills would supply both the fluid for leachate
formation and increase the hydraulic head which is the driving
force to cause leachate to pass through a liner system. This would
increase the rate of movement of hazardous contaminants from the
landfill.
-------
As the damage cases outlined above indicate, many cases of
ground and surface water contamination have been caused by the
migration of industrial wastes from landfills. The damage cases
suggest that this is probably the most serious form of pollution
created by landfills. EPA believes that its regulations restricting
the landfilling of bulk liquids and wastes containing free liquids
will substantially reduce this type of pollution during interim
status. Because of its importance in reducing this major source of
pollution, and because EPA believes that this restriction can be
Implemented -during interim status without the intervention of
permitting officials, EPA has included restrictions on landfilling
bulk liquids and wastes containing free liquids in the interim
status standards.
B . The Definition of "Free Liquids"
There were no definitions for "liquids", "bulk liquids", "free
liquids", " semi-solid" , flowable", or " non-flowable" in the proposed
regulations. The Agency received a number of comments on this subject:
" The terms bulk liquids, semi-solids and sludges are not defined
in these regulations for proper interpretation of this section.
The Agency has indicated that its concern is to limit the
liquid content of the waste and prevent overload of the leachate
collection and removal system. There are hazardous wastes
that could be classified as semi-solids or sludges which have
minimal liquid content and can be safely contained in the
landfill specified in the regulations. It is recommended that
the terms bulk liquid, semi-solids and sludges be properly
defined for these regulations and this subpart be rewritten to
-------
allow the disposal of semi-solids and sludges with minimal
liquid content in a secure landfill.
0 Within this standard, EPA is concerned with the liquid nature
of the waste. This concern does not justify the inclusion of
semi-solids and sludges within this prohibition, especially
semi-solids and sludges which are not water soluble.
0 Finite parameters defining what is meant by modification and/or
treatment to a non-flowing consistency are needed.
These comments all imply the same basic concern about this
standard, i.e., the need to include a degree of specificity in
order to help in the interpretation and implementation of this
standard. The comments recommend that this can be done by defining
the term "liquid", "semi-solids" and "sludges" or defining a specific
percentage of solids which must be attained prior to landfilling.
The Agency agrees with these comments but found it extremely
difficult to provide specific definitions of these terms that are
workable and broadly applicable. One problem is the wide variation
among waste types. For example, a "sludge" or "semi-solid" of one
type containing 20 percent solids may have very different flow,
free liquids, and other characteristics than another sludge of the
same solids content. Thus, to apply a limiting definition to 'such
waste based on percent solids would not necessarily achieve the
objective of the regulation (i.e., may be too restrictive or not
restrictive enough) , and would limit the flexibility necessary for
proper implementation of the regulation.
The terms " no n~ flowing" and "non-flowing consistency" also do
not necessarily reflect the objective of the regulation. Even very
-------
dry materials such as dry sand or other granular materials can
"flow" and this could lead to improper interpretation of the intent
of the regulation. Thus, achieving a non-flowing consistency is
not the intended objective. The objective is the elimination of
the presence of free liquids and thereby reduction of the potential
for producing leachate and increasing contaminant migration.
"Sludge" has been defined in RCRA basically as any solid, semi-
solid, or liquid waste resulting from pollution control facilities.
Obviously, this definition is inadequate for the purposes of this
section of the regulations. Any attempt to redefine this term
could unnecessarily lead to confusion and potential conflict with RCRA.
Furthermore, bulk liquids are readily and indisputably
identifiable. Bulk liquids are large quantities (e.g., tanker
truck loads) of liquids or fluids -- substances that exist as a
continuum characterized by low resistance to flow and the tendency
to assume the shape of its container.
The Agency believes that the real concern here is liquids
within a waste which are free to migrate out of the waste and into
the landfill, much as bulk liquids can. EPA has therefore decided
to use the term "free liquids", defined as "liquids which readily
separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature
and pressure." This term and meaning best reflect the use to which
this term is put, which is to distinguish when a waste contains
liquids which will readily flow from the waste in a landfill to
produce leachate. For sludges or semi-solids which are not obviously
liquids, the following test may be used to determine if they contain
"free liquids." Place a one to five kilogram (2.2 to 11.0 Ibs.)
-------
sample of waste on a level or slightly sloping plate of gl~ss or
other similarly flat and smooth solid material for at leas^ five
minutes. If a liquid phase separation is observed, the waste
contains "free liquids." The test must be performed at temperatures
above freezing. EPA feels this test provides a practical way to
test sludges and semi-solids and helps clarify the meaninc of free
liquids until a more rigorous test is devised.
The test is intended to simulate, in a simple way, the behavior
of semi-solid wastes placed on the surface of a landfill. If
liquids can be observed as a separate phase draining over ~n
impermeable substrate from the base of a small sample of ihe waste,
such liquids can also be expected to drain from the waste itself
when it is placed on the surface of the landfill, and will be free
to migrate into the landfill much as liquid wastes would. The fact
that liquids cannot be observed to migrate from a small sample after
a few minutes does not, of course, assure that they will not migrate
from a larger sample, or after a longer period of time, or when the
waste is compressed by wastes placed over it. This test thus
represents a rough minimum for the containment of free licuids.
The Agency expects to study the problem of free liquids further and
to attempt to devise tests which more accurately reflect the
conditions of waste within a landfill.
The Agency intends that the definition and suggested test be a
working guide to identifying free liquids until a r.ore formal test
is devised. It clearly is not rigorous, but will provide a practical
way of achieving the objective of this regulation. The Agency
believes that the definition of free liquids adequately specified
-------
the extent of pretreatment necessary for waste liquids, semi-solids,
and wet sludge prior to disposal.
EPA has selected this test after consideration of a number of
alternatives. A major flaw in the test procedure is that is does
not account for pressures which will be encountered in a landfill,
which will tend to squeeze liquids from the absorbent mass. An
anology is liquids which readily flow from a saturated sponge when
the sponge is compressed. The Agency is currently evaluating other
test procedures and will provide guidance if another test procedure
is determined to be a better indicator of the performance in a landfill.
One area of investigation was current State regulations. Information
was obtained from 32 States and four of these States use formal or
informal definitions for liquids. This information is presented in
Appendix A.
C . Other Comments Received
EPA should not prohibit disposal of bulk liquids in properly
designed landfills which meet the high degree of security
required by the proposed landfill standards. Furthermore, so
long as the overall performance standards are met, the Agency
should not be concerned with specific internal operating
procedures. Also, placing bulk liquids in a landfill should
be environmentally acceptable since landfills have tighter
design requirements than surface impoundments. The prohibition
of disposal of bulk liquids, semi-solids and sludges should be
deleted.
-------
as a
Utilizing municipal refuse or other organic materials
sorbent for liquid hazardous waste will not provide long tern
stabilization of hazardous waste. Organic materials will
degrade and subsequently liberate the hazardous constituents.
Standard should clarify that injection, discharge, or disposal
of liquids into a well or pit located in a landfill containing
municipal refuse meets the requirements of eliminating the
presence of free liquids prior to final disposal. It has been
our experience that the garbage acts as an absorbant for
liquids, and the practice has the advantage of conserving
space by filling existing voids in the landfill. Also, the
words "prior to" should be changed to "after" or "upon" to
allow the practice of in-situ absorption of liquids and
municipal waste.
VTnere the degree of risk is low, we do not believe it should
be EPA policy to ban all liquid disposal in landfills,
specifically if it can be demonstrated that health and
environmental protection will not be compromised. Landfills
can benefit from compaction if liquids are applied in proper
quantities.
The regulations should categorically ban all liquids from
being landfilled. The regulations should eliminate the
landfilling of liquids that are either capable of being
incinerated or are treatable.
-------
We are afraid that through EPA's encouragement the use of
"fixation" techniques may be widely adopted, even though the
process can result in a solid waste disposal cost increase of
ten to one-hundred fold without a real need or concern regarding
the cost-benefit relationship. Many wastes after "fixation"
are now being safely disposed of at non-hazardous waste landfill
facilities at a lower cost than the amount charges at hazardous
waste landfills.
This provision would require pretreating dried sludge prior to
landfilling. Also this standard would preclude the use of
sludge pipelines, the most economical method of transportation
in some instances.
° Within this standard, EPA is concerned with the liquid nature
of the waste. This concern does not justify the inclusion of
semi- solids and sludges within this prohibition, especially semi-
solids and sludges which are not wate soluble. The arbitrary
nature of the restriction on disposing of serni-solids or
sludges in landfills is evident by the fact that solid wastes
which are soluble are permitted to be disposed of in landfills
under the proposed regulations.
D. Response to the Comments
The Agency received many comments suggesting that all liquids
be banned from landfills. These commenters believed that liquids
should be incinerated or treated by alternative methods, not
landfilled. EPA believes that an across-the-board ban of any liquid
waste disposal in a landfill is not a practical alternative at the
present time .
(CO
-------
The suggestion that the Agency require that all liquid waste
be either incinerated or treated rather than landfilled has been
rejected. Liquid wastes are a large portion of total hazardous
waste . To eliminate a major disposal method for liquid waste
and to require that a large percentage of this waste be incinerated
or treated would far exceed the existing capacity of incinerators
and treatment facilities. Some wastes, particularly sludges, may
not be amenable to incineration or other treatment. The environmental
impacts of incinerating liquid wastes cannot simply be assumed,
without study, to be less than pretreatment and disposal in a
landfill. However,
the Agency believes that requiring liquids, semi-solids and sludges
to be incinerated in the interim status standards v,ould be Impractical.
Also, the Agency believes that there are conditions under
which liquids in landfills can be tolerated. The conditions are
use of a secure liner of low permeability, and continuous operation
of an effective leachate collection and removal system over a long
period of time. Under this scheme the leachate is removed from the
landfill continuously to prevent build-up of a hydraulic head, and
the low liner permeability and low head result in a very slow
(insignificant) rate of migration through the liner. The leachate
must be either treated and discharged under NPDES permit, recycled
back to the facility, or treated, disposed, or stored as a hazardous
waste. Over time, leaching potential of the waste may be reduced
and' the contents of the landfill may present less of an environmental
problem. The landfill, in essence, may beco~e a treatment system.
In order for the Agency to approve this type of landfill operation,
the nature of the waste, the liner, and leachate collection system
-------
would need to be carefully evaluated.
Another reason advanced in the comments for deleting the
standard is that landfills have tighter design requirements than surface
impoundments (which are used for liquids). Even if this were a
correct interpretation, it would not be relevant to the interim
status standards, which deal with existing facilities that frequently
do not meet the proposed EPA requirements. The commenter has also
perhaps misinterpreted the objectives of the containment designs
for landfills and surface impoundments. The liner in most surface
impoundments is designed for a discrete time period (e.g., for
storage or treatment) following which the waste (or at least any
liquids) are to be removed. The proposed landfill designs were
based on long-term containment, but assuming that free liquids
would minimised. If free liquids remained in a landfill indefinitely,
the proposed designs may not be effective.
Comment was received concerning the issue of municipal waste
used for absorbing liquids within the landfill. Some comments
suggested that EPA should further clarify and encourage their use;
other comments recommended that this approach be discouraged. The
latter comments stated that mixing with municipal waste or other
organic material will not provide long-term stabilization.
EPA believes that mixing liquid hazardous waste v/ith biodegradable
municipal waste is not a desirable means of reducing free liquids
within the landfill. Such a practice would require that muncipal
wastes be placed in hazardous landfills with the result that volumes
of hazardous landfill space will be taken up by non-hazardous municipal
waste. More importantly, as commenters stated, it is probable that
-------
when the municipal waste degrades, the hazardous wasts would be
released. EPA is aware of no data showing that this approac- will
prevent ultimate release of free liquids from a landfill. Until
data area available to show that such a practice will effectively
eliminate free liquids on a long term basis the Agency cannc-
support this option in the regulation.
Commenters also suggested that the practice of mixing liquid
hazardous waste with municipal waste could take place in sanitary
landfills which are not designed and constructed for disposal of
hazardous wastes. This approach is not practical under the
regulations even if it were assumed that it would adequately protect
the environment. The Act requires that hazardous wastes must be
managed in permitted hazardous waste management facilities. If
they are permitted, they would have to meet the criteria for a
hazardous waste landfill.
Since a significant portion of all bulk liquids are lar.dfilled,
this partial prohibition will have major impact, on the disposal
industry. However, the Agency believes that a large number of
options are available to handle the waste load in addition to the
placement in a lined facility with leachate collection. These
options are: incineration, dewatering before landfilling, chemically
fixing or solidifying, resource recovery, on-site mixing with
sorbents, well injection, treatment to render the waste non-hazardous,
and surface impoundments. While no single processing or disposal
option can handle the additional waste load, each option will
receive some of these wastes and the total impact will be mi.ii.-ial .
However, in the short term there will be difficulties as the
generators attempt to match the available options to a particular
1C3
-------
waste stream. Therefore the Agency is promulgating this standard
as interim final and is requesting comment on this issue. The
Agency will take all comments concerning this standard under
consideration during this interim final period to determine final
Agency policy and regulatory language for disposal of bulk liquids.
For this reason, this portion of the regulations will not go into
effect until twelve months after the effective date of the interim
status regulation.
We also received comments recommending that we delete the
prohibition or restriction on disposal of bulk liquids, semi-solids
and sludges . One reason that was given was that the prohibition
was unnecessary in properly designed landfills which meet the high
degree of security required in the proposed regulations. EPA is in
limited agreement with this comment. The regulations allow bulk
liquids to be placed in landfills with a liner physically and
chemically resistant to the liquids added and with a continuously
operated leachate collection and removal system with sufficient
capacity to accomodate all the leachate produced. In landfilling
bulk liquids, the owner or operator should consider the moisture
regime for the specific site. The various sources of free liquids
including precipitation, groundwater infiltration, and the amount
of bulk liquids to be added must be balanced against the ability of
the leachate collection and removal system to remove the liquids,
evapotranspiration, and surface run-off.
A commenter suggested that performance standards would make
operating standards such as this one unnecessary, but did not
suggest which "performance" standards would in themselves be
-------
sufficient. The Agency disagrees that performance standards are
sufficient by themselves. Environmental performance of a landfill
is much more difficult to measure than performance of an effluent
treatment process or air .pollution control device. Sampling a stack
or an effluent discharge gives immediate performance feedback.56
Sampling of ground water provides relatively slow feedback because
of the time required for contaminants to reach ground water. Thus,
the Agency feels that it is necessary to specify both operating
and design criteria that will minimize the potential for waste
migration.
Vie received comments suggesting that in-situ treatment
(absorption) of liquid wastes be allowed i.e., mixing liquids with
wastes already in the landfill. The Agency feels that it is
preferable for free liquids to be eliminated before wastes are
placed in a landfill. This provides greater assurance that the
liquid will be fully absorbed. However, the uncertainty of in-situ
absorption can be tolerated when the landfill has a functioning
liner and leachate collection and removal system.
Some commenters were concerned that this standard would
necessitate pretreating dried sludges before landfilling. This is
a misinterpretation of the standards. The objective of this standard
is to minimize free liquids in landfills. Wastes, such as dried
sludges, which have no free liquids do not require further treatment
prior to landfilling.
The EPA also sees no reason why this standard would preclude
the use of sludge pipelines. As long as liquids, semi-solids and
sludges are pretreated prior to disposal to minimize free liquids,
or the wastes are placed in a lined landfill with leachate collection
-------
at on-site facilities. Appendix A gives more detail on individual
State requirements .
C. Final Regulatory Language
§265.314 Special Requirements for liquid waste (Interim Final)
(a) Bulk or non-containerized liquid waste or waste having
free liquids must not be placed in a landfill, unless:
(1) The landfill has a liner which is chemically and physically
resistant to the added liquid, and a functioning leachate collection
and removal system with a capacity sufficient to remove all leachate
produced; or
(2) Before disposal, the liquid waste or waste containing
free liquids is treated or stabilized, chemically or physically
(e.g., by mixing with an absorbent solid), so that free liquids are
no longer present.
( b) (Discussed below)
(c) The requirements of this Section are effective 12 months
after the effective date of this Part.
ISSUE: CONTAINERIZED LIQUIDS
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
The proposed standard required the owner or operator of a hazardous
waste landfill to surround each container of liquid hazardous waste
with an amount of sorbent inert material capable of absorbing all
of the liquid contents in the container.
The primary purpose of the proposed regulation was to control
the presence of free liquids in a landfill that would result from
ruptured or leaking containers. The problems inherent with "free
liquids" in landfills have been discussed above. The sorbent
material to hold the liquid waste could reduce leachate production.
-------
However, the proposed option also has significant drawbacks.
One is that the ability of the sorbent material to absorb the
liquids is not certain. Thus, some liquid could escape, particularly
if the sorbent is poorly placed. The seepage of appreciable amounts
of liquid waste or leachate may also cause a rise in the water
table and the development of a groundwater mound. As the mound
increases in size, the unsaturated zone becomes progressively
thinner and thus the opporunity for natural attenuation is reduced.
Sorbent material would tend to retain liquid waste lost from ruptured
containers and reduce the formation of this groundwater mound and
the subsequent reduction in natural attentuation.
-------
B* £gg-Egg-ts o" the Proposed Regulati
on
o This standard only allows for the external use of inert sorb-
ent material surrounding a container of liquid hazardous
waste. It is recommended the Agency provide for the place-
ment of the sorbent material inside the waste container for
economics of operation.
o Suggest the word "inert" be deleted from this requirement.
There are materials that could be used for sorbents which are
not inert but should be completely acceptable in a hazardous
waste landfill, e.g., surrounding material could be a com-
patible solid hazardous waste.
o This stipulation would appear to mandate much larger volumes
of space than necessary.
o In this paragraph the Agency has failed to detail or define
what is meant by "sorbent," "inert" or "surrounded by."
o It is recommended that EPA delete this paragraph from the re-
gulations because:
- So long as the performance standards are met, the Agency
should not be concerned with specific internal operating
procedures; especially in regard to individual containers.
- It is not necessary in landfills with restricted permeabil-
ity.
- The landfill requirements specify acceptable liner
materials, the type and amounts of cover materials, and
frequency with which active portions must be covered.
There is no need for requiring containers to be surrounded
by sorbent materials.
o Problems from toxic chemicals mobilized by liquids have oc-
curred in landfills across the country. The practice of
liquid disposal on land must be halted. Delete this standard
and insert the following: Liquids of any kind shall not be
buried in a landfill cell.
o
This regulation would increase the likelihood of liquid
wastes escaping from secure landfills. Several things may
happen as the containers lose their integrity.
IDS
-------
c« .Response to the Comments
Coaiaenters suggested that the proposed regulation only allowed
external use of sorbent material and recommended that it be allowable
to place the sorbent in the container prior to landfilling. This is
a misunderstanding of the regulation since the Agency has never in-
tended to discourage this type of disposal operation. The liquid
waste must be mixed with sorbent material to eliminate free liquids
before the filled container can be landfilled. There is no prohibi-
tion against landfilling containers which do not contain free
liquids.
It was recommended that "-inert" be removed as a requirement
since there are sorbents which are not inert and these materials
could be acceptable in a landfill. The Agency agrees with this com-
nent and has removed the requirement. There are very few, if any,
materials which are physically, chemically, and/or biologically
inert. This requirement could result in unnecessary burdens on the
owner/operator in order to locate and prove that a particular sorbent
is "inert".
Commenters stated that the requirements to surround containers
with sorbent material would mandate large volumes of landfill space
be used for the sorbent material and that this was not necessary.
The'Agency .agrees with the comment in that additional landfill volume
would be required. However, this comment is no longer valid since
the landfilling of containerized liquid waste will not be allowed.
10*1
-------
Commenters noted that the Agency failed to define "sorbent,"
"inert" and "surrounded by." These terms do not appear in the
interim status regulation. Rather the regulation has focused on
eliminating "free liquids" which has been defined earlier in this
document.
The Agency received many comments which argued against any
type of restriction on landfilling containerized liquid because
they felt that this was an internal operating procedure which would
be acceptable because of the requirements for liner materials,
amount of cover, and other performance standards. The Agency also
received comments suggesting a complete ban on landfilling containers
of liquid waste because they felt that the containers would eventually
leak resulting in an unstable "honeycombed" landfill structure. The
landfill could then collapse with damage being done to the final cover.
The Agency agrees with the latter corvments and has prohibited
the practice of landfilling containerized liquids. Similar bans
have been or will be enacted in at least eleven states (see Appendix A).
The Agency can perceive no positive difference between adding bulk
liquids and the landfilling of containerized liquids but does recognize
the potential for additional negative impacts. Virtually all
containers will eventually leak and cause additional free liquids
to be present in the landfill. The negative impacts of free liquids
have been discussed earlier. The additional problem with containerized
liquids is that it is not possible to predict when the liquid will
be released and how the release will effect the landfill's ability
to restrict the movement of hazardous was-e into the environment.
While EPA recognizes that the subsidence cf the landfill cover can
be easily repaired, the unpredictability cf when the subsidence would
-------
occur would result in an extended time for .post closure care.
Therefore, EPA believes that eliminating containerized liquid waste
from the landfills will provide a long tern benefit for the operator.
EPA intends to eliminate the type of landfill which is constructed
almost entirely of 55-gallon drums filled with liquids or materials
containing "free liquids". These facilities provide the potential
to release hazardous constituents for decades. This prohibition
does not apply to drums filled with solid materials which do not
contain "free liquids". Further, the ban does not apply to small
containers, such as paint cans or ampules because the small containers
should not contain enough volume of liquid to produce a significant
increase in the hydraulic head in the landfill nor would significant
voids be created in the landfill when liquids are released and the
containers degrade .
Another important exception to the ban on landfilling
containerized liquids is the case when the container serves a
function other than storage, disposal or transportation. Examples of
this exception are batteries and capacitors. These types of containers
are not likely to contribute substantial volumes of liquid to most
landfills and the difficulty of opening and emptying appears to
outweigh the small benefit gained. Because of the concern for
creating voids in the landfill, empty containers may not be landfilled
unless they are crushed flat, shredded, cr in some manner substantially
reduced in volume. In many landfills this will be accomplished by
using the bulldozers or other heavy equipment at the site. At
least six States encourage similar handling procedures for empty
containers (see Appendix A). Care should be taken to ensure that
each container is crushed; it is not acceptable to have the equipment
-------
attempt to crush several layers of containers at one tir.e.
Since a significant portion of all liquid waste is landfil.led
in containers, the prohibition will have major impact on the disposal
industry. However, the Agency believes that a large number of
options are available to handle the waste load. These options are
the same as those for bulk liquids wastes except that facilities
for storage of containers will be more readily available than for
bulk liquids. While no single processing or disposal option can
handle the additional waste load, each option will receive some of these
wastes and the total impact will be minimal. However, in the short
term there will be difficulties as the generators attempt to match
the available options to a particular waste stream. Therefore, the
Agency will promulgate this standard as interim final and is
requesting comment of the issue. The Agency will take any and all
comments concerning this standard under consideration during this
interim final period to determine final Agency policy and regulatory
language for disposal of containerized liquids. For this reason,
compliance with this portion of the regulation will not be required
until twelve months after the effective date of the interim status
regulation.
Comments received in support of the proposed regulation
expressed the opinion that fewer problems would result from burial of
containers and subsequent settlement problems than would result from
eraptving the containers and mixing with sorbent. Problems cited
include spills and greater exposure to workers. EPA believes that
the burial of containers presents a long-term problem that other
available options do not have and for this reason the Agency has
decided to ban the landftiling of containerized liquid waste.
ill
-------
Containerized volatile liquids will present special hanalina
problems because of the ban on landfillir.g containers. These wastes,
by their nature, should not be exposed to the atmosphere. Extreme
care must be used in handling these wastes in order to protect the
workers. EPA intends to address the problems associated with
volatile liquids in future regulations. In lieu of more specific
guidance, we offer the following list of materials and types of
materials which are likely to yield hazardous emissions due to
volatility.
0 Spent halogenated solvents and halcgenated solvent recovery
sludges from degreasing operations
° Mercury bearing sludges from brine treatment and mercury bearing
brine purification muds from the mercury cell process in
chlorine production
0 Polyvinyl chloride sludge from the manufacture of polyvinyl
chloride
0 Bottom stream from quench column in acrylonitrile production
0 Bottom stream from wastewater stripper in production of
acrylonitrile
0 Solid waste discharge from ion exchange column in production
of acrylonitrile
0 Waste stream from purification of HC1T in production of
acrylonitrile
Waste stream (column bottoms) from acetonitrile purification
in production of acrylonitrile
0 H~avy ends from distillation of etr.ylene dichloride in ethylene
dichloride production
-------
Heavy ends from the production of glycerine from ally! chloride
0 Vacuum still bottoms from the production of maleic anhydride
0 Heavy ends from distillation of vinyl chloride in production
of vinyl chloride from ethylene dichloride
D. Revised Regulatory Language
§265-214 Special Requirements for liquid wastes (Interim Final)
(a) (does not apply)
( b) A container holding liquid waste or waste containing free
liquids must not be placed in a landfill, unless:
(1) The container is designed to hold liquid waste or waste
containing free liquids for a use other than storage, such as
a battery or capacitor; or
(2) The container is very small, such as an ampule .
( c) The date for compliance with this Section is 12 months
after the effective date of this Part.
§265.315 Special requirements for containers (Interim Final)
(a) An empty container must be crushed flat, shredded, or
similarly reduced in volume before it is buried beneath the
surface of a landfill.
(b) The date for compliance with this Section is 12 months
after the effective date of this Part.
114
-------
Re f erences :
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The Prevalence of Sub-
surface Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substar.ces at Selected
Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites , "EPA/5 30/ '5W-634, Oct. 1977.
2. Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Material Sites,
U.S.E.P.A. , Oil and Special Materials Control Division,
Washington, D.C., February, 1980, p. 6.
3. Ibid, p. 8.
4. Ibid, p. 17.
5. Ibid, p. 41
6. Ibid, p. 42
7. Ibid, p. 45
8. Ibid, p. 46
9. Ibid, p. 47
10. Ibid, p. 49
11. Ibid, p. 50
12. Ibid, p. 52
13. Ibid, p. 54
14. Ibid, p. 54
15. Ibid, p. 56
16. Ibid, p. 59
17. Ibid, p. 68-69
18. Ibid, p. 69-70
19. Ibid, p. 85-86
20. Ibid, p. 87
21. Ibid, p. 90
22.' Ibid, p. 100-101
23. Ibid, P- 1°6
\\5
-------
24. Ibid, p. 116
25. Ibid, p. 120-121
26. Ibid, p. 126
27. Ibid, p. 126
28. Ibid, p. 135
29. Ibid, p. 160
30. Ibid, p. 168
31. Ibid, p. 171
32. Hazardous Waste Disposal _Damage Reports, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA/530/SW-151,June 1975.
33. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Disposal Of Hazardous Wastes; Report to
Congress , Environmental Protection Publication SW-115.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
34. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, SW-131s. Unpublished
data. " ' '
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of Hazardous
Waste Damage Cases , Unpublished Document, 1979.
36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Internal Damage
Assessment Files, Unpublished reports.
37. Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Material Sites, U.S.E.P.A.,
Oil andSpecial MaterialsControlDivision,Washington, D.C.,
February, 1980, p- 49.
38. Ibid, p. 107
39. Ibid, p. 116-117
40. Ibid, p. 144
41. Ibid, p. 113-114
42. Ibid, p. 124
43.' Ibid, p. 125
44. Ibid, p. 137
45. Ibid, p. 139-140
-------
7QnSSmental Protection: Hazardous Wastes Issue Brief Number
ib/yi)88, Mason, Robert J. , The Library of Congress, Congressiona:
Research Service, Sept. 5, 1979, p. 2.
47 ' Damages-~H^JIhre_ajts__Caused by Hazardous Material Sites,
U.S.E.P.A., Oil and Special Materials Control Division,
Washington, D.C., February, 1980, p. 9-10.
48. Warning Toxic Waste, A Courier- Journal Special Report, "The
Danger is Seeping From Under Society's Rug", Jim Adams & Jim
Detjen, The Courier Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, 1979.
49 ' Pamages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Material Sites,
U.S.E.P.A., ~0il and Special Materials Control Division,
Washington, D.C., February, 1980, p. 11-12.
50. Ibid, p. 170
51. Ibid, p. 29-30
52. Evaluation of Emission Control Criteria for Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities, Final Report, EPA Contract No. 6S-01-4645
April, 1978, p.p. 464-469.
53. State of California, Stare Water Resources Control Board,
"Waste Discharge Requirements for Hbn-Sewerable Waste Disposal
to Land, Disposal Site Design and Operation Information."
54. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sanitary landfill Design
and Operation. SW-65ts, 1972m p. 14.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Design and Construction
of Covers for Solid Waste Landfills, EPA - 600/2-79-165,
August 1979.
56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Potential for Capacity
Creation in the Hazardous Waste Management Service Industry,
PB-257187, August 1976.'
-------
Appendix A
State Regulatory Programs for Liquid
Hazardous Wastes
EPA has reviewed the current State laws, regulations, and
guidelines on hazardous wastes and contacted State regulatory
officials. Information from 34 State hazardous waste programs have
been evaluated.
While many State programs recognize the need for extraordinary
controls for disposal of liquids, few have attempted to define
liquids or similar terms. Only Rhode Island has adopted a formal
definition (any waste that expresses as separable liauid by weight
thirty percent (30%) or more of the waste when exposed to a vacuum
of 3/4 atmosphere for thirty (30) minutes). 'Other States (Connecticut,
Illinois, and South Carolina) have less formal definitions which
include characteristics such as "pumpable" and "flcwable". The majority
of the States report that they will not attempt to structure a
definition but will adopt the definition supplied by EPA. The
conventional definitions for these terms is attached.
The problems inherent with the disposal of bulk liquids in
landfills are in some manner controlled by 19 States. The following
States restrict the disposal of bulk liquids in landfills; Alabama,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oregon,
Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, ar.d Wisconsin.
Thirteen States exercise control over the disposal of drummed
liquids. The types of control include an outright ban, "strongly
discouraging" the practice, and allowing such disposal only at a
very limited number of sites. The States with these controls are:
Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland,
-------
Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South
•Carolina, and Texas.
There are six States where empty containers are crushed prior
to landfilling. The crushing may be required or it may be done by
custom. The States are: Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Carolina,
Texas, and Wisconsin.
Seven other States have adopted controls similar to the
procedures proposed in December 1978. The procedures call for
triple rinsing or handling the empty containers as a hazardous
waste. These States are: Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,
Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Utah.
An additional eight States exercise other controls. These
range from not allowing the containers at landfills to requiring
separate burial. The eight States are: Arkansas, Connecticut,
Indiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and
Washington.
Summaries of the information on the various State programs is
attached.
-------
DictionaryjD_efinitons.
These conventional definitions distinguish between gas, liquid,
and solid, and between liquid and fluid.
liquid1 - adj.- readily flowing; fluid.
n.- a substance that, unlike a solid, flows readily but
unlike a gas, does not tend to expand indefinitely.
liquid refers to a substance that flows readily and assumes
the form of its container but retains its independent volume
(water that is neither ice nor steam is a liquid); fluid
applies to any substance that flows (all liquids, gases,
and viscous substances are fluids).
fluid1 - adj. - that can flow; not solid; able to nove and change
shape without separating when under pressure.
- n. - any substance that can flow; liquid or gas.
viscous1- adj.- in physics, having viscosity.
viscosity1- n.- in physics: (a) the internal fluid resistance of
a substance, caused by molecular attraction,
which makes it resist a tendency to flow; ( b) the
property of a solid yielding steadily before a
constant stress.
fluid2 - n. - substances that exist as a continuum characterized
by low resistance to flow and the tendency to
assume the shape of its container.
1 _ Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language,
College Edition, The World Publishing Company, 1968.
2 - The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
/Z.0
-------
CURHKNT STATE J'HACTICKS At.U UKCUl.AVOn
I'OI.ICIF.S KOR UAZAlinOU'r. WASTE U()UHW
Areas of Intercut
Current status of state regula-
tions for ground dinposol o»
hazardous waste lifjuorfl (on-filtd
and of f-nlte) .
lixiBtenco of vl Isincent ives
(formal and informal) for ground
dtopooal of hazardous wantd
liquid.
State def In 1 1 lon.s of hazardous
waste liquids.
Current practices regarding
ground dinpooal of hazardous
waste liquids .
Type of records maintained on
aiiuiuntH nnd Idcnt if icnt Ion of
haznrdouo waute liquids.
Known accldentn or incidents
relnt.cd to Innd d inpona V of
lin.'.nrilnuH wik.'Ur lj30-
t.ond disposal GUI'—
rcntly prohibited.
All hazardous wants
recorded but no dia-
tlnction between
ooXids and liquids.
None,
Prenently prohibited.
Intend to have a fee
Myntrift to d i(icour«ni.)
uac.
ConnccCicuc
No regulations ,
Some guldcHtics .
Regulations may bo
available in 6-9
niontlm.
Siting bill it being
cons idcred .
l.lquld-puinpabla, flovi-
nblc; al\idge-plast Ic k
flownhlc, non-puinjinblo .
Mill follow RCKA.
Hot allowed citccpt for
bulk raatal sludges in
cells ot 11-12
approved municipal
sites ,
Not yet applicable,
Currently ainklng a
survey.
Not known.
Not Allowed.
i'loritU'
No re go Sat: ion^ .
l.cginlat ion should lie
pasno>i:
recycling or eont out
of state.
None, will follow
RCRA.
Plan to rr.quirc a
mixture of bulk 1FWI..
No drums. Currently
most IlL are acnt out
of state,.
Industrial facility
rcporto; no manifesto,
yet.
Unmi thor ir.cd dlopooal
of pcnticldc drunin l
-------
Atom of Intf ront
Current otntun of stntn regula-
tions for ground dtnpoortl of
mzordoufi won to liquor n (on~aitn?. nrdouo
Type of record? mnlntnlned on
n'm'M'nt i nnd 1dvnt 1 f lent Im of
.Knn vn nc r. A tl n n t « or In e *.u r 1 n 1 and deep ur-1 1 tn-
JcctJon nrc primary
mirt liod 0 , Dxnni : b\» Ik » I * 3 .
On- nnd off-olto monitoring.
MnnSfeat system nod
I Hep ft 1 dump Ing In pond -
Op v mid , t r ) pi n r In HIM'
And rrnnod t or r run tied
nnd burflcd or btirnrd.
-------
Aruuy ui' inturuiH
tions fov ground diypoiml o£
UiUurdouy WUVJLU Hijuotw (vm-u itu
and of i-iiito) ,
Exlattmcc of dlaincent ivett
(f actual imd informal) for g iron ml
d 1 upouul o f hazardous want e
liquid.
uuiitu 1 iully bulk w;uiLe
haul CEB 1 iccsistd and
pcnuittcd. Mont UW1.
u h 1 () p c d out of stnta.
Fet; tty utum for d la-
IMIfflll rciMt. IVU lU
dupr u« o t L l" *iii L incut .
Hccordu only for
UuDtUU ,
Not kiunfli f
TrlpU; I'laniog and
dully reclaimed or
burn i:d.
H(,~a
livn, dUpobul in li.au-
1'ili iu not allowed.
fOL' Uil-G it O , HO Ok »-
nita al lowed .
(CuL-fut'iLly one oa-ultu
pcimU.)
HxMtu.. utll fcllcw
1JCK.V,
Uizurdous vmjte 1 i([p.i/.du
ue not permit ted to
>e di epoocd o££-elte;
me ou-oito jicrmit lor
und diupoual. Ko fitly
Shipping papers.
Munu.
Tri-'nL ed au Juizardous
conditioned, or used
for one type of wuate
Hi yu 1 uuipp i
1 1\ pk'e|>arjit iun . Avu 1 1-
,il)l^ ubuut uiid-UO, Will
follow KCKA.
will follow IU;KA.
Volleys KCRA.
H-nituncd and bul k , on-
cud off-oitu, cofiii-by-
ctisc review r no record
of vo lume produced and
d 1 apooed , [Brunts 1 nnd-
f 1 tlod
-------
r°
Arr>nn of Interest
Current etntun of ctnte regula-
tions for ground dlsposnl of
Jior.ardons wnotc 1 ignore (on-o itc
nnd off-nite).
Existence of tl ig Inccnt Ives
(formnl nnd in formal) for ground
dloposnl of li.i7,fltdouR vne tn
liquid.
Stnte definitions cf bnxnrdoug
wnole 1 Iqn Ida .
Current pcftcticco regarding
p, round d 1 nponnl f> T tinrnrdoiin
v.'n-'t.e 1 i,nilfl« .
iw.MmT -i -,M.^ M^nt 1M.'-,| I. MI of
Known nrclrtenltt or lnct 1. 1. y
tr<*rtt^'-i. 7f h*i~^rdciii9
vio o water TPBOvirce It
MnnK^Pt syntem.
Monn, Sot lont .flv«
Rer.ond It lon^c! flnd TO-
Inn*!'1 All <*d or to V ^or
ncrop, ;
How Mexico
R«En1ntions one EPA'n
do f In it Ions , PcrmlLn
for off-a.Itp only.
Forma 1 permit Rystcra,
None t will follow
RCRA,
Dn-altcp no npprovnl
Ternitrfd; l.ulk UWI- In
olotc.
Mnntfont iynt.eTi 1icl«R
r^^t lclH.fi Mrfl ?m
Hot known i
Worth CnroJ 3 nn
Regulation*? enlni:,
follow RCHA. IWI.
d 1 oponed nt per ml tted
8 ItCB .
FurTnnl perm It n ys V em,
ungt€ ncreenlng pro-
c e d u r E .
None, will follow
RCRA.
Permitted Inndfllln,
no 1 > r P n ^ d n un on drum
vn Intl k , (IUT vi- v on 7
SIC radon nvrt MnMa.
currently not monitor-
nd.
Hnn^,
Hot Vnovn.
tjjfRO nnwlmr off cow-
Oklnltornn
1970 Inw; 1977 TCgu-
Jntlonn for InmUUls,
1 npr>oil6 , "id uolln ,
off— nnd ori— site.
Fo rm Q 1 permit P y o t cm ;
d I scon ropes 1 nnd-
f 11 It Ing nf drums ^
Use terra "controlled
Jnduatr ioH woBte.*1
Permits prJmrtrlly for
on-nltc wcllo {11
bin U.n Uxi, in I97t») ,
10-15X of totnl Jo
Jr^mmnl, ™oiitly Xnnd-
[Mled, on- nnd off-
olte.
rormlttcd Iflndflll
rl^lH^d Inromjint IM »
yclr.l or ft(nponoi|f nr
Rhodo I olnnd
Hnve repiilntJons - do
not follow RCRA. lx?wer
13 of 17 types of Jinrord-
eccurcJ lend f 1 Z 1 .
Formnl pcrml t syotfm.
Illgli ptilillc flwnrcncna .
UHR 17 cotp.gor rn - 2
tilglirnt nrc nn nl lowed j
In ndfllla base on I-Hcn,
I.C^Q, flnnh po ntof etc.
Hulk ond dmmmed IIUL
>rutwaml JIWI. tiot ft 1 lo\M'd
In Un.lflU wUhoui
itnotbcnt nntrr in \ .
FU«i due to lllof.nl
t.Mh,.lnn.'"
in n\ *• (no f Inn 1 up-
dip* ^ t
-------
A coat* of
Current it-acuy oc dCatu
tlona for Around d la
of
Liquid.
Current prttct Icua
gt ouud d 1 upo^iul o f
WUH t e IInu idu.
innouiitH uitii idtii
liuzitrdouu uoota
Known
^*«l
dCatu rwijvila-
Ispowal of
quoru (oti-a tto
ml) for ground
OMB waoce
of tm^iirdouu
f hn£ttrdmi3
(i irita lined on
/f IcaLiori of
r Incidents
iupoaul of
IcjU ids .
s for Iimidllug
ndfilln.
South Carol ;;u
Ru^vtltil. laim tipp- rcviiU
March 19BO, Nou
H U u r 1 n g up to v i: y\i -
On- and »ff-ultco
cun Via approved f *>v
UVU..
VoivmV pCrwl c sytirciu.
Informal policy of
allow lag laudf ill &s
1 dijt uiOij.ua of
"Flowwblo1- will follow
RCllA. Sludgu la 20X
solid.
Liquid lull DC bu trOUtltid
iui not £louiihl», or
dlsuolvcd Hf.tli liiiuld
that kccpa It fconi
UeJnft harmful. Hulk «
75%, doinuncj « 25X.
One accuro 1 mid fill
tiikuo dlirccc dlopooc.l
of druwn.
1'lunaing to computer-
ize! dot 3 1
Not known.
Trl plu rinsud and ro-
cyclcd or crtifjlicit» or
Tuuii«.«
No rugulat. ic-iu hut
fiu'iy LIHVU by ^nd ol
yuar . Emcrmiticy
luw Li\ uf^cc. Ku
allowed *
Fo vitiit V p »i na 1 L »y » L *>*
Otncrs In drufc
Honii, will Callow
KCUA.
No landfillB for
linru rdouri unit it a
cui routly ttJL lowed in
Only by SIC coda.
Illegal u'ruiu flC land-
fill uxplodod ,
Injured wucltlna
Not alluwud.
7u«,»
follows. UCKA. t.^nd
il Lfjpotia 1 ul lowed u C
tiiLet. iiiubt poi>L
driiroa aiay tia lit Lid-
fillid.
b'ollowa KCIW..
KJChcr placed, in
liijeict Ion wcl In or
prcinixcd with soU.
or cluy prior to
landfill or limd-
fanni I.undUlL opci's-
tors decide If J1WL ar
uduquately Created .
X""r."y"tC" °"
Moil a.
Uuunl ly c ru dlitid itod
UndfUltd,
on, CovcS'a^i * ^ ^cuk
for 11 j^antuiro. OlEt-
I to iiiil cil lowud undue
peiifllttcd co ltd* t iOtia
Ho etate approved
u L t cu , yet . Cuirrunt-
ly treat, atore, or
send fmt of iitate.
On-ulie uuuding and
Ino tncrflf: Aon allowud
J>u£ not deep wcAJ.
InJ ucn Lon,.
Mini I f u*J t uy>3f; cm.
ExplofjJooa of powdcro
In loud fill 4 yiiura
Not
Avjaitlng flnul RCKA
dcf In K tons . 3 uppi'uvud
I'M 1. <tiB in opuL'at ton.
Low iinw
to KCitA.
co;5*i Uy
i l*>r
.4« by cttBa rcvJ cw, o 1C L-
alt« d ivoctcd to 1 o£ 3
c La to permitted tl (u | > o L; a i
tofl^ or olilppod out of
state. Qn-Hitc certifi-
cation reqiulEred-
ecycled or crtiulicd
nd dltjpoacd.
No rcyulutIons yet.
Hying KI'A jjulduliuui.
find all due la lonu on
Mi nR InLur iiu duUio.' i z
t ion, cui.u by e«.^o
vlcwt 1 year ^>ld
lone,, b'<> i Id wfi^Lc" loll
•:I*A auidui jntiB.
o»t 50 permU tod l.-ind-
llii jtlun l'i() cuLK-tu ly
t purmlttc.J, tdk«j bulk
l drunuitcd Illll.. Kulik-
ive amounts unknown.
required to be
Jo on-u itc irucoi'dti;
'
-------
SUMMARY OF_STATE DRUMMED LIQUID LANDFILL DISPOSAL PRACTICES
Hazardous Waste Regulation
Cradle-to-grave regulation to
become effective October, 1980.
Cradle-to-grave.
Cradle-to-grave regulation to
become effective July, 1980.
Cradle-to-grave.
No authorizing legislation;
however, landfills are regulated.
Hazardous waste facilities are
regulated; a manifest system is
forthcoming.
State is in the process of formu-
lating hazardous waste policy.
Drummed Liquid Landfill Disposal Practices
The State strongly discourages the disposal of drummed liquids in landfills without
prior fixation. In October, fixation of liquids before disposal in landfills will
be mandatory. The State does not feel that this requirement places a burden on
industry.
The State allows for the disposal of drummed liquids in landfills. Significant
quantities of drummed liquids are generated by the State's industries and the State
feels that prohibiting drummed liquid disposal would place significant operating and
cost burdens on the industries and landfill operators.
The State strongly discourages the disposal of drummed liquids in landfills without
prior fixation and, in July, the new regulation will prohibit this practice. The
State feels that this prohibition will: 1) provide an incentive for industries to
practice in-plant and end-of-pipe resource recovery, and 2) save valuable hazardous
waste landfill space.
The State prohibits the disposal of drummed liquids in landfills. Drummed liquids
must be emptied and placed into surface impoundments for treatment or solar evapor-
ation. Industries in the State have to rely more heavily on tank trucks for trans-
portation but the State has not received any industrial complaints.
All liquids are bulk disposed. State feels that bulk disposal presents grounclwnter con-
tamination, worker exposure, and air pollution problems.
A very little amount of drummed liquids are disposed of in landfills - nearly all
liquids are treated/recovered and then discharged.
No information available.
-------
Hazardous Waste Regulation
Cradle-to-grave
Cradle-to-grave
Drummed Liquid Landfill Disposal Practices
The State allows the disposal of drummed liquids in landfills if the drums are stacked
and the voids grouted. Historically, the State has had groundwater contamination
problems with landfills in which drummed liquids have been placed.
The State requires that all sludges and liquids be mixed with an approved sorbent prior
to landfilling. At on-site non-permitted facilities practicing drummed liquid disposal,
leakage problems have been encountered.
------- |