VOLUME #3 (BD-10 - BD-24)
DRAFT BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND
               OPERATORS OP HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,
               STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
BD-10 - SECTION 250.42-1 GROUNDWATER HUMAN HEALTH AND
                         ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD

BD-11 - SECTION 250.42-2 SURFACE WATER HUMAN HEALTH AND
                         ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD

BD-12 - SECTION 250.42-3 AIR HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
                         STANDARD
                250.43 (e)OPEN BURNING
                250.45 (cjNON-POINT SOURCES OF AIR
                         CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS

BD-13 - SECTION 250.43   GENERAL FACILITY STANDARDS

BD-14 - SECTION 250.43-1 STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SITE
                         SELECTION

BD-15 - SECTION 250.43-2 STANDARDS FOR SECURITY

BD-16 - SECTION 250.43-3 CONTINGENCY PLAN AND EMERGENCY
                         PROCEDURES

BD-17 - SECTION 250.43-4 STANDARDS FOR TRAINING

BD-18 - SECTION 250.43-5 MANIFEST SYSTEM, RECORDKEEPING,
                         AND REPORTING

BD-19 - SECTION 250.43-6 STANDARDS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION

BD-20 - SECTION 250.43-7 STANDARDS FOR CLOSURE AND
                         POST-CLOSURE
                                 •»> '
                                  •

BD-21 - SECTION 250.43-8 GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE
                         MONITORING

BD-22 - SECTION 250,43-9 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS

-------
VOLUME #3  (CONT'D)                           121 920
BD-23 - SECTION  250.44    STANDARDS FOR STORAGE
                 250.44-1  STANDARDS FOR STORAGE TANKS
                 250.44-2  STANDARDS FOR CONTAINERS

BD-24 - SECTION  250.45    STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT/DISPOSAL

-------
                     DRAFT

              BACKGROUND  DOCUMENT
    RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
   SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
     SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
     OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
   TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SECTION 250.42-1   GROUNDWATER HUMAN HEALTH AND
                   ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARD
                             DECEMBER 15, 1978
     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

-------
     This document provides background  information and  support

for regulations which are designed to protect  the air,  surface

water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges

and emissions from hazardous waste treatment/  storage,  and

disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is  being isade

available as a draft Itvi1 comiaeii t.  As new information is

obtained, changes may be made in the regulations, as well

as in the background material.

     Thin document WQO firat drafted many moni-ho ago and

haa been gcviacd fco refloat information received and Agency

dooioiono made oinoo thon.  EPA made changes in the proposed

Section 3004 regulations shortly before their  publication

in the Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that  all

of those decisions are reflected in this document.  If

there are any inconsistencies between the proposal  (the

preamble and the regulation) and this background document,

however, the proposal is controlling.

     Comments in writing may be made to:


     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste                 **'
     Hazardous Waste Management Division  (WJI-565)
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, B.C.  20460

-------
I.   Introduction


     A.    RCRA Mandate for the Regulation:


          The Congress of the United States/ via Section 3004


     of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery


     Act (RCRA) of 1976 (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq), mandated


     that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

            P
     Agency Promulgate regulations establishing such performance


     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,


     These standards are to include, but not be limited to,


     requirements respecting  (1) location, design, and


     construction, and  (2) operating methods, techniques and


     practices of these facilities.


          Compliance with this mandate, therefore, necessitates


     the establishment of regulations that will protect


     groundwater from contaminants emanating from hazardous


     waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities.  The


     purpose of this document is to provide background


     information on how EPA arrived at its proposed ground-


     water human health and environmental standard which the


     Agency believes partially fulfills the Congressional


     mandate to protect human health and the environment.

-------
B.   Key Definitions



     The following definitions are pertinent to the



groundwater human health and environmental standard:



     "Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of



formations, or part of a formation that is capable of



yielding useable quantities of groundwater to wells or



springs.



     "Endangerment" means the introduction of a substance



into groundwater so as to:



     (1)  cause the maximum allowable contaminant levels



          established in the National Primary Drinking



          Water Standards in effect as of the data of



          promulgation of this Subpart to be exceeded in



          the groundwater; or



     (2)  require additional treatment of the groundwater



          in order not to exceed the maximum contaminant



          levels established in any promulgated National



          Primary Drinking Water regulations at the point



          such water is used for human consumption; or



     (3)  reserved  [Note:  Upon promulgation of revisions



          to the Primary Drinking Water Standards and



          National Secondary Drinking Water Standards under



          the Safe Drinking Water Act and/or standards for



          other specific pollutants as may be appropriate].

-------
     "Groundwater" means water in the saturated zone



beneath the land surface.



     "Saturated Zone (Zone of Saturation)" means that



part of the earth's crust in which all voids are filled



with water.



     "Sole Source Aquifers" means those aquifers designated



pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water



Act of 1974"(P.L. 93-523) which solely or principally



supply drinking water to a large percentage of a populated



area.



     "Underground Drinking Water Source"  (UDWS) means:



     (1)  an aquifer supplying drinking water for human



          consumption; or



     (2)  an aquifer in which the groundwater contains



          less than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids;



          or



     (3)  an aquifer designated as such by the Administrator



          or a State.



     "Underground Non-drinking Water Source" means an



underground aquifer which is not a UDWS.

-------
II.   Rationale for the Regulation

          "Ground water is a vital natural resource in the
          United States.  At least half the population depends
          upon it as a source of drinking water.  Waste-disposal
          practices have contaminated ground water on a local
          basis in all parts of the nation and on a regional
          basis in many heavily populated and industrialized
          areas.  The severity of contamination ranges from
          the exceeding of recommended standards for one or
          more constituents not related to health to the
          presence of toxic concentrations of hazardous wastes.
          Some economic losses have occurred as a result of
          degradation of ground-water quality, but the overall
          usefulness of the ground-water resource has not yet
          been impaired.  Nationally, the principal sources of
          ground-water contamination related to waste-disposal
          practices are industrial waste-water impoundments
          and solid-waste land disposal sites.  These facilities
          are widespread, may involve hazardous substances,
          and physically provide an opportunity for contamination
          to occur".

          The above quotation is taken from the abstract of the

     document cited in the footnote below and describes the

     adverse effects that waste disposal activities have had on

     this nation's groundwater.  This 512 page report gives an

     in-depth presentation of actual and potential sources of
                                                     /-'/ '_*•. £ // '• J _*
     groundwater contamination from various waste disposal^in

     the United States.  Readers interested in groundwater

     contamination are advised to consult this report for a

     complete understanding of the threat which waste disposal

     activities pose to groundwater, and hence the need for

     regulations to protect this vital natural resource.

     1.   Waste Disposal and their Effects on Ground Water,
          The Report To Congress, Office of Water Supply and
          Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA,
          January 1977.

-------
III. Identification of Regulatory Options


     The agency has taken a dual approach in these proposed


rules to protect groundwater through the establishment of both


performance standards and practice control standards.  Examples


of the latter include facility siting, design, construction


and operating requirements.  The practice control standards


contained in these regulations are intended to prevent any


discharge to groundwater.


     In addition to the practice control standards, the Agency


has promulgated a performance standard design^ed to protect


groundwater in the form of a groundwater human health and

                n
enviromental standard.  This background document identifies


the various regulatory options from which the Agency has


selected the groundwater human health and environmental standard,


     Three questions are pertinent to the development of a


groundwater human health and environmental standard:


     (1)  Which sources of groundwater are to be protected?


     (2)  What level of contamination, if any, should be
                                                 <&
          allowed in those groundwater sources to^protected?


     (3)  What benchmark shall be used to determine where the


          groundwater sources are to be protected?


     With regard to question 1, the spectrum of groundwater


sources which could be protected ranges from all groundwater


sources to only those sources of groundwater which currently


supply a public water system.  Within that broad spectrum,

-------
the Agency considered to which categories of groundwater



sources the Section 3004 groundwater human health and



environmental standard should apply.  Two options we considered



were:



     A.   Applying the standard to drinking water and



     groundwater used for purposes other than drinking water,



     e.g., irrigation,



     B.   Applying the standard only to groundwater which



     currently meets the drinking water criteria, except for



     that which is:



          (1)  Mineral or oil producing; or



          (2)  Situated at a depth or location which makes



               recovery of water for drinking water purposes



               economically or technologically impractical for



               the foreseeable future; or



          (3)  In an area where the availability of alternate



               drinking water supplies is so substantial that



               there is no reasonable likelihood that the



               aquifer will be needed in the future for drinking



               water



     The second question also has a variety of responses from



which the Agency could select a basis for its groundwater



performance standard.  The options range from zero discharge to



adoption of the maximum allowable contaminant levels specified



in the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations.  Other



variations of the discharge limitation aspect of the groundwater

-------
standard include the keying of the standard to the Secondary



Drinking Water Regulations or to other water quality standards.



     The third question only needs to be addressed if the



no discharge option under question 2 is not selected.  However,



if it is decided that discharge to groundwater will be allowed,



the distance that the pollutants will be permitted to travel



must be specified.  That is, the maximum length of the mixing



zone during which the aquifer may assimilate the pollutants



must be designated.  Possible options for the length of the



mixing zone include:



     A.   Directly underneath the facility.



     B.   The facility property line.



     C.   A set distance, e.g., one kilometer.

-------
IV.  Analysis of Regulatory Options

     The following is an analysis of the regulatory options

identified in Section III of this document.  The analysis

focuses on whether or not the option appears to meet the RCRA

mandate to protect human health and the environment.  The

options are so arranged that they are listed in descending

order beginning with that which would be most protective of

human health and the environment.

Group #1 Options;  Identification of Groundwater Sources to be
                    Protected.

     A.   All Groundwater Sources

               Complies with the RCRA mandate to protect

               human health and the environment.

          -    Unnecessarily stringent because some aquifers

               have been so contaminated that they serve no

               useful purpose except, perhaps, as a "sink"

               for other pollutants.

     B;   Groundwater Sources which meet the criteria of an

          UDWS,* plus those sources of groundwater which could

          be utilized by humans for purposes other than drinking

           (irrigation, stock watering, etc.).

               This option is preferable to option C from the

               standpoint of protection of human health because

               additional sources of groundwater which serve a

               useful purpose would be protected.
                               10

-------
          -    In requiring that the aquifer not be degraded



               beyond the MCL of the National Primary Drinking



               Water Standards,  the option may provide



               unnecessarily stringent protection of aquifers



               not used for drinking water purposes.



 4.j  p..   Groundwater Sources which meet the criteria of an



          UDWS,* plus those sources of groundwater which could



          be utilized by humans for purposes other than drinking



           (irrigation, stock watering, etc.).



              » Different categories of useful water plus



               discharge limits for each of these categories



               would be incorporated into this option.



               This option is preferable to Option C from the



               standpoint of protection of human health because



               additional sources of groundwater which serve a



               useful purpose would be protected.



               However, there are 2 major problems associated



               with this option:



               1)   Different categories of useful water would



                    have to be established.



               2)   Discharge limits would have to be determined



                    for each of these newly defined categories.



     Such a delineation of groundwater supplies according to



variations in utility and attendant discharge limits is not
* see definition, supra.  /  /: v/y  •'-/   • /..--' / J
                               11

-------
available at this time, thereby making this option unworkable.


   C &.   Groundwater Sources which meet the criteria of an under-


          ground drinking water source (UDWS)*.


          -    Protects human health insofar as human drinking


               water supplies are concerned.  However, water


               which is used by humans for other purposes


               (e.g., irrigation) is not protected.  Such use


               of water which is contaminated with hazardous


               waste could pose a threat to human health.


               With regard to the environmental aspect of the


               RCRA mandate, allowing unlimited discharge of


               hazardous waste into non-UDWS groundwater would


               not constitute protection of the environment.


               Protects those sources of groundwater which are


               of most concern to most people, i.e., their


               drinking water.


  d  jL.   Groundwater Sources which meet the criteria of an


          UDWS, except for those aquifers which are:


          1)   Mineral or oil producing;  or


          2)   Situated at a depth or location which makes


               recovery of water for drinking water purposes


               economically or technologically impracticable for

                        £**•
               the foresable future; or





* see definition, supra.
                               12

-------
          3)    In areas where the availability of alternative

               drinking water supplies is so substantial that

               there is no reasonable likelihood that the

               aquifer will be needed in the future for drinking

               water purposes.

     With respect to the RCRA mandate, this option is the least

acceptable.  Groundwater is the drinking water source for at

least half of the population of the United States, and to

allow endangerment of an aquifer which is capable of supplying

drinking water is not in accordance with the congressional mandate

to protect human health and the environment.  Under that mandate

the Agency is responsible for ensuring that those finite

resources^ regardless of immediate need or accessibility, and

therefore, all UDWS should be protected.

Group #2 Options:  Determination of Discharge Limitations to
                    Groundwater

     A.   Zero Discharge

          -    Complies with the RCRA mandate to protect human

               health and the environment.

               Unnecessarily restrictive in that this option

               ignores the natural attenuative and other

               assimilative capabilities of the environment.

     B.   Discharge to maximum contaminant levels specified in

          the Primary Drinking Water Regulations and additional

          regulations containing water quality standards as soon

          as the latter become promulgated  (e.g., the secondary

          drinking water regulations)*
                              13

-------
     Provides additional protection to human health



     and the environment as compared to Option C



     because the number of hazardous substances whose



     discharge to groundwater is regulated would be



     increased.



-    Even after promulgation of these additional



     regulations, there will be a gap in the 3004



     regulations because the waste content of the



     discharge could contain hazardous substances



     which are not listed in any of these promulgated



     regulations.  This option does not necessarily



     provide protection from such "non-listed"



     substances.



Discharge to the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's)



specified in the Interim Primary Drinking Water



regulations.



     Protects human health from the 10 inorganic and



     6 organic substances listed in the regulation.



     Takes advantage (via adoption)  of the only



     currently available promulgated rule-making



     which contains drinking water quality criteria.



-    The waste content of the discharge may be free



     of interim primary substances,  and yet contain



     substances which are toxic/ carcinogenic, or



     otherwise detrimental to human health and the



     environment.  This option would not necessarily



     provide protection from such "non-listed" substanceJ
                     14

-------
Group #3 Options:  Determination of the length of the mixing



                    zone, or maximum distance over which the



                    environment may assimilate the pollutants



                    before the level of contaminant in ground-



                    water becomes grounds for enforcement action,



     A.   Directly under the facility



               Of all the options that allow some discharge of



               pollutants up to some specified MCL, this option



               is the most protective of human health and the



               environment because as soon as it is observed



               that the groundwater beneath the facility has



               been contaminated beyond the MCL, enforcement



               action begins, calling forth abatement and



               control measures to minimize the plume growth.



               Provides little or no opportunity for the



               attenuative or assimilative capabilities of



               the environment to work on the discharge.



     B.   At the facility property line



          -    Allows the environment to assimilate the



               pollutants before they become the basis for



               an enforcement action.



               Poses a greater threat to groundwater sources



               surrounding the facility than Option A because



               the facility is in compliance until the passage



               of contaminants in excess of the MCL beyond



               the property boundary line.
                              15

-------
                                     g
     -    For facilities located on vary large tracts of

          land, the amount of groundwater which would be

          allowed to be contaminated within the property

          line could be quite extensive.

C.   A set distance (e.g., one kilometer)

          More protective than Option B in the case of

          facilities located on large tracts of land in

          that this option restricts the size of the

          mixing zone to some specified distance.

          The selection of a set distance could be arbitrary,

          and might be difficult to defend.

         'Allows the environment to assimilate the discharge

          within the mixing zone.
                          16

-------
 V.   Identification of Chosen Regulation and Associated Rationale



     The following regulation was chosen as the Human Health



and Environmental Standard with regard to Groundwater.



     All facilities shall be located, designed, constructed



and operated in such a manner as to prevent:



     (a)  Endangerment of an Underground Drinking Water



          Source beyond the facility property boundary, or



     (b)  Endangerment of an aquifer which is designated as a sole or



          principal source aquifer according to Section 1424 (e) of the



          Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974  (Pub. L. 93-523 88. Stat.



          1661, 1678, 42 U.S.C. 300f, 300h-3(a)).



     The focal concern of the proposed groundwater human



health and environmental standard is the protection of



underground drinking water sources.  The selection of the



UDWS as the resource to be protected by the human health and



environmental standard is based on the following line of



reasoning:



               This approach is in accordance with the strategy used in



               the proposed Underground Injection Control  (UIC)



               regulations  (40 CFR Part 146, Proposed Rules,



               August 31, 1976).



          -    EPA believes that this is a justifiable approach



               since the mandates of both RCRA and the Safe



               Drinking Water Act  (SDWA) are to protect human



               health and the environment.  Furthermore, RCRA



               specificially requires integration with SDWA.
                               17

-------
          -    This approach allows discharge into aquifers which



               are already so contaminated that they serve no



               useful purpose except as "sinks" for other



               pollutants.



               .This approach concentrates our enforcement



               capabilities into protecting those groundwater



               sources which are of most importance to most



               people, i.e., water which is of a quality



               suitable for drinking.



               The requirement to protect aquifers with a



               total dissolved solids content of less than



               10,000 mg/1 protects not only drinking water,



               but also most water suitable for irrigation,



               stock watering, etc.



     Unlike the UIC regulations, or those regulations being



drafted under Subtitle D of RCRA, the proposed groundwater



human health and environmental standard does not provide for



relaxation of controls to aquifers which are UDWS's, but which



are low yielding, or mineral producing, or any of the other



exceptions listed under Option D on page *J.  The Agency



recognizes that groundwater contamination, more often than



not, is an irreparable situation.  Since the 3004 regulations



deal with wastes which have been determined to be hazardous,



the Agency believes that a more stringent position on the



discharge of waste to groundwater than that taken by UIC or
                               18

-------
4004 is warranted.   Because the self-cleansing capability of



any aquifer is limited, the release of hazardous waste to an



aquifer which meets the requirements of an UDWS essentially



takes that aquifer out of the "pool" of potentially usable



underground drinking water sources.



     Because drinking water is a finite resource, the Agency



believes that it would be imprudent to provide for relaxation



of hazardous waste discharge controls to any aquifer which meets



the criteria requirements of an UDWS.



     A second aspect of the groundwater human health and environ-



mental standard that warrents discussion is the concept of



endangerment that is incorporated in the standard.  The Agency



believes that it is unnecessarily restrictive to impose a



zero-discharge requirement on facility owners/operators because



such an approach ignores the natural attenuative and assimilative



capabilities of the environment.  On the other hand, the Agency



is not aware of any method for designing facilities to allow



specific constituent release rates, nor is the Agency aware of



any method to determine what release rates would be acceptable.



The. Agency alao cannot predict how long haaardoua waoto in a



landfill will remain hanardous.  Accordingly, the practice



control standards (Sections 250.43, 250.44 and 250.45) have



been written to require that facilities be designed, constructed



and operated so that discharges are minimized or do not occur.



     However, though the practice control standards are designed



to provide maximum containment, the Agency recognizes that some
                               19

-------
discharge of hazardous waste will occur. ^



    • The focus of the groundwater human health and environmental



standard is on protection of UDWS.  Drinking water does not



have to be pollutant free to be drinkable.  Therefore, the



Agency has taken the position that tolerable limits of



discharges can be specified below which an aquifer's water can



be safely consumed.  EPA's best estimation of what these limits



are is specified in its definition of endangerment.  For the



present, the concept of endangerment adopts the National



Primary Drinking Water Regulations.  Upon promulgation of the



National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations and standards



for other specific pollutants, the definition of endangerment



will be revised to incorporate the contaminant levels from



those regulations which the Agency determines to be appropriate.



Thus, the concept of endangerment that the groundwater standard



adopts is by no means a static one/ with new advancements in



determining safe levels for substances not covered by the



current definition, endangerment will take on a broader meaning.



The Agency also believes that although endangerment is limited



to the National Primary Drinking MCL's, the design and operating



standards should ensure protection of human health and the



environment.  The groundwater human health and environmental



standard will be used in conjunction with the design and operating



standards which are designed to ensure maximum containment.
                                 20

-------
     A third diacuaoion which was made with regard to the



groundwater standard is the selection of the property boundary



line as the benchmark which will be used to measure "endangerment"



in an UDWS.  The Agency's position in choosing to promulgate



this rulemaking based on the property boundary option is



based on the following line of reasoning:



               A mixing zone is a practical approach because it takes



               advantage of the environment's attenuative and



               assimilative properties.



               The Agency lacks data which would support any set dis-



               tance or any formula for determining a site



               specific length of a mixing zone



               The property boundary line concept recognizes indi-



               vidual property rights.



     The Agency has decided that the property boundary



approach is the most desirable option to endorse in most



situations dealing with endangerment of UDWS.  However, EPA



has taken a slightly different tack with regard to sole



source aquifers.  Sole source aquifers are, by definition,



unique and highly important, and therefore, a more stringent



position to protect these aquifers is thought to be warranted.



As was brought out in Section IV of this document, there is



a greater amount of risk associated with the enforcement



point being the property boundary line as compared to the



enforcement point being the groundwater directly beneath the



facility.  The Agency has decided that for facilities located
                                21

-------
over sole source aquifers, all groundwater in the aquifer,



including that within the facility owners' property, should



be protected.  Therefore, for enforcement purposes, endangerment



will be applied to groundwater directly beneath facilities



which overlie sole source aquifers.
                                 22

-------
      Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
      Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
      Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners and
                     Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
                     Storage, and Disposal Facilities
                       DRAFT
                BACKGROUND DOCUMENT

Section 250.42-2 Surface Water Human Health and
                 Environmental Standard
       O.S. Environmental Protection Agency
               Office of Solid Waste
                 December 15, 1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface
water/ and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges
and emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being issued as
a draft to support the proposed regulation.  As new information
is obtained/ changes may be made in the regulations as well as
in this background material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions
made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed Section 3004
regulations shortly before their publication in the Federal
Register.  We have tried to ensure that all of those decisions
are reflected in this document.  If there are any inconsistencies
between the proposal (the preamble and the regulation) and this
background document/ however/ the proposal is controlling.

     Comments in writing may be.made to:
          Timothy Fields, Jr.
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Office of Solid Waste                  ty/
          Hazardous Waste Management Division  (Wjf-565)
          401 M street/ S.W.
          Washington/ O.C. 20460
                                - 2 -

-------
1.0  Introduction
1.1  RCRA Mandate and Authority
1.2  Definitions
2.0  Rationale for Regulations
2.1  Actual Damage Incidents
2.2  Potential Damage
3.0  Identification of Regulatory Options
3.1  Specific Standards Mandated by RCRA
3.2  Existing Federal, State or Local Regulations
3.3  Others
4.0  Analysis of Regulatory Options
4.1  Human Health and Environmental Protection Provided
4.2  Analysis of Whether Option Meets RCRA Mandate
5.0  Identification of Chosen Regulation and
     Associated Rationale
                           - 3 -

-------
 1.0  Introduction
   Explication of Human Health and Environmental Standard

     Subpart D includes two types of performance standards:
 Human Health and Environmental Standards under Section 250.42
 and design and operating standards under Sections 250.43
 through 250.45 which cover General Facility Standards/ Storage
 Standards/ and Treatment and Disposal Standards.  The design
 and operating standards are designed to protect human health
 and the environment.  To achieve compliance, the Human Health
 and Environmental Standards are meant to be overriding standards
 to be used to supersede the design and operating standards in
 those presumably few situations where such standards fail to
achieve protection of human health and the environment.
     Under this regulatory structure, it is intended that the
design and operating standards will be the principal regulatory
criteria used to manage the treatment, storage and disposal of
hazardous waste.   These standards will be used, in most cases,
by EPA in issuing permits for treatment, storage and disposal
 facilities and thereby will be incorporated, to the extent
applicable, as enforceable conditions of such permits.  Further,
 it is intended that the States will adopt equivalent or more
 stringent design and operating standards as a requirement for
 obtaining EPA approval to implement a hazardous waste regulatory
 program and, in most cases, will incorporate such standards as
 conditions in the permits or licenses that they issue.  Finally,
                               - 4 -

-------
to the extent that EPA carries out enforcement actions where
no permit has been issued, an EPA-issued permit is not in
force/ and there is no pending permit application, it is
intended that non-compliance with the design and operating
standards will be the typical basis for such actions.  The
application of the design and operating standards during
interim status/ during which a permit application is pending/
is discussed later.
     Where there is reason to believe that design and operating
standards will not achieve compliance with the Human Health and
Environmental Standards/  it is intended that the latter will be
used as the basis for regulatory and enforcement action.  In
these cases, presumably exceptional/ where EPA is issuing the
permit/ the Human Health  and Environmental Standards will be
used to establish more stringent design and operating criteria
than prescribed in Subpart D, and these more stringent criteria
will be incorporated as enforceable conditions of the permit.
Also/ where EPA has issued a permit and there is a finding of
non-compliance with the Human Health and Environmental Standards,
the permit will be reopened and the Human Health and Environmental
Standards will be employed to develop more stringent permit
conditions in the revision of the permit.  Where the State has
an EPA-approved hazardous waste program and is issuing the permit
or license/ it is intended that a similar mechanism will operate.
Similarly/ in enforcement actions where an EPA-issued permit is
not in force and no permit application is pending, there will be
some occasions where the  Human Health and Environmental Standards,
                              - 5 -

-------
 rather  than  the design and operating standards, of Subpart D
 will be the  Basis for such actions.
     The rationale for this regulatory structure recoqnizes
 that design  and operating standards provide a more specific,
 certain, easier understood and more enforceable basis for
 regulation,  to the benefit of both the recrulated community and
 EPA  and the  States.  Human Health and Environmental Standards
 require the  application of complex cause-and-effect calculations
 or models to ascertain the design and operating criteria that
 owners  and operators of facilities ultimately need to govern
 their day-to-day compliance with such standards.  Consequently,
 Human Health and Environmental Standards are less efficient in
 implementing regulatory programs and provide less certainty
 for the regulated community as to what constitutes acceptable
design and operating requirements.  Because of these features,
EPA has chosen to rely on design and operating standards as
the principal mechanism for assuring the proper management of
hazardous waste.   It has been further recognized, however, that
there, can be situations (uncommon geologic or climatic conditions,
special waste characteristics, etc.)  where the broadly applicable
design and operation standards of Subpart D are not sufficient to
 fulfill their designed purpose.  To accomodate these situations,
 the regulatory structure provides for the use of the Human Health
 and Environmental Standards of Subpart D as necessary on a
 case-by-base basis.
                                - 6 -

-------
     EPA believes that where a permit is issued, the permittee
should only be obligated to comply with the permit, the presump-
tion being that the conditions of the permit are fully consistent
with the Subpart D standards and that compliance with the permit
constitutes effective compliance with such standards.  Concomi-
tantly, EFA believes that, where a permit is issued, only the
terms of the permit should be enforced.  Where it can be sup-
stained that compliance with an issued permit does not, in fact,
achieve compliance with the Subpart D standards, EPA believes
that the remedy should be the reopening and appropriate revision
of the permit.  Based on these judgements, it will be EPA's
policy to enforce the terms of EPA-issued permits rather than
the Subpart D standards where permits are in effect and to reopen
and revise EPA-issued permits rather than enforce the Subpart 0
standards where permit compliance does not achieve compliance
with such standards.  In certain instances, however, where the
process of modifications of a facility's permit will not, in the
judgement of EPA, achieve compliance with the Subpart D standards
within the time that EPA believes is necessary, EPA may enforce
the Subpart D requirements against such facility.  EPA believes
that the States should and will follow the same practices where
they issue permits or licenses under EPA-approved programs.  It
will also be the policy of EPA in taking enforcement actions
against facilities that have State-issued permits, because
compliance with the permit will not achieve compliance with the
Subpart D standards, to seek the remedy of reopening and
reissuing the permit rather than penalizing the facility, if the
                              - 7 -

-------
facility is complying with the State-issued permit.  EPA
anticipates that the courts will administer the citizen suit
provisions in a similar manner, but EPA cannot require this in
these regulations.  In concert with these several judgements,
the requirements of Section 250.40 of Subpart D specify that
owners and operators of facilities that treat, store and/or
dispose of hazardous waste must comply with the Subpart D
standards unless they are in compliance with an EPA-issued
permit.
                                - 8 -

-------
1.1  RCRA Mandate and Authority





     The Congress of the United States via Section 3004 of



Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)



of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-580) mandates that the Administrator of



the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgate regulations



establishing performance 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.  These standards are to include, but need not be



limited tof requirements respecting:   (1) operating methods,



techniques, and practices;  (2) location, design and construction;



and (3) contingency plans for effective action to minimize



unanticipated damage that might occur at these facilities.



     All provisions of  this Act  (including Section 3004) must be



integrated with the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 and following),



the Federal Water Pollution Control Act  (33 U.S.C. 1151 and



following), the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide



Act (7 U.S.C. 135 and following), the Safe Drinking Water Act



(42 U.S.C. 300f and following), the Marine Protection Research,



and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 and following) and such



other Acts of Congress  as grant authority to the EPA Administrator,



A stated purpose of the above requirements was to avoid duplica-



tion to the maximum extent possible.  Such integration, however,



is to be effected only  in a manner consistent with the goals and



policies expressed in RCRA and the above-listed Acts.
                                - 9 -

-------
1.2  Definitions

     Definition of the following key words and phrases
within the Surface Water Human Health and Environmental Standard
is reserved pending public comment.
     "Cause a violation"
     "Controls"
     "Facility"
     "Located,' designed, constructed and operated1*
     "Oil or hazardous substance1*
     "Substantial discharge"
     "Surface discharge"
     "Water Quality Standards"
                               - 10 -

-------
2.0  Rationale for Regulations
2.1  Actual Damage Incidents

     Numerous damage incidents involving contamination of
surface water by both surface and subsurface discharges have
been documented by EPA.
     Main sources of damage incidents are:
1)  Damage Incident Files within the EPA Assessment Incident Files
    within the EPA Assessment and Technology Branch, HWMD, OSW,
    401 M Street, S.W.  Washington, D.C.  20460.
2)  U.S. EPA.  Report to Congress.  Disposal of Hazardous Waste.
    Publication SW-115.  Office of Solid Waste Management
    Programs.  1974.
3)  U.S. EPA.  Site Location and Water Quality Protective
    Requirements for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
    Disposal Facilities.  Office of Solid Waste.   (Contract
    68-01-4636).
4)  U.S. EPA.  Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on
    Groundwater Quality in the United States.  Office of Water
    Supply.   (Contract 68-01-4342).
5)  Individual Background Documents.  (Within the series of
    twenty-seven produced for specific treatment, storage, and
    disposal standards.)
6)  Annual Reports by the Coast Guard on Polluting Incidents In
    and Around U.S. Waters, e.g., 12,057 in calendar year 1975.
    See U.S. Coast Guard, DOT.  Polluting Incidents In and
    Around U.S. Waters; Calendar Year 1975.  CG-487.  Washington,
    D.C.  20550.
                              - 11 -

-------
2.2  Potential Damage

     The potential damage from uncontrolled discharges from
both point and non-point sources involving the management of
waste is very large indeed.  That portion of waste determined
to be hazardous under Subpart A may involve waste disposal
practices at over 270,000 waste producing facilities.  It is
                                                            & I'' ft
expected that a very high percentage of all NPDES*will also be
permitted under RCRA.  These 47,000 facilities have been
regulated mainly  for their end-of-pipe discharges under
Effluent Guidelines established for major categories of point
sources under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
     RCRA has direct authority to control all discharges to
the environment,  including discharges to subsurface waters and
non-point sources, such as leachate production and surface
runoff.  EPA delegates RCRA authority to the established
regulatory water  programs for the control of water pollution,
including monitoring, except for areas where the Clean Water
Act has no direct regulatory authority, such as for most non-
point sources and for subsurface discharges.
                               - 12 -

-------
3.0  Identification of Regulatory Options

     3.0.1.    Complete Deference to Existing Federal
               Regulations under CWA
     3.0.2.    Modified Deference to Existing Federal
               Regulations under CWA.
     3.0.3.    Development of RCRA Surface Water Regulations,
                                - 13 -

-------
3.1  Specific Standards Mandated by RCRA

     RCRA specifies:
     1)  Integration with the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act  (33 USC 1151 and following) under RCRA Section 1006(b)
(42 USC 6905); and,
     2)  Promulgation of such standards as may be necessary
to protect human health and the environment under RCRA Section
3004  (42 USC 6924).
                               - 14 -

-------
3.2  Existing Federal, State or Local Regulations

     The very large number of regulations concerning water
and pollution control from discharges into water would
present a formidable obstacle to analysis were it not for
the unifying role of the Clean Water Act and regulatory
programs established thereunder.
     Existing regulations were reviewed under the EPA study:
"Site Location and Water Quality Protective Requirements for
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities (Contract No. 68-01-4346) ."
                                - 15 -

-------
3.3  Other Standards

     The above cited EPA contract proposed exploration of
regulatory options based on setting standards for receiving
water quality and effluent quality.  For receiving water
the options were  CD Natural Background Quality; (2)  Drinking
Water Quality;  (3) Receiving Water Use; and (4)  Comprehensive
List Based on Toxicological Evaluation.
                               - 16 -

-------
4.0  Analysis of Regulatory Options
4.1  Human Health and Environmental Protection Provided
4.1.1.    Option 3.0.1.

     It was decided that existing CWA regulations did not
provide adequate authority for protection of human health and
the environment for nonpoint discharges, especially from
leachate and runoff from contaminated areas; nor for discharges
to the subsurface environment.
     Modification of the stance of complete deference to CWA
was also necessitated to achieve coordination with the human
health objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act  (SWDA).
          Option 3.0.2.
     Expansion of the regulatory scheme under CWA for surface
water to include subsurface discharges and non-point sources
of pollution in a comprehensive manner, was judged by EPA to
provide adequate protection of human health and the environment.
          Option 3.0.3.
     Option 3.0.3. to develop a comprehensive scheme of
protection of the hydrologic regime based upon the broad
authority of RCPA was judged to be potentially very protective
of human health and the environment.
4.2  Analysis of Whether Option Meets RCRA Mandate
4.2.0.    Option 3.0.1. was judged to meet the RCRA mandate
for integration with the CWA, but not with SWDA and to be
insufficiently protective of both human health and the
environment.
                               - 17 -

-------
          Option 3.0.2. was judged to meet both RCRA mandates
for integration with other Acts and for human health and
environmental protection.
          Option 3.0.3. was judged likely to be inconsistent
with the CWA and SWDA but, in principle, likely to be highly
protective of human health and the environment.  However due
to the unevaluated aspects of any newly developed regulations
and the complexity and resource demands of the option, as
shown by the above referenced water quality protective require-
ments study, such high human health and environmental protection
could not be predicted with sufficient confidence to warrant
development into a set of regulations.
                                 - 18 -

-------
5.0  Identification of Chosen Regulation

          Option 3.0.2. was chosen.  The following language
was chosen as of November 21, 1978 for proposal.

250.42-2  Surface Water Human Health and Environmental Standard

     All facilities shall be located, designed, constructed,
and operated in such a manner as to prevent any surface or
sub-surface discharge from the facility into navigable waters
from causing a violation of Water Quality Standards promulgated
or approved under Section 303 of the Clean Water Act, or a
violation of the controls on the discharge of oil or hazardous
substances under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
                               - 19 -

-------
5.2  Rationale

     The chosen option was modified to include broadly
protective standards of the Clean Water Act as seemed reason-
able to meet the conflicting demands and problems concerned
with receiving and effluent water quality.
     Features chosen were use of Water Quality Criteria
published under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act; and the
271 substances identified under Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act as being hazardous due to their toxicity, their high volume
production, and their difficulty of removability if discharged.
     Recognition of varying local conditions and existing
state and local regulations was adjusted for in the development
of specific treatment, storage and disposal regulations elsewhere
in these Subpart 0 regulations.  The reader is directed to these
more specific background documents.
Surface Water Protection
     The surface water protection strategy incorporated into
these proposed rules is based on the standards promulgated or
approved under the Clean Water Act  (CWA).  Accordingly, the
Human Health and Environmental Standard in this area precludes
surface or subsurface discharges from hazardous water treat-
ment, storage, and disposal facilities which could cause the
Water Quality Standards to be exceeded, or which constitute
a  spill of oil or hazardous substances under Section 311 of the
CWA.  EPA feels that this approach is justified because the marid
of RCRA and the water quality criteria in CWA are essentially

equivalent, and because RCRA  specifically requires integration
with CWA.
                               - 20 -

-------
     The current status of the water quality criteria as
established by EPA is given in summary in Table I "Quality
Criteria for Water", and described in detail in the publica-
tion; Quality Criteria For Water/ 1976.  U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.  U.S. Government Printing Office/
Washington, D.C.  (1977).
     Water quality criteria being developed for the 65 priority
pollutants will also be included within- the Human Health and
Environmental Standard for Surface Water as they are published
under Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act.  A list of the 65
toxic pollutants is given as Table II, as published in Appendix
B, 43 Federal Register 27770,  (Monday, June 26, 1978).
     The list of hazardous substances  to be controlled under
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act was published in the
Federal Register, 43 Federal Register  10474,  (Monday, March 13, 1978)
as 40 CFR 116 and is reproduced as Table III.
                                 - 21 -

-------
               QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER
TABLfc-L
Parameter, ug/1
Alkalinity
Ammonia
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
C£LCuEHUID
Chlorine
Chromium
Fecal Coliform
Color, Units
Copper
Cyanide
Gases Dissolved (% saturation)
Lead
Iron
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate; Nitrite (as N)
Oil and Grease
Dissolved Oxygen
Pesticides:
Aldrin - Dieldrin
Chlorodane
2, 4-D
2, 4* 5-TP
DDT
Demeton
Endaulfan
Endrin
Guthion
Heptachlor
T.itvtoiy*
Malathion
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Parathion
Toxaphene
pH
Phenol
Phosphorus
Phthalate Esters
PCS
Selenium
Silver
Solids (Cl and SOJ
Hydrogen Sulfide
Zinc
Drinking
Water
_
-
50
1,000
-
-
10
-
50
200/lOOml
75
1,000
-
110
50
300
50
2
-
10,000
-
-

-
-
100
10
-
-
-
0.2
-
-
4

100
-
—
5
5-9
1

-
-
10
50
250,000
—
5,000
Fresh Water
Aquatic
20,000
20
_
_
11-1,100
_
0.4-12
2-10
100
14MPN/100ml
-
I/
5
iio
I/
1,000
100
0.05
2/

2/
5,000~

0.003
0.01
-
- -
0.001
0.1
0.003
0.004
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
0.03
0.001
0.04
0.005
6.5-9.0
-
-
3
0.001
2/
I/
-
2
I/
Marine
Aquatic
^
_
_
_
—
_
5
_
_
—
-
y
5
110
-
-
-
0.1
2/
-
_
—

0.003
0.004
-
-
0.001
0.1
0.001
0.004
0.01
0.001
0.004
0.1
0.03
0.001
0.04
0.005
6.5-8.5
-
0.1
-
0.001
I/
2/
-
2
—
0.1 times 96-hr LC50
0.01 times 96-hr LC50
                                  - 22 -

-------
                                                Afimux B-48 Toxic Pmvrrim*
                                             Aenlein
                                             AcrytaaltrUe
                                             Aldrin/Dteldrtn
                                             Anenle and compoundi
                                             Cuban tetnehlarld*
                                             Cblordaae 
-------
tuuts
                                                csouLAnom
27771
                    U-*Cftl»-  SIC lUl-
                      and  bo-  SIC 3O«- Wo*«
                               SIC m*-fUrt**otf Viftm aad nyv*ad
     MJMTI tdiiiiia»«ihirl cata*»  ate in*  fl
                                8tC  MM— feracum!
  tad MM* •!&•*•*>
     prwnou  lotlMr  UM*  thu>«   SIC I'**!—W
                                SIC ai»-«a*l
                                ssc nit—COM
Hll-«a» afOai
                                 SIC HM  rimiliiM. Ajpaattad-PtlVl	
                                  aad Otaar Hard Surface Floor Corwrtna*.
                                  •at JTannut ^imPrl
                                 it.
                                 sic mi—MI
                                  t^	_	m
                                 SIC JTTl—fvnodioic PttMlatUac,
                                  ataadPrmuaf
                                 SIC xni-aaokK  PoblUblac.
                                                                     SIC rrn—»oo« Prtnoac
                                                                     SIC 7l«l-aOat»lUa«Ka Pu
                                                                     SIC mi—Crmtmmntl Prtnunc.
                                                                     CCmi  dm*	HI Pitntlac.
                                                                     SK mi  ffumim and Plato Pnntiac
                                                                     SIC m«  Oimnnmil Prtnunc. Onvun
                                                                     •3C rtl  HalnfTiIrt Puar   rnnu
                                                                     StC am—OrwOoc Card
                                 SIC TIM—OaetrecywM and SUnotrPtow
                                 StC  :1M Ltuucrmplua nn«nn>lni aa
                                 StC  mi             _
                                      	. iad AlUMt Produeu
                                 SIC an—fnnung lot
                                 SIC  Ml—Pvtia, IfacAaataal pcaetla,  and
                                   Partt aad  *»"~p Pada tlnfcad ^'''^tt"
                                                                                   Ptnetla, Omnoi, tad Art-

                                                                                          aad Inbd RlbbecM
                                                                                               PMUtr aa<
                                                                      SKTa^-CaavaparaUdtAOBBtlM aad DrT

                                                                      «C nu-Orr Oaaata< PUaU. En»pt ltd*

                                                                      «tp icon
                                                                          )0l-PMdUw PEBtrtaard BOMM

-------
iTT72
                                          'tUUS AMD
         rtber Caaa. Tub**
  Sknttar Product*
  C  M4t-Btuum« Paper  and BnUdtaf
  Board Mllto
•1C  rrn-BUakbooki. Loontnf
SIC 3t33-JrnU>eUc Rubber
•SIC mi-Rubber Cement
 SIC Ml 1—Tlrn aad Inner Tube*
 SIC Mil—Rubber aad Ptacua
  (Rubber Only)
 SIC Mil—Reclaimed Rubber
 SIC 1041—Rubber tad Plaitta
  BdUn« (R«bber Only)
 SIC Mil Ptbrteatod Rubber Pro
  Banner* Claaaned
 SIC S3M— Oackeu. Paeklnc> aa
                      Only)
SIC M»-He«Uiw
  tne aad Warm Air Pomace*
SIC 1441—Pabneated Structural Metal
SIC  3441-Metai  Doon.  Saab.  Prune*
  MoMtnc. and Trim
SIC  **4»—Paaneated  Ptettvort <1
  Snop*l
SIC 1444-Sheet Metal Wort
SIC  1444—Arcatuctaral aad
  Metal Wort
SIC  M4«—Prvfabneaud  Metal
  And OoopOfMBti
SIC 144*—Mte*Uaa*oaa Metal Wort
StC14»l-ac
                                                                            SIC 3943— Atr tad Ott rmiiiiiiMuii
                                                                            SIC W44-Blow
                                                                             imuon Para
                                                                            SIC 3M»-lixtuMrt«j Pattern
                                                                            SIC
                                                                             Speed Drm*. aad Onn
                                                                            SIC J4CI— ladiMtnal
                                      SIC 1491— Batu. Xuti.
                                                                            SIC mi  ar«rhii           ___
                                                                             CoulOOMnL Hot nn^turi Cl»Mt(l*d
                                                                            SIC J4*»-OM>«mJ buhuuttl
                                                                             and EqvlpoMfU. Hoc ElMvtm* CU«4lted
                                                                            SIC U7i-TypMntm
                                                                            SIC UT>— KteetronM CoapuU
                                                                RtfMt. «od   SIC 11TI  niniiitinf and
                                . KM
                                      SIC MO— Iron tad Stovl
                                      SIC MO-MooltrraiM P
                                      SIC HOT  Aiiinmmtu •»*— ptnn
                                      SICIIM  Crown* and Qomro
                                      sic !«•»  n«m ntiinntnn. net
 SZC O3l~Blolocteal Produett
 SIC Tyn Mod
  cal Product*
                                      SIC MUaman Am*
                                      SIC Tin  Am
                                                                            SIC m« aeml» wd
                                                                             oratory
                                                                            SIC MTt—OtfJe*
                                                                             cUMUto
                                                                            sic aut
                                       Ana*. Hoc F
                                                         ni
                                                                 far
 SIC 2M1—Oum and Wood Caenueal*
 SIC  im  raartrlil**  and  Agricultural
  "hiailuli Tint nmliiii n<*nnirt
 SIC 3S91— Adboatve aad Italinri
 SIC
 SIC
 SIC
  ration. Mot Elaewben
 SIC
                                      SIC14I4 BmallAra*
                                      SIC 1M»  Ordnaaco aad
                                      SICi4tl
                                                             n«l
                                                                      Wo*
                                                                            SIC	 	
                                                                              lac. aad Proatn*	
                                                                            SIC 1M»—Air CotvditJoeUM aad Warn Atr
                                                                              Beatific CQUlpmont ***** rfrHiBitfrrlal aad
                                                                              laduKrtal R^nteraoon EautpoMat
                                                                            SIC   liM  Maaiunag     -  ~
                                      SIC S4M-Vahrw aad Pip*
                                      SIC MVT-Mttal PoQ
                                      SIC 14M—Pabrteuod Ptp* aad
                                       PlpePttUaa
                                      SIC
                                                                              Not OMwner* OaacUtad
                                                                            SIC Ml3-Pp»«r. DtmibBt

                                                                            SIC Mil Itonilimr aad Svttenbaard A*.
                                      SIC SUS-VUni UaentaMry aad
                                      SIC mt  Oarden
•K nu-Orajr boa P
                 tmn rmmrtrU*
 BC >«H— au«l
 SIC
                                                                            SIC MU— HouMfiotd LMiadry
                  Short. PUU. and Pofl
                  rxt™a*l Produett
          lamtDum Rolllnc and Drawtofc
                                                                            SJC
                                                                                             Uchttnt
                                                                            SIC 3MT— T«aleuiar Lt«AUa«
                                                                            sic
                                      SIC
                                        TTPOJ
                                      8IC1III  BPII taJ OH* aad
                                        Tin imi nnum
                                      SIC
                                                                            SIC M3t-IUdto  aad TcicrMoo
                                                                      _
                                                                      aad   SIC SMtT-TM*oaoao* aad Tvtecraab,
                                                                        '"         *
                                      «C M4>-M«Ur«ortla»
•SIC Mil-Metal Caa*
 SIC UU—Metal
  Koe&oadPaQi   .
'StCMn-CMlory
 SIC *4Tt-Hinrt aad
                                      SIC JMl
                                      SIC ISU-Tntlto •Cacalatry
              S«««BBda««
                  Not
 SIC
  ttry War*
 SIC Mn-PtaBbtac  PUmrt Pttttao nt
  Tthmi
                                      SIC Ufta—Prautnc Trada*
                                                                            SIC l»n-Radto aad TUuHluu
                                                                              Mi>y_ »p—It


                                                                            SIC ITTJ-Radlo aad TtirrWon nmrftac
                                      mr 1111
                                      SIC UO-B*n aad Rooar
                                                                              Ray
                                                                             SIC sm-Catbod* Ray
                                                                              TttbH
                                                                             STCMTS—TrmramttUnc.  tndimrtal. aad

                                                                             SJCirr   """    ~"  """"
                                      tttowt voc «, wa
                                                                    r, turn M, iwt
                                                        -  25  -

-------
SIC am— electron!* Capacitors
8XC Mtc-IUttMon. for Electronic AppUca.
  turn*
SIC  MTT— Electronic  CoUa. Transformers
  and Other Inductor*
«C sm-canneettwa, far Etetroaie AppU-
  Cation*
BIG 3«7»-Cl«trante Components. MM Else-
  where Classified
SIC MOl— Stonw* Batteries
8IC 3«OT— Primary Baitertea, Orr and Wet
SIC M«-Radtofratmi« X-ray. Fluonscopte
  X-nur. Therapeutic X-ray. and Other X-
  ray Apparatus and Tubes Ktectronedical
  •ad Kteetrotherapeuue Apparatus
SIC38W— Electrical Equipment for Internal
  orfiu frUfTl^m ypcitMtf
SIC  MM-Dtetrtoa  Maehioery.  Zanip-
  ment. aad JluppUf*, Not Etewtwr* Clurt-
  (tod
SIC  nil— Motor VehktM Utd  PUMO(M>
  CAT BodJa
SIC TIlJ-Truck UMt Btu BodlM
KC nii-Untor V«tUcl« Pirti
SIC Ml5-Truck TnOtn
SIC 3T31— Aircraft
SIC  nav-Alrerttt endow wd  Xo«tiw
OC tnt-Alrertft Ptrtt  tad
  XqulpOMnt. Wot EtMwtun* CI««Ut«d
SIC 1T31— Ship Bofldlni and Repslrinc
SIC ma— BOM Buildtoc sad Rcoatetnc
SIC 1741— Railrotd Equipment
SIC *T8l— UotoreyclM. Bicycles, ud Purtc
SIC im-Ouided KlatflM «ad Spac* V«ht-
            • Iff US AND- REGULATIONS

       SIC J7W— Tnnsport&Uoo  Equipment, Mot
        EUewhcn CbuaUied
       SIC Mil— Emlneerdig. Laboratory. Scten-
        tUIe. and Research Inatrume&tt aad Auo-
                                                                                                            27773
           it. (ucntopMrnm
src 34T-Coatmt.
  Services
aad
      SIC 3833— Automatic ControU for Reculat*
        inff Residential and Commercial Environ-
        ment! and Appliances
      SIC 3«2S— Industrial Instrument* tor M«v
        siucment, Ofspiay and Control of Process
        Variables: and Related Products
      SIC 3»3*- Totaltzlag   Fluid  Meten  and
        Coantlnc Devices
      SIC 3«5— Instruments for Measurfnc aad
        Ttstiat at Electrtcily aad Electrical SH-
SKJ J164-
        crated Device* and Parts
      SIC sm-Jewelry. Precious MeUU
      SIC »14— Silverware.  Plated Ware,  aad
        Staialest Steel Ware
      SIC 3S13— Jewelers' rtadloxs and Materials,
        and LaeWary Work
      SIC 3931— Musical Instruments
      SIC3M7-DOUI
      SIC 3944— Oames. Toys, and Children's Ve-
        hlclcc Except OoUaaod Bicycles
      SIC 3»49—SpOTtJnc and Athletic Oooda, Mot
        Bsewbere CUsaUled
      SIC- 3W1— Pens.  Mecaanical Pencfls.  aad
        Parts (Balaaea)
      SIC 3991— Costuow Jewelry and Costume
        Novelties. Except JPreefcws Metal
      SIC SMI-Brooms aad Brushes
      SIC »«3—SKn* and AdwntUnc Displays
      SIC 3Mft— Burial Cukttt
       to. on Mininu AMB T»imum
SIC ton—Iron Ores
SIC 1021—Copper Ores
SIC 1031—Lead and Zinc Ores
SIC 1041-Cold Ores
SIC 1044-SUver Ores
SIC 1031—Bauxite  and Other

SIC i
-------
                           RULES AND REGULATIONS

                     TABU 118.4A.-Ujt o/hojorrfmu su&itancea
                                                                                    L
                                                                                                     1048
                         CAS No.
                                            SjnwnytM
                                                                            CAS HO.
  itleBcid.
Aertrl chloride,
Acraltt
Aonrtonltrfl*.
 78010

 0419T
108347
 7SB8S

sown
 70387
107 OM

107131

30*00-
1071M

loioai
        EUutukL elhyl tldebyd*. *etUe aldt-
         hjrd*.
        Olicld wctla meld, vtiwor tdd ~—
        ActUc oxld«. icetyl axldt	
        3-mcthyUmetonitrUt.
         hrdroxjrtoobutrrofUtrU*.
        3-proocnmL  tcryUe tldihyil*.
         l»Jde»iyd». icnhMunta.
        CniNMthrlent. FMmltnin. Vtntox.
         pnvcnelCrU*. vtnyl cyiuiM*.
        OetaleiM. HHDN	
        3-propen-l-oJ.   1-propmol-S,  vtnrt
         cubtnoL
                                   Alum.
                          10043013
                           7S«417	
                            HUH  AetUe idd «mmntiluni, salt.
                           1863*34	.	
                           10GS337  Add itnn"*i""" carbonau. tnunonl-
                                    ura hrdrectn ewbomc*.
                                   Acid  unmottlum  (luorldt,
        im cartwnat*.
         ichramat*—
         i citrtu dlbuta—
 7189098
 13414*7

10192300
 1111780
  SOS878
1312903A  Amm-r1""* raurimt*. ul ;
          MUmlae, Aaehlor.
 778WS9
 30138U  DUmmonlim  ettiuu.  ettlia  add
                          13*38*30  Ammonium  fluorooorau. mmmoo*-
                                    um boronuorld*.
                          1311M1>  muttml immnntmn flueridt ,
                           13W3U    	
                           1009707  _	__-_____-_————
                           wrm*           i  i
                          t41M4n
                          1891*190
                           77730*0
                          13133711   ,,,
                          10190040 —______———
                          10193300 _____	          	
                           31*13*3 TXrtarte add immnnlnm alt -
                          14307431   ,-
                           17B3M4 Amraonlum rtwdanid*.
                                                            cuUo*
                                                 maxXM.
                                    Amrl«
                                          00.
                                                       133913
                                                       630M
                                                       •311U

                            TMTUt
                                    taUlM oU, phnyUunlu;
                                        , tniaophm. kjwwL
                       UEOtSTHt, VOL 43, Ha 49—MONDAY. MAICH IX 197*
                                      -27 -

-------
10482                                            IULES AND REGULATIONS

                                      TABU HA.4A.-LUt afhaaarrtotu jutetonen—Canttatwd
                                               CASMo.              Synonym             I .......    CASK*.
                                                        Tartar tmttlc unrated antimony.
                       tanma.                           ttrtartxtd •nuuoar. potauiua ut-
                                                         UmoayiurtnM.
                               trtbromld«____    TTSMtfl
                       Antimony ulchJortd*___   1W25318  Buitir o( antimony..
                       Antimony trtfluortdt	.    77839«4  Anumony nuondt.
                       -•HIM-- tnoiW0____—    130M44  Dimntuooivy tnoxida, flown of aou-
                                                         many.
                                                 1303331  Rod amnlo tulUd*.
                                                 »1?T7f»  Aneale  add umydrtd*.  -mate
                                                         oxld*.
                             tiiehlMid«_____.    T7M341  ATMBM ehlortdc. _n*nlaui ctxiortd..
                                                         •tMnau. cltlarld*. buiur of UMTUC.
                                                 13TTB3J  Anmlaui  Mid.  UMOVUI  oatda.
                                                         vhlteanmie.
                                                 13013.0
                                                  »43sn           ..
                                                  71433  CrcloilMunlctM. bttnol ..,
                                                  •MM  ammwearMiyUe aeut plunyUor-
                                                         mk add. dncrUe add.
                                                  100470  Phmyl erankte. cjuutOfajamt,.,...,,
                       Beaorl rhlr-*-*-              9BIM Bno-tMcarOonrt ctuond*..
                       Boayl cblortda	     100447
                         rrlUumcblor_i«.___    TI8T47S
                                                 T7B74M
                                                 TTBTSU
                                                1UKM4
                                                        «artl« uad butyl «-Ur            !».            HOtM
                                                                                                      TMU
                                                                                                     I1S4M
                       p_Liti»i""~t bv^_nl    ^TB^^JB
                       d_Blumchlarld.____—   1010M43
                       nil I	i-miti             777.441
                                                U7401M
                                                   78907
                                                                                                      TMW
                                                        9utMuata»ald.*UulteXleiaU - Ho.             TRU
                                                  S4390*  ,,,                            --
                                                OTU1M  CUetum  elira-w  r»Uow.
                                                         r*uov<
                                                  wan*  _____
                                                MM40C3  	
                                                 130M30  LUM.hydtmU-l.itatadllaA
                                                         hjntrml*
                                                 rrnsu                  ,    -
                                                 UKWTtt
                                                  133063
                                                   63283
                                                   7S1H  Carton bM
                                                          hjdrtd..
                                                   tnvt  Taziettlor. i
                                                   7SO«  	
                                                  10SM7
                                                         TTlThlitrrm-"""
                       ChtorpyiUM
                                                 77WMI  Sul/uitc ealorolurdr.1
                                                 10M304  	
                                                U11S7U
                                            -   101.18*.              i.
                       	I	   1004MM  	__
                       CotmtBiMi qir-pM-           77.9417  Cotelt braMkto.
                       Co-1-ltou.fonn.M	     344113  Cob*Jt fonMU.
                       Ort-ltimi r-'—-	   140174U  Cob-It «uUamat4
                       -~tntTP»~~	      M7J4  Ca-IUl	
                                    NORAL MOtSTBt VOL 43, H6. «•—MONDAY, MAKN IX 1TO

                                                               -  28 -

-------
                           tUUS AND REGULATIONS                                           10483

               T__x» 1114A.—List a/luuardota svtutanea  Continued
                        OUJNO,             ajuuuju-l             tir»-ll»    CAS If a.
                                                                             1013M
                                 Copper-ntmU. erytt-llMd rtrdlarl-,
     i_c*tou*HUU___   1200303* Copper acMoarMiul*. copper m-
                                  UK anentl*. Pull CTMIL
CaprtBCKtoride ______    T44TSM Cooper chloride
Castle rf»—*-               S39t_U Copper mtnte
-»---.—....               SM3M3 Cooper oxaUM ____________
Cuprteeu)f_U_______    TTMSST Copper niU_U.
     i mini i iminnnlitirt   10M0397 Ai
Cuprtc Urtr-U               11M7T  Copptr t-rtm«
cyuoc-o«&lart<-i__-__     Mtrn
                           HOOT  H««-Mdf»0«ni-
                            *418T
                            Mill  l44>ehlefoplMno_--Di-.-adi
                            M7M
                          mom
                          IM1W
                          IMMU
                         mantr
                         U4CT111
                            MM  par-Dor.
                           33MU  ObioItiM. DU-ttiU. •—-"-
                          ItlMMM  a-m«tho->4.»D___or««ro«<-nM*--l_      T9MO  O-lmp
                           1U«M  Phnen. dict-orep-pmhoqulnoiui —
                            «J7J7  U-dldi_)ra«lnyi  dmrthyl  pbo*.
                           MitB MUl-tc. Mlurl nMliTtan-. pttapbar*
                            40004  Zdette MM. JUr-teM. (ethrUn-^Uit.
          MM (OTA-               trUoM«tr__fl-tkj teKL
               dtnta_    lltssn  AamofUum (errta dtnu.
               a__l_M_    _f44«T«  -mnai_-mf(TT-io__l
                         IHIMT4  ,.—,—.—	-,..,-..
                          I04U4M
                                  FtrrH pvnmlliM.  ftrrte ••miaul
                                   (kM. trnle tanaU-M.
                                  Iron chlarld-, trao dletUarkta. Iron
                   Ai UOtSTB^ VOL. 41, Na «-MOM>Ar, MAICH

-------
I04g4                                          WHS AND REGULATIONS

                                     Tuu 118.4A.-Wtf afhaa&rda*! ntbttancn—CanUuuid
                                             CMW&
                                                       Grwn TttnL.
                                               rmtlfl  Iran vttm. ina miici*. ina praw-
                                                 MOM  Metbrt (Uilurd*. OMUuaol, (am*
                                                       un.
                                                 MtM  M*ttnnoie»c
                                                       Tr«ni-bu««nadtoSc  aetd.  tnm-tj-
                                                       irtd. iHmnirtto idd.
                                                 noil  2-runidcnyd*. prronmrtoaUMhr**.
                                                 MMO  OUMthlon. «iinph<»m«h)r
                      ardroctilorteMM—____    7847010  Hydrogen chloride. murt»Ue «»~JnM»»*^OB«fnirt«j»»t.

                                               TfUMV
                                               1MU788
                                                       V*mu91
                                                 7MM  DMDT.BWtlWJaT'DDT.
                                                 748*1
                                                3MBOO  Mttrmt.
                                               TTUt4f
                                                1U1M
                                                 78««T
                                                309788
                                                 ttm  WMt> ur. ur emmher. n«nntn*lln
                                               1MM1M
                                               (7311088
                                           UOOm, VOC 43, NO. 4«-MONOAr, MAtCH 13, 1OT




                                                             -  30  -

-------
                          MACS AND REGULATIONS                                          10485

                    1U.4__—Uat qfftoranfowntuttoMt  Cootln-ed
                       CAS MO.            aynoniM            LoMn    CAflHo.
               _____   11054481 Kk-rtom ter
Htctal nttnu
Hick*! lultatt	    TI8MM NMutaufioU-W.
                         7MT3T1 Aqua forti*.
                                 NltretMim>l.o_o.__rt»iM.
                        101M44O  Nttracm tctr-axid*.
                        39U4U*  Mnnnnicrvpn«nnl               n-   ,         9S4M7
                                                             --             MTU
                                                             p.	     1000-T
                                 Ptntenn.  FannM«M. TrUorraoL                    .
                                 poimwrtXMl lonn_W«_T<** poijro*.
                                 jpnMthTlnu.
                                 DNTP. Nlran                   _____          .
                           tTMS  PCP.Pcnts.
                          lOttM  CutoUc «d«t phmrt hydmid*. hT-
                                 etttorf> Mda In. todlum to-
                                  drnto.
                          ttll83f Blao&_^________^.^__
                         lOOUMft ____________________
                           U4414 aormTm B-ntxiTKt«
                                                   AY, MAtCH1Xl«7t
                                          31  -

-------
10486                                          MHJS AND REGULATIONS

                                  Tuu 118. tA.—Lift aSfiaznntou* nbttancn  Continued
                                          GUNo.           anmoyn*           Iiomin   CAB Ho.
                      XMOMT.
                                           101M699
                                            T7UM4
                                            TMU40
                                           10101(00
                                           UMUM
                                       _   1TU2M
                                           I0134MI
                                          •  'MIJUJ              -
                                            T7I9MS _	, ,
                                             TOW         -
                                            10M33 VinirlbeattM.     phourtMhrlnM.
                                                   ttjrot UTI«>MB. 17U it>trtcJUoTopJ_t»»y-M«tlc »cJd_
                                            294M07 l,«J-trtenJorop(MOo
                                             HTM _______
                                           1S3M1S
                    TDI -     TM4I
                                             7IOM _MdUtruUiyl.TE_.
                                            1(TM»J TEPP.
                                            10MM Toluot   mMb]r»wa«M.
                                           MOU9S CuBptMChlar.
                                                  DipU»x-
                                                  Dylas.
                                                  CnlliinMnl, DowleM* 1 or A OcuL
                                            U14M
                                             TUO* TMA.
                                            M1MS ____
                                           U103064 ——
                                            U14MU.
                                           arn4iw
                                                                                           M4TI
                                                                                          tOMK
                                     »_   itmm
                                            ua_m
                                            T6M4M
                                            34MU*
                                            TMMST
                                            umi
                                            TTKMH
                                            UT41S
                                            THMM
                                            1114M7           „
                                           107171*  ZtaBfluanUlMto	
                                            77X1030  Wllttft V_1_i» riHI filuoli Wbito 4
                                           UM4M2
                                           IOOM1U
   •fatt« ti«.4a^-I.iif a f Hazardous     64197 Acetic add                        7644t  BtpUvehlor
                                       "WO Bflnoieidd                       Ttooa  TttrMthniMd
                                       57*a Chlonfom                       TTTM  Uopnno
                                                                                    sssssar
                                             MonoawthylamfM
                                             Hjntrowncjmnldo                  «50flrr  Dlqtut
                                       749ai Mettoyl morespUui                 MSM  Outhloa
                                       TBM>T MoixwUiybunlm                   STM8  Ptntoehlaroptuael
                                       7807°                                                      ^
      n_»ua«ilaaiaitatn«ottB    Mtd  78130 Cartaoa dliuUldo                   91303  NApbUultno
      fiwjrwwn— — -—                   TOM7 C«lduni«rWd«                    9132$  QulaaUa*
      DWdrta                          7B44« Phown*                         9S76S  lO-T-sid
      AaOtoT                          W893 TrtnothylMBliw                   997M  14.5-Ttrtw
      D^nt^TO.                        •»•«• Urt-Butylunine                    Mill  li-D«rt«r
521 S^-nl                         7MM AMtoMeyanohydrin                947S7  14-Dkdd
M1M roml?»rH                       *MM U-DlchlorDproptonlo »etd            94791

                                fBCKAt HOOTR, VOL 43, HO. 4«—MONOAY, MAMH I

                                                       -  32  -

-------
                                               ftULES AND REGULATIONS
                                                                           10487
•4804  2.4-D Butyl ester
•5476  o-Xylene
»S48T  o-Cresol
68011  Furfural
98884  Benzoyl chloride
88951  Nitrobenzene
10630  ra-Dlnltrobenzene
100027  p-Nltrophenol
1002S4  p-Duiitrooenzene
100414  Ethylbenzene
100429  Styrcne
100447  Benzyl chloride
100470  Benzonitrile
105464  sec-Butyl acetate
106423  p-Xylene
106445  [nCreaol
107028  Aerolein
101051  Allyl chloride
107131  Acrylonitrile
107193  Ethylenediamine
107188  Allyl alcohol
107493  Tetraethyi pyrophasphate
107828  n-Butyric acid
108054  Vinyl acetate
108247  Acetic anhydride
108318  Maleic anhydride
108383* m-Xyler.a
108394  m-Cresol
108483  Resorcinol
108883  Toluene
108907  Chlorobenzene
108892  Phenol
109739  n-ButyUaiae
109897  Dlethylamine
110167  Maleicacid
110178  Fumaricadd
110190  bo-Butyl «cetaU
110837  Cyclohexane
118297  F"^"«"if«n
115322  Kelthane
117808  Dichlone
131211  Pyrethrfn
121399 PyreUxrln
-121448 Triethylamtoe
121755  MalathloB
123428 PropJonic anhydride
123884 n-Butyl acetate
123922 bo-Amy! acetate
124403 Dlmethylamine
124414 Sodium methylat*
127822 7?*1"1 pheaolsuUonate
133062 Captan
142712 Cuprie acetate
143339 Sodium cyanide
181508 Potassium cyanide
298000 Methyl parathion
298044 DlsuUotoa
300788 Naled
301042 Lead acetate
309002 Aldrin
215184 Uexacarbate
12*718 24-Dinitrophenol
330841 Dluron
933415 Dlazinon
 806774 Cyanoiea chloride
 808878 Ammonium carbonate
 808907 Acetyl bromide
 813498 sec-Butylamine
 828290 o-Dtnltrobenzene
 84088S tert-Butyl acetate
 541093 Uranyl acetate
 842821 Barium cyanide
 843908 Cadmium acetate
 844183 Cobaltous formate
 884847 ovNitcophenol
-.887211 Zlhccyaniae~
487348 Zinc acetate
•887418 Zinc formate
 583122 Ethion
 573848 2.6-Duitrophenol
 5*2018 Calcium cyanide
 6*2041 Mercuric cyanide
 502888 Mercuric UHocyanate
893870  Lead thlocyanate
623181  ten-Amy! acetate
836380  sec-Amyl acetate
828837  n-Amyl acetate
831818  Ammonium acetate
819827  Cuprie tartrate
1066304  Chromic acetate
1086337  Ammonium bicarbonate
1072391  Lead atearate
1111780  Ammonium carbamate
118597S  Ferric ammonium citrate
1194858  DichlobenU
1300716  Xylenot
1303282  Arsenic pentoxide
1303328  Anenic diauUlde
1303339  Arsenic trtsulfide
1308630  Calcium hydroxide
1308788  Calcium oxide
1309644  Antimony trioxlde
1310983  Potassium hydroxide
1310732  Sodium hydroxide
1314831  Vanadium pentoxide
1314803  Phosphorus pentesuUlde
1314847  Zinc phosphide
1314870  Leadsulllde
1319773  Cresol (mixed)
133018*  2.4-D ester
1327933  Anenic trioxlde
1330207  Xylene
1332078  Zinc berate
1333831  Sodium blfluorlde
1338216  Ammonium hydroxide
1338383  Polychlortnated biphenyls
1338248  Naphthenic add
1341497  AHMMiiiiimi bifluortde
 1732984  Ammonium thioeyaaate
 1863834  Ammonium bemoate
 1918009  Dlcamba
 1*28387  2.4-D esters
 1928478  2.4J-T ester
 1928816  2.4-D ester
 1*29733  2,4-D ester
 2945897  2.4>T ester
 2784729  DUroat
 2*31882  ChlorpyrUoe
• 2*44874  Ferric ammonium oxalate
 2*71382  X4-D ester
 3012885  AumiMnimu cltiate, fllhailiT
 31842*2  Ammoninm tartrate
 3281238  Cuprtc nitrate
 3488388  Zinc carbonate
 98*3883  Cuprlcoxalau
 8*72736  A*n
 800*707  ^ni
 8369*68 ].4>Tester
 7428480 Leaditearate
 7440235 Sodium
 7446084 Selenium «Tl<1»
 7448142 Leadsulfate
 74473C4 Cuprie chloride
 7988794. Sodium phosphate, dibasic
 780194* Sodium phosphate, tribute
 7631882 Sodium arsenate
 7831905 Sodium bisulfite
 7832000 Sodium nitrite
 7848252 Leadanenate
 7848857 Zinc chloride
 7847010 Hydrochloric add
 784718* Antimony pentachlorlde
-7*64382 Phosphoric acid
 78843*3 Hydrofluoric add
 7*84417 Ammonia
 7*64*3* Sulluricadd
 76814*4 Sodium nuorWe
 768152* Sodium hypocnlortte
•78*7372 Nitric add
 TO9458 Zinc bromide
 7708080 Ferrle chloride
 771854* Nickel chloride
 771*122 Phosphorus trichloride
 7720787 Ferrous sulfate
 7722847 Potassium permancanate
 7723140 Phosphorus
7733020  ZtaesuUaU
7798294  Sodium phosphate, tribailc
•7798943  Ferrous chloride
7788954  Lead chloride
7786987  Cuprie sulfate
7773060  Ammonium siilfnrnate
7778113  Sodium chromate
7778441  Calcium anenate
777850*  Potassium bichromate
7778! 43  Calcium hypochlorita
7779884  Zinc hydrciulllte
7779886  Zinc nitrate
7782508  Chlorine
7782630  Ferrous sulfate
7782823  Sodium selenite
7782867  Mercurous nitrate
7783188  Ammonium thiosullate
7783339  Mercuric sulfate
7783462  Lead fluoride
7783495  Zinc fluoride
7783508  Ferric fluoride
7783564  Antimony trifluoride
7784341  Anenic trichloride
7784409  Leadanenaw
7784410  Potassium arsenate
7784468  Sodium anenite
7783844  Sodium phosphate, tribaaio
7786347  Mevinphon
7788814  Nickel sulfate
•7787479  Beryllium chloride
7787497  Beryllium fluoride
7787999  Beryllium nitrate
7788989  Ammonium chromate
7789006  Potassium chromau
7789062  Strontium chromau
778*098  Ammonium bichromate
7780426  Cadmium bromide
7789437  Cobaltous bromide
7789619  Antimony trlbromide
7790948  ChlorosuUonic add
8001352  Toxaphene
 10022708 Sodium hypocnlortte
 10025873 Phosphorus oxychloride
-10038*19 Antimony trichloride
 10026116 Zirconium tetrachloride
 10028228 Ferric sulfate
 10028247 Sodium phosphate, dibasic
 10039324 Sodium phosphate, dibasic
 10043013 Aluminum sulfate
 10048893 Ferrous ammonium sulfate
 10045940 Mercuric nitrate
 1004*085 Chromous chloride
 100*9748 Lead nitrate
 10101838 Chromic sulfate
 10101830 Uad iodide
 101018*0 Sodium phosphate, tartbaslc
 10102064 Uranyl nitrate
 10102188 Sodium selenite
 10103440 Nitrogen dioxide
 10102484 Leadanenate
 10108843 Cadmium chloride
 10134903 Potassium anenite
 10124588 Sodium phosphate, trtbasto
•10140696 Sodium phosphate, dibasic
 10192300 Ammonium bisulfite
 101*8040 Ammonium sullite
 10381894 Sodium phosphate. trUMule
 103802*7 Cuprie sulfate. ammoniated
 10415758 Mercurous nitrate
 10421484 Ferric nitrate
 10538019 Sodium bichromate
 11115749. Chromic acid
 12002038' Cuprie a^itoanenlte
 12094487 Nickel hydroxide
 12125018 Ammonium fluoride
 1212802* Ammonium chloride
 12139761 Ammonium sulflde
 12771083 Sulfur chloride
 13897*94 Beryllium nitrate
 137468** Zirconium nitrate
 13765190 Calcium chromate
 13814*68 Lead fluoborau
 13828830 Ammonium fluoborate
                                 noeuu tsamn. VOL 43, NO. 49-
                             DAY, MAIOI 13, 1978

-------
10488
 U852846  sce-ButylwiiM
 14017413  Cobaltous sulfmoMte
 14216792  Nickel nitrate
 14258492  Ammonium oxalate
 14307358  Lithium chromstt
 14307438  Ammonium tartrate
 14839979  Zinc ammonium cbiortd*
 14839986  Zinc ammonium chJorld*
 14*44812  Zirconium siuiate
 !Se99l80  Nickel ammonium mOIat*
 16731809  Sodium hrdronil/ld*
 16S71719  Zinc slllconuorid*
 18019190  Ammonium slliconuoiid*
 18933098  Zirconium potassium
 391S4S43  Olnitrabenzen*
 38154588  Nltrophsnol
 25159300  Sodium dod«cyHiir\rnn«mlfnc*t«
 25187*32  TrtciUoropbenol
 28188154  2.44-T ester
 25188287  2.4-Oerter
 26284062  Calcium
  dodecylbenzenesuUonate
 2T178870
 27223417  TOetbanoUatiiM
 27774138  Vtnadyl fill/at*
 28300745  Antimony potantam tartnt*
 205258M  PanXonnaldehjdt
 28478789  Uranjri nitnt*
 27211055  NIdMl chloride
 42504461
  pfluote
 52828238  Zlno ammonlnm cblarldt
 52740168  dictum snonite
 52487111  Z4-D ester
 88488874  Ptrric smmonlum
 81792072  14J-T ester
  OHtDoa T8-6339 TUMI 3-10-78; 8:45 HBl
                                                               - 34 -

-------
BD-12
          Resource Conservation  and  Recovery Act

          Subtitle C  -  Hazardous Waste  Management

          Section 3004  -  Standards Applicable  to Owners  and
                          Operators of Hazardous Waste  Treatment,
                          Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
                            DRAFT
                     BACKGROUND  DOCUMENT
 Section  250.42-3    Air  Human Health and Environmental
                      Standard
         250.43(e)   Open Burning


         250.45 (c)   Non-point Sources  of  Air Contaminant
                                            DECEMBER 15,  1978
             U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                    OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

-------
      This document provides background information and
 support for regulations which are designed to protect the
 air,  surface water,  and groundwater from potentially harmful
 discharges and  emissions from hazardous waste treatment,
 storage,  and disposal  facilities  pursuant to  Section 3004
 of the  Resource Conservation  and  Recovery Act of  1976.   It
 is being  issued as a draft  to support  the proposed regula-
 tion.   As  new information is  obtained,  changes may be made
 in the  regulations as well  as in  this  background  material.
     This  document was  first  drafted many months  ago and  has
 been revised  to reflect  information received  and  Agency
 decisions made  since then.  EPA made changes  in the proposed
 Section 3004  regulations shortly  before their publication in
 the Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that all of
 those decisions are reflected in  this  document.   If there
 are any inconsistencies between the proposal  (the  preamble
 and the regulation) and this  background document,  however,
 the proposal  is controlling.
Comments in writing may be made to:
     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste                 ui
     Hazardous Waste Management Division  (WIf-565)
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                Regulations to Control
                    Air Emissions

     1.0    Introduction
       1.1    Authority
       1.2    Definitions
     2.0    Rationale for Regulatory Action
       2.1    Actual Damage
       2.2    Potential Damage
       2.3    Sources of Public Health and
                Environmental Hazards
     3.0    Identification of Regulatory Framework
       3.1    Types of Standards
       3.2    The Clean Air Act and Amendments
       3.3    Air Contaminant Concentration Limits
                to Protect Workers
       3.4    Standards to Protect Workers/ Nonworkers,
                and the Environment
     4.0    Identification and Analysis of Regulatory
              Options
     5.0    Proposed Regulation and Strategy used in
              its Development
APPENDIX
     A.  Damage Incidents
     B.  References

-------
 1.0    Introduction
 1.1    Authority
      The Congress of the United States via Section 3004
 of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
 (RCRA)  of 1976 (PL 94-580)  mandates that the Administrator of
 the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency promulgate regula-
 tions  establishing such performance 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.   These standards are to include,
 but  need  not  be limited to,  requirements respecting:   (1)
 operating methods,  techniques,  and practices;  (2)  location,
 design, and construction; and (3)  contingency plans for
 effective action to minimize unanticipated damage that might
 occur at  these facilities.
     All  provisions of  this Act (including Section  3004)
 must be integrated with the Clean Air  Act,  as amended
 (42  U.S.C.  i  7401  et seq.),  the Clean  Water Act,  as amended
 (33  U.S.C.  I  1251  et seq.),  the Federal Insecticide Fungi-
 cide, and Rodenticide Act (7  U.S.C.  I  136  et s^.), the Safe
 Drinking  Water Act,  as  amended  (42  U.S.C.  I 300f  et seq.),
 the Marine  Protection,  Research and Sanctuaries Act (33  U.s.c,
 § 1420  e_t seq.)  and  such other  Acts of  Congress as  grant
authority to  the EPA Administator.   A  stated purpose of  the
above requirement was to avoid  duplication  to  the maximum

-------
extent possible.  Such integration, however/ is to be
effected only in a manner consistent with the goals and
policies expressed in RCRA and the above-listed acts.
1.2  Definitions
     The following definitions should aid the reader in
understanding the area of concern covered by this document
and the regulations for which this document is intended as
background information.
     1.  "Disposal of Solid or Hazardous Waste" means the
         discharge/ deposit, injection, dumping, spilling/
         leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazard-
         ous waste into or on any land or water so that
         such solid waste or hazardous waste or any con-
         stituent thereof may enter the environment or be
         emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
         including groundwaters.
     2.  "Disposal Facility" means any facility which
         disposes of hazardous waste.
     3.  "Facility" means any land and appurtenances, thereon
         and thereto used for the treatment, storage, and/or
         disposal of hazardous waste.
     4.  "Fugitive Emissions" means air contaminant
         emissions which are not planned and emanate from
         sources other than stacks, ducts, or vents or
         from non-point emission sources.

-------
5.  "Hazardous Waste" has the meaning given in Section
    1004(5) of the Act as further defined and identified
    in Subpart A.
6.  "Incinerator" means an engineered device using
    controlled flame combustion to thermally degrade
    hazardous waste.  Examples of devices used for
    incineration include rotary kilns, fluidized beds,
    liquid injection incinerators, pathological incinera-
    tors, cement kilns,  and utility boilers.
7.  "Incompatible Waste" means a waste unsuitable for
    commingling with another waste or material, because
    the commingling might result in:
    (i)    Generation of extreme heat or pressure,
    (ii)   Fire,
    (iii) Explosion or violent reaction,
    (iv)   Formation of substances which are shock-
          sensitive, friction-sensitive, or otherwise
          have the potential of reacting violently,
    (v)    Formation of toxic (as defined in Subpart A)
          dusts, mists,  fumes,  gases, or other chemicals,
          and
    (vi)   volatilization of ignitable or toxic chemicals
          due to heat generation, in such a manner that
          the likelihood of contamination of groundwater,
          or escape of the substances into the environ-
          ment, is increased,  or

-------
     (vii)   any  other  reactions  which might result in
            not  meeting  the  air  human health and environ-
            mental  standard  (See Annex 4  for more details).
 8.   "Monitoring" means  all  procedures used to systemati-
     cally inspect  and collect data on operational para-
     meters of the  facility,  or  on the quality of the air,
     groundwater, or surface water,  or soils.
 9.   "Non-Point  Source"  means a  source from which pc
     tants emanate  in  an unconfined and unchannelled
     manner, including,  but  not  limited to the following:
     (i)    For non-point sources of water effluent, this
           includes those sources which are not controlla-
           ble through permits issued pursuant to Sections
           301 and  402 of the Clean Water Act.  Non-point
           source water  pollutants are not traceable to a
           discrete identifiable origin,  but result from
           natural  processes, such as run-off precipitation,
           drainage, or  seepage.
     (ii)   For non-point sources of air contaminant
           emissions,  this normally includes any landfills,
           landfarms,  surface impoundments/ and basins.
10.   "Open Burning" means the combustion of any material
     without the following characteristics:
     (i)    Control  of  combustion air to maintain adequate
           temperature for efficient combustion,

-------
      (ii)  Containment of  the combustion-reaction  in
           an enclosed device to provide  sufficient
           residence time  and mixing  for  complete
           combustion, and
      (iii) Emission of the gaseous combustion products
           through a stack, duct* or vent adequate for
           both visual monitoring and point source
           sampling.
11.   "Owner/Operator" means the person who owns the land
     on which a facility is located and the person who
      is responsible for the overall operation of the
      facility.
12.   "Point Source" means  any discernible, confined, and
     discrete conveyance,  including, but  not limited to,
     the following:
      (i)   For point sources of water effluent, any
           pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,  conduit, well,
           discrete fissure, container, rolling stock,
           concentrated feeing operation, vessel or
           other floating  craft from which pollutants
           are or may be discharged; and
    (ii)   For point sources of air contaminant emissions
           any stack, duct, or vent from which pollutants
           are or may be discharged.
13.  "Retention Time" means the time hazardous waste
     is subjected to the combustion zone temperature.

                         8

-------
    14.  "Storage of Hazardous Waste" means the containment
         of hazardous waste either on a temporary basis or
         for a period of years in such a manner as to not
         constitute disposal of such hazardous waste.
    15.  "Storage Facility" means any facility which stores
         hazardous waste, except generators who store their
         own waste on-site for less than 90 days for sub-
         sequent transport off-site, in accordance with regu-
         lations in Subpart B.
    16.  "Storage Tank" means any manufactured non-portable
         covered device used for containing pumpable hazard-
         ous wastes.
2.0  Rationale for Regulatory Action
     The rationale for regulatory action comes first and
foremost from the authority of Section 3004 of RCRA.  This
Section requires the Administrator to promulgate regulations
establishing such performance standards applicable to owners
and operators of facilities for the treatment, storage and
disposal of hazardous wastes as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
     The direction to address the air environment is speci-
fied in part in the RCRA definition of disposal.  Disposal
is defined as the placing of any solid or hazardous waste
into or on any land or water so that such waste or any con-
stituent thereof may enter the environment or be "emitted
into the air."  Treatment, storage and disposal facilities

-------
 can emit constituents of the waste into the air, and thus
 air standards must be promulgated to ensure that air pollu-
 tants do not adversely affect human health and the environ-
 ment.
 2. 1  Actual Damage
      TRW Inc.,  under contract to EPA to evaluate emission
 control criteria for air emission standards under Section
 3004 of RCRA,  summarized information compiled by the Office
 of  Solid Waste  staff on specific incidents for which damage
 to  human health and  the environment took place at hazardous
 waste treatment,  storage and disposal facilities.   These
 hazardous waste disposal damage  reports have been deleted
 fromrttext of the background  document  but  are  included  as
 an appendix.  A summary of these  damage incidents  i^ provided
 in Table 1.
 2.2  Potential Damage;  Identification of Sources  of
     Hazards to Human Health and  the  Environment^
     As can be readily seen  from  the  summary  of damage inci-
 dents shown in Table I, damage to the environment  and  to
 health can occur from several methods of  disposal.   One can-
 not conclude, however, that  these methods are inadequate
 means for treatment or disposal.   The damage  incidents
 demonstrate in most cases inadequate  management by owners and
 operators of facilities that treat and store  hazardous wastes
 using one or more of the methods.  For example, sludges from
 oil and solvent recovery operations could contain  a  large
amount of heavy metals including  lead, zinc,  and cadmium.
Uncontrolled incineration of the'se sludges will result in
                             10

-------
                                       Table  I
                             SUMMARY OF DAMAGE INCIDENTS
incident  Management
  No. a       Method
                                         Waste
                                                                   Pollution
1    Incineration

2    Landfill
3    Landfill
4,    Evaporation Ponds
     Landfill
     Holding Basin
     Evaporation Pond
   5
 6
 7

 8
 9
sO
llb
12C
13d
14e
        Landfill
        Landfill
        Landfill
        Landfill
        Landfill
        Landfill
        Sand Pit
    Solvent  Recovery

   Mg chips  and Misc.
   Unidentified Indust.
      (Compaction)
   Misc.  Industrial
Industrial and Minicipal
       AUyl  Lead
  Mixed Allylic Amlne

  Pesticide  (uncovered)
        \sbestos
        Asbestos
          HC3
      • Cultural Chem.
                               Unidentified  Indust.
                                  (Compaction)
                               Misc.  Industrial
  Pb,  Zn  containing
       gases
  Explosion & Fire
  Explosion & Fire
  Noxious Fumes
       Fire
 . Alkyl Lead Fumes
  Fumes (amines,
  chloride's, hydro-
  carbons)
    BHC  Fumes
  Wind blown asbestos
  Wind blown asbestos
         KC3
  H2S  from reaction
  Explosion S Fire
1 Noxfous -fumes,fires
a See Appendix   for corresponding Incident Report.
b EPA/S30/SW-151.3,  pp.  6-9  (June 197S)
c EPA/530/SW-151.3,  pp.  10-12  (June 1976)
d EPA/530/SW-151, pp. 6-8  (June 1975)
e EPA/530/SW-151.2,  pp.  3-11 (December 1975)
                                         11

-------
significant hazardous air emissions'.  Dumping of flammable,
ignitable or very volatile waste streams will often lead
to fires and explosions.  Table 2 is a summary of potential
or possible pathways to the air environment of waste manage-
ment methods.
     In summary, the potential impact of hazardous waste
management methods on public health and the air environment
depends on a multitude of factors specific to the methods
used and the individual facilities.   All of these factors
will affect,  to different degrees,  the extent to which a
potential impact becomes a real one.  The more important
factors include:
     -  The physical and chemical principles of the
          management method.
     -  The existence and nature of  possible routes to
          the air environment.
     -  The design and specific operating procedures
          of  individual management  facilities.
     -  The physical and chemical characteristics of
          the wastes subjected  to the method.
     -  The quantity of wastes  managed by a facility.
     -  The nature and degree of potential hazards
          associated with the waste.
     -  The proximity and relationship of the
          management facility to population centers
        The number of facilities employing the
          method and their geographical locations.
                             12

-------
                               TABLE II

     WASTE MANAGEMENTS  SYSTEMS AND  POSSIBLE PATHWAYS
                     TO  THE AIR ENVIRONMENT
y.agefiient
                          Typical Classes of
                             Wastes Treated
                              Possible Pathways
                              to Air Environss&rtt
jreineration
Aerated Lagoon
Anaerobic Lagoon
Land Burial
Pyrolysis
Storage Tanks
Land Farming /Land
 Spreading
Composting
Activated Sludge
Ox-idaticn Ponds
Sslvsnt and Oil
       Organics
   (no heavy metals)

 Organics & Inorganics
  (Encapsulation Req.
     in sorce cases)
 Organics  (non toxic to
    microorganisms)

 Organics  (non toxic to
    microorganisms)

      Radioactive
Organics  (no heavy metals)
 Organics  & Inorganics
 Municipal waste water,
 Sewer sludge, Oil field
 wastes.(limited heavy
 metals)

    Organics  (Food,
    Agricultural,wood
    pulp, municipal)
  Organics  (non toxic
  to microorganisms)
  Organics  (Food, Agri-
  cultural,  Palp, Textile,
  etc.) and  Sooe Inorganics
  (non toxic to microorgan-
  isms)

  Used Oil  and Solvents
                                                    Stack* Leaks in
                                                    Feed
                                                     Evaporation-, Sub-
                                                     limation, Wind
                                                     Erosion, Reaction
                                                     Products, Accidental
                                                     Exposure* Fire
                                                    Evaporatf err,
                                                    Reaction Products

                                                    Ee action- Produces,
                                                       Evaporation

                                                    Breaching of con-
                                                    tainer by accident:
                                                    or corrosion.

                                                    Stack » Equipment
                                                    Leaks. Dust in-
                                                    receiving and ecu-.
                                                    veying area

                                                    Evaporation during
                                                    filling and emptying^
                                                    leaks and accidents

                                                    Evaporation v Subli-
                                                    nationr Reaction
                                                    Products . Wind Ercsion
                                                    Evaporatfonr fraar
                                                    reactor and wfnd-
                                                    rows. Oust fnwi
                                                    waste handling and
                                                    windrows

                                                    Evaporation end
                                                    mist froa open aera-
                                                    tion tanks* Evapora-
                                                    tion froai ffnal
                                                    settling tanks

                                                    Evaporation* Reectfon
                                                    Products
                                                    fvaporation fror: Bill-
                                                    ing, Transfer frs—
                                                    storige. Leaks frc-r
                                                    processfrtg
                                      13

-------
      -  The  inherent  potential  for  abuse  of  the
        method.
      -  Relative  cost differential  between proper
        and  improper  application  of the method.
      -  the  existence and enforcement of  adequate
        regulations pertaining  to the method.
      The following sections are devoted  to  a general dis-
cussion of  the ways  in which these factors  are related to
the impact  of waste  management systems on public health and
the environment.
      The basic physical and chemical principles by which a
management method isolates or transforms a  hazardous waste
play  a significant part in determining its  potential environ-
menCTimpact.  These  basic principles govern the kinds and
quantities  of wastes which may be  effectively managed, as
well  as the availability of possible routes to the air environ-
ment.
      For example, operators of management facilities which
rely  on biological destruction or  detoxification of wastes
(e.g.,  lagoons,  activated sludge,  land farming) must limit
the kinds and/or quantities of hazardous materials treated
at any  time to levels which do not destroy  the useful micro-
bial  population.  In a properly run facility this require-
ment  will tend to limit the total  quantity  of hazardous
material present and available as  potential pollutants.
The vulnerability of the biota on  which  these methods
depend may  provide a greater opportunity for pollution
                             14

-------
incidents to occur in an improperly run facility than if
the wastes had been subjected to other, more appropriate
treatment methods or had been stored in a secure manner
until an appropriate method was developed.  In a similar
manner, properly run "physical" treatment and disposal
methods (e.g., incineration, pyrolysis, landfill) are
restricted in the kinds and quantities of hazardous mater-
ials they can handle by virtue of design limitations (e.g.,
attainable incineration temperatures, throughput requirements
for efficient burning, pollution control technology, waste
volatility or reactivity).  Failure to respect those limita-
tions increases the probability of adverse environmental
and health impact.
     Whether or not biological and physical limitations
inherent to proper use of specific methods are sufficient
to protect human health or  the environment is an important
question to be answered by  the regulatory agency charged
with the mandate to do so.
     The use of a management method which is theoretically
capable of isolating a hazardous waste from the environment
or rendering it harmless is not sufficient to assure that
those goals will, in fact,  be reached.  For example, the
efficiency of most biological treatment methods is  strongly
affected by local meteorological conditions.  Thus  the rate
of destruction of a waste in a lagoon located in a  warm
                          15

-------
clicknte may be sufficient to prevent the build-up of toxic
concentrations of volatile waste components or decomposi-
tion products whereas the biological degradation rate of
the same waste may be so slow in a cooler climate as to
   jvide the opportunity for the accumulation of toxic levels
of materials which could escape into the atmosphere.  If
the equipment at a management facility is not properly
maintained or if the operating personnel are poorly trained,
a potentially effective technique may become a source of
environmental insult.  Similar statements can be made with
respect to any of the design parameters which affect the
availability of routes to the air environment.  The exist-
ence and enforcement of adequate regulations can also have
an effect on the level of performance of hazardous waste
management facilities.  Permissive regulations, lax enforce-
ment and trivial or non-existent penalties can make it more
profitable to pollute than to properly manage hazardous
waste streams.
     GecjiQaphic concentration is another consideration which
will affect the potential impact of a hazardous waste manage-
ment method.  The location of several facilities, each of
which may be emitting acceptable quantities of gaseous
pollutants, within a limited area might lead to an unaccept-
able aggregate concentration of air pollutants.
                            16

-------
     Based on the information examined during this program,
a clear, qualitative case can be made for the existence of
potential impact on the environment and public health from
air pollution emanating from unregulated hazardous waste
management methods.  Unfortunately, with only a few exceptions,
quantitative data on air pollution from these sources are not
available.  Without such data it is difficult to fully
document the actual, as opposed to potential, impact of each
method.
     Therefore, a prudent course in developing design, con-
struction, and operating standards is to prescribe standards
to protect health and the environment against the types of
damage on which the most data and where significant inci-
dents have been documented.  Standards that would control
or prevent fires and explosions, of course, would be a
primary focal area for regulations.  Other considerations
include:
     - The relative frequency of use of each
         of the methods for the management of
         hazardous wastes.
     - The known quantities of potentially hazardous
         materials  subjected to the respective
         methods.
     - The potential for abuse of  the method as
         reflected  in reported damage incidents.
     A compilation  of data on the  first two considerations
was made by the OSW programs which studied the waste
                           17

-------
generation rates and disposal practices of 14 key industries
thought to generate most of the nation's potentially hazard-
ous wastes (Lazar^et al. 1976).  These studies found that
the primary disposal method used was lagooning in unlined
surface impoundments  (48.4%).  Land disposal on non-secure
surfaces was the second most frequently used method  (30.3%).
Third in importance was disposal by uncontrolled incineration
(9.7%).  More than 95% of the hazardous wastes were disposed
of by one of these three management methods.
3.0  Identification of Regulatory Framework
3.1  Performance Standards .
     The following discussion outlines the development  of
performance standards to protect human health and the environ-
ment from air pollution emitted by facilities that treat,
store, and dispose of hazardous wastes.
3.1.1.              Performance Standards
     Performance standards have been used  in both air and
water regulations.  The term is relatively non-specific but,
in general, means  an  emission standard based upon the applica-
tion of  the best system of emission reduction  available to
accomplish the  goal the standard  is to achieve.   In  the case
of the Clean  air Act,  the emission reduction necessary  under
Section  111 of  the Act was  "...the amount achievable through
the  application of the best  system of  emission reduction
which  (taking into account the cost of  achieving such reduc-
 tion)  the Administrator determines has  been adequately demon-
 strated."  This type  of performance standard is often
                               18

-------
described as the "best practicable technology" since it does
not require the use of a technology which may be proven but
is extraordinarily costly.
     The goal for performance standards under Section 3004
of RCRA is "protection of human health and environment."
Standards to protect human health or the environment for the
air and water media .promulgated under other acts of Congress
are, of course, candidates for adoption under 3004 of RCRA
if it can be judged that they are intended to provide the
requisite degree of protection.
     In the Report to Congress, Disposal of Hazardous
Waste 1974, the types of hazardous waste standards that might
be used in regulations were described  (USEPA  1974):  This
report to the Congress provided background for the passage of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 197 6A part of
this discussion is reproduced below:
          "Because of the nature of the discharges
          associated with improperly managed  hazardous
          waste, two types of standards are likely to
          be necessary in order to satisfactorily  regu-
          late hazardous waste treatment and  idsposal:
           CD the  performance* standard would  set
          restrictions of quantity and quality  of  waste
          discharged from the treatment process and on
          the performance of the disposal  site  (e.g.,
          the amount and  quality of leachate  allowed);
                   <       i
           (2) the  '"process* standard would specify
                                19

-------
         treatment procedures or process conditions to
         be  followed  (e.g.,  incineration of certain
         wastes)  and  minimum disposal  site design and
         operating conditions  (e.g., hydraulic  connec-
         tions are not allowed)."
3.4.2.             Best Available Technology
     Performance standards normally do  not specify design
construction and operating requirements.  As  described in the
Report to Congress Disposal of Hazardous Wastes 1974,  excerpted
                  I                             f~
above, "process standards' prescribe specific requirements as
to "what must be done with that waste."
     Certain features of process standards however have become
part of the Section 3004 mandate requiring a judgment as  to
what is "necessary technology."  The Congress mandated in
Section 3004 that performance standards would include requir6"
ments  respecting:
      "(3)   treatment,  storage or  disposal  of all  such
      waste received by the facility pursuant to such
      operating methods,  techniques and practices as may
      be satisfactory  to the Administrator;
      "(4)   the location, design,  and construction of
      such hazardous  waste treatment, disposal or storage
      facilities."
      Thus, the best technology is not  required specifically
 under Section  3004 of the Act.  Methods to treat, store
 and dispose need to be whatever may be "...necessary to
 protect human  health  and  the environment."
                              20

-------
     Conversely, the best technology may not be adequate
enough to treat, store, and dispose of all hazardous waste
since, in fact, a technology may be designed for specific o_
waste ©reconditions.  Applied technology which cannot prevent
hazardous air pollutants from causing detrimental effects on
human health or other living things may be the best available,
but may not be good enough.
     The quality and quantity of a facilities emissions may
be compared with EPA or OSHA "health" standards but where such
emission data and a ready conversion from emissions to concen-
trations are not available to determine a facility's adequacy
of environmental protection in the short and long terms,
judgement must be made by carefully examining the processes
employed.  Design and construction requirements may be employed
to achieve the requisite level of protection.
3.1.3.            Health-Based Standards
     The data necessary to establish health standards to
protect human health and the environment from pollutant
exposures in air, water, soils, and food are far from complete.
There is a much greater amount of data per pollutant support-
ing the ftational Ambient Air Quality Standards than for other
similar efforts but, many unanswered questions about health
standards still exist due to gaps in toxicological and
epidemological information.
     Documentation of OSHA standards (AC61H, 1976)  (partic-
ularly documentation for those ACGIH TLV's  which have
                            21

-------
remained  unchanged  and  untested  for  decades)  is  not as good
as we would  like.   Nonetheless/  the  standards  represent the
expert judgments of a committee  of industrial  hyienists
charged with determining a safe  exposure to a  contaminant
for a working individual.  We believe that these judgments on
health-based standards must be accepted and used when they are
the only limits available.
3.1.4.                      Summary
     The requirement to promulgate such performance standards
(including design,  construction,  and operating methods,
techniques and practices) for facilities that store,  treat,
and dispose of hazardous wastes as are necessary to protect
human health and the environment involves two distinct and
separate tasks:
     -   Identifying standards and guidelines limiting
        pollutants from the air media based on some level of
        health or environmental protection, applying a
        safety factor judged necessary to protect human
        health and the environment and requiring for pur-
        poses of RCRA that the facilities not emit air
        contaminants which will exceed these levels beyond
        the property of  the facilities.
        Describing  the design,  construction,  and operating
       methods,  techniques and practices that represent
       good  practicable technology for  the treatment,
       storage  and  disposal  of hazardous wastes and
       prescribing  their use.
                               22

-------
3.2  The Clean Air Amendments
     The following discussion reviews provisions of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, and its relationship to the regu-
lation of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities under Section 3004 of RCRA.  Provisions of the
Clean Air Act, as amended, applicable to this discussion are
sections related to the Air Quality Criteria and Control
Techniques  (Section 108), National Primary and Secondary
Ambient Air Quality Standards  (NAAQS)  (Section 109), State
Implementation Plans  (Section 110), Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources (NSPS) (Section 111), and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants  (NESHAPS)
(Section 112).
3.3.1  In Section 108, Air Quality Criteria and Control
Techniques, Congress mandated that the Administrator:
     ...within 30 days after the date of enactment
     of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970 publish, and
     ...from  time to time thereafter revise, a list
     which  includes each air pollutant -
           (A) which in his judgment has an adverse
          effect on public health and welfare;
           (B) the presence of which in the ambient
          air results from numerous or diverse mobile or
          stationary  sources;  and
           (C) for which air quality criteria had
          not been issued before the date of enactment
                              23

-------
          of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970, but for
          which he plans to issue air quality criteria
          under this section.
     Simultaneously, the Administrator was required to issue
information on air pollution control techniques, available
technology, alternative methods of prevention and control of
air pollution,  and costs of emission control.
3.2.2.   In Section 109,  National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, the Congress mandated that the Administrator:
          (A)   within 30 days after the date of enact-
          ment of the Clean Air Amendments of 1970,...
          publish proposed regulations prescribing a national
          secondary ambient air quality standard for each
          air  pollutant for which air quality criteria
          have been issued prior to such date of enact-
          ment; and
          (B)   after a reasonable time for interested
          persons to submit written comments thereon  (but
          no later than 90 days after the initial publication
          of such proposed standards) shall by regulation
          promulgate such proposed national primary and
          secondary ambient air quality standards with
          such modifications as he deems appropriate.
          (2)   With respect to any air pollutant for which
          air  quality criteria are issued after the date
          of enactment of the Clean Air Amendments of
                             24

-------
          1970, the Administrator shall publish, simul-
          taneously with the issuance of such criteria
          and information, proposed national primary and
          secondary ambient air quality standards for any
          such pollutant.  The procedure provided for in
          paragraph (1)(B) of this sub-section shall apply
          to the promulgation of such standards.
               (b)(i)   National primary ambient air quality
                            U
          standards, prescribed under sub-section (a) shall
          be ambient air quality standards .the attainment
          and maintenance of which- in the judgement of the
          Administrator, based on such criteria and allowing
          an adequate margin of safety, are requisite to
          protect  the public health.  Such primary standards
          may be revised in the same manner as promulgated.
     Criteria documents were completed for particulate,
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, photochemical oxidants,
hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide and more recently for lead.
Standards were proposed and promulgated for these pollutants
(except lead) in 1971 and for lead in 1978.
     Therefore, National Ambient Air Quality Standards are
promulgated for those pollutants for which criteria documents
have been published which are those pollutants that not only
have proven to adversely affect public health and welfare
but also "...remt from numerous or diverse mobile or
stationary sources."  Additionally, the publishing of
                               25

-------
 criteria documents sets in motion the development and issuance
 of  control method and costs documentation.
      Owners and operators of facilities which treat/  store,
 and dispose of hazardous wastes must,  of course,  indirectly
 comply  with these standards if they emit any of  the pollutants
 for which there is a  National Primary .or Secondary Standard.
                                  usuMiy
 An  "ambient air quality standard,"'xiowever,  requires  trans-
 lation  to an "emission"  standard for purposes of  enforcement
 since by  definition the sources of  any one pollutant  for
 which there is  an ambient standard  are "numerous  and  diverse"
 (Section  108(a)(1)(8)  above).   No one  source therefore, is
 held  "responsible"  for meeting on NAAQS,  (without an  emission
           on less
 standard) iLafcttaBB^c. emissions  from such a  source """•-1  ""'
 contribute, by themselves-to exceedences of the NAAQS.
     This is not  to say  that  ambient air  quality  standards
 are not enforeable.   Direct enforcement of the sources of a
 pollutant proceed through enforcement  of  emission standards.
                                            iwir'ivuUyf
 Enforcement of  ambient air quality  standards/\proceeds through
 EPA review  and  approval  of state implementation plans.  Plans
 must provide for  the  attainment of  the  standard as well as
 the maintenance of  air quality concentrations of  pollutants
 below the National Ambient Air standards.  In short, emission
 standards are established either by  the states under the
authority of Section  110  and  ll]pyof the CAA or by EPA
under 111.
                             26

-------
3.2.3    Section 110 - State Implementation Plans
     The translation of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) into emission standards that will ensure ambient air
concentrations of the "criteria" pollutants takes place in
part through Section 110.  Here Congress mandated that the
States adopt and submit plans which provide for the implementa-
tion, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS^  The Adminis-
trator approves of the plan if, in part,
          (B)  It includes emission limitations,
          schedules, and timetables for compliance with
          such limitations, and such other measures as
          may be necessary to insure attainment and mainte-
          nance of such primary or secondary standard,
          including, but not limited to, land-use and trans-
          portation controls;
          (C)  it includes provision for establishment
          and operation of appropriate devices, methods,
          systems, and procedures"necessary to  (i) monitor,
          compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality
          and,  (ii) upon request, make such data available
          to the Administrator;
          (D)  it includes a procedure, meeting the require-
          ments of paragraph  (4), for review  (prior to
          construction or modification) of the  location
          of new sources to which a standard of performance
          will .apply;
                             27

-------
      Emission limitations  which might apply under  Sections  109
 and  110  of  the Clean Air Act to facilities  which treat,  store,
 and  dispose of hazardous wastes would be  found  within  the
 respective  State  implementation plans (published in  40 CFR
 Part 52, Approval  and Promulgation  of Implementation Plans).
 Few  States,  however,  have  promulgated regulations  for  emis-
 sions limitations  which specifically  apply  to hazardous  waste
 treatment,  storage,  and disposal facilities.  Those  standards,
 which have  been promulgated  under Section 110 of the Clean
 Air  Act, are  for any one of  five NAAQS's.   "Total  Hydro-
 carbon"  standards  are promulgated in  some States to  limit -tfH^
 rt*4*^ 0A          t»k^ U&H& &*c&c( iWS,  *oicM-"vU.W^ ,
 ozone corfeentrationsy( For instance,  California  air  pollution
 regulations for the  emission of  organic compounds  require
 that "...a person  shall not discharge into  the atmosphere an
 effluent containg  a  concentration of more than SOppm of
 organic compounds  calculated as  hexane  (or  300 ppm total
 carbon).  Such emission standards under Section  110  differ
 from State to State  as to  which  sources are included and
 which are not.  Incineration emission standards, where they
 exist, are most often regulated  by the States to control
 suspended particulate concentrations  (by weight),  or to
 control visible emissions  (by opacity).
 3.2.4  The New Source Performance Standards promulgated
under Section 111  of  the Act are primarily emission  stand-
ards for new sources  of any pollutants.  This point  is
explained in more  depth later on.  For municipal incinerators
                            28

-------
a limit of  .08 grains of particulate per dry standard cubic
foot was established while sewage sludge incinerators particu-
late emissions were limited to 1.30 pounds of particulate per
ton of dry  sludge input  (under 42 CFR 60).  Neither of these
standards applies to hazardous waste incinerators unless
municipal solid waste or sewage sludge is burned.
     The Administrator is charged in Section 111 to list
categories  of sources which he determines to contribute signi-
ficantly to air pollution which causes or contributes to the
"endangerment of public health or welfare."
     Under  Section 111(d), emission standards for categories
of existing stationary sources may be established for exist-
ing sources and new sources as well for those pollutants
other than  those for which there is a National Primary or
Secondary ambient Air Quality Standard or which have been
listed as "hazardous pollutants" under Section 112 of the
Act.  The authority under Section lll(d) is rarely used as
there have  been few standards under Section 111 for new
criteria pollutants.  Regulated "designated" pollutants, as
they are called under Section 111(d), and their sources
include fluorides from phosphate and aluminum plants, sulfuric
acid mist from acid plants, and total reduced sulfur compounds
from paper  mills.  Standards under lll(d) must first be
established by the States before EPA approval.
     Performance standards promulgated under Section 111
are based upon the best practicable technology approach.
                            29

-------
"Performance standards" are defined under Section lll(d) as:
     "...a standard for emissions of air pollutants
     which reflects the degree of emission limitations
     achievable through the application of the best
     system of emission reduction which  (taking into
     account the cost of achieving such reduction), the
     Administrator determines has been adequately
     demonstrated."
3.2,5.  Section 112, National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants mandates the Administrator to list
hazardous air pollutants and establish emission standards
which "...provides an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health from such hazardous air pollutants."
     Unlike the "best practicable technology" method mandated
under Section 111 for "New Source Performance Standards11
this Section of the Clean Air Act of 1970 does not mandate
prescribing the best system of emission reduction.  For
beryllium and mercury, a maximum allowable conentration^
was used to provide an ample margin of safety to protect the
public health.  This required that either a threshold con-
centration first be determined for the lowest concentration
for which an adverse effect to the public health might occur
in addition to incorporating an "adequate margin of safety"
or, values be assigned as a maximum allowable concentration
which incorporate an adequate margin of safety.
     Five air pollutants have been "listed" as Hazardous Air
Pollutants:  asbestos, beryllium, mercury, vinyl chloride,
and more recently, benzene.
                              •3 \J

-------
     Additionally/ the Clean Air Act of 1977 requires that
EPA determine if cadmium, arsenic, polycyclic organic matter
(POM) and certain radioactive pollutants should be added to
the "list" published under Section 108(a)(1) or 112(b)(a).
3.2.6.  In summary, National Ambient Air Quality Standards
for total suspended particulate/ carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, ozone, total hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide and lead
or pollutants have been promulgated.  New Sources Performance
Standards for five of the above six "criteria pollutants"
and three "designated pollutants" are applicable to a variety
of sources including municipal and sewage sludge incinerators
{particulate emissions).  National Emission Standards for
four hazardous air pollutants have been promulgated.  Standards
for arsenic, benzene and other volatile organic chemicals are
currently under development.  Cadmium, arsenic, POM, and
some radioactive pollutants must be evaluated for inclusion
as a result of the Clean Air Amendments of  1977.
3.3  Air Contaminant Concentration Limits to Protect Workers
     The American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists  (ACGIH) was organized in 1938 by a group of
governmental industrial hygienists who desired a medium  for
the promotion of  standards and techniques in industrial
health.  The. USPHS Bureau of State Services was established
in 1944 and contained the industrial hygiene program, which
included until 1955, the federal air pollution program.
The ACGIH publishes and updates yearly a list of chemicals
                             31

-------
with specific concentrations/ called  "Threshold Limit Values"
(TLV).  The lists are published as guides in the control of
health hazards and were not intended  to be legal requirements.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA), ^c^^
adopted the TLVS (1968) as legal requirements in 1972.
     Worker standards and guidelines  (TLVS) represent condi-
tions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may
be repeatedly exposed, day after day, without adverse effect.
The TLVS are atMBi weighted average concentrations for a normal
workday.
     Although the standards apply to human health, they can
not be considered adequately protective of the population
                                         <#Vtf\ne*&i
at large.  The health status of workers is*better than the
general population which contains more susceptible sub-
populations including the elderly, young children and the
infirm.  Additionally the public may be exposed to hazardous
air pollutants continuously rather than on an eight hour
basis.
     The ACGIH in their annual publication listing of the
TLVS preface those values by warning,
          "These limits are intended for use in the
          practice of industrial hygiene and should
          be interpreted and applied only by a per-
          son trained in this discipline.  They are
          intended for use or for modification for
          use:   (1)  as a relative index of hazard
          or toxicity; (2) in the evaluation for
          control of community air pollution nuis-
          ances;  (3)  potential of continuous unin-
          terpreted exposures..."

                             32

-------
     Data demonstrating that 90-day continuous exposures of
TLV concentrations can result in effects ranging from mild
toxicity to 100% mortality became available during tests to
insure safe atmospheres for space-craft occupants (Back and
Thomas, 1970; House, 1964; Bandage, 1961 a and b).
     Despite known pitfalls, and expressed ACGIH warnings,
the TLVS have been "interpreted" by many persons who are
not industrial hygienists.  Additionally, the TLVS have been
compared with one another to determine toxicity.  The TLVS
have been used as legal limits rather than guidelines (OSHA)
and used as a benchmark for comparison in determining maximum
allowable air contaminant concentrations in the community
(Battelle, 1976 and Clejland.et al. 1977).
     The modification of TLVS for use as maximum allowable
air contaminant concentrations in the community is covered
in the next section.
3.4  Air Contaminant Concentration Limits to Protect Workers
Non-Workers, and the Environment.
     It should appear from the above discussion in 3.3 that
protection of human health and the environment on a continuous
basis from air contaminants on the ACGIH TLV list would
require an additional measure of safety or numerical division
than an adoption of the TLV concentration limits alone.  At
issue, however, is whether a singular factor applied to all
of the OSHA or ACGIH TLV's can or  should "guarantee"
freedom from harm at an exposure equivalent to the limit
                          33

-------
 that  is  set.   On  the  one  hand,  no  limits,  per  se,  could  be
 interpreted  by some as  allowing unlimited  emissions.   In
 counter  argument,  limits  are  also  "safe  exposure levels"
 since, in effect,  an  exposure to conTsntrations of  contami-
 nants less than a  "limit"  is  allowed.  It  is important to
 recognize however  that  owners and  operators of facilities
 that emit hazardous air pollutants may be  liable for damages
 to health and  environment, if it can be  proven in  a court of
 law to a reasonable person, a judge, that  air  contaminants
 caused the harm (regardless of  whether the level was above or
 below a given  limit).
     The use of the ACGIH  TLV's times a  safety factor for
 the protection of more  than the working  force  for  more than
a working day was  instituted  by the American Society for
Heating,  Refrigerating  and Air  Conditioning Engineers  (ASHRAE)
Standard 62-73 "Natural and Mechanical Ventilation."  ASHRAE
Standards for Natural and Mechanical Ventilation were developed
in accordance with American National Standards Institute
 (ANSI) approved procedures.   ASKRAE in an  active accredited
ANSI standard writing organization (ASHRAE, 1973).
     The purpose and scope of ASHRAE Standard  62-73 is to
define "ventilating requirements for spaces intended for
human occupancy and specify minimum and recommended ventila-
tion air quantitites for the preservation of the occupant's
health,  safety, and well being."  In Section 3.3 (of ASHRAE
62-73),  the Standard states that:

-------
          "air shall be considered unacceptable for
          ventilation use in accordance with this standard
          if it contains any contaminant in a concen-
          tration greater than one-tenth the Threshold
          Limit Value (TLV)  currently accepted by the
          American Conference of Governmental Industrial
          Hygienists."
     One-tenth is, of course, convenient since it allows
a simple manipulation of the decimal point of the TLV.  The
greater lack of precision (in terms of the number of signifi-
cant figures) relates to the general inability to quantify
in exact terms factors such as protection of susceptible
individuals.  Adding or multiplying such factors is also not
precise since their sensitivities and relative degrees of
importance differ.
     Examples of such safety factors and their use is shown
in Table 3.4.
     There is little disagreement among toxicologists and
industrial hygienists that an application of a singular
safety factor or time weighted adjustment factor to convert
occupational standards to community wide standards is most
often inappropriate.  All might agree that the datr that
support TLV's should be reviewed by regulatory bodies on a
pollutant by pollutant basis including data of more recent
vintage that may be compiled from those investigations that
have taken place since the TLV decisions were made.  Of
                            35

-------
Factor
1/3
                          Table  3.4

   FACTORS TO ADJUST WORKPLACE  LIMITS  TO COMMUNITY WIDE  LIMITS

              Basis
5/21
1/4
1/10
1/30
        8 hrs. for workers
        24 hrs. a day
        40 hrs. for workers
        168 hrs. per week
        community

        40/168 as above
        rounded to even
        fraction

        One order magnitude
        from workers to
        public health
        standard
        1/3 x 1/10(7)
1/100   10 for each 8/24;
        HABER's LAW
1/300   8/24 x 1/100
1/420   40/168 x 1/100
  Use

Not used by
itself; used
in factor
1/300

Not used alone
Used in factor
1/420

Interim guide-
line by Navy
ASHRAE;
New York
State guide-
line
Colorado Dept.
of Health Maxi-
mum Allowable
Concentration
                   Comments

                 one exact
                 number  (3)
                 among many
                 iiT'exact factors-
                  (as above)  *
                  (as above)
                 This factor and
                 those preceeding
                 assumes OSHA
                 standards
                 to protect

                 (as above)
                                TRW recommended
                                action to HWMD e="P4
                                (1973) (provi-
                                sional limits)

                                Monsanto Research See comments  at1
                                Corp. for EPA     for 1/3.
                                                      x 1/100}
                                Battelle
                                Columbus Lab.
                                (1976) for
                                Research
                                Triangle Inst
                                (1977) for
                  See comments .J*
                              36

-------
significance to this question, however, is the amount of time,
money, and data that is necessary to set a particular health
based standard, particularly, when the data consists solely
of rat or mouse acute toxicity studies.  Although efforts may
be better spent focusing on the control technologies, criteria
for the amount of control to be applied is tantamount-  The
                                  *****  te- />ehMi*$4-pte
use of an adjusted worker standardise long as it is on an
interim basis until a pollutant by pollutant risk assessment
is made and a concentration limit for each pollutant is

4.0  Analysis of Regulatory Options
     The following options represent strategies for regula-
tory development.  Option 7 summarizes the performance
standards as presently proposed.  A summary of issues related
to adoption of each of the options is discussed.
4.1.1  Option 1
          Promulgate standards which require compliance
       with all provisions of the Clean Air Act as amended
       (only).
     The Clean Air Act offers a mechanism for setting health-
based exposure limits as National Ambient Air Quality Stand-
ards or ambient air goals for which the Nationa\ Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants are based.  To set
such stanards, however, a pollutant must first be listed
which sets in motion a significant EPA commitment to limiting
                             37

-------
emissions of this singular pollutant at all significant
sources.  For each singular pollutant hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities, as a whole may qualify as low emitters in
terms of the amount of each pollutant emitted.  In many cases,
however, the species or contaminants are many and the totlia
                                                         •>
amount can be significant to nearby residents.  In summary,
the Clean Air Act alone does not provide a mechanism that
enables EPA to limit hazardous air emissions from facilities
that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous wastes as directly
or efficiently as Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.  Other regulations in addition to applic-
able provisions of the Clean Air Act must be established
that will focus on the air emitting operations within the
facilities that treat, store and dispose of hazardous wastes.
4.1.2  Option 2
          Promulgate standards which require compliance
       with the following:
       1.  All provisions of the Clean Air Act as amended,
           and,
       2.  On an interim basis until EPA regulates the
           pollutant, worker standards times a safety factor
           to account for the difference between protection
           of workers on an eight-hour basis and the
           of Call)  human health and the environment (e.
-------
     This option possesses similar pros and cons as the
previous option since it also requires compliance with the
Clean Air Act with the addition of the adapted worker stand-
ards.  However, under this option, those air contaminants
which are of concern in the work place will also have limits
in the community.
     The number of pollutants covered  (400-600) by worker
standards could be judged necessary to protect human health
and the environment since it effectively requires that owners
and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and dis-
posal facilities know to what extent possible concentrations
of hazardous waste air emissions are emitted and may be found
at the property line of the facility.  On the other hand, it
may not be considered protective by some since thousands of
species may be emitted.  Attempts to prescribe limits for
                          Ini'dMT             A*J
every contaminant emittedAwaHs*' be an endlessTcostly race for
standards that do not relate to actual operations or practices,
     This option by itself is "health based" but lacks design,
co nstruetion,  and operating  standards mandatls&g £e£ RCRA.
                                             A
Without  such  standards, owners  and operators of hazardous
waste  treatment,  storage and  disposal facilities would not
be given the  benefit of knowing how to meet these emissions
standards.  More  importantly, the Congress requires that
operating and design standards  be promulgated .^Concentration
limits at the fence line of a facility require that standards
be developed  based on  atmospheric dispersion modeling.
                            39

-------
The precision of  such models and the ability to specify air
contaminant emission rates for the variety of treatment
and disposal methods make this option a poor choice on
which to regulate.
4.1.3  Option 3
          Promulgate performance standards which require
       compliance with design, construction/ and operating
       prescriptions which are based upon a best technology
       approach.  (only)
     With no standards that are health based, this option
alone could not be considered for adoption as performance
standards "necessary to protect human health and the environ-
ment."  Complete data for all techniques, methods and the
factors that must be prescribed is not available at this
time to comprehensively cover the many sources of waste
disposal emissions.
     The best technology prescribed may not be adequately
protective,  and, conversely,  "good1 technology which is
much less costly than the "best" may be all that is
"necessary"  taking into account factors related to risks
and controls.
4.1.4  Option 4
          Performance standards will include two
       provisions as follows;
       A.  Recommend those design,  construction, and
           operating prescriptions that can be identified
                            40

-------
           as good practicable technologies.   Compliance
           with these procedures allows the owners and
           operators of hazardous waste facilities to be
           permitted.
       B.  Promulgate standards which require compliance
           with the following;
           1.  All provisions of the Clean Air Act as
               amended, and,
           2.  On an interim basis until standards prescribed
               by a pollutant by pollutant risk assessment
               are promulgated by EPA, compliance with
               one-tenth the TLV's published by the ACGIH.
     This option combines the requirements for protection
of human health and the environment inherent in Option 2,
and the requirements for design, construction, and operat-
ing procedures found in Option 3.
     Like the law  (Section 3004), there is no precedent
for both the use of emission standards/ambient air goals
based upon health and the use of good practicable technology
together.  The latter are based upon design, construction
and operating principles demonstrated to perform their
intended function  (i.e., destruction via incineration)
practically and most completely without threatening the
communities that they are located in.  Monitoring is con-
ducted to ensure that the technology is operating as
designed (e.g., CO, C02f temperature to ensure that
                           41

-------
 incinerators  operate  towards  maximum combustion and  destruc-
 tion efficiencies) .
     Facilities applying  for  permits to operate a process
 which is not  covered  under the  recommended procedures must
 prove or demonstrate  that human health and the  environment
 will not be threatened.   To do  so  a  comparison  of probable
 emissions based on the wastes accepted will be  required to
 be compared/  via an acceptable  dilution model with the
 ambient goals at the  property line.   Once the technology/
 however, is determined to be  adequate, operating, design
 and construction procedures may be written as permit condi-
 tions.  A more direct approach  for obtaining a  permit for new
 technologies  is to demonstrate  technological equivalence
 with those technologies covered under the recommended pro-
 cedures.
     Like OSHA, monitoring for  more  than 400 pollutants for
which standards apply will not  be required at every facility
                                 -CcttHgcgn- F '» «*> ^^ *»•#—
 Enforcement activities should focus  on design,  operating
 and construction
     An acceptable dilution model requires of the very
least emission rates or concentrations for the pollutants
regulated.  No data is presently available nor a method
presently in use to provide EPA or owners and operators
with emission values.
     Finally/ the standards especially the ambient goals,
must be carefully reviewed, revised and promulgated as
                            42

-------
amendements to Section 3004 of RCRA provisions or Section


112 of the CAA in order to  more precisely define what is

necessary to protect human health and the environment.  In

this option, emphasis must be placed on updating maximum

concentration values for those judged inadequately protec-

tive or those for which limits are not prescribed already.

     This option  (above) is a poor choice for regulations

since resources must be devoted towards "fence line values"

and a dispersion model.  Such models are not available, nor

are means to relate disposal emissions to emission rates  (a
                             rfrft^J
very necessary parameter in >&&&&models).

4.1.5  Option 5

          Promulgate performance standards which require

       compliance with design, construction, and operating

       procedures.  Ambient  air guidelines are provided via

       Section 1008 of RCRA  in order to compare the adequacy

       of procedures to health-based goals.

     This option  reflects  a  strategy towards controlling

air contaminant concentration levels and the need for air

quality goals.  In  this option, prescribed operating  and

design specifications  are  the basis  for performance stand-

ards, with  ambient  air guidelines  (promulgated under  Section

1008 of RCRA) provide  to compare monitored air concentration

levels with those listed  in  the  guidelines.   Since the ambient

air guidelines would not be  mandatory  standards,  they could be

reviewed, evaluated, and  revised without amending the
                               43

-------
Section 3004 regulations.  New toxicological and epidemio-
logical information could be used to periodically revise
the guidelines for particular air contaminants.
     This option avoids prescribed ambient concentration limits
which have not been evaluated by EPA for their adequacy or
validity on a pollutant-by-polutant basis.  Additionally,
this option avoids the complexity and costs associated with
area source emission rate determinations, atmospheric dis-
persion modeling, or establishing individual air contaminant
background levels.  This option could be adopted as a permit
          A\
condition*0£* the discretion of permitting officials.
     As guidelines, however, the ambient air requirements
are not enforceable unless adopted as permit conditions.
As unenforceable standards, the use of ambient guidelines
may not satisfy the mandate to protect human health and the
environment by establishing performance standards.  Addition-
ally ithis option like Option 5/assumes faith in the prescribed
concentration limits, the ability to determine emission rates
and to model thej^ transportc^ rv/1oV^H
 * *   , -   j r k  -    f-* *-* *+jt> \ » I* JO _  »
     Finally, since this option involves utilizing!
(1008) of the Act for a purpose for which it was not intended""*
it is a poor choice for regulations.
4.1.6  Option 6
          Promulgate performance standards which require
       compliance with design, construction, and operating
                           44

-------
standards based upon health are not prescribed.  Thus this
option  (alone) is a poor choice for air emission standards.
4.1.7  Option 7
          Performance standards will be promulgated to
       include the following provisions;
       A.  Compliance with applicable regulations
           promulgated pursuant to the Clean Air Act
           (Sections 110, 111/ and 112).
       B.  For point sources  (e.g., incineration):
           Compliance with design, construction, and
           operating procedures identified as control
           technology.  Variances may be granted on the
           basis that proposed alternative methods for
           specific waste cases will result in equivalent
           degree of control  (e.g., destruction) that would
           have been achieved by the control technology
       C.  For non-point sources  (e.g./ landfills, land-
           farms, surface impoundments and basins):
           1.  Compliance with "overriding" air emission
               (concentration) limit which apply above
               the surface of the non-point source.  These
               limits will be the "workplace" limits
               prescribed by  the ACGIH or by OSHA.
           2.  Compliance with a ban against placing in te-
               non-point sources wastes which are ignitable.
               reactive, incompatible or volatile  (greater
               than 78 mm of mercury of 25°C at sea level)
                                46

-------
           unless owners and operators can demonstrate
           through monitoring compliance with the
           " overriding 1 imits .
     This option comprises facets of the previous options
to prescribe operating, design, and construction standards
while also prescribing "overriding" standards to protect
human health and the environment.
     Several facets of the previous options and their policy
implications have been incorporated, deleted or changed.
However, this option does not include fence line standards
comprised of the worker standards times a safety factor.
While this would limit the number of contaminants for which
ambient human health and environmental limits are prescribed,
it would also limit the formidable problems associated with
the fence line worker adopted limits.  In summary these
problems included:
     o  a general lack of air modeling techniques for
        non-point sources that are sufficiently developed.
     o  a lack of air emission rate or concentration data
        from non-point sources to be used in models or as
        a parameter in which standards may be prescribed
        (and actions or operations may be conducted or
        changed by owners and operators of facilities) .
     o  A significant lacJc or
                       that the limits provide human health
        and environmental protection since a "limit" is
        also considered to be a "safe exposure."
                             47

-------
      Since  OSHA  regulations apply  to the workplace, workers
at hazardous waste treatment,  storage and disposal facilities
are also protected.  Thus, air concentrations from the facili-
ties must be less than OSHA limits.  An adoption of these
                           «CR-
regulations by EPA provides a- necessary measure of protection
to human health and the environment since owners and operators
could effectively meet OSHA standards by requiring workers to
wear breathing protective devices.
     OSHA air contaminant monitoring regulations are not
expressly required unless non-point sources receive a reactive
waste, an ignitable waste, a waste that is incompatable with
those already disposed or is a volatile waste.  Monitoring
for compliance with the OSHA limits would be required if the
owner/operator choses to dispose of any of the above listed
waste in a non-point source.
5.0  Air Protection Strategy and Proposed Regulations
          The air protection strategy used in these proposed
rules requires compliance with control technology standards
for all point and non-point emission sources,  and specifies
overriding standards for human health and environmental
proctection.
     Control technology standards for point sources,  such as
incinerators and storage tanks, are included within these
proposed rules.  Control technology standards for other point
sources, such as oil re-refiners, landfill vents, and wet
air oxidation facilities may be proposed at a later date
                             48

-------
following a determination of what control techniques are
necessary.  Notes accompanying the control technology stand-
ards provide general rules for deviations or variances.
Variances to those control technology standards for point
sources, that are accompanied by notes, are to be granted
if proposed alternative methods for specific wastes will
result in an equivalent degree of control or destruction as
that which would have been achieved by the prescribed control
technology standards.  (The same variance procedure applies
to the areas of groundwater and surface water protection).
     Control technology standards for non-point sources of
air contaminants  (which include landfills, landfarms, sur-
face impoundments and basins) include restrictions on treat-
ment and disposal for wastes that are ignitable, incompatible,
reactive, or volatile wastes which have a vapor pressure
greater than 78 mm of mercury at 25°C.  Additionally, require-
ments related to the type and depth of soil cover, the use of
cover on a daily basis, and a minimum distance between the
active portion of the non-point source and the facility
^property line are prescribed in order to control hazardous
air emission effects.
     New Source Performance Standards  (NSFS) for Petroleum
Storage Vessels for control of hydrocarbon emissions  (pursuant
to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act) requires the use of
floating roofs or vapor recovery systems for petroleum liquids
with a true vapor pressure greater than 78 mm of Hg  (1.5 psi)

                             49

-------
at 25°C.  This value has been adopted for all storage tanks
for storage of hazardous wastes,^as an upper limit for the
disposal of volatile compounds in non-point sources.
     Facility non-point sources shall not contribute any air
contaminant to the atmosphere exceeding the concentration
limit value for that air contaminant/ as promulgated in
49 CFR 1910.1000 pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970.  Air monitoring at non-point sources is not pre-
scribed in these regulations on a routine basis.  Facilities
wishing to dispose of ignitable, reactive, volatile, or
incompatible wastes in non-point sources, however, must moni-
tor at the surface of these sources for particular compounds
of concern regulated by OSHA in order to demonstrate compli-
ance with the adopted OSHA limits.
     Additionally, these sources will be required to demon-
strate at the time a permit is issued that such treatment or
disposal will not damage the structural integrity of the
landfill,  surface impoundment,  or basin, or affect the
attenuation capacity of a landfarm, through heat generation,
fires or explosive reactions.  The purpose of this provision
is to insure proper disposal and isolation of reactive and
ignitable wastes from sources of ignition.
                             50

-------
     Fires and explosions comprised fourteen damage incidents
which were reported to and investigated by EPA's Office of
Solid Waste between 1973 and 1976.  Additionally, volatile
waste disposal and the mixing of waste streams containing
compatible chemical groups have contributed to some seventeen
specific incidents of some type of air contamination
     The practice of land filling 55 gallon drums of ignitable,
reactive and or highly volatile wastes has been responsible
for a number of these incidents where bulldozers, necessary
for compaction and cover operators, provide the source of
ignition while the ignitable and reactive waste contained
within the drums provides the flammable mixture.  The damage
incident is triggered when the drum splits by compaction or
by chemical or physical degradation.  Several persons have
been killed and seriously injured in separate incidents
involving this mechanism.
     Due to these damage incidents and the known potential
for fires, explosions and hazardous air pollution episodes,
only facility operations and designs which demonstrate
adequate precautions should be permitted.  The best regula-
tory means of control is to ban the practice of land disposal
of ignitables, reactives, and highly volatile waste and to
ban open burning.  Thus the wastes, prior to land disposal
            A
would require chemical and/or physical treatment  (including
incineration).  The necessary treatment required would
depend on the chemical and physical properties of the waste
                            51

-------
and what one intends to do with the waste  (i.e., destruction,
evaporation, etc.).  Certain practices of  land disposal of
these wastes should be permitted following a demonstration
that these practices would be safe and that future damage
would be significantly improbable.  A note following the
regulation to ban land disposal in non-point sources describes
the conditions for allowing a demonstration.  As a minimum,
gas samples must be taken periodically for select air con-
taminants as part of the variance conditions allowed in the
            jm-lgff ffompliflngfl sfiLh'oLancI'arda.rolAtod to the

                           •fr rT7"r°Pa   Concentrations for
                                       d wiS
 select air contaminants  will  be  composed wifcn OSHA limits
 prescribed in rules promulgated  pursuant to  the Occupational
 M         n     A
Safety and jtealth ^ct of 1970.
     Incompatible wastes and  highly volatile wastes require
 definition as to what groups  are mutually incompatible and
 at what vapor pressure a waste is  to  be  considered highly
 volatile.  A definition  and more complete discussion of
 incompatible wastes including lists of chemical groups
 mutually incompatible is provided  in  the background»c
 for landfilling, landfarming, surface impoundments and
     Volatile wastes are defined as those with a true vapor
 pressure greater than 78 mm of Hg  at  25°C.   Petroleum
                            52

-------
greater than 78 mm of Hg are so volatile as to have been con-
sidered to be a significant contribution to the "endanger-
ment of public health or welfare."  Thus, the EPA Administrator
promulgated rules to require vapor recovery systems, floating
roofs*%pMHfl (or equivalent means of control) , to be applied to
storage tanks where such volatile wastes are stored.  These
rules for petroleum tanks were promulgated as 40 CFR 60.110
pursuant to Section 111 of the Clean Air Act of 1970.
     Emissions from a 40,000 gallon tank were considered as a
significant endangerment to public health and public welfare
in the storage of petroleum liquids.  In the case of the stryoage
of hazardous wastes with a vapor pressure greater than 78 mm of
mercury, all tanks greater than 5000 gallons are considered
significant.  Additionally, the definition of storage in RCRA
implies no emissions to the environment.
     A ban on the practice of open burning with no means of
deviation would not be prudent policy for "combustible" wastes
for which_a more_acceptable means of treatment or disposal is
unavailable.  In particular, certain ordnance wastes are
normally detonated prior to final disposal.  Such detonation
would be more prudent than direct land disposal or incineration
unless a facility is fully equipped to handle such wastes.
Thus a note accompanies the ban to allow certain wastes under
controlled conditions to be detonated or destructed via
combustion other than incineration.
                             53

-------
5.1  Preamble  language relative to the proposed rules

     under  Section  3004.
          The  following  language  accompaniedAin  the Federal



-UHSSfcP^H^fed^^gfW*'  This language was drafted to explain

to the public  what is proposed as rules and, in  general, as  a

means of clarifying "technical and legal"  language within

the body of the regulation.

             STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT/DISPOSAL

          Section 250.45 prohibits treatment or  disposal
     of certain kinds of waste in landfills, surface
     impoundments, basins, or landfarms unless the owner/
     operator  can demonstrate that such treatment or
     disposal  will not exceed OSHA's permissible con-
     taminant  levels for any listed airborne contami-
     nants (29 CFR §1910.1000) above such non-point
     sources and that it will not contribute two or
     more airborne contaminants to the air in a  manner
     which will cause a specified equation to exceed
     unity.  EPA believes that this prohibition  is
     justified because reactive,  ignitable, and  vola-
     tile waste pose special treatment and disposal
     problems.  The Agency does not know of any  way
     to ensure protection of human health and the
     environment without imposing this prohibition and
     attendant Note requirement.  Comments on this
     approach  are requested.

          Air  sampling at non-point sources (e.g., sur-
     face impoudments, landfills) is not required in
     these regulations.  Sampling at a non-point source
     may be made a permit condition, however, in a
     situation such as this, where the owner/operator is
     authorized to deviate from a design and operating
     standard.  Air sampling procedures for non-point
     sources are under development.  A manual will be
     provided  by EPA following promulgation of these
     rules to  describe the procedures by which air
     sampling  at non-point sources could be accomplished.
                             54

-------
Incineration

     The standards in Section 250.45-1 apply to
hazardous waste incinerators which are defined as
combustion devices.  One example of an incinerator

is a rotary kiln.  These regulations also apply
to cement kilns, utility boilers, and any other
devices which burn hazardous waste by combustion.

     The Subpart D performance standards for the
incineration of hazardous waste prescribe conditions
for destruction of the waste introduced and for
control of the resulting emissions.  Thus, these
proposed rules include specifications on residence
time, combustion temperature, excess air/ combustion
efficiency, scrubber efficiency, and automatic feed
cutoffs.  Trial burns are required for incinerators
burning waste of a type which has not previously
been burned in similar incinerators.  The results of
trial burns must be submitted to the Regional
Administrator.  Additionally, an emission standard
for particulates is given.

     EPA sponsored a program to assess processes for
destroying chemical waste in commercial scale inciner-
ators, as well as programs to destroy chemical waste
in experimental incincineration units.  EPA has
concluded that thermal destruction as a method of
treatment of primarily organic chemical waste is both
technically feasible and environmentally sound.

     The successful utilization of certain cement
kilns for destruction of chlorinated organic waste
is one of the more important results of EPA's program.
Cement kilns use the halogen content of the waste to
reduce alkalinity in the cement clinker while using
the hydrocarbons as fuel.  The BTU value of waste
reduces the fuel otherwise required to produce cement.
Combustion conditions in the kiln are more rigorous
than those in incinerators designed solely for hazard-
ous waste disposal.  Thus, the combustion conditions
are usually more than adequate for the destruction of
halogenated and non-halogenated hydrocarbon fuels,
including PCBs.

     EPA has received comments that incineration should
not be so strictly regulated that already costly
                       55

-------
incineration facilities become more so.  EPA believes
that because incineration has been found to be
technically feasible and environmentally sound/ and
because it reduces or eliminates the volume and/or
toxicity of waste to be land disposed, it should be
actively encouraged.

     Comments are requested on all of the regulations
prescribed for incineration, particularly the stand-
ards for which explicity limiting values are proposed,
These include 99 percent halogen removal in emission
control systems, 99.9 percent combustion efficiency,
99.99 percent destruction efficiency, 1000°C combus-
tion zone temperature,  two-second retention time,
0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot stack con-
centration limit for particulates, and the monitoring
requirements.
                       56

-------
                       Appendix A

     The following are damage incidents of importance to
the development of a strategy to protect human health and
the environment from hazardous air emissions.

-------
                           DAMAGE  INCIDENTS
                         HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                          DAMAGE REPORT NO. 1
                                July 8,  1977
          Waste  Incineration Causes Air Pollution  in  Connecticut

    In early  1974 reports of air and groundwater pollution  cause by the in-
cineration of  wastes were made.   The Air  Compliance  Division of the Connecticut
Department of  Environmental  Protection  subsequently  closed down two organic
solvents  recovery  operations.  Solvents Recovery in  Southington, Connecticut
was contaminating  the  air with heavy metals  from the incineration of solvent
sludges including  lead and zinc,  which  in turn contaminated the soil and
groundwater  in the area and  the  company's own  well.   Incineration was ceased
in early  1974.  In Beacon Falls,  Connecticut,  a similar operation was closed
for reasons  of air pollution.
                                 REFERENCES
 The information summarized above was recorded by Alice Giles, February 1975
 Her sources of information were:
 1.  Jeff Heidtmann, Hydrogeolegist, Connecticut Department of Environmental
    Protection.
 2.  Bill Hegener, Water Compliance Division, Connecticut Department of
    Environmental Protection
                                     A-l

-------
                            HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                              DAMAGE REPORT NO. 2
                                  July 8, 1977
                   Air Pollution from Frequent Landfill Fires

 1.  Personal Damage - None documented
 2.  Environmental Damage - Contamination of the air from burning of magnesium
          chips in the landfill.
 3.  Economic Damage - None documented
 4.  Cause of Problem - Improper disposal of magnesium chips and filings
 5.  Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste - An unknown quantity of magnesium
          chips and filings were discarded via surface disposal  for an  unknown
          number of years.  Other wastes which also may have been dumped  at  the
          site were not identified.
 6.  Source of Haste - Valley Metal Co., Centerbrook (town  or village)  in Essex,
          Connecticut
 7.  Date of Incident - About 1970
 8.  Location - Essex, Connecticut
 9.  Status - Unreported
10.  Remedial Action Taken - Unreported
11.  Legal Action Taken - Unreported
12.  Narrative - Valley Metal, Co., Essex, Connecticut disposed  of magnesium
          chips and filings in a privately owned  dump  site  for an  unspecified
          period of time.   The waste was probably co-mingled  with  other fill
          material, however, no information is available on  the  type and  quantity
          of such  material.   Around 1970 frequent intense fires  and explosions
          were reported.   No information is available  concerning  remedial actions
          or legal  actions.   It is  not known whether disposal of  the magnesium
          wastes and/or fires  and explosions are  still  occuring at  the site.
                                    REFERENCES
      The  above  information was recorded by Alice Giles, OSW, EPA in February
 1975.   Her  source of  information was Bill Hegener, Water Compliance Division
 Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.
                                        A-2

-------
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE REPORT NO.  3

                                 July 7, 1977

                       Springfield Township, Pennsylvania


1.  Personal Damage - None documented

2'.  Environmental Damage - Contamination of air, and surface and groundwater
         down  gradient from the landfill.  Contaminants include oily wastes
         and nickel.

3.  Economic Damage - Compacting bulldozer destroyed, unidentified number of
         fish  killed

4   Cause  of Problem - Drums containing unidentified industrial wastes exploded
    "during  compaction.  Resulting  fire burned for several days.  Fish kill
         is attributed to  runoff  from a recently oiled access  road.   Probable^
         groundwater contamination attributed  to chemical wastes in the  landfill.

5.  Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste  - Occasionally tank-car quantities
         and many barrels  of unidentified chemical wastes were compacted_and
         buried  with other fill materials for  an unspecified period of time.

6.  Sources of Waste - Unidentified

 r\ Date of Incident -  Incident occured in  1971.

8.  Location  - Mayer Landfill, Springfield  Township, Delaware  Co., Pennsylvania

 9   status -  The site was  closed  and covered  some  time  between 1971 and  August
          T975.

•JQ.  Remedial  Action Taken  - Leachate collection and  subsequent transport to  a
          public treatment  plant  for treatment began  either  after  the  1971  fire
          of after the  1974 fish  kill.   Leachate collection  may still  be  occurring
          or may have  been  discontinued  when the landfill  was closed.


]1.   Legal  Action Taken  - None documented

12   Narrative - For an unspecified period of time  the  Mayer Landfill  located in
    	Delaware County,  Pennsylvania, accepted all  types  of  industrial wastes.
          Quantities of industrial wastes ranged from drums  to  tank car loads.
          Indications are that other types of fill  materials were  also accepted.
          The  industrial  wastes were probably co-minqled with these fill  materials
          and  compacted during disposal  operations.  At the  time  of tha incident  the
          surface of the landfill  was approximately 100 feet above the original
          ground level.  The area occupied by the landfill was  not specified.
          The  landfill  site lies in the floodplain of Crum Creek.


                                        A-3

-------
           In 1971 a drum exploded during compacting operations  and  caused  a
           fire that burned for several  days.   The air around  the  landfill  was
           polluted during the fire.    The compacting bulldozer  was  destroyed.
           There is no indication that any remedial  action  was taken by  the land-
           fill  operators, or by the  state,  local, federal  government as a
           result of this incident.

           In 1973, and possibly earlier,  it was  noted that leachate from the
           landfill occasionally flowed  into Crum Creek.  There  was  also some
           evidence of groundwater contamination  at  the landfill site.  A
           leachate sample collected  on  December  6,  1973  showed  0.360 ppm Ni.  A
           fish  kill  which occurred on June  4,  1974  was attributed to oil run-
           off from oiling the road leading  to  the site.

           At some time,  probably in  1974, surface leachate collection was  begun.
           The leachate was treated at an  unspecified  public treatment plant.
           The landfill was closed and covered  some  time  before August 1975.
                                   REFERENCES
1.  All information contained in this summary was  obtained  from  handwritten  notes
    from what was probably a telephone conversation  on  August  14,  1975 with  Wayne
    Lyn of the Solid Waste Commission of the Pennsylvania Department of
    Environmental Resources.  The EPA person who jotted down the information
    not identified.

2.  This statement was not part of the conversation  with Lyn.  Conies from
    unidentified EPA source.


                                        A-4

-------
                           HAZARDOUS  WASTE  DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE REPORT NO. 4

                                 July 14,  1977

                      Air Pollution at Evaporation  Ponds


 1.   Personal Damage - Noxious  odors, eye  and  throat irritation

 2.   Environmental Damage - Contamination  of air by fumes  from ponding  of
          liquid organic waste

 3.   Economic Damage - Corrosive damage to homes

 4.   Cause of Problem - Fumes (organic vapors, acidic vapors,  etc.)  from the
          surface of industrial liquid waste evaporation  ponds

 5.   Type and Quantity of Hazardous Haste  - For years, unspecified (but large
          quantities) or a variety of industrial waste liquids have  been dis-
          posed of via evaporation in ponds.  Many  of the constituents  in the
          wastes are more volatile than water.

 5.   Source of Waste - Industrial and some municipal sources

 7.   Date of Incident -Numerous incidents  occurring over  a period of several
          years.

 8.   Location - San Francisco Bay Area

 3.   Status - Operations continue

10.   Remedial Action Taken - None specified

Tj4   Legal Action Taken - Numerous citations,  usually by  local Air Pollution
          Control Boards.

12.   Narrative - Evaporation ponds have been used in certain areas of the
     "country for many years for disposal  of liquid and semi-solid  waste of
          industrial origin.  As an example of the kinds of air pollution asso-
          ciated with many of the disposal  activities, some experiences with
          Industrial Tank, Inc., are  given below.

          Industrial Tank, Inc. operates several evaporation pond sites in the
          San Francisco Bay Area.  Three sites, the Martinez Site, the  Antioch
          Site, and the Benicia Site, are discussed here.

          The Antioch site operated for many years.  It is located in Contra
          Costa County, California, and was originally located in the
          center of a Superior Oil tank farm.   Its  purpose was to receive
          waste water containing substantial amounts of oil and recover as much
          of the waste oil as possible.  This recovered oil was  then sold to
                                        A-5

-------
various sources and used  in oiling roadways.  The site consisted of
a series of ponds through which the water-borne v/aste flowed.  At some
point in the ponding procedure skimming equipment removed the portion
of the water which contained high concentrations of the oil.  The
final pond acted as an evaporation pond for the sludge material con-
tained in the waste.  This site operated in the manner described above
for an unspecified number of years during which time Superior Oil
abandoned the tank farm and sold part of the land to private individuals
who received zoning variances and developed the area into a residential
community.   Some time after the subdivision was build residents began
to complain of odor problems from the disposal activity.  Many com-
plaints to the Air Pollution Control Board were made.  The citizens
filed a one million dollar law suit against Industrial Tank's Antioch
site for personal damage including damage to the houses of the home
owners.   These homes were suffering damage such as paint discoloration
and peeling.

Apparently, the Antioch site had never received a permit to operate
a Class I landfill but had operated for several years with the tacit
approval  of the California Water Quality Control Board.  They did rou-
tinely send the analysis of water from observation wells around the
perimeter of the site to the Water Quality Control Board.  When the
pressure from residents became intense, the Water Quality Control
Board gave notice to the Antioch site that it should be closed.  The
first notice came in July 1973 and was deferred until January 1974.
At this time the process of filling in the pond began.  The method
for filling was to add municipal  refuse to the liquid in the ponds
until they would be gradually filled with municipal refuse.  The
process of closing the site began in January of 1974 and continued
for an unspecified period of time.  It is not known whether the
site has been completely closed at this time.  During the process of
closing the site one fire occurred July 1974.  It appears that
the fire may have been deliberately set.  (This fire is the subject
of a separate Air Hazardous Waste Damage Report.)

The Martinez site is an active sice.  It consists of four evaporation
ponds.  Two (A and D) are used in a biological treatment method.
The other two (B and C) rely on evaporation as the disposal mechanism.

The biodegradation pond receives flock containing a large variety of
unidentified material from oil company effluents.  It is generally
quite odorous.   This flock is pumped into pond A and then periodi-
cally the more solid material is pumped into pond D where it is
disced frequently.  This allows for anaerobic degradation procedures.
The efficency of the aerobic biodegradation process is questionable.

The remaining two evaporation ponds accept a wide variety of liquid
organic waste.   These include acids, bases, flourides, solvents, and
organic oils.  Some of the organic oils are recovered and burned in
an incinerator owned and operated by Industrial Tank.  The kinds and
efficiencies of air pollution control  equipment on this incinerator
were not identified.  The pH of the waste materials is adjusted in
holding tanks prior to discharge to the ponds.  The pH generally ranges
from 6.8 to 7 before discharge in ponds.  Once the materials are con-
tained in the ponds the pH appears to gradually become more acidic.

                                 A-6

-------
           Some  biological  activity  does  take place.  These ponds are largely
           an  anaerobic  process  since  the lagoons are not aerated.  Some of the
           materials  produced  as the wastes degrade under anaerobic, reducing
           conditions include  hydrogen sulfide, organic sulfur compounds, nitro-
           gen bases  and possibly ammonium chloride.  Occasionally blue smoke
           can be observed  over  a pond.   It has been postulated that this
           occurs when ammonia evaporates from one pond, HC1 evaporates from
           the adjacent  pond,  and the  two are mixed by prevailing winds to form
           ammonium chloride.  This  does  not always account for the blue smoke
           because the smoke has been  observed when the winds are blowing the
           wrong way. In addition to  these kinds of materials which are pro-
           duced while the  material  is in the pond, many of the materials dis-
           charged to the ponds  are  volatile.

           Numerous citations  have been issued against the Martinez facility,
           and there  have been complaints from near by residents in Martinez
           and Concord.   In the  summer time very bad odors commonly occur in
           the evening and  are detectable many miles away.  The composition ?.nd
           quantities of materials evaporating to the air from this site have not
           been  determined. Occasionally certain wastes are slipped into a pond
           which cause severe  odcr problems.  These are generally the ones which
           result in  citations.   There appears to be some degree of monitoring
           by  the San Francisco  Bay  Area Air Pollution Control  Board;  however, the
           extent of  this surveillance is unknown.  Whatever the extent of the
           surveillance, contaminants  to  the air continue to be released.  This
           site  does  have a permit to  operate as a Class I hazardous v/aste
           disposal site.

           The Benecia site is a Class I  hazardous waste disposal site and accepts*
           exclusively hazardous wastes,  sludges, and other solids which may at
           some  time  be  classified as  Class I material.  It does not accept any
          municipal  refuse.   This site,as is the case in the Martinez site,
           consists of a series  of evaporation ponds.  The principle difference
           between the two  sites is  that  the odorous wastes are treated and handled
           at  the Martinez  site  while  the more non-odorous wastes are handled at
           the Benecia site.   The Benecia site also has a sludge treatment area.
          The site was  originally owned  by J & J Disposal, Inc. and was subse-
          quently purchased by  Industrial Tank, Inc.  To operate the site as a
           Class I disposal site,  Industrial Tank, Inc. built a retaining wall
          along the  bottom of the site.  They accept plastic and acidic waste
          materials.  For  example,  they  accept wastes from Du Pont Chemical's
           titanium dioxide operation.  The odor problems described for Martinez
          apply to Benecia as well  although the odor problems appear to be
          slightly less.
                                 . REFERENCES
i   Case #21 of the table entitled "Public Health and Environmental  Damage Assess-
    merit Inventory," completed by Bob Testani, OSW,  EPA,  undated.   The source of the
                                       A-7

-------
    information was Dave Storm, California Department  of  Health.


2.   Karen Slimak, Environmental Engineering Division,  TRW,  Inc. July 14-T5,
    1977.  Report of Verbal  Communications with  Mr.  Carl  Schwartzer, Division
    of Vector and Solid Waste Control,  California  Department of Health.
                                       A-8

-------
                         VERBAL COMMUNICATION REPORT


Call  From:   Karen Slimak, TRU, Inc., Consulting to EPA (Contract #68-01-4644)

Vail  To:     Mr. Carl Schwartzer
             Vector and Solid Waste Control Division
             California Department of Health
             415-843-7900 X434

Date:        July 14-15, 1977

Subject:     Air Pollution Incidents at Industrial Tank, Inc. Evaporation Ponds

The following information regarding the air pollution incidents associated with
Industrial Tank, Inc. was received from Mr. Carl Schwartzer via telephone con-
versation on July 14-15,.1977.  Three sites operated by Industrial Tank were
mentioned.   These are the Martinez site, the Benecia site, and the Antioch site.
The Martinez site is also known as the Baker site and the Vine Hill site; the
Vine  Hill name denotes the processing equipment used to blend the various waste
materials and the Baker site refers to the evaporation pond area.

Antioch site (Contra Costa County, California);

      - The Antioch facility is now either completely.abandoned or in the process
       of being filled in and abandoned.

      - The site during active operation was designed as an oil recovery facility.
       There were several ponds in a series.  Waste oil was added to the first
       pond  and allowed to flow through the pond system during which time surface
       skimming was accomplished with floatation equipment.  One of the ponds was
       designed as a drop out pond for the sludge from the oil.  All materials
       not skimmed from the surface were retained in the evaporation pond system.
       The recovered oil (with its relatively high water content) was sold for
       use as road oil.

      - The Industrial Tank oil recovery facility operated for many years (exact
       number of years unspecified).  The facility was initially surrounded by a
       Superior Oil tank farm.  Superior Oil subsequently sold the property, it
       was rezoned for residential use and houses were built.

      - Complaints from near-by residents began.  They reached a peak in about
       1972.  At which time, a coalition of residents filed a one-million dollar
       suit  against Industrial Tank.  Industrial Tank counter-sued for three
       million dollars.  There appeared to be some cooperation with local air
       pollution inspectors.  The inspectors passed out forms  for the residents
       to fill out rather than interviewing each comolaintant and filling out the
       forms as required.  Other efforts to harass the Industrial Tank facility
       included daily calls to Industrial  Tank and to the  Air  Pollution Control
       Board concerning odors.  This was apparently an activity of a few resi-
       dents who took it upon themselves to call daily.  The suits progressed
       to the point where depositions started to be taken, but then the lawyer
       for the citizens group dropped out.  Eventually both suits were dropped.

                                     A-9

-------
     - In 1973 the Water Quality Control Board decided to  close the landfill.
       The site had apparently never received a Class I landfill permit but
       had been operating as a Class I site with the tacit approval  of the Water
       Quality Control Board.  Periodically samples from observation wells in
       the vicinity were submitted to the Water Quality Control  Board.   The
       notice for closure v/as received  in July 1973 and deferred until January
       1974 when waste oils were no longer accepted at the facility.

     - The process of abandoning the site included gradually filling the pond
       with municipal refuse.

     - When one of the ponds was approximately one-third filled  with municipal
       refuse a fire occurred on the morning (1 a.m. through 5  a.m.) of July 5.
       The fire was apparently not started by spontaneous combustion of the filled
       material.  Although the exact cause of the fire remains  undetermined
       possibilities include fire crackers,  hot charcoal  in trash, and malicious
       mischief.  The Fire Department determined that the fire  started  in  the
       corner where the most recent garbage  dumping had occurred.  The  size of
       the pond involved was approximately one-half acre  with an undetermined
       depth.  The fire flared twice in  the  1  a.m.  to 5 a.m.  time period.
Martinez site:
     - This is an active facility.   It consists  of four  evaporation  ponds.   Two
       ponds are used for biodegradation of the  materials  from  oil refineries.
       It is placed in pond A where anaerobic degradation  takes place  and  the
       sludge from that pond is pumped into pond D where it  is  disced  almost
       continually to allow for aerobic degradation.   Probably  the efficiency of
       biodegradation is low because there is no mechnaism for  periodic  removal
       of accumulated sa.lt although there is a conveniently  available  area  for
       draining the liquid.   The two remaining ponds  (B  and  C)  receive wastes
       for evaporation.   Anaerobic  degradation occurs  here.

     - This site has received several  citations  from  the local  Air Pollution
       Control Authority.   The frequency of citations  and  of complaints  increases
       in the summer time when there are very bad  odors.   Some  evenings  the
       odors can be detected for many miles.   The  City of  Concord is considering
       a suit against the facility.

     - Occasionally a blue smoke can be observed over the  pond.  This  is possiblv
       ammonium chloride formed by  the reaction  of ammonia and  hydrogen  chloride
       gases from adjacent ponds.  This does not always  explain the appearance
       of the blue smoke because it has been observed  when the  winds were  blowing
       the wrong way to allow for mixing of the  two gases.

     - There is some- H?S odor occasionally.   Other odors are from chlorinated
       hydrocarbons.

     - The pH of the material  discharged into the  pond is  between 6.8  and  7  (this
       is to allow for protection of the pipes which  convey  the wastes to  the
       pond); the pH probably increases in acidity with  time.   The ponds are
       largely anaerobic.   {Reducing atmosphere  produces f^S and sulfate and also
       produces sulfide, organic sulfur compounds  and  nitrogen  bases.)  At the
       surface of the pond contact  with air would  allow  the  conversion of alkalirt
       material  containing C02 to sodium bi-carbonate.

                                       A-10

-------
     - Materials accepted include acids,  bases,  flourides,  solvents, organic
       oil.  Some organic oils  are recovered  and  burned  in  an incinerator.

     - Recently they have installed a chlorinator for decomposition of  cyanide
       containing waste.

     - Quite a large percentage of the waste  materials are  significantly  more
       volatile than water.

Benecia site (Salona County, California):

     - The site accepts exclusively hazardous wastes, sludges,  and other  solids,
       No Class II materials such as municipal refuse are disposed of at  the
       site.

     - The site is a very poor location.   It was originally operated by J.& J
       Disposal, but was shut down by the Water Quality Control  Board.  It was
       purchased by Industrial  Tank who subsequently built  a retaining  wall
       along the lower edge of the facility at a cost of $750,000. The area
       is monitored periodically for signs of leachate from the landfill.

     - Materials accepted include plastics, acids, and all  of Du Font's hydro-
       chloric acid waste from its titanium dioxide operations.

     - Currently their are few water related problems with  the site; however,
       these have been dry years and possible problems may  occur during wet
       years.  The subsoil doesn't seem to fit some geological  requirements.

     - Some of the same  types of wastes are accepted at both the Benecia  and
       the Martinez facilities.  The more odorous are treated in specially
       ventilated holding tanks,  neutralized  and routed to evaporation  ponds.
       The more non-odorous material is disposed at the Benecia site.

     - There is a sludge treatment process at the site.
                                         A-ll

-------
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                              DAMAGE REPORT NO.  5

                                 July 14, 1977

                       Fire at Hazardous Waste Landfill


 1.  Personal Damage - None

 2.  Environmental Damage - Contamination of air from fire at landfill

 3.  Economic Damage - None reported

 4.  Cause of Problem - The cause of the fire is undetermined.  Possibilities
          include fire crackers, hot charcoal in refuse, malicious mischief.

 5.  Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste - Primarily residue from waste oils.
          Quantities are unknown.  Other combustible material was contained
          in municipal refuse.

 6.  Source of Waste - Unidentified; the waste came from several  industrial
          and municipal sources.

 7.  Date of Incident - July 5, 1974; la.m.  - 5a.m.

 8.  Location - Antioch site of Industrial  Tank, Inc.

 9.  Status - Site is closed.

10.  Remedial Action Taken - None directly related to the fire. The site was in
          the process of being closed at the time of the incident.

11.  Legal Action Taken - None identified

12.  Narrative - The Antioch disposal site  of Industrial  Tank, Inc.  was  pri-
          marily a waste oil  recovery operation.  It was a series  of ponds
          through which oily water was passed.   Large  sized skimming equi--
          rent was used to remove the oily  water (for  use as  road  oil) from i-h
          surface of the pond.  Up until  1973 this  site apparently  operated as
          a Class I landfill  with the tacit approval of the California Water
          Quality Control Board.  Although  there is indication that there was
          not formal  approval  of the operation of this site as a Class I landfill
          observation wells were routinely  monitored by Industrial  Tank  and t
          results sent to the Water Quality Control Board on  a routine basis
          This continued until 1973 when public  pressure against  the landfiTJ
          became quite vocal.   At this time the  state  Water Quality Control
          Board gave notice to Industrial Tank,  Inc.  that the site  would have
          to be closed.  The initial notice of July 1973 was  deferred until
          January 1974 when the site stopped accepting hazardous wastes.

          The procedure for closing the site involved  gradual  additions  of
          municipal refuse to the site to absorb the water without  causing


                                       A-12

-------
         overflowing of the pond.   Once the pond area was  completely filled
         with garbage it would be  covered and abandoned.   By July 1974 one
         pond whose dimensions v/ere approximately 1/2 acre in area and several
         feet deep, was filled to  approximately 1/3 capacity with municipal
         refusa.  A fire occurred  in the early morning of  July 5.  (This  pond
         was originally designed as a drop out pond for sludge from the waste
         oil.  At the water surface there was some oil which was skimmed  with
         floatation equipment.) Fire burned from approximately 1 a.m.  until
         5 a.m. and flared at least twice during that time.  Possibilities
         for the cause of the fire include fire crackers  from the 4th  of
         July celebration, hot charcoal present in some of the trash
         material, and malicious mischief from some of the near by residents.
         The actual cause of the blaze was not determined  although the
         fire department did think that the fire started  in the corner
         of the pond where they had been dumping the garbage.  The procedure
         of filling the series of ponds continued without  modification
         after the fire was put out.  The exact time of final covering and
         abandonment of the site is not known.
                                 REFERENCES


1.  Case #21 of the Table entitled "Public Health and Environmental  Damage
    Assessment Inventory," completed by Bob Testani, OSW, EPA, undated.   His
    information source was Dave Storm, California Department of Health.   There
    is no record of the communications with Storm.

2.  Report of Communication of Karen Slimak, Environmental Engineering Division,
    TRW, Inc. with Mr. Carl Schwartzer, Division of Vector and Wastes,
    California Department of Health on July 14, 1977.
                                      A-13

-------
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE REPORT NO.  6

                                July 12, 1977

                 Air Pollution from Disposal  and  Recovery  of
                    Lead Wastes, San Francisco, California


 1.  Personal Damage - Alkyl lead intoxication  occurred  at lead  recovery faci-
          lity.  Toll collectors on a bridge  became ill  from vapors escaping
          from trucks hauling organic lead" wastes.   Hazard was created to workers
          at another reprocessing plant and to  surrounding firms.

 2.  Environmental Damage - Contamination of  air  from escaping alkyl lead vapors.

 3.  Economic Damage - None reported

 4.  Cause of Problem - Evaporation of organic  lead vapors from  disposal sites,
          recovery facilities, and from transporting vehicles.

 5.  Type and Quantity of Hazardous Haste - The type is  liquid,  organic waste.
          The quantity of waste is unknown other  than that approximately 50
          tons of organic lead waste has been produced annually  in the San
          Francisco Bay Area.

 6.  Source of Waste - Several  unidentified manufacturers

 7.  Date of Incident - Problem has existed for several  years

 8.  Location - San Francisco  Bay Area

 9.  Status - Proper disposal  and/or recovery of  organic lead wastes is still
          a problem.  Wastes are stored in a  holding basin  by one manufacturer
          awaiting further instructions.

10.  Remedial Action Taken - This series of incidents  has  been handled in a
          variety of ways; these include (a)  temporary storage of the wastes
          awaiting further instructions, (b)  a  reprocessor  returned the wastes
          to the original disposal  site.

11.  Legal Action Taken - At least one recovery plant was  closed down.

12.  Narrative - The disposal  of organic lead wastes  from  the manufacture of
          alkyl lead has been  a continuing problem  for several years.  Several
          of the associated incidents in the  San  Francisco  Bay Area are relatl^
          below:                                                           Ted

          The annual production of organic lead waste  from  the manufacturing
          process for alkyl  lead in the Bay Area  has  amounted to about 50 ton
                                      A-14

-------
        per year.  Although the organic lead waste is now being stored 1n a
        holding basin at the manufacturing plant while capability for re-
        covering the lead i? developed, the waste was previously disposed
        of in ponds at one industrial  waste disposal  site.   Those attempts
        of lead recovery resulted in alkyl  lead  intoxication of recovery
        plant employees.  A later attempt to reprocess the  lead wastes at
        another location created a hazard to employees at the plant,  as
        well as a hazard to surrounding firms, as a result  of air-borne
        alkyl lead vapor.. Also, toll  collectors on a bridge along the truck
        route to the new reprocessing  facility became ill  from the escaping
        vapor.  After this second recovery plant was  closed, some hazardous
        material remained on the property and created a health hazard.  Finally,
        after much delay without achieving proper control,  this material was
        returned to the original disposal site.   Recently,  with the detection
        of significant levels of alkyl lead in the air in the vicinity of
        another disposal facility, a new hazard  has been identified.   The
        source of this air-borne lead  has not yet  been confirmed because it
        cannot be accounted for at the disposal  site.

        In summary, material generated by one firm has been deposited in a
        disposal site which is operated by a second party and owned by a
        third.  Responsibility for protection of the  public under these con-
        ditions has been weak.
                                 REFERENCES
1.  Case #7 of the table entitled  "Public  Health and  Environmental Damage
    Assessment Inventory".   Information  recorded by Bob Testani, 05W, EPA
    on December 16, 1975.   His  information came from  Don Andreas, California
    Department of Public Health via  Tim  Fields, OSW,  EPA.

2.  1973 Report to Congress,  Disposal  of Hazardous Wastes  (SW-115) Appendix
    A, p.41.

                                      A-15

-------
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE REPORT NO.  7

                                July 12, 1977

                Air Pollution Incident at Pond Disposal Site


 1,   Personal Damage - Nausea was reported

 2.   Environmental Damage - Contamination of air resulted from the evaporation
          of volatile liquid wastes from pond surface

 3.   Economic Damage - At least one of the buildings downwind of the pond lost
          an undetermined number of working manhours from its employees  due to
          the evacuation of the building.

 4.   Cause of^Problem - Volatile odorous wastes evaporated from the surface of
          a disposal  pond

     Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste - The material  consisted of betv/een
          4,000 and 16,000 gallons of volatile odorous liquid wastes from the
          manufacture of ally!  amines.   Constituents included organohalogens
          such as crotyl  chloride (C=C-C-C1), amines, and C5 - Cg hydrocarbons.

  .   Source of Waste - Shell  Oil in San Francisco Bay area

 7.   Date of Incident - September 1975

 8.   Location - Richmond Disposal Site of Richmond Sanitary Service, Contra
          Costa County, California,  Parent company - West Contra Costa
          Disposal, Inc.

 9.   Status - Pond was closed shortly after the incident  due to water pollu-
          tfon problems.  Pond  may have reopened for certain restricted  uses
          In May or June of 1977.

10.   Remedial Action Taken - None

11.   Legal Action Tafen - Richmond Sanitary Services and  Industrial  Tank, Inc.
          (hauler) were cited for air pollution violations by the San Francisco
          Bay area A1r Pollution Control.  Other legal actions were considered
          and may have been carried out, these included criminal  charges  against
          the hauler.

12.   Narrative -  There were  four firms involved in this  incident.   Shell Oil
          Company in the San  Francisco Bay Area was the company who  produced the
          waste.  Industrial  Tank, Inc. was contracted by Shell  Oil  to dispose
          of the waste, they  were also the hauler of the  waste.   BKK Disposal
          was the southern California company which rejected the  waste at its
          disposal site.   Richmond Sanitary Services was  the company which
          ultimately disposed of the waste material in its evaporation pond.
                                         A-16

-------
   In September 1975,  Shell  Oil  Company  generated  several  thousand
   gallons of volatile liquid waste  at its  allyl amine  plant in  San
   Francisco Bay Area.  The  exact  quantity  of the  waste is not known;
   however, the amount is  between  4,000  and 16,000 gallons  (1-4
   truck loads).  These wastes were  all  volatile material.  The
   primary constituents were organohalogens such as  crotyl chloride,
   amines, and short-chain hydrocarbons.  This  composition was reported
   by the manufacturer and was confirmed by analyses performed by the
   California Department of  Health.

   Arrangements were made  with  Industrial Tank, Inc. for the hauling and
   disposal of this waste  material.   The wastes were loaded into vacuum
   trucks and presumably hauled  to an Industrial Tank facility.   Industrial
   Tank, Inc. operates evaporation pond  disposal sites  in  the Martinez and
   Antioch areas.  It  was  determined that the wastes were  not  suited
   for pond disposal.   The material  was  then transported in the  vaccumn
   trucks to  BKKDisposal in  West Covina, California.  The  BKK  Disposal
   site is a municipal refuse  co-mixing  operation  typical  of the southern
   California area.

   BKK disposal rejected the material  at the gate  on the basis of an
   initial examination. The waste very  odorous.   BKK was  especially
   sensitive to odorous waste  at. this time  because it had  been closed
   down by the town of West  Covina for from 1-2 days in just the previous
   week.  (At a later  time the odors were proved not to be due  to the  BKK
   landfill.)

   Industrial Tank, Inc. returned  the material  to  the San  Francisco area
   and sent it to the  Richmond disposal  site of Richmond Sanitary
   Services.  The Richmond disposal  site is primarily a sanitary landfill
   which handles the sanitary  trash  business of West Contra Costa Disposal.
   They also have one  small  evaporation  pond.  Richmond Sanitary Service
   accepted the v/aste  and  ran  it into their evaporation pond.

   The material floated to the  top of the pond and evaporated.   During the
   evaporation there was a visible plume (white mist typical of  amines),
   very bad odors, and complaints  of nausea from persons downwind.
                           REFERENCES


Case #19 (original case #) from the table entitled "Public Health and
Environmental Damage Assessment Inventory" completed by Alice Giles and
Bob Testani, OSW, EPA, January 28, 1976.   The source of the information con-
tained therein was Harvey Collins, Head,  Vector Control, California Health
Department.  There is no record of the contact(s)  with Collins in the EPA
file.


                                A-17.

-------
                             REFERENCES (Con't)


2.   Notes from a conversation between Dave Storm, California Department of
    Health and an unidentified person, presumably from EPA.   The notes  are
    undated.

3.   Verbal communication report by Karen Slimak, Environmental  Engineering
    Division, TRW, Inc.  concerning telephone conversation on July 11, 1977
    with Dr. Robert Stevens of the California Department of  Health.

Where conflicting information occurred amona these three sources, the verbal
communication report was used.
                                     A-18

-------
                          VERBAL COMMUNICATION  REPORT


     From:  Karen Slimak, TRW,  Inc.,  Consulting to  EPA  (Contract  168-01-4645)

Call To:    Dr. 'Robert Stevens
            California Department of  Health
            415-843-7900 X434

Date:       July 11, 1977

Subject:    Air Pollution Incident at Richmond  Disposal  Site


The following information regarding the above incident  which  occurred in September
1975 was received from Dr. Robert Stevens.

     - Some number of truck loads of  wastes were involved.  Exact amount is not
       known; between 4,000 and 16,000 gallons  (1-4 truck loads)

     - Wastes were produced by  a Shell ally!  amine  plant

     - Constituents (as reported by the manufacturer and as confirmed by analysis
       of California Department of Health)  included very volalite organohalogens
       (e.g., crotyl chloride C=C-C-C1) amines, and C5-Cg hydrocarbons

     - Industrial Tank Incorporated was contracted  by Shell to  dispose of the
       wastes

     - ITI has evaporation ponds in Martinez and Antioch, but determined that
       the wastes were not suitable for ponding

     - They shipped the material to BKK Disposal  in West Covina,  California.
       This is a municipal refuse co-mixing operation typical of  the Southern
       California area.

     - Dr: Stevens was at the BKK site in West  Covina collecting  samples the day
       the trucks arrived.

     - BKK rejected the material at the gate on the basis of  initial  examination,
       the waste was very odiferous.   BKK had been  closed down  by town of West
       Covina for from 1-2 days the previous week because of  the  odor problems
       (later odors proved not to be  due to the landfill).  Therefore BKK was
       very sensitive to odor problems at the time.

     - Industrial Tank then returned  the material to the San  Francisco area and
       took it to Richmond Sanitary Services' Richmond  Disposal Site.  (Parent
       company - West Contra Costa Disposal Incorporated)

     - Richmond Sanitary Services handles the Sanitary  trash  business for the
       parent company.  They also have one  small  evaporation  pond.

     - Richmond Sanitary Services accepted  the  wastes and ran it  into the evapora-
       tion pond.

                                        A-19

-------
- The material floated to the top and began evaporating

- There was a visible plume (white mist), no fire, very bad odors,  and  com-
  plaints of nausea from persons downwind.   One or more buildings  were
  evacuated including a Social Security building.

- There ware unconfirmed reports that the plume didn't rise readily  but
  hovered above ground for several hours, moved in various directions  by
  prevailing wind before dissipation.

- There were reports that the plume was sighted 10-15  miles  away in Atlameta.

- An air pollution citation was issued against Richmond Disposal and against
  Industrial Tank Inc.  One Industrial Tank official was almost jailed in
  the incident,

- No remedial  action was taken because this was a one-time incident  and the
  material evaporated.

- Air pollution surveillence increased after the incident and more require-
  ments were placed on testing wastes and on procedures for accepting
  wastes; volatiles were restricted

- Shortly after this incident the pond was  closed because of leaks and
  because it got too full

- It has possibly reopened in 1977.

- For more information on the complaints of nausea, etc.  contact Bob Gaynor
       Bay Area Pollution Control District
       415-771-6000
                                  A-20

-------
                           HAZARDOUS HASTE DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE  REPORT NO. 8
                                 July 22,  1977
                    Bulldozer Operator Nauseated  from Fumes

 1.   Personal Damage - Bulldozer operator  became  nauseated
 2.   Environmental Damage - Contamination  of air  when wastes  were uncovered;
          leaks from waste material  into a local  stream
 3.   Economic Damage - None documented
 4.   Cause of Problem - Fumes from wastes  from  lindane and  benzene hexachloride
          manufacture uncovered during site preparation for a baseball  field
 5.   Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste  - About 400 tons  of BMC waste
 6.   Source of Haste - Unidentified pesticide manufacturer
 7.   Date of Incident - August 4, 1976
 8.   Location - Hamilton Township, Allegheny County,  Pennsylvania
 t\.   Status - Undetermined
10.   Remedial Action Taken - Undetermined
11.   Legal Action Taken - None
12.   Narrative - Apparently, an unidentified pesticide manufacturer produced
          Undane/BHC on a site in Hamilton Township, PA.   The operation ceased
          In about 1966.  Subsequently, the site  was  deeded to the town.
          Recently, the town decided to construct a  baseball  field and  a bull-
          dozer operator became nauseated  when  he unearthed what was later shown
          to be BHC waste.  Pennsylvania Department  of Conservation (PDC) esti-
          mates over 400 tons of BHC waste is present.  Further, there  is a
          confirmed leak from the waste into a  local  stream.
          As of August, 1976 the State was undecided  on the best course of
          action.  The town did not have the funds to effect clean-up.   The two
          options considered were containment of  the  waste  on site with treat-
          ment of the leaking material or  excavation  and removal to a hazardous
          waste site.  A PDC group was scheduled  to  survey  the buried waste to
          determine its extent.
                                       A-21

-------
      The PDC was provided with some specific information,  obtained  from
      TRW, on treatment of BHC waste by conversion  to  trichloro-
      benzene with calcium oxide.   They may elect  to use  this method  for
      treatment of the discharge.
                             REFERENCES
Harold R. Day, Pesticide Waste Management Division,  EPA.   August  IS,  1975
Memo to Harry M. Trask, Pesticide Waste Management Division,  EPA.

Case #65 from the table entitled "Public Health and  Environmental  Damage
Assessment Inventory - Pennsylvania", completed by Bob Testani , OSW,  £p^
September 7, 1976.  Source of information was Bill Schremp,  Region III,  '
EPA.
                                  A- 22

-------
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE REPORT NO.  9

                                 July 19,  1977

                     Asbestos Air Pollution from Landfills


 1.   Personal Damage - Possible exposure of workers and their families to
          high levels of asbestos

 2.   Environmental Damage - None documented

 3.   Economic Damage - None documented

 4.   Cause of Problem - Unsatisfactory methods  of disposal  of hazardous waste
          containing asbestos from asbestos mine and mill

 5.   Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste - Undetermined quantities of
          chrysotile asbestos in disposal  area

 6.   Source of Waste - Pacific Asbestos Company, Copperopolis, California,
          Parent Company - H. K. Porter Corporation

 7.   Date of Incident - February - March,  1973

Ty   Location - Copperopolis, California

 9.   Status - Unknown

10.   Remedial Action Taken - None determined

11.  • Legal Action Taken - None determined

12.   Narrative - The Pacific Asbestos Company operates  a quarry -  mill  complex
          adjacent to the community of Copperopolis, California.   Processing
          wastes are apparently disposed on site.   The  method for  disposal  is
          unsatisfactory and has resulted in complaints of  exposure to the
          community of high levels of chrysotile asbestos.

          At the request of the International President of  the Cement,  Lime, and
          Gypsum Workers, the Industrial Union  Department of the AFL/CIO con-
          ducted an investigation of worker and community resident exposure to
          asbestos.  A medical and environmental science team headed by Professor
          Irving J. Selikoff visited the Copperopolis community and the Pacific
          Asbestos plant on March 9-10 to  assess the adequacy of the method of
          disposal of material from the Pacific Asbestos plant as well  as  the
          levels of exposure of residents  in the community  and workers  in the
          plant to chrysotile. asbestos fibers.
                                         A-23

-------
       The results of this investigation  are  unknown.  There  is no
       data on any remedial  measures  or any legal action  taken.
                             REFERENCES
 Case  #8  from the  table entitled "Public Health and Environmental Daman*
 Assessment Inventory", completed by Bob Testani, OSW, EPA, undated.
 Source of Information was Alan Cranston, Committee on Labor and Public
•Welfare,  U.S. Senate (letter, March 1, 1973), and S.W. Samuels, Directo
 Health Safety and Environmental Affairs, Union Department, AFL-CIO
 (memorandum, February 21, 1973).
                               A-24

-------
                           HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
                             DAMAGE REPORT NO. 10

                                 July 20, 1977

                    Air Pollution from Waste Asbestos Piles


 1.  Personal Damage - Potential exists for asbestosis and mesothelioma among
          workers at asbestos mill and nearby residents.
                                                                         3
 2.  Environmental Damage - Contamination of air (ambient levels 3.6 ng/m  above
          background; emission levels 108 to 1739 ng/m3 above background) due
          to disposal activities and wind erosion at asbestos v/aste pile.  Leach-
          ate from waste pile (Total solids:  980 mg/1; pH 11.1) contaminated
          nearby stream.

 3.  Economic Damage - None identified

 4.  Cause of Problem - Asbestos emissions from waste storage pile as a result
          of wind erosion and dumping activities.  Periodic leachate from landfill

 5.  Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste - Approximately 1.5 million cubic
          yards of asbestos containing wastes; the waste pile is 50 feet high
          and covers 20 acres.  Other waste constituents include calcium and mag-
          nesium carbonate.

 6.  Source of Waste - Various asbestos manufacturing process and milk-of-
          magnesia manufacture.

 7.  Date of Incident - The Nicolet Landfill (and associated asbestos emissions)
          began operation in about 1C70 and continued until about 1975; Certain-
          teed Products Landfill began operations sometime after January 1, 1970
          and discontinued operations in March, 1972.

 8.  Location - Ambler Borough, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

 9.  Status - The present status is unreported; both sites were required to
          complete closure and site abandonment procedures by May 1, 1574.
          However,.appeals delayed this deadline until September 1975.  As  of
          January 1976 the site was neither covered nor removed.

10.  Remedial Action Taken - As of early 1975, the Nicolet site was not fenced.
          Equipment to filter out the asbestos and concentrate the waste has
          been purchased.  The resultant asbestos containing wastes will  go to
          the Montgomery County Landfill.

11.  Legal Action Taken

        - In 1973 Nicolet was ordered to cease and desist dumping, and to cover
          and stabilize the dumps.
                                     A-25

-------
       - On February 19,  1974,  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
         Resources ordered Nicolet  Industries, Inc. and Certain-teed Products
         Corporation to cease waste  disposal operatons immediately and comply
         with landfill  closure  requirements by May 1, 1974.

       - On February 10,  1975,  Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
         Resources denied the Nicolet  Industry permit for disposal and required
         that Nicolet cease  operation  of its solid waste disposal facility by
         August 1, 1975 and  proceed  with closure activities.

12.  Narrative -  In 1367 two Ambler,  Pennsylvania companies, Keasley and
         Mattison  (K &  M)  began manufacturing milk of magnesia and asbestos
         products  and dumping wastes a short distance away at the intersection
         of Butler Avenue and Morris Road near the main section of the borough.
         The wastes then,  as now, were primarily ("80%) magnesium carbonate and
         calcium carbonate.  The site  contains about 100,000 tons of magnesium.
         Asbestos  concentration varies throughout the site depending on waste
         type encountered, e.g., asbestos dust - up to 40%, asbestos pipe -
         up to 12%, waste water sludge - "2%.

         (Jumping has occurred at the site for a total of about 90 years.  Mucn
         of the waste pile was  due to  K & M activities.  In 1930 when Nicolet
         Industries, Inc.  purchased  the insulation and general products divi-
         sions of  K & M they inherited the waste pile.  In 1962 Certain-teed
         Products  Corporation bought out the pipe manufacturing operation of
         K & M. Nicolet  Industries, Inc. and Certain-teed Products Corporation
         are now joint  owners of the pile.  Certain-teed Products Corporation
         has added about  2700 tons of  crushed asbestos pipe each year.  Nicolet
         industries disposes of its  asbestos waste in piles adjacent to the
         old pile  at Butler  Avenue and Morris Road.

         The old pile contains  approximately 1.5 million cubic yards of waste;
         its dimensions are  approximately 50 feet high by 20-25 acres.  A resi-
         dential development and the Wissahickon Creek are nearby.

         The locations  of the active sites are shown in Figure 1.  Current waste
         treatment and  disposal processes include waste collection, settling
         ponds, lagoons,  and disposal  piles.

         Waste generated  as  a dust (40 percent asbestos) from the sanding of
         monolithic board is collected in baghouses.  The dust is transferred
         from the  baghouse to containers where the material is wetted, covered
         and transported  to  a settling pond about one kilometer away.  The waste
         material  is dumped  Into a section of the settling poind, mixed into
         a slurry, and  pumped to the active disposal lagoon approximately SQ
         meters away.  Other asbestos-containing waste generated at the plant
         empties into a wastewater system and is channeled to the settling pond.
         Waste generated  from  machining the pipe ends is collected in a        s
         and recycled  rather than being discarded as waste.  Pipe scraps greater
                                       A-26

-------
                                                                                          LAGOON
                                                                                                   SITE *1
                                                                                                      S
                                                                                  XPIPE SCRAPS
                                                                                  DUMPED HERE
                          I  I  I  I  I  1  I  111 I

                                                  • /•   <\ \. v x */
                                                '//>]% \;'/
                                                n ii ••  i '. \ \  J/f
                                                                     PLANT B'S
                                                                    ACTIVE PILE
LEGEND:
  S  SAMPLER
  M  METEOROLOGICAL
     STATION

                                                                                  X,   NE  /S0;
27C°/
  ft'
        SW
 1800
x S
                     7      /
                   ... /     Figure    1.  Sources of asbestos emissions in Ambler. Pennsylvania.

-------
 than  30 cm (ca.  12  inches) in diameter are not recycled,  and  this  waste
 is  transported to the disposal pile.  A large amount of asbestos-
 containing sludge is created in the wastewater treatment  operation.
 Tank  trucks  transport the slurried sludge to the disposal  lagoon;
 each  truck carries  approximately 23,000 liters (ca.  6000  gallons)  per
 load  and empties into the lagoon at a rate of about  10 to  12  truck-
 loads per  6-week period.

 After water  evaporates from the disposal lagoon, portions  of  the lagoon
 have  a dry,  cracked crust.  The top layer is light in color,  has a
 relatively low density, and is fibrous.  The fibers  appear to be bound
 securely enough so  that they are not released by wind action  alone.
 The sides  of the disposal site are about 46 cm higher than the level
 of the lagoon and form a roadway approximately 4.5 meters  wide.  Solid
 material is  deposited and spread on this roadway when it  becomes neces-
 sary  to  build up the sides of the lagoon.

 When  enough water has evaporated, the semi dry waste  %is shoveled from
 the lagoon and piled onto the adjacent disposal  area.   A  bulldozer then
 crushes  the discarded pipe; the semi dried  sludge is  mixed  with the
 crushed  pipe, and the mixture is spread uniformly on the disposal  pile.
 The crushing operation is performed for approximately 1-1/2 days of
 an 8-week  period.

 There  are actually two adjoining disposal  sites.   Site A is approxi-
 mately 20 meters high,  90 meters wide, and 150 meters  long (ca. 60
 feet  high, 300 feet wide, and 500 feet long), while  Site B is  approxi-
 mately 6 meters high, 90 meters wide, and  210 meters long.

A waste disposal site located southwest of Plant A at  the  Nicolet
 facility has been inactive for about  4 years and  covers approximately
40,000 m2  (ca.  10 acres)  (Figure 1).   The  type of waste material der- —
 posited at the site  differs  from the  material currently being  disposed
of at the other two  sites.   Trees,  grass,  shrubs,  and  weeds cover  ap-
 proximately 75 to 90 precent of surface area, but little vegetation
grows on the north bank of the pile,  which borders one side of a play-
 ground and is close  (within  15 meters) to  occupied dwellings.  This
 bank is approximately 180 meters long, approximately 15 meters high
 and has a slope of about 60  degrees.                                '

Over a period of years, starting in 1971,  both Nicolet and Certain-teed
 have been challenged on state laws  concerning solid  waste  management
 Investigation has also determined that the landfill  is causing a dis-
 charge of pollutants into the Wissahickon  Creek.

 On December 2, 1971, Nicolet Industries applied  for  permission to  con
 tinue  dumping (Permission required  by Solid Waste  Management Act of
 1968).  Pending approval, Nicolet continued to dump.   On March 2,  1979
 Certain-teed applied under the same Act.   However, they discontinued
 dumping  upon application.
                               A-28

-------
         Pressure to close the landfill  due to high levels  of asbestos air
         emissions began in about 1973.   Concern was voiced by Dr.  Irving
         Selikoff, Mt,  Sinai Environmental  Sciences, Jack Farmer, EPA, and
         others.  An air monitoring program conducted by the U.S. Environ-
         mental Protection Agency in October,  1973, indicated ambient back-
         ground 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 1745 ng/m3.
         It has been reported that citizens have been removing material  from
         the piles for  driveways.

         In 1973 the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER)
         ordered Nicolet to cease and desist dumping, to cover and stabilize
         the dumps.  The firm reapplied for a  solid waste management permit.
         In February 1974, a disposal permit was denied by the Pennsylvania
         Department of Environmental Resources; Nicolet Industries and Certain-
         teed were directed to cease disposal  activities immediately and
         cover and abandon the site by May  1974.  In February 1974, a second
         application v/as denied and disposal operations were directed to cease
         in August 1975.  As of November 1975  the Pennsylvania DER reported that
         Certain-teed Products was complying with the court order regarding
         dumping.  Nicolet had complied in  part, with one phase of their
         operations still producing asbestos wastes.  Nicolet v/as exploring
         alternative remedies; however, the asbestos piles  had been neither
         planted or removed.

         Although the initial pressure which resulted in the permit denials
         was due to asbestos air emissions, justification for permit denial
         and site closure was given as water pollution due to leachate conta-
         mination of an adjacent stream. The  DER orders did not mention the
         air emissions  problem!

         A similar asbestos waste pile exists  at Hyde Park, Vermont.   The pile
         dimensions were approximately 400  feet high, approximately 26CO feet
         long, approximately 1000 feet wide as of September 1973.  At that
         time 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/m3;  average concentration was about 1300 ng/m3•   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.
                                    REFERENCES
1.  William K. Mandel.   The Evening Bulletin.   December 3,  1973.  "Asbestos
    Hill is Hit as Health Hazard".

 .  Leon T. Gonshor, Regional Coordinator, Pennsylvania DER.   February 20,
    1974.  Letter to Daniel Synder, Region III Administrator, EPA.

                                         A-29

-------
3.  Leon T.  Gonshor,  Regional  Coordinator,  Pennsylvania  DER. February 20,
    1975,  Letter to  Daniel  Synder,  Region  III  Administrator,  EPA.

4.  Alice Giles,  Undated.   Internal  EPA summary of Ambler  Incident, QSW, EPA.

5.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, 1974.  Background  Information on
    National  Emission Standards for  Hazardous Air Pollutants -  Proposed
    Ammendments  to Standards for Asbestos and Mercury.   Office  of Air Quality
    Planning and Standards,  Research Triangle Park, North  Carolina  (EPA -
    450/2-74-009a).

6.  William G. Seeburger,  American Cancer Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
    January 15,  1976.  Letter to Emery C. Lazar,  Office  of Solid Waste
    Management,  EPA.
                                  A-30

-------
                       Appendix B


                       References
American Conference of Goernmental Industrial Hygienists,
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in Workroom
Air, for 1975.

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists/
Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values for Substances
in Workroom Air, Third Edition, 1971, (Third Printing, 1976).

American National Standards Institute brochure, "245 American
National Standards Adopted under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act (or Presently Under Consideration by OSHA),"
December 1976.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Con-
ditioning Engineers, Inc., "Standards for Natural and
Mechanical Ventilation," Approved February, 1973.

Back, R.C., "Aerospace Toxicology.  I.  Propellant Toxicology,"
and "II.  Toxicological Evaluation of Materials Associated
with Spacecraft." in Federation Proceedings, 29, No. 6,
November-December 1970.

Back, R.C. and A.A. Thomas, "Aerospace Problems in Paracology
and toxicology," in Annual Review of Pharmacology, 10, 1970,
pp. 395-412.                                       ~~

Battelle Columbus Laboratories, The Development of a Multi-
media Environmental Goals  (MMEG) Chart, Environmental
Protection Agency, August  1976.

Battelle Memorail Institute, "Program for the Management of
Hazardous Wastes" prepared for Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs; final report, July 1973

California State Department of Health, Hazardous and Extremely
Hazardous Wastes:  Proposed Regulations, Title 22, Division 4,
(R-71-76), document prepared for public hearings  (commencing
August 16, 1977) on regulations.

Cleland, J.G. and G.L. Kingsbury, Multimedia Environmental Goals
for Environmental Assessment, draft report submitted by the
Research Triangle Institute to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, January, 1977.

Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission, "Regulation No.  8,
"Regulation to Control Emissions of Chemical Substances and
Physical Agents, Adopted November 1973, Effective May 1974.


                             B-l

-------
Eimutis, E.G., B.J. Holmes and L.B. Mote, Source Assessment:
Severity of Stationary Air Pollution Sources—A Simulation
Approach.  Report prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/ EPA-600/2-76-032e
July 1976.

Farmer, Walter, University of Claifornia, "Problems Associated
with the Land Disposal of Organic Industrial Hazardous Waste
Containing HCB," from Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium on Residual Management by Land Disposal,
July 1976.

Handy, R. and A. Schindler, "Estimation of Permissable Con-
centrations of Pollutants for Continuous Exposure," PB 253959,
a report submitted by the Research Triangle Institute to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 1976.

House, W. / Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory Report,
ASD-TR-61-519CIII), 1964.  Citation for this publication
obtained from Reference 16.

Lazar, E.G., Testoni, R., and A.B. Giles, "The Potential for
National Health and Environmental Damages from Industrial
Residue Disposal," presented at the National Conference on
Disposal of Residues on Land, St. Louis, Mo., September 1976.

Lindsey, A.W., Hazardous Waste Management Division, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency, "Ultimate Disposal of Spilled Hazardous Materials,"
Chemical Engineering, Oct. 1975.

MacEwen, J.D. and E. H. Vernot, Toxic Hazards Research Unit
Annual Technical Report:  1969, AMRL-TR-69-84, 1969.

Markle, Richard, "A Preliminary Examination of Vinyl Chloride
Emissions from Polymerization Sludges, During Handling and
Land Disposal," from Proceedings of the Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium on Residual Manageement by Land Disposal
July 1976.

OSHA General Industry Safety and Health Standards, OSHA 2206
(29 CFR Subpart Z-Toxic and Hazardous Substances, Section
1910.1000 Air Contaminants), revised as of January 1976.

Ottinger, R.S., J.L. Blumenthal, D.F. Dal Porto, G.I. Gruber
M.J. Santy, and C.C. Shih.  Recommended Methods of Reduction'
Neutralization, Revoery or Disposal of Hazardous Waste.      '
Vol 11, Toxicologic Summary.  Report prepared by TRW Systems
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February 1973.

NIOSH, Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances,
1976 Edition, June 1976.


                           B-2

-------
Pacey, John, "Methane Gas in Landfills:  Liability or Asset,"
from Proceedings of the Fourth National Congress on Waste
Management Technology and Resource and Energy Recovery,
November, 1975.

Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conference on Atmospheric Con-
tamination in Confined Spaces, 10-12 September 1968, Aerospace
Medical Research Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio, December 1968.

Sandage, C., Tolerance Criteria for Continuous Inhalation Expos-
ure to Toxic Material I:  Effects on Animals of 90-day Exposure
to Phenol, CC14, and a Mixture of Indole, Skatole, H2S, and
Methyl Mercaptan.  Report prepared by Midwest Research Institute
for Aerospace Medical Laboratory, Aernautical Systems Division,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, ASD-TR-61-519(I),
October 1961.

Sandage, C., Tolerance Criteria for Continuous Inhalation
Exposure to Toxic Material II:  Effects on Animals of 90-day
Exposure to 1*28, Methyl Mercaptan, Indole, and a Mixture of
H2S, Methyl Mercapton, Indole and Skatole.  Report prepared
by Midwest Research Institute for Aerospace Medical Laboratory,
Aeronautical Systems Division, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio, ASD-TR-61-519 (.11), December 1961.

Toxic Materials News, 4, Nos. 26  (July 27, 1977, p. 163) and
28  (August 10, 1977, p7 176).  Also Chemical Engineering,
July 18, 1977, pp. 64-70.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Hazardous Waste Damage
Reports," SW-151.3, June 1976.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, "Report to Congress on Disposal of
Hazardous Wastes," delivered June 30, 1973 to the President
and Congress, 1974.

Wands, Ralph C., "Philosphy of 100-day and 1000-day Limits for
Space Cabin Atmospheres," in Proceedings of the 4th Annual
Conference on Atmospheric Contamination in Confined Spaces,
10-12 September 1968, AMRL-TR-68-175, Aerospace medical Research
Laboratories, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

Weinstein, R.S., D.D. Boyd, and K.C. Back, "Effects of Continuous
Inhalation of Dichloromethane in the Mouse:  Morphologic and
Functional Observations," in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology,
23, pp. 660-679, 1972.
                         B-3

-------
BD-13
               Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

               Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management

               Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners and

                              Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,

                              Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
                                DRAFT
                         BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
         Section 250.43     General Facility Standards
                U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                        Office of Solid Waste
                          December 15,  1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support

for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface

water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges

and emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being made

available as a draft for comment.  As new information is

obtained, changes may be made in the regulations, as well

as in the background material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and

has been revised to reflect information received and Agency

decisions made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed

Section 3004 regulations shortly before their publication

in the Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that all

of those decisions are reflected in this document.  If

there are any inconsistencies between the proposal (the

preamble and the regulation) and this background document,

however, the proposal is controlling.

     Comments in writing may be made to:


     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste                 W
     Hazardous Waste Management Division (WJi-565)
     401 M Street,  S.W.
     Washington,  D.C.   20460
                          -2-

-------
1.0  Introduction
1.1  RCRA Mandate and Authority
1.2  Definitions
2.0  Rationale for Regulations
2.1  Actual Damage Incidents
2.2  Potential Damage
3.0  Identification of Regulatory Options
4.0  Analysis of Regulatory Options
5.0  Identification of Chosen Regulation and Associated
     Rationale
                        -o-

-------
1.0  Introduction
1.1  RCRA Mandate and Authority
     The Congress of the United States via Section 3004
of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) of 1976  (Pub. L. 94-580) mandates that the
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
promulgate regulations establishing performance 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.
These standards are to include, but need not be limited
to requirements respecting:  (1)  operating methods,
techniques,  and practices;  (2)  location, design, and
construction; and (3)  contingency plans for effective
action to minimize unanticipated damage that might occur
at these facilities.
     All provisions of this Act (including Section 3004)
must be integrated with the Clean Air Act (42 USC 1857
and following), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 USC 1151 and following), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 135 and following),
the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 USC 300f and following),
the Marine Protection Research, and Sanctuaries Act  (33
USC 1401 and following) and such other Acts of Congress
as grant authority  to the EPA Administrator,  A stated
purpose of the above requirement was to avoid duplication
                         -4-

-------
to the maximum extent possible.  Such integration,
however, is to be effected only in a manner consistant
with the goals and policies expressed in RCRA and the
above-listed Acts.
1.2 Definitions
     The following definitions are from 250.41 of the
proposed regulations and from RCRA.
          "Active portion" means that portion of a
facility where treatment, storage, or disposal opera-
tions are being conducted.  It includes the treated area
of a landfarm and the active face of a landfill, but
does not include those portions of a facility which have
been closed in accordance with the facility closure plan
and all applicable closure standards.  (250.4Kb) (3))
     "Closed portion" means that portion of a facility
     which has been closed in accordance with the facil-
     ity closure plan and all applicable closure require-
     ments in this Subpart.  (250.41(b)(11))
     "Closure" means the act of securing a facility
     pursuant to the requirements of Section 250.43-7.
     (250.4Kb) (13))
     "Contamination" means the degradation of naturally
     occuring water, air, or soil quality either directly
     or indirectly as a result of man's activities.
     (250.4Kb) (19))
          "Disposal" means the discharge, deposit,
                           -5-

-------
injection, clumping, 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.   (RCRA 1004 (3))
     "Disposal facility" means any facility which
     disposes of hazardous waste.  (250.41(b)(24))
     "Hazardous waste" has the meaning given in Section
     1004(5)  of the Act as further defined and identified
     in Subpart A.  (250.41(b)(39))
          "Hazardous waste management" means the system-
atic control of the collection,  source separation,
storage, transportation, processing,  treatment, recovery,
and disposal of hazardous waste.  (RCRA 1004 (7))
     "Leachate" means the liquid that has percolated
     through or drained from hazardous waste or other
     man emplaced materials and contains soluble,
     partially soluble, or miscible components removed
     from such waste.    (250.4Kb) (47))
     "Monitoring" means all procedures used to system-
     atically inspect and collect data on operational
     parameters of the facility or on the qu]g,
-------
States, including the territorial seas".  This



term includes, but is not limited to:



(i)  All waters which are presently used, or were



     used in the past, or may be susceptible to use



     in interstate or foreign commerce, including



     all waters which are subject to the ebb and



     flow of the tide, intermittent streams, and



     adjacent wetlands.  "Wetlands" means those



     areas that are inudated or saturated by sur-



     face or ground water at a frequency and dura-



     tion sufficient to support, and that under



     normal circumstances do support, a prevalence



     of vegetation typically adapted for life in



     saturated soil conditions.  Wetlands generally



     include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar



     areas such as sloughs, prairie potholes, wet



     meadows, prairie river overflows, mudflats,



     and natural ponds.



 (ii) Tributaries of navigable waters of the United



     States, including adjacent wetlands;



 (iii)Interstate waters, including wetlands; and



 (iv) All other waters of the United States, such



     as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats,



     sandflats, and wetlands, the use,  degradation



     or destruction of which would affect -or  could



     affect  interstate commerce, including, but not
                      -7-

-------
     limited to:
     (a)  Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and
          wetlands which are or could be used by
          interstate travelers for recreational
          or other purposes; and
     (b)  Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and
          wetlands from which fish or shellfish
          are or could be taken and sold in inter-
          state commerce; and
     (c)  Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and
          wetlands which are used or could be used
          for industrial purposes by industries in
          interstate commerce.
(v)   All impoundments of waters of the United States
     otherwise defined as navigable waters under
     this paragraph.  (250.41(b)(57)
"Non-point source" means a source from which
pollutants emanate in an unconfined and unchan-
nelled manner,  including, but not limited to the
following:
(i)   For non-point sources of water effluent,  this
     includes those sources which are not control-
     lable through permits issued pursuant to
     sections 301, and 402 of the Clean Water  Act.
     Non-point source water pollutants are not
     traceable to a discrete identifiable origin,
                   -8-

-------
     but result from natural processes,  such as
     nonchannelled run-off/  precipitation,  drain-
     age/ or seepage.
(ii)  For non-point sources of air contaminant
     emissions, this normally includes any land-
     fills,  landfarms,  surface impoundments, and
     basins.  (250.4Kb) (58))
"Point source" means any discernible, confined,
and discrete conveyance,  including, but not limited
to, the following:
(i)  For point sources of water effluent, any pipe,
     ditch,  channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete
     fissure, container,  rolling stock, concen-
     trated feeding operation, vessel, or other
     floating craft from which pollutants are or
     may be discharged; and
(ii) For point sources of air contaminant emissions,
     any stack, duct, or vent from which pollutants
     are or may be discharged.   (250.4Kb) (64) )
"on-site" means on the same  or geographically  con-
tiguous property.  Two or more pieces of property
which are geographically contiguous and are
divided by public or private right(s)-of-way are
considered a  single  site.   (250.41(b)(59))
"Open burning" means the combustion of any material
without  the  following characteristics:
                     -9-

-------
 (i)  Control of  combustion  air  to maintain
     adequate  temperature for efficient
     combustion,
 (ii) Containment of  the combustion-reaction in
     an enclosed device to  provide sufficient
     residence time  and mixing  for complete
     combustion, and
 (iii) Emission of the gaseous combustion products
     through a stack duct or vent adequate for both
     visual monitoring and  point source sampling.
     (250.4Kb) (60))
"Owner/operator" means the  person who owns the
land oX which a facility is located and/or the per-
son who is responsible for  the overall operation of
the facility.
"Partial closure procedures" means the measures
which must be taken by facility owners/operators
who ho longer accept hazardous waste for treatment,
storage or disposal on a specific portion of the
site.  (250.41(b)(62))
"Permitted hazardous waste management facility (or
permitted facility)" means a hazardous waste treat-
ment, storage,  or disposal  facility that has
received an EPA permit in accordance with the
requirements of Subpart E or a permit from a state
authorized in accordance with Subpart F.   (250.41
                     -10-

-------
     "Post-closure care" means the monitoring and
     facility maintenance activities conducted after
     closure.  (250.41(b)(65))
     "Publicly owned treatment works" or "POTW" means a
     treatment works as defined in Section 212 of the
     Clean Water Act (CWA),  which is owned by a State
     or municipality (as defined by Section 502(4) of
     the CWA).  This definition includes any sewers that
     convey wastewater to such a treatment works, but
     does not include pipes, sewers, or other conveyances
     not connected to a facility providing treatment.
     This term also means the municipality as defined
     in Section 502(4) of the CWA, which has jurisdiction
     over the indirect discharges to, and the discharges
     from, such a treatment works.   (250 .4Kb) (66))
     "Run-off" means that portion of precipitation that
     drains over land as surface flow.  (250.41(b)(75))
     "Spill" means any unplanned discharge or release of
     hazardous waste onto or into the land, air or water.
     (250.41(b)(79))
          'Storage1, when used in connection with
hazardous waste, means the containment of hazardous
waste,  either on a temporary basis or for a period or
years,  in such a manner as not to constitute disposal
of such hazardous waste.  (RCRA 1004  (33))
     "Storage facility" means any facility which stores
                           -11-

-------
     hazardous waste, except for genrators who store
     their own waste on-site for less than 90 days for
     subsequent transport off-site,  in accordance with
     regulations in Subpart B.   (250.41(b)(83))
     "Treated area of a landfarm" means that portion of
     a landfarm that has had hazardous waste applied to
     it, to include the zone of incorporation.
     (250.41(b)(88))
          'Treatment', when used in  connection with
hazardous waste,  means any method/ technique, or process,
including neutralization, designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or composition of any
hazardous waste so as to neutralize  such waste or so as
to render such waste nonhazardous, safer for transport,
amenable for recovery, amenable for  storage, or reduced
in volume.  Such term includes any activity or processing
designed to change the physical form or chemical compo-
sition of hazardous waste so as to render it nonhazardous.
(RCRA 1004 (34))
     "Treatment facility" means any  facility which treats
     hazardous waste.   (250.41(b)(89))
     "24-hour, 25-year storm" means  a storm of 24-hour
     duration with a probable recurrence interval of
     once in twenty-five years as defined by the National
     Wj^eather Service in Technical Paper Number 40,
     "Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States",
                          -12-

-------
May 1961, and subsequent amendments, or equivalent



regional or state rainfall probability information



developed therefrom.   (250.41(b)(92)
                      -13-

-------
2.0  Rationale for Regulations
2.1  Actual Damage Incidents
     Numerous damage incidents involving contamination of
surface water, noxious air emissions and uncontrolled
movement of wastes from disposal facilities have been
documented by EPA.
     Main sources of damage incident information are:
1)   Damage Incident Files within the EPA Assessment and
     Technology Branch, HWMD - OSW, 401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington,  D.C. 20460.
2)   U.S. EPA Report to Congress.  Disposal of Hazardous
     Waste.   Publication SW-115.  Office of Solid Waste
     Management Programs 1974.
3)   U.S. EPA, Site Location and Water Quality Protective
     Requirements for Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,
     and Disposal Facilities.  Office of Solid Waste
     (Contract 68-01-4636).
4)   U.S. EPA,Surface Impoundments and Their Effects on
     Groundwater Quality in the United States.  Office
     of Water Supply (Contract 68-01-4342).
5)   U.S. EPA, Evaluation of Emission Control Criteria for
     Hazardous Waste Management Facilities. (TRW Contract
     No. 68-01-4645)  March, 1978.
6)   State of Maryland, Water Resources Administration.
     A Field Reconnaissance Investigation of Sanitary
     Landfills in Maryland with Respect to Impacts on
                           -14-

-------
     Surface Waters,  March/  1978.
7)    Individual Background Documents within the series of
     twenty-seven produced for specific treatment, storage
     and disposal standards.
2.2  Potential Damage
     The general facility standards contain provisions in
five areas:
1)    Integration with the Clean Water Act provisions for
     a)   Point Sources
     b)   Pretreatment Standards
     c)   Non-Point Sources
     d)   State Water Quality Management Plans
2)    Prohibition of open burning, with certain reservations
3)    Control of removal of hazardous waste from facilities.
4)    Requirement for knowledge of the chemical composi-
     tion of waste.
5)    Requirement for closure of noncomplying portions
     of facilities.
     Potential damage to human health and the environment
may be very large indeed, but no overall assessment can
be reliably quoted as yet.  A November 21, 1978 state-
ment by EPA on the regional survey of hazardous waste
dump sites reported that EPA Regional Offices estimated
in a recent survey that over 32,000 landfill, storage
and other sites which may contain hazardous waste in any
quantity which now or potentially could cause adverse
                          -15-

-------
impact on public health or the environment.
     The Regional Offices also provided an  inventory
and description of 103 sites for which the  Regional
Offices had more than circumstantial evidence, of which
the public (at least locally) was already aware, and
publicly accessible information was already on file.
     An EPA contractor attempted to specify potential
damages and their likely consequences for a number of
damage scenarios.  The report is:
     IR&T and Dames & Moore.  Hazardous Waste Management
     Issues Pertinent to Section 3004 of the Resource
     Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  September,
     1978.
The damage scenarios are repjeWduced as Appendix 1 to
this document.
     Individual damage incidents are cited  within RCRA
3004 Background Documents and are referenced here.
     1}   CWA Integration
          General Site Selection (5)
          Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring (12)
          Storage (14)
          Landfills (17)
          Surface Impoundments (18)
          Basins (19)
          Landfarms (20).
          Surface Water Human Health and En-vjSi/onemntal
            Standard  (2)
                           -16-

-------
2)    Open Burning
     Air Human Health and Environmental Standard (3)
     Incineration (16)
3)    Removal of Hazardous Waste
     RCRA 3002 Background Document
4)    Waste Analysis
     Chemical, Physical, and Biological Treatment
       Facilities (21)
     Standards for Treatment Disposal  (15)
     Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring  (12)
5)    Closure of Noncomplying Portions of Facilities
     Closure and Post Closure  (11)
                    -17-

-------
 3.0   Identification  of  Regulatory Options
      The  reader  is referred  to  specific background
 Documents as cited in 2.2 of this document and to the
 discussion of each adopted regulation under 5.0 of
 this  document.
 4.0   Analysis of Regulatory  Options
      Analysis of regulatory  options is incorporated
 into  Section 5.0 of  this document.
 5.0   Identification  of Chosen Regulation with Rationale
      Regulations are grouped as in Section 2.2, into
 five  subject areas.
      For  each chosen regulation, authority, options
 and analysis, rationale including precedents, and
protection provided  are given.  Due to the broad nature
of the general facility standards, the reader must also
consult applicable background documents.
                         -18-

-------
I.   Clean Water Act Integration
     A.   Point Sources
     1.   Chosen Regulations
     250.43  (a)  All facilities with point source
discharges to navigable waters, including discharges
from leachate collection systems and/or surface water
run-off collection systems/ shall comply with all
applicable regulations promulgated under the Clean
Water Act (Pub. L. 92-500, as amended by Pub. L. 95-217)
Additionally, facilities with discharges to municipal
sewer systems shall meet applicable Clean Water Act
pretreatment standards and have the approval of the
municipal treatment system authority for that discharge.
     2.   Authority
          RCRA Sec. 1003  (42 USC 6902), Sec. 1006  (a)
     and  (b),  (42 USC 6905), Sec. 3004  (42 USC 6924).
     3.   Options
          Inasmuch as Sec. 1006(a) requires consistency
     with the  (Clean Water Act, as amended  (33 USC 1151)
     options were centered on the division of surface
     water control into point and non-point source
     controls.
     Option  1;  Control entirely under  Section 402 of
          the Clean Water Act:  NPDES Permit System.
     Option  2;  Control of point sources under CWA Sec.
     402  and development under  RCRA of  non-point source
     controls.
                          -19-

-------
     Option 3;  Control of point sources under CWA Sec.
          402 with specification of special areas of
          concern and development under RCRA of limited
          non-point source controls.
     Option 4;  Control undez? CWA of point sources and
          development of regulations under RCRA of
          special controls as needed.
     4.   Analysis of likely or possible discharges
     from hazardous waste management facilities
     included consideration of available authorities
     under the Clean Water Act.
          Discharges considered included those from
     1)   leachate collection systems
     2)   spills
     3)   surface run-off collection systems including
          a)    contaminated and
          b)    uncontaminated discharges
     4)   diverted run-off
     5)   leachate seeps and standing water
     6)   indirect discharges to sewer systems.
     Analysis of regulatory authority available and in
place under the Clean Water Act indicated that discharges
at facilities could be regulated in whole or in part
under Sections 208, 302, 303, 304,  307, 311, and 402.
In view of the necessity to integrate all provisions of
RCRA with CWA, and recognizing the prime responsibility
                         -20-

-------
of CWA in this area only certain aspects of surface
water control are emphasized in these RCRA 3004 rules.
Additional clarification of how the general requirements
of the CWA apply to individual treatment, storage and
disposal 'facilities are provided in the individual
regulations and their suppporting rationales
     Avoidance of unnecessary duplication is reinforced
by the proposed integration of the RCRA and NPDES
permitting procedures.
     B.   Pretreatment Standards
     1.   Chosen Regulation
     250.43  (a) All facilities with point source
discharges to navigable waters, including discharges
from leachate collection systems and/or surface water
run-off collection systems, shall comply with all
applicable regulations promulgated under the Clean
Water Act  (P.L. 92-500, as amended by P.W. 95-217.
Additionally/ facilities with discharges to municipal
sewer systems shall meet applicable Clean Water Act
pretreatment standards and have the approval of the
municipal treatment system authority for that discharge.
     2.   Authority
          RCRA Sec. 1003  (42 USC 6902), Sec. 1006(a) and
      (b)  (42 USC 6905), Sec. 3004  (42 USC 6924).
     3.   Options
          The same general options identified under
                         -21-

-------
      5.0.A.3.  apply,  however,  suboptions  were  developed
 for  indirect discharges  to  sewers.
      Suboption 1;   Defer authority  to  CWA.
      Suboption 2;   Highlight RCRA concern.
      Suboption 3;   Specify  RCRA  concern and establish
           standards directly applicable to hazardous
           waste facilities  independent of CWA.
      In view of the high percentage of hazardous waste
discharged to  sewers in  certain  localities by certain
industries,  the Agency agreed  that immediate application
of pretreatment standards to indirect  dischargers was
consistent with the CWA  and the  self policing aspect of
RCRA.  Full deference to CWA was decided against on the
grounds that municipalities, in  the interest of the
public health,  should have  the earliest possible control
over indirect dischargers from hazardous waste facilities;
independently of the schedule for implementation of
pretreatment standards for established point source
categories.  An additional factor was  the lack of an
existing effluent guideline for the off-site hazardous
waste facility handling a wide variety of hazardous
waste.
     At the same time, additional public health
protection is provided by alerting facility owners of
the possible need to pretreat wastes which might contain
                   ct-
untreatable toxics ^interfering substances.   The option
                       -22-

-------
chosen reinforces the existing authority of the CWA in
a manner consistent with CWA and RCRA goals.
     C.   Non-Point Sources
     1.   Chosen Regulations
     250.43 (b) Diversion structures to divert all sur-
face water run-off from the active portions of a facility
for the 24-hour, 25-year storm shall be constructed,
properly maintained and operated.
Note:     Owners/operators do not need to construct such
          diversion structures if they can demonstrate,
          at the time a permit is issued under Subpart E,
          that surface water run-off will not enter the
          facility and come into contact with the
          hazardous waste.
      (c)  Surface water run-off from active portions of
a facility shall be collected and confined to a point
source before discharge or treatment, as may be required
by regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act
(P.L. 92-500, as amended by P.L. 95-217).
Note:     Owners/operators do not have to collect and
          confine surface water run-off from active
          portions of a facility to a point source if
          they can demonstrate that alternatives will
          not allow the surface water and groundwater
          human health and environmental standards to
          be violated.
                         -23-

-------
      250.43  (1) Non-point  source  discharges from
facilities into navigable  waters  shall not cause or con-
tribute  to the violation of water quality standards
promulgated or approved under Section 303 of the Clean
Water Act (P.L. 92-500, as amended by P.L. 95-217).
     2.   Authority
          RCRA Sec. 1003 (42 USC  6902), Sec. 1006  (a)
     and (b)  (42 USC 6905)  , Sec.  3004 (42 USC 6924) .
     3.   Options
          Full discussion  of 250.43  (b)  and (c) on the
     need for diversion structures and run-off collection
     is contained in the background documents for surface
     impoundments and basins, landfills, and landfarms.
     The 24  hour, 25 year  storm was chosen as the
maximum design storm in view of the strong need for
surface water control at facilities and because precip-
itation data for that storm are generally available.
The note allows deviation  to allow for local variations
in typography and control.
     Options for 250.43(e)
     Option 1;   No special controls on non-point source
          discharges.  (208 Guidelines)
     Option 2;   Detailed design standards for control.
     Option 3;   General consistency with local receiving
          water requirements.
                          -24-

-------
     In view of a strong Agency concern for the control
of surface seepage, and the control of contaminate^run-
off at facilities a solution was sought somewhere short
of a blanket requirement to create new point sources
permitable under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act in
all cases.  To alleviate the need for a case by case
determination of non-point source controls, general
guidance as to the level of control desired is given by
relating control requirements to state receiving water
standards established for the facilities location.
     Specification is required  (rejecting Option 1)
because CWA does not effectively control non-point
source discharges.
     D.   Water Quality Management Plans
     1.   Chosen Regulation
     250.53  (j) All owners/operators shall comply with
applicable requirements of State Water Quality Manage-
ment Plans approved by the Administrator under Section
208 of the Clean Water Act  (P.L. 92-500, as amended by
P.L. 95-217).
     2.   Rationale
          The general authority of the CWA for water
     quality planning is identified in this regulation.
     The  inclusion of solid waste facility plans in the
     EPA's 208 programs is reinforced by the previously
     published proposed rules:  "Guidelines for
                      -25-

-------
     Development and Implementation of State Solid
     Waste Management Plans.  40 CFR Part 256 (43 FR
     38534, Monday, August 28, 1978).
II.  Prohibition of Open Burning
     1.   Chosen Regulation
     250.43 (d) Owners/operators shall not allow open
burning of hazardous waste.
Note:     Open burning of hazardous waste may be
          permitted provided that the owner/operator
          can demonstrate that alternative treatment
          and disposal methods, including recycling or
          salvaging of materials have been evaluated
          and determined to be technically or econom-
          ically infeasible, or that the transport,
          treatment and disposal of such wastes poses
          a greater risk to human health and the envi-
          ronment than open burning.
     2.   Rationale
          Full discussion of damage incidents, options,
     and rationale is given in the Air Human Health
     and Environmental Standard.
          Prohibition of open burning as one criteria
     of an open dump is mandated by Congress, however,
     the Agency recognizes that open burning may be
     unavoidable in certain instances, or may be entirely
     appropriate in such instances as the safe disposal
                        -26-

-------
     of explosives,  or the disposal of spilled materials.
III. Control of Removal of Hazardous Waste from Facilities
     1.   Chosen Regulation
     250.43 (e) Any person who generates or removes a
hazardous waste from a facility shall comply with the
requirements of Subpart B.
     Background and rationale for this requirement are
to be found in the Background Document supporting the
RCRA 3002 Standards for Generators.
     It is recognized that the normal operation of a
treatment, storage or disposal facility will result in
the generation of new hazardous waste or require the
transport from the facility of hazardous waste.  The
application of generator standards is deemed to be
adequate for protection of human health and the
environment.
     250.43 (f) All owners/operators shall obtain a
detailed chemical and physical analysis of each hazardous
waste handled at the facility at the time of initiating
management of the hazardous waste.  This analysis shall
identify the hazardous characteristics of the waste
which must be known to enable the owner/operator to  .
comply with the requirements of this Subpart, or with
the conditions of a permit issued under the provisions
of Subpart E.
                       -27-

-------
Note:     The chemical  and  physical  analysis may be
          limited based upon  the method of  treatment,
          storage and/or disposal, and upon existing
          available evidence  regarding the  waste's
          composition.
     250.43  (g) The analysis  obtained of each waste
stream shall be repeated as necessary by the owner/
operator.   (For example, a minimal analysis (pursuant
to paragraph (h) below) of the waste might  indicate a
change in the waste stream characteristics, or the
owner/operator might become aware of a modification in
the manufacturing process generating the waste.)  The
detailed waste sampling frequency shall be  no less
than annually.
     250.43  (h)  All owners/operators shall  sample each
truckload or other shipment or batch of hazardous waste
designated for treatment, storage, or disposal at the
facility.  Each sample, at a minimum, shall be analyzed
for the following properties:
          (i)  Physical appearance, such as color and
               physical state (e.g.,  liquid, solid,
               semi-solid)
          (ii)  Specific gravity
          (iii)  pH
          (iv)  Vapor pressure, if applicable.
                          -28-

-------
Note:     In the case of on-site facilities, less


          frequent sampling and analysis may be


          allowed if the owner/operator can demonstrate


          that no loss in control over facility opera-


          tions will occur.


     2.   Authority


          RCRA Sec. 1003 (42 USC 6902), Sec. 1006  (a)


     and  (b) (42 USC 6905), Sec. 3002  (4)  (42 USC  6922),


     Sec. 3004 (42 USC 6924).


     3.   Options


          Option 1:  No Waste Analysis Requirement


          Option 2;  Detailed Analysis Requirement


               Imposed on Generator


          Option 3;  Limited Analysis  Requirement  on


               Generator and Pull Requirement on Owner/


               Operator


          Option 4;  No Analysis Requirement on Generator


               and Limited  Requirement on  Owner/Operator.


     4.   Rationale


          Analysis of the imposition of a  waste analysis


     requirement on the generator is under the purview


     of the RCRA 3002 Background Document.      .
                                               eJttmiceu.

          Analysis of certain requirements for/lanalyses


     prior to selection of  a treatment method is given


     in the 3004 Background Document for Chemical


     Physical, and Biological Treatment Facilities.
                            -29-

-------
     Inquiries made of numerous commercial disposal



facilities, and of certain industrial disposal



facilities indicate that standard safe operating
                                             «


procedures include a limited chemical analyses as



a check (^performed on material whose composition



has been previously well characterized by a chemical



analysis.



     Where material has not been well characterized,

                    dv^>«r»i

whether by analysis,/]detailed knowledge of the



source of a waste stream from a well defined process,

                           •r
off-site commercial disposed require a detailed



analysis of the waste before the waste is accepted


for disposal or a cost is agreed upon.


     EPA seeks to recognize the validity of such



well established practices'at the same time as it



provides for the enforcement of a reasonable level


of knowledge of wastes disposed of on facilities


which' may not be up to generally accepted standards.


     EPA has informally solicited comments from the



National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA)



on the likelihood of industry development of stand-


ards in this area.  Pending full industry develop-


ment, EPA has proposed the minimum check analysis



and no less than annual comprehensive analysis of


wastes received for disposal.




                   -30-

-------
          Such requirements are  designed  to be  no more
     than are necessary  for safe treatment, storage  or
     disposal and  are  expected to vary  according to  the
     method of treatment,  storage or  disposal  to be  used.
     The standards therefore  apply equally to  all haz-
     ardous waste  management  facilities whether commercial
     or industry on-site.
          The note,  however,  allows the use of other
     sources of  information than a comprehensive chemical
     examination^)  for  uniform waste streams whose compo-
     sition is well known. The  choice  of an  annual
     repetition  allows some latitude for  very unchanging
     waste streams.
          Although the main burden of analysis falls on
     the generator (as on-site disposer,  and  as contractor
     with a commercial disposer), the owner/operator
     is never  relieved of the responsibility  for  adequate
     knowledge of  the composition of and  by extension,
     the hazards involved with management of  all  haz-
     ardous waste  at his facility.
V.   Closure of Noncomplying  Portions of  Facilities
     1.   Chosen Regulation
     250.43 (i)  Owners/operators shall close, in accord-
ance with the requirements of Section 250.43-7, all
portions of a facility which does not comply with the
applicable requirements of this Subpart.
                        -31-

-------
2.   Rationale
     This administrative provision is inserted to
be consistent with general enforcement policy and
to assure that owner/operators are not relieved of
necessary closure responsibilities if they are
found to be in non-compliance.
     Detailed discussion of the technical aspects
of closure are given in the Background Document
for closure.
                      -32-

-------
                              APPENDIX^
                      DAMAGE SCENARIOS;  INTRODUCTION

          These  damage scenarios were designed as a conceptual aid  to focus
attention on  liability limits that may result from hazardous waste  damage
events.   To date,  there  is not a compilation of damages that resulted from
events at hazardous waste management facilities.  Documented cases  are
largely limited  to accounts of accidents, spills and leaks from various
industries other than  the disposal industry.  Furthermore, these accounts
do not cover  the full  range of potential damages.
          Hazardous waste incidents on the scale of the mercury poisoning
cases in Japan or  the  dioxin disaster in Italy have not occurred in the
United States.   Thus,  to accurately reflect the true nature of the  problem,
these damage  scenarios were designed.  They are based on actual incidents
that have occurred or  are extensions of such Incidents.  While in a few
technical areas, they  may prove to be inaccurate, such inaccuracy will not
detract from  their overall utility in highlighting both potential damages
and the consequences of  these damages.
                                 -33-

-------
                        Incinerator Malfunctions
           Characteristics
  •in  incinerator used to dispose of hazardous wastes has the following
   Derating characteristics:
            10 GPM Waste Tar
           .13,000 FT^/MIH Combustion Air
            20,000 FT3/MIN TEMPERING AIR
            300 GPM Fresh Water
            2,300 GPM Recycled Water
 •^dilure Mode
  -One hour undetected interruption  in  recycled water flow permitting
   Hue gas exit with insufficient scrubbing - 2:30-3:30 PM .
  At that time, one-third of tar content is:
                                 0
                                 it
                  MSMA:    CH,  - As -  ONa
                            3    *,
                                 OH

  This compound is broken down during  combustion to:
          0
  CH3  '  A)   -  ONa  +   302     As203  4-  2C02   +  3H20  * 2NaOH
          OH

  Sased on air flow and  full  release of  As-0-, the concentration  at the stack
  is 1,118 PPM

•jissersion
 -Assume westerly  winds  at  5  MPG  during  period of release.  The area of
           is  2,355  SQ.  MI.
                                  -34-

-------
• receptor Interaction
 -Ssall town of 500 families located 40 MI.  down wind.  20 families*.
   Iccacad at closer distances 2,000 head of cattle located within
   10 ailes

•ecological  Impact
 -In town:  Skin Effects - Hyperkeratosis of palms and soles;
   Edesna of Eyelids - 20 people - duration 2  months
 •Closer families:  Central  Nervous System-Mental  Confusion, Defective
   Control of Muscles-10 People; Skin Effects-20 People- Duration
   6 Months
 -Cattle:  Nausea, Vomiting, Contaminated Milk-10 Cattle Die-Duration
   3 Months

•Financial Impact
 -Action for damages suits result in the following rewards:
              Skin Effects - $50,000
              Nervous System - $1,200,000
              Cattle - $10,000
              Total - $1,260,000
                                       -35-

-------
                            secure Landfill

     ;>ss i  Secure Landfill Disposing Petroleum Refinery Hazardous
                           Materials On Site
•::*rj:ing Characteristics
 _•; s^rega ci en of Wastes
 - •„»•.! :ralizati on of Acids and Caustics
 -.-.educed Fluid Mobility Through Suitable Soil Mixture
 -Ciily Earth Covering of 6" Soil

•failure Mode
 ••jcslosion and Subsequent Fire Caused by Unknown, Unanticipated
  Chenical  Reaction
 -"oxic Cloud Includes Oily Wastes,  Phenols and Some TetraethyT Lead
  Vapors Toxic At .075 - .15 MG/M3

•Dispersion
 -Explosion Radius  115' .'.  Contained Within Site 10 MPH Wind
 -?ire Lasts 2 Hours But Evacuation  Successful After 1  Hour
 Area of Exposure 10 Sq.  Mi.

•Receptor Interaction
 -Urban Area of 500 People/Sq.  Mi. /. Total Exposed Population- » approximately
  50CO People.

.•Ecological Impact
 -Approximately 1000 people experience irritation including skin and
  lung problems.  45 people receive  superficial  skin burns  from exposure
  ta airborne toxics, 17 people experience nausea and vomiting, 5
  experience recurring headache and  dizziness over 3 month  period.  One
  elderly man is killed by a stroke  during'the evacuation procedures.
                                         -36-

-------
"inancial  Impact
-Sines many of the exposed people are employing in the local petrochemical
 industry  only a small number file actions for damages against the refinery.
 Eight of  the 62 people who recovered within 36 hours sued for s total  of
 $100,000.  Three of the recurring cases sue for $200,000* each and the  widow
 of the  stroke victim sues for 2 million dollars.  To avoid negative publi-
 city and  although they are self-insured and deny liability, the refinery
 makes a guick out of court settlement for $150,000.
                             -37-

-------
                       Explosion  at  Secure  Landfill

•Operating Characteristics
  -Segregation of Wastes
  -Neutralization of Acids and Caustics
  -Reduced Fluid Mobility through Suitable  Soil Mixture
  -Daily Earth Covering of 6" Soil

•Failure Mode
  -During the compacting process a small explosion occurs that ruptures  a
  nearby large pesticide temporary  storage tank,  A cloud of dioxin is
  released.

•Dispersion
  -Wind velocity is 3 MPH.  The site is located in a bowl shaped valley
  and there the cloud hovers over the valley for 36 hours.

•Receptor Interaction
  -Alert to the experience in Italy evacuation procedures are triggered
  immediately.  3GOO people are evacuated.   Livestock  herds totalling
  2,500 animals are left behind.

•Ecological  Impact
 -Oioxin is  one of the most toxic chemicals" known.   Based on animal
  studies,  both the oral  and dermal  lethal  doses are in the range of
  micrograms  per kilogram body weight.

•Liability Assessment
 -5000 people are allowed to return to their homes.   The other 3QOQ are
  unable to  return until  the contamination  level  is  reduced.  The
  National  Guard seals off the contaminated areas.   All  drinking water
  in the valley is  contaminated and thus  bottled  water  must be provided
  All  livestock is  condemned and  destroyed.  Because of the prompt
  evacuation  procsdures,  only 75  people in  the  immediate area  of the 57t-a
                                  -38-

-------
are exposed.  Law suits totalling  200 million dollars are filed
against the facility by the 3000 dispossessed  , the 75 people directly
affected,  the owners of the livestock, and the city government.  The**
breakdown  of this sum  is as follows:

                 75 injured total         $120 million
                 2000  dispossessed total     70 million
                 livestock total             8 million
                 city  government             2 million

The courts award settlements totalling $38 million.
                                  -3g-

-------
                      Earthquake  at  Secure Landfill


•Operating Characteristics
 -Segregation of Wastes
 -Neutralization of Acids and Caustics
 -Reduced Fluid Mobility Through Suitable Soil Mixture
 -Daily Earth Covering of 6" Soil

•Failure Mode
 -Mild earth tremor cracks liner at bottom of landfill allowing contact
  with groundwater.  Tremor occurs at night and is not noted by sits
  operators.

•Dispersion
 -The slow leak of heavy metals including mercury and chromium'into an
  adjacent aquifer Continues  for fifteen years before it is  detected*
  58 private wells draw upon  this aquifer for water supply as well  as
  one poultry processing plant.

•Receptor Interaction
 -250 Individuals are effected having consummed contaminated  water  for
  an estimated 5-7 years.   No pass   on of heavy metals is  thought to
  have occured in the poultry plant.

•Ecological  Impact
 -10 individuals  are found to have mild nose and throat problems* six
  more severe liver damage and one severe central  nervous  system damage-
  attributed to mercury poisoning.
                                   -40-

-------
'Financial  Impact
 -A recovery of  costs damage suit for $10,000 is filed by the poultry,.
  plant for installation of filter equipment.  The 10 least affected
  Individuals file  suit for $100,000 each, the six more severe cases,
  $100,000  each, and the most severe case sues for 1 million dollars.
  The municipality  sues for $500,000 for cost of supplying an alternative
  water supply to the area.  The court awards a total of 1.1 million
  dollars.
                                    -41-

-------
                       Slow  Leak  at  Secure Landfill
•Operating Characteristics
 -Segregation of Wastes
 -Neutralization of Acids and Caustics
 -Reduced Fluid Mobility Through Suitable Soil Mixture
 - Daily Earth Covering of 6" Soil

•Failure Mode
 -The landfill is located above a dry aquifer.  It is  determined  the
  aquifer has been dry since a nearby large river naturally  changed  its
  course 200 years ago.  Development activities in the area  including
  the construction of a dam and canal, the blacktopping of natural
  recharge sites,and large scale irrigation alters ground  water channels
  and refills the aquifer.  Slow erosion underneath the landfill  allows
  infiltration of chemicals including potassium cyanide.

•Dispersion
 -The potassium cyanide infiltrates the regional  reservoir that provides
  the drinking water for 120,000 people as well  as into 200  private
  drinking wells,

•Receptor Interaction
 -Although monitors at the reservoir detect the potassium  cyanide before-
  the water is utilized by the public, numerous private well users are
  poisoned.

•Ecological Impact
 -Potassium Cyanide is a very toxic chemical.   170 families  are poisoned
  by drinking from their private wells.   18 deaths result  (primarily very
  young and very old people)  and 60 people are hospitalized  for severe
  poisoning.   27 of these patients develop permanent damage.
                                     -42-

-------
'Liability Assessment
 -17 of the 18 deaths  result  in  law  suits  as  do  all  27 of  the
  permanently  impaired and  120 people who  were seriously exposed.   Suits
  totalling $134 million  are  filed.  They  include:

                17 deaths total          $  34  million
                27 Permanently impaired    75  million

               120 seriously  exposed      25  million
                       total

  The courts award settlements totalling $40  million.
                                  -43-

-------
                   Tornado at Solvent Reclaiming Plant


•Operating Characteristics
 -A small solvent reclaiming plant operates batch reclaiming operations.
  The toxic residue from the reclaiming process is stored in barrels in
  an on-site warehouse until sufficient quantities are accumulated to
  justify contracting an independent disposer to haul the barrets to a
  secure landfill.  The independent disposer arrives about twice yearly.

•Failure Mode
 -A tornado sweeps through the reclaiming site destroying 70% of the
  reclaiming plant and the entire storage warehouse.

•Dispersion
 -Two types of hazardous wastes are dispersed into the environment;
  solvents" prepared for the reclaiming process such as carbon tetra
  chloride  and methyl  chloroform,  and toxic  residue resulting from the
  reclaiming process.  Within 300 yards of the site, 186 barrels are
  scattered along the path of the tornado.. Most are ruptured and
  leaking.   Located over a  2 sq.  mile  path are additional barrels in
  indeterminate numbers.

•Receptor Interaction
 -On 3 private properties near the plant leaking barrels are located.
  The occupants are evacuated.  Over a weeks  time, the barrels scattered
  over the 2 sq. mile area are located and returned.  However, 10 days
  after the storm, 5 small  children are playing in a wooded area and
  discover one of the barrels.  Attempting to role the barrel downhill
  the barrel leaks and fumes overcome one of  the children and temporarily
  blind two others.   Another individual  finds one  of the barrels, takes
  it home and tries to fabricate a home fireplace.   The fumes send  this
  individual to the hospital.
                                     -44-

-------
•Ecological  Impact
 -The duration of the exposure  is  brief and  then only the short range
  effects of cramps,  vomiting and  temporary  coma are experienced.

'Financial  Impact
 -The four individuals bring  actions  for damages totalling $30,000 and
  receive a settlement of $5,000 each.
                                       -45-

-------
                 Concrete Encapsulation  of PCS  Residue
•Operating Characteristics
 -A chemical treatment facility disposes  of  large quantities of PCS
  residue by encapsulating the PCB in concrete and storing the concrete
  on site.  These blocks are confused with a recent shipment of concrete
  to be used for an on-site construction  project.  The orr-site construction
  is cancelled and the concrete sold.  A  highway construction firm
  purchases the concrete to use as road base for a new 15 mile section of
  superhighway without knowing about  the  PCB content.  After one year
  of grading and laying the highway base, the project meets local
  opposition as citizens attempt to have  the highway built elsewhere.
  After two years of court proceedings, the  project is abandoned after
  sealing the road base with asphalt.

•Failure Mode
 -Ten years Tatar, a housing development  is  built amidst the abandoned'
  highway.  The broken up road bed rubble is hauled 3/4 of a mile away and
  used to fill a wetland area and flood plain.  Over a fifteen year period
  the PCB's slowly leach into a tidal  river.

•Dispersion
 -The PCB percipitates into the bottom silt  over a 7 mile length of
  river.

•Receptor Interaction
 -No humans are directly affected but fish in the area start showing
  large quantities of PCB's in their  tissue  forcing the shutdown of a
  small, thriving fishing industry.

•Ecological Impact
 -Fish and benthic organisms absorb the PCB's and pass them along the  foocj
  chain.
                                    -46-

-------
•Financial  Impact
 -The  original disposer, a large and financially secure organization,
  is still  in business.  They are sued for damages resulting in loss "of
  revenue by the local fisherman for 8 million dollars and in an out of
  court settlement pay 1.5 million dollars.
                                   -47-

-------
                     Land  Spreading  on Contract  Basis
                           of  Industrial Wastes

 •Operating  Characteristics
  -small  land  spreading and  landfill company operating 4 trucjcs on
   contract  basis servicing  industries in 50 mile area
  -oily wastes are land spread on cropland and sprayed on roads as dust
   control agent
  -included  in customer list is a chemical company that also produces
   insecticides and weed killers

 •Failure Mode
  -barrels containing arsenic residue (AS203) from the insecticide plant
   are accidently Included with the oily waste barrels and instead of
   landfUled are used for landspreading

 •Dispersion
  -the arsenic fs sprayed as a dust control  agent at a local fairground's
   horse arena

 •Receptor Interaction
  -15 people, including seven children and four fairground employees*
   are adversely affected by exposure to the dust

 •Ecological  Impact
  -severe skin, central nervous system and gastro-intestinal effects  of
   3 days to  9 months duration

•Financial  Impact
 -various actions for damages totalling 1.5 million dollars ars  fi
   against.to disposer who is unab.la to pay ths damage suits and  is
   forced to sell its assets and declare bankruotcy.
                                -48-

-------
        RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
         SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
        SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
        OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
      TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
                        DRAFT


                 BACKGROUND DOCUMENT


SECTION 250.43-1  STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SITE SELECTION
          U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                    DECEMBER 15, 1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support for

regulations which haveAdesigned to protect the air, surface water,

and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges and emissions

from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act of 1976.  It is being issued as a draft to support the proposed

regulations.  As new information is obtained, chages may be made

in the regulations, as well as in this background material.



     This document was first drafted many months ago and has been

revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions made

since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed Section 3004 regulations

shortly before their publication in the Federal Register.  We have

tried to ensure that all of those decisions are reflected in this

document.  If there are any inconsistencies between the proposal

(the preamble and the regulation) and this background document,

however, the proposal is controlling.



     Comments in writing may be made to:

     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste
     Hazardous Waste Management Division (WW-565)
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
I.   Introduction
A.   RCRA mandate for the Regulation:
     The Congress of the United States, via section 3004 of
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
of 1976 (P.L. 94-580),  mandated that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency promulgate regulations
establishing performance 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.  These standards are to include requirements per-
taining to the location, design and construction of these facilities
     This document will be concerned with the standards for site
selection (Section 250.43-1) which have been proposed in order
to ensure compliance with the aforementioned RCRA mandate.
B.   Key Definitions:
     The following definitions are pertinent to the establishment
of site selection standards under Section 3004 of RCRA.
     "Active Fault Zone" means a land area which, according to
the weight of the geologic evidence, has a reasonable probability
of being affected by movement along a fault to the extent that
a hazardous waste facility would be damaged and thereby pose a
threat to human health and the environment.

     "Costal High Hazard Area" means the area subject to high
velocity waters, including, but not limited to, hurricane wave
wash or tsunamis as designated on a Flood Insurance Rate Map  (PTRM)
as zone VI-30.

-------
     "Five Hundred Year Flood" means a flood that has a 0.2
percent or one in 500 chance of recurring in any year.  In any
given 500 year interval, such a flood may not occur, or more
than one such flood may occur.

     "Floodplain" means the lowland and relatively flat areas
adjoining inland and coastal areas and off-shore islands, including
at a minimum, areas subject to a one percent or greater
change of flooding in a given year.

     "One Hundred Year Flood" means a flood that has a one
percent or one in 100 chance of recurring in any year.  In
any given 100-year interval, such a flood may not occur, or
more than one such flood may occur.

     "Recharge Zone" mean an area through which water enters
an aquifer.

     "Regulatory Floodway" means the channel of a river or
other water  course and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in  order to discharge the 100-year flood without
cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more than
a designated height.

     "Sole Source Aquifers" means those aquifers designated
in Section 14^/(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of  1974
 (Pub. !•• 93-523) which solely or principally supply drinking
water to large percentage of a populated area.

-------
     "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances
do or would support, a prevalence of vegetation typically
adapted for life in saturated or seasonally saturated soil
conditions.  Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river
outflows, mudflats, and natural ponds.

II.  Rationale for the Regulation
     Numerous incidents of damage which have resulted from the
location of hazardous waste facilities near environmentally
sensitive areas are contained within EPA files.
Wetlands and/or Floodplain Related Damage Incidents:

     °On September 27, 1972, heavy rains broke the earthen dike
of a former refinery waste lagoon which is currently owned by
Pleasant Township.  The released sludge entered the Allegheny
River and killed about 450,000 fish with an estimated value of
$75,000 along a 60-mile stretch.  Analysis of the discharge
entering the river at that time indicated the following:  pH 1 7.
COD 116,112 ppm; iron 507.3 ppm; sulfates 56.5 ppm.  To stop the
leak,  the town built up the lagoon bank and also has been addina
clean fill as available.  Monitoring wells dug near the lagoon
show that the groundwater quality still is degraded.

-------
     °0n June 10, 1967, a dike containing an alkaline waste lagoon
for a steam generating plant at Carbo, Virginia, collapsed and
released approximately 400 acre-feet  (493,400 cubic meters) of
fly ash waste into the Clinch River.  The resulting contaminant
slug moved at a rate of 1 mile per hour (1.6 kilometers per hour)
for several days until it reached Norris Lake in Tennessee,
whereupon it is estimated to have killed 216,200 fish.  All food
organisms in the 4-mile  (6.43-kilometer) stretch of river immediately
below Carbo were completely eliminated.
                     I
     °On October 27. /968^ a waste storage lagoon on the plant site
of a Pennsylvania refining company broke, spilling waste sludge con-
taining oils, acid wastes, and alkyl benzene sulfonate into the
south branch of Bear Creek.  The sludge flowed  three miles down-
stream into the Allegheny River, killing an estimated 4.5 million
fish valued at $108,000.  Because the company was in poor  financial
condition, only a little over $20,000 in fines  were levied to cover
            sj
the damage.
                       4*
     °A holding pond an  tanks at a chemical manufacturing  plant
in Saltville, Virginia,  failed, spilling chlorine, hypochlorites,
and ammonia into the north fork of the  Holston  River.  River waters
samples showed concentration levels at  0.5 part per million hypo-
chlorite an
-------
Whidden Creek.  Flow patterns of the creek led to subsequent
contamination of the Peace River and the estuarine area of
Charlotte Harbor.  The water of Charlotte Harbor took on a thick
milky white appearance.   Along the river, signs of life were
diminished, dead fish were sighted, and normal surface fish activity
was absent.  No living organisms were found in Whidden Creek
downstream of the spill or in the Peace River at a point 8 miles
downstream of Whidden Creek.  Clam and crab gills were coated with
the milky substance, and in general all benthic aquatic life was
                      «r
affected in some way.
     °The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers built a plant at Foundry Cove
by the Hudson River in 1953 to make nickel-cadmium batteries.
In the 1960's the plant was sold to a private firm and since that
time resold to another firm which manufactures airplane batteries
From 1953 to 1959 plant wastes were dumped at the edge of a
marshy area at the back of the cove, which leads into the Hudson
River.  The plant was cited by the New York State Health Depart-
ment for the "alkaline content" of its discharges as early as 1966
and was ordered to clean up its emissions.  By 1970 pollution
control equipment had been installed, but it was not being success-
fully operated.  Because of this effective noncompliance with the
clean-up order, the State demanded that a study of the effects
of the cadmium-rich effluent be undertaken in 1971.  As part of
this study, New York University researchers checked the site f
cadmium content, especially a 1-acre mudflat formed from effiu
which was exposed between tides.  Lack of vegetation on this a
led them to suspect it was severly contaminated because all

-------
areas were heavily vegetated.  Their analyses revealed concentrations

of over 60,000 ppm cadmium on the dump with values of about 1000 ppm

present in the surrounding land.  When made aware of the problem,

the company dredged the dump, partly in hopes of reclaiming the

cadmium.  Most of the cadmium, however, was in silt-size

material and was instead spread over the cove by the dredging as

a mud suspension.  As a result, the cadmium is now spread over the
     *f
bottojrf of the cove with concentrations locally reaching 50,000 ppm.

At present, the high carbonate content of the cove's water keeps

the pH well above 7.  This keeps most of the cadmium from readily

dissolving in the water.  Since the company has ceased dumping at

the cove and has resorted to lined land dumps, and since the New

York Department of Environmental Conservation has required that it

be consulted before any actions are taken which might further

stir up the cove or affect its pH, the cadmium has stayed largely

localized.  Even so, the tides that sweep in and out of the cove

daily are slowly flushing the cadmium out of the cove and into the

Hudson.  A bird sanctuary at the mouth of the cove is directly

threatened by the transport of the cadmium from the cove, while

preliminary laboratory analyses of fish which enter the cove

with the tides indicate that they are concentrating cadmium in

their tissues.  Detailed results of these cadmium studies have

been published.

     Five out of six of the damage incidents described above were

attributed to the failure of surface impoundments.  It could be
            •
            i
argued that £f the impoundments were properly constructed, the

-------
                     £
riverine and coastal jtcosystems cited above would not have been
degraded.  However, no design specification can ever provide 100%
certainty that an impoundment, or any other type of treatment/
storage/disposal facility will not fail.  Therefore, facilities
should not be located in wetlands or riverine or coastal floodplains
      ***** tf/KAS
because^4**«y are particularly susceptible to damage in the event
of a release of hazardous waste.
     The explanation for the selection of certain areas of the
country as being environmentally sensitive is contained in
Section V of this document.  The purpose of Section II of this pape:
is not to reiterate the sensitive nature of these areas, but rather
to show (through the citing of damage incidents) that environmental-
sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands)  have been degraded by the release
of hazardous waste in the past,  and that the potential for
similar damage incidents to occur in the future does exist unless
specific regulations are written to protect these areas.
III. Identification of Regulatory Options:
A.   Standards mandated by RCRA:
     Section 3004(4) of RCRA states that the standards to be
promulgated by the EPA shall include requirements respecting
"the location, design, and construction of hazardous waste treatme
disposal or storage facilities".
B.   Survey of Existing State Regulations:
     The following are excerpts from regulations and/or
in those states with programs which specifically address site
selection in their solid and/or hazardous waste regulations-

-------
Indiana;    (Regulations SPG 18)
"No refuse deposit shall be made nearer than 600 feet to any
dwelling without written consent of the occupant and owner of the
dwelling."
Iowa:   (IAC 3/23/77 - Chapter 28 Sanitary Landfills)
"The plans for all sanitary landfills shall include a report
consisting of information verifying that the portion of the site
to be filled is:
(1)  So situated as to obviate any predictable lateral movement
of significant quantites of leachate from the site to standing or
flowing surface water or to shallow aquifers that are in actual
use or are deemed to be of potential use as a water resource.
(2)  So situated that the base of the proposed site is at least
five feet above the high water table unless a greater separation
is required to ensure that there will be no significant adverse
effect on ground or surface waters or a lesser separation is
unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on ground and
surface waters.
(3)  Outside a floodplain or shoreland, unless proper engineering
and sealing of the site will render it acceptable and prior
approval of the Iowa natural resource council and where necessary
the U.S. Corps of Engineers is obtained.
(4)  So situated as to assure no adverse effect on any well within
1000 feet of the site existing at the time of application for the
original permit which is being used or could be used without
major renovation for human or livestock consumption or at least
1000 feet from any such well unless hydrologic conditions are

-------
such that a greater distance is required to assure that there
is no adverse effect on the well.
(5)  So situated to assure no adverse effect on the source of any
community water system in existence at the time of application for tfe
original permit within one mile of the site or at least one mile
from the source of any community water system in existence at the
time of application for the original permit unless hydrologic
conditions are such that a greater distance is required to assure
no adverse effect on the water system.
(6)  At least twenty feet from the adjacent property line unless
there is a written agreement with the owner of the abutting property
For new permit applications and associated reports submitted after
April 27, 1977, the report shall verify that the portion to be
filled is at least 50 feet from the adjacent property line.  The
written agreement shall  be filed with the county recorder and shs?
become a permanent record of the property.
(7)  Beyond 500 feet from any existing habitable residence unless
there is a written agreement with the owner of the residence and
the site is screened by natural objects, plantings, fences or by
other appropriate means.  The residence must be in existence on
the date of application for the original permit from the department'
The written agreement shall be filed with the county recorder and
recorded for abstract of title purposes, and a copy submitted to
the department".

-------
Minnesota  (HW-4 Location, Operation and Closure of a Hazardous
Waste Facility)
"1.  No person shall establish, construct, or operate a hazardous
waste facility in a wetland, in a floodplain, or within a
shoreland.
2.   No person shall establish, construct, or operate a hazardous
waste facility in a location where the topography, geology,
hydrology, or soil is unsuitable for the protection of the
groundwater and the surface water.
3.   No person shall establish, construct, or operate a hazardous
waste facility in a location where such activity would result in
emissions of air contaminants causing the violation of the ambient
air quality standards established in Minn. Reg. APC 1."
New York   (Part 360, Solid Waste Management Facilities, May, 1977}

"All fill areas or excavations at a sanitary landfill shall terminate
no closer than fifty feet from the boundary lines of the property
on which the sanitary landfill is operated."
"Solid waste management  facilities shall not be operated or constructed
on flood plains unless provisions have been made to prevent the
encroachment of flood waters upon said facility."
"No facility shall be closer than ten feet to groundwater table
or bedrock."  (For secure landfills)
"No facility shall be located over groundwater recharge areas serving
public water supplies."  (For secure landfills)
••Facilities shall be located at an elevation not less than five
feet above a flood plain unless provisions have been made to
prevent the encroachment of flood waters."  (For secure landfills)

-------
Oklahoma   (Rules and Regulations for Industrial Waste Management,  197"

"No site or facility located within a one-hundred-year flood plain
shall be granted a permit, unless in the Department's judgement
adequate flood control measures have been provided in the site or
facility design and construction."
"No ultimate disposition of Controlled Industrial Waste shall be
allowed within two hundred (200) feet of the permit boundary."
Oregon   (DEQ 41, April 5, 1972)
"Modified  landfills should be located a minimum of 1/4 mile from the
nearest existing residence or commercial establishment other than
that used  by the landfill operator."
Pennsylvania   (P.L. 788 (no. 241))
"A twenty-five (25) foot zone shall be established upon which no
solid waste shall be deposited adjacent to perimeter property line.
unless otherwise approved by the Department."
"The site  shall not have a flooding hazard of greater frequency than
once in 100 years."
Texas    (Technical Guidelines for Solid Waste Management, May 3   19^
"Listed below are a number of factors that should be given consider*'
tion when  trying to select a disposal site that will pose the
least amount of threat to the environment."
     Geology and Topography

     (1)  Low relief to minimize erosion and landslide or slumping
potential.
     (2)   Impervious stable rock formations, such as thick, massive
clay beds are preferable.  Active faults, high seismic riest „
                                                         s* zones,

-------
and highly permeable formations such as limestone and sand
aquifer recharge zones, flood plains, and fluvial terrace deposits
should be avoided.
     Hydrology

      (1)  Bottom of the pit, pond or landfill should be well above the
historical high groundwater table.  Floodplains, shore lands, and
                                 ^
groundwater  recharge areas should.avoided.
      (2)  Significant hydraulic connection  (surface or subsurface)
between the  site and standing or flowing surface water should be
absent.

     Climatology

      (1)  Outside  the paths of recurring severe storms, such as
•tornados and hurricanes.
      (2)  Low air  pollution potential  (e.g., low inversion potential,
good circulation,  prevailing winds away from populated areas).

     Environmental Health

      (1)  Locate away from private wells for human and/or livestock
use and from municipal water supplies, reservoirs, or wells.
      (2)  Low population density.
      (1)  Low  fauna and  flora diversity.

-------
     (2)  Avoid wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, and
migration routes.
     (3)  Avoid areas of unique plant communities or animal
populations."

IV.  Analysis of Regulatory Options;

Option 1; General regulatory language.  For example, "All facilities
shall be so situated as to assure no adverse affect on human
health and the environment."
Advantages:
     "Nonspecific regulatory language allows more latitude and
flexibility.in enforcement.  Enforcement authorities would be
able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the siting of a
particular facility in a particular location would pose a threat
                                            J*
to human health and the environment.  Such a evaluation could take
into consideration such factors as local topography and climatology
depth to groundwater and adajacent surface water courses,
distance from private and municipal wells, anticipated impact on
unique plant and animal populations, et  cetera.
Disadvantages:
     °Difficulty in compliance because of non-specificity of
language  (e.g. areas to avoid, distance required from environ-
mentally sensitive areas).
     "May result in non-uniform implementation.
     °In the absence of specific national standards, there win be
                                    r
no means by which to assess or compare the equivalency of State
hazardous waste programs to the federal program.

-------
     °States may find it difficult to develop adequate hazardous
waste programs without the existence of specific federal standards
as guidance.
Option 2:  General regulatory language coupled with specific
recommendations.  For example, "All facilities shall be so situated as
to assure no adverse effect on human health and the environment.
Listed below are a number of factors that should be given con-
sideration when trying to select a disposal site that will pose the
least amount of threat to human health and the environment..."
(see excerpts from Texas' guidelines on pg. /of  for an example
of a list of factors to be considered).
Advantages:
     "Clearly defines factors for owners/operators to be concerned
with when they are looking for places  to locate their facilities.
     °Provides flexibility in enforcement.
     "Recommendations, although bearing no legal weight, aid in
enforcement because of the "as to assure no adverse effect on
human health and the environment" criteria in the general
statement.
     °Aids enforcement officials in judging the adequacy of the
site selected for facility location.
     "Provides a basis for assessing  the equivalency of state
programs.
Disadvantages:
     "Possible  loophole  in enforcement because  suggestions are
not legally enforceable.

-------
 Option 3: Specific regulatory language.  For example,  "Facilities
 shall not be located in an active fault  zone."
 Advantages:
      0Specific and clearly defined duties which are not  subject to
 broad interpretation,  either in imposing liability or  escaping liabi
      °More easily enforceable,  less discretionary.
      "Provides a basis for assessing the equivalency of  state
 programs.
 Disadvantages:
      °More difficult to formulate regulations in that  specific
 areas where  facilities should not be located would have  to
 pinpointed.
      "Variable  geology may make  certain  aspects  of these siting
 requirements  inappropriate in some areas.
      "Inflexibility  of specific  standard // discourages  industry
 from  developing new  and innovative technologies.
 Option 4;  Specific  regulatory  language  coupled  with notes
 which provide a basis  for  deviation from the standard.  For
 example,  "active portions  of facilities  shall be located a min'
 of 200 feet from the property line of the facility.  Note: Fac'i'tv
 owners/operators may locate active protions of their faciliti    ic
 than  200  feet from their property  line if it can be demonstrat <5
 that  unexpected releases or discharges of hazardous waste resui-t-' 
-------
the mechanism of the note provides a basis for deviation from the
standard  if the facility owner/operator can demonstrate that the
proposed  alternative method meets the objective of the standard.
Option  5.  Promulgate no regulations pertaining to the siting of
hazardous waste facilities.
Advantages:
      "Saves time and personnel in enacting and implementing a
regulation.
      "selection of locations for facilities would be adequate in
some  states which already provide for specific siting require-
                           f*
ments in  their hazardous wate regulations.
Disadvantages:
      "Facility locations may be inadequate in states not providing
specific  siting requirements.
      "Requirement is mandated by the Act  ("Such standards shall
include... requirements respecting.... the location, design, and
construction of ... facilities")

V.    Identification and Rationale for Chosen Regulatory Option:
     The  purpose of the site selection standards is to reduce the
potential for damage to human health and the environment which can
arise from improperly located hazardous waste facilities.
     Option 4, the regulatory format chosen for the proposed
regulation, best protects human health and the environment
by specifically delineating what is required of owners and operators
regarding site selection factors, while at the same time, providing
flexibility through the mechanism of the note.

-------
     The following regulations have been proposed under Section
250.43-1, General Site Selection:

                           Standard

     (a)  Facilities shall not be located in an active fault zone.

                          Rationale

     Active faults, those on which repeated fault movements are
           7
in progress, may impose a serious threat of earthquake damage
to hazardous waste facilities because practical engineering means dc
no currently exist to protect the integrity of a facility during
a serious earthquake.

     Damage to the integrity of a facility can result in the
uncontrolled release of hazardous waste to the environment.  TO
prevent this, hazardous waste facilities are prohibited from locatin;
in these environmentally sensitive areas.

                 Standards (b),  (c), and (d)

     (b)  In accordance with Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain.
Management", a facility shall not be located in a "regulatory  flood*
as adopted by communities participating in the National Flood
Insurance Program  (NFIP), managed by the Federal Insurance
                   ;
Administration (FIA0 of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.  In cases where regulatory floodways have not

-------
been designated by the FIA, the owner/operator shall obtain an
analysis, using FIA-approved methods to determine whether the
facility is  located within a non-regulatory floodway  (i.e., a
floodway which is currently not regulated by the FIA) .  A
shall not be located in an area determined by the analysis to be
a regulatory floodway.
      (c)  In accordance with Executive Order 11988, "Floodplain
Management", a facility shall not be located in a "coastal
high hazard  area" as defined on a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
by the FIA.  In cases where a coastal high hazard area has not
been designated by the FIA, the facility owner /operator shall obtain
an analysis, using FIA-approved methods, to determine whether the
facility is  located within a coastal high hazard area.  A facility
shall not be located in an area determined by the analysis to be
a coastal high hazard area.
Note :  Facilities may be located in coastal high hazard area if
       it  can be demonstrated that the facility is designed,
       constructed , operated , and maintained such that the
       fa&tity  M/ Art 4*  MMt/Mt**eJ 4y  4/**~
       velocity waters, including, but no-C limited to,
       hurricane wave wash or tsunamis (see definition of
       coastal  high hazard area, Section 250.41).

      (d)   In accordance with Executive Order 11988,  "Flood-
plain Management", a facility shall not be located in a 500-year
floodplain.

-------
Note:  Facilities may be located in 500-year floodplains if

       it can be demonstrated that the facility is designed,
                                                *<$£/•
       constructed, operated, and maintained such the facility

       will not be inundated by a 500-year flood.


              Rationale for  (b), (c), and (d)



     Standards (b), (c), and (d) are concerned with the location

of hazardous waste facilities in floodplains.



     Disposal of hazardous waste in floodplains may have several

significant adverse impacts: (1) If not adequately protected

from flooding, wastes may be inundated by water and flow from the

site, affecting downstream waters; (2) since floodplains

generally have hydraulic connection to wetlands, surface water,

and ground water, location of hazardous waste facilities in

floodplains may result in leachate contamination of ground water*

(3) filling in the floodplain may restrict the flow of flood

waters, causing greater flooding upstream; and (4) filling in the

floodplain may reduce the size and effectiveness of the flood-flow

retaining capacity of the floodplain, which may cause a more

rapid movement of flood waters downstream, resulting in higher

flood levels and greater flood damages downstream.



     The intent of the proposed regulation is to:

     (1)   To encourage the search for and siting of facilities

          out of the 500-year flood plain and coastal high

          hazard areas; and

-------
      (2)  To prohibit facilities in regulatory floodways.

     For the purposes of these standards, the minimum flood-
plain of concern is the 500-year floodplain defined as the
area subject to inundation from a flood having a 0.2 percent
chance of occurring in any given year.  The U.S. Water Resources
Council's Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing
Executive Order 11988 suggests that the construction of a hazardous
waste facility is a "critical action", which they define as those
      4*
action for which even a slight change of flooding would be too
great.  The guidelines further explain that a key question to
ask in determining whether an action is critical is:

     If flooded, would the proposed action create an added
     dimension to the disaster as could be the case for
     liquiefied natural gas terminals and facilities pro-
     ducing and storing highly volatile, toxic, or water
     reactive materials?

     Clearly, the establishment of a hazardous waste facility
meets this description of a critical action.
     500-year floodplains are shown as Zone B on the Flood
insurance Hate Maps issued by the Federal Insurance Admin-
istration.  Such maps have been published by the FIA for over
1,300 communities, and maps for more communities continue to be
published for FIA's program to provide maps of all flood prone
areas by 1983.  Additional agencies which furnish floodplain
information are listed in Appendix,A of the WRC Floodplain

-------
Management Guidelines.
     Standard 250. 43-1 (d) discourages the location of facilities
in 500-year floodplains, but it does not prohibit their location
in such areas.  That isf if the owner/operator can design,
construct, operate and maintain his facility such that it will
not be inundated by a 500-year flood, then the facility may be
located in a 500-year floodplain.
     Standard 250. 43-1 (c) provides a comparable degree of flexibility
in that it allows the owner/operator to engineer a site to alleviate
flood hazards.  That is, although owners/operators are discouraged
from locating their facilities in coastal high hazard areas, they
are allowed to do so if they can demonstrate that the facility
will not be inundated by the type of hazard (e.g. hurricane wave
wash and tsunamis) associated with these areas.  The reason why
facilities are restricted from locating in costal high hazard area
is because ".these are the floodplain areas where flooding is not
only most frequent and damaging, but where natural and beneficial
values of the land and water interface are at their maximum." *
                       •0
     Standard 250. 43-1 (*0 prohibits the location of hazardous
                                               5
waste facilities in regulatory floodways.  "Thetfe are the frequently
flooded areas that become areas of major flood dynamics during
large floods.  Here flood-waters exert their maximum presures
erosion is greatly accelerated and loss potential is increased  w ^
Because these areas are particularly susceptible to increased
flood heights and consequent increased area subject to flooding
resulting from impendence to flood flow due to man's occupaiiy
the Agency has proposed that facilities be banned from these
portions of the floodplain.

-------
                          Standard

      (e)   In accordance with Executive Order 11990,  "Protection
of Wetlands,"  a facility shall not be located in a wetland.
Note:  A facility may be located in wetlands if:
      (1)   The  facility obtains a National Pollutant  Discharge
                     yoa/vw// utttv
           Elimination System.Section 402 of the Clean Water Act
                            ^
           (Pub. L.92-500, as amended by Pub. L. 95-217, 33
           U.S.C. 1251 et  seq.), and
      (2)   In the case where dredging or filling of the wetland
                                               /•*A//»y
           is directly associated with the disposa^,  the owner/
           operator obtains a permit issued under authority of
           Section 404 of the Clean Water Act  (Pub. L. 92-500,
           as ammended by Pub. L. 95-217, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).

                          Rationale

     The intent of the wetlands standard is to minimize adverse
impacts on wetlands.  The nation's coastal and inland wetlands
are vital  natural resources of great hydrological, ecological,
economic,  and  social importance.  Wetlands provide natural flood
and storm  control, sediment and erosion control, recharge of
aquifers,  natural purification of waters, and flow stabilization
of streams and rivers.  Wetlands produce large quantities of
nutrients  which support complex ecosystems extending into
estuaries  and  streams, well beyond the marshes and wetland areas,
Wetland habitats support fish, shellfish, mammals, waterfowl,
and other  wildlife fauna and flora.  Moreover, wetlands are used

-------
in the production of many agricultural products (food and fiber)
and timber, as well as for recreational, scientific, and
cultural pursuits.
     The alteration and destruction of the wetland resources
through draining, dredging, filling and other means has had an
adverse cumulative impact on wetlands and other aquatic resources.
Recent estimates indicate over 40 percent of the 120 million
acres of wetlands in the United States that existed 200 years
ago have been irrevocably destroyed.
     The appropriate mechanism to be used to protect the
wetlands is the authority contained in the Clean Water Act  (CWA) .
An objective of the CWA is to "restore and maintain the chemical
physical, and biological integrity" of the waters of the United
States, and therefore wetlands are protected by the authorities
of the CWA.
     Section 402 of the CWA allows EPA to issue permits (NPDES)
for the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the U.S.
Since hazardous wastes are pollutants as defined by the CWA,
the discharge of hazardous waste into wetlands requires a permit
issued pursuant (ty the authority of Section 402 of the CWA.
     Section 404 of the CWA requires the Army Corps of Engineers
to issue permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into the waters of the U.S.  Therefore, if during the construction
or operation of a hzardous waste facility in a wetland, there
is a need to place fill material for a dike, levee, or other
water containment structure, a permit issued pursuant to the
authority of Section 404 must be obtained in addition to the
NPDES permit issued pursuant to Section 402. '

-------
                          Standards

       (f)  A facility shall not be located so as to be likely
 to jeopardize the continued existence of Endangered and Threaten-
 ed Species as listed, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of
1^.73  (16 U.S.C..1530 et seq.) in 50 CPR; nor result in the
 destruction or adverse modification of their Critical Habitat
 as contained in 50 CFR Part 17, Subpart F: Critical Habitat,
 1760 et seq.
 Note:  A facility may be located in critical habitat areas if,
                                     *        *       a
        after consultation with the Office of Endangered Species,
        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior,
        it can be demonstrated that, at the time a permit is issued
        pursuant to Subpart E, the treatment, storage or disposal
        operations carried out by the facility will not jeopardize
        the continued existence of Endangered and Threatened Species
        located within the Critical Habitat areas listed in
                                            •
        50 CFR Part 17.

                            Rationale

      Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), all
 Federal departments and agencies, in consulation with the
 Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce are
 required to utilize their authorities in furtherance of the
 purpose of the ESA.  One of these purposes is "to provide a
 means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threaten-
 ed species depend may be conserved.

-------
     The intent of this standard is to ensure that hazardous
waste facilities do not jeopardize the continued existence of
threatened or endangered species nor result in the destruction
or adverse modification of their critical habitats.  These
species are listed pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA.  The species
and their critical habitats as covered by this criterion can be founc
in 50 CFR Part 17.  The proposed regulation discourages the
                                 '**
siting of hazardous waste facilit4*#0rt in critical habitats,
but is flexible enough to allow those facilities which can
be demonstrated not to threaten endangered species to locate in
*-hese environmentally sensitive areas.

                           Standard

     (g)  A facility shall not be located in the recharge zone
of a sole source aquifer designated pursuant to Section 1424 (e)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act (Pub. L. 93-523).
Note:  A facility may be located in the recharge zone of a
       sole source aquifer if it can be demonstrated, at the time
       a permit is issued pursuant to Subpart E, that the
       facility is located, designed, constructed, operated,
       maintained and monitored to prevent endangerment of the
       sole source aquifer.

                         Rationale

     Aquifers are water-bearing, geologic formations which often
yield significant quantities of water to wells or springs.
                             VI

-------
Fresh groundwater, estimated at about 65 quadrillion gallons,


constitutes an important national resource.  Some 69 billion


gallons of fresh water are pumped out of the ground each day,


equal to 21% of daily national use excluding hydroelectric

                                                      i/"3
power generation.  Approximately, 123 million American rely


on groundwater for drinking purposes.  Groundwater also supplies


36% of all irrigation water and about 25% of the fresh water used


by industries dependent on their own water supply facilities.
 «
Six States depend on groundwater for more than half on their


water needs.


     Aquifers are replenished through recharge zones which are


permeable to rainfall and surface runoff and through which the


aquifer is susceptible to contamination.  The location of a


hazardous waste facility in the recharge zone is undersirable


because:




      (1)  Rendering areas unfit for recharge zones reduces the


          recharge and therefore reduces the amount of


          water available for use;


      (2)  It would increase the potential of groundwater


          contamination via infiltration of hazardous


          waste to the aquifer.


     The purpose of this regulation, therefore, is to discourage


the location of hazardous waste facilities in these environ-


mentally valuable areas.

-------
                           Standard

     (h)  Active portions of facilities shall be located a
minimum of 200 feet from the property line of the facility.
Note:  Facility owners/operators may locate active portions of their
       facilities closer than 60 meters (200 feet) from their
       property line if it can be demonstrated that unexpected
       releases or discharges of hazardous waste resulting from
       fires, explosions, spills, and underground leaks can be
       controlled before they cross the facility property
       boundary.

                         Rationale

     The purpose of setting a minimum distance from which the
active portion of a facility can be located from its boundary
line is to provide a buffer zone between the public and the
                            J*
facility.  The Agency believe that buffer zones reduce risks
to public health and environment by allowing unexpected dis-
charges resulting from fires, explosions, spills, underground
leaks, et cetera, to dissipate before crossing the property
boundary.  In addition, buffer zones can be used for aesthetic
purposes, such as noise reduction or concealment of facilities
in order to preserve natural appearances.
     The selection of 200 feet from the facility's boundary
line as the required width of the buffer zone was based on
the following premise:

-------
     The State Oklahoma prohibits disposition of industrial
     waste within 200 feet of the permit boundary, thus
     providing a precedent for the proposed RCRA regulation.
     Although other States have narrower width requirements for
     buffer zones (e.g. Wisconsin-20 feet; Pennsylvania-25 feet;
     and New York-50 feet), these regulations only pertain to
     municipal solid waste.  Since hazardous waste poses a greater
     risk to public health and the environment than municipal
     solid waste, Oklahoma's more stringent regulation for
     industrial waste was adopted.

     An actual distance was specified in order to facilitate
enforcement and to provide a tangible point of reference.

environmentally Sensitive Areas not included in discussion of
locations for hazardous waste facilities!

          The Agency has chosen not to restrict the location of
hazardous waste facilities in the following environmentally
sensitive areas for the reasons stated below:
      (1)  Shorelands:  can be subsumed under the wetland criteria,
and hence are regulated under mandatory standard 250.43-1(e).
In most instances shorelands would also be regulated under the
floodplain  standard 250.43-1(c).
      (2)  Wilderness areas and refuges: protection of these areas  is
already provided by the Wilderness Act.

-------
(3)   High population density areas:  A hazardous waste
     facility can be safet/y engineered and operated in
     high density areas; therefore, it in not necessary to
     restrict their location to low density areas.   In addition,
     public hearings are required for proposals  for  new
     sites, and people affected by a hazardous waste facility
     would have an opportunity to contest the location of the
     facility in their neighborhood.   The setting of
     minimum distances from which the active portion of a
     facility may be located from its property line  will
     also serve to minimize,  the need for this requirement.
(4)   Active volcanoes,  active sand dune areas and active
     glacial areas/.  These  three areas would be  unde/sirable
     locations for hazardous  waste treatment storage and
     disposal facilities due  to their instability and
     value as natural resources.   However,  all such  volcanoes
     and glaciers in the U.S.  are located in state or
     national parks and thus  already  protected.   Most active
     sand dunes are also within parks or adequately  protected
     by the coastal high hazard area  restriction.
(5)   Permafrost areas:   Permafrost areas are very fragile
     ecosystems with very significant potential  erosion and
     groundwater contaminant  problems.

     Disposal of hazardous  waste in permafrost areas presents
     three environment problems.   First,  any disturbance of
     the delicate plant and moss cover insulation increases
     the depth of annual thaw.   Since permafrost  i*  o«
                                                 AS  commonly

-------
supersaturated soils and ice, an increased depth of
thaw can alter the surface contour, create lakes, and cause
significant erosion.  Moreover/ any activity to control
erosion by surface and subsurface waters tends to increase
the thaw and erosion problem.
Second, disposal of hazardous waste in the active perma-
frost zone may cause difficult water pollution problems.
All seasonal water movement occurs in this active zone
and leachate contamination is very likely.  Since the
active zone of permafrost areas is commonly the only source
of drinking water, prevention of contamination is essential
in order to preserve this vital resource.
Third, waste disposed of in permafrost areas is generally
deposited on the surface, undergoes very little change
over time, and therefore accumulates and remains as a
hazard to future generations.
For the above reasons, the Agency first considered writing
regulations which would restrict the location of hazardous
wastes facilities in permafrost areas.
However, because permafrost is, for the most part, confined
to the State of Alaska, the management of permafrost is
not "national" in sco/e, as is true of the other
environmentally sensitive areas regulated in the general
site selection section of these regulations.  It is the
opinion of the Agency that the State of Alaska, rather
than the Federal Government, should decide what is
feasible and necessary to protect these remote areas
in their state.  Therefore, specific regulations

-------
related to facility location in permafrost areas have



not been included in these rules.

-------
                          REFERENCES
1.   Bureau of Water Quality Management files, Pennsylvania
     Department of En\^jfonmental Resources, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

2.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
     Disposal of Hazardous Wastes; Report to Congress.
     Environmental Protection Publication, SW-115. Washington, U.S.
     Government Printing Office, 1974. llOp.
                                       t
3.   Personal Communication to Alice Guiles.  Frank Williams and
     John Davidson, Pittsburg Regional Office, Bureau of Water
     Quality Management, Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental
     Resources, Spring, 1975.

4.   op. cit.  Disposal of Hazardous Wastes; Report to Congress.
     &
5.   Op. cit.  Disposal of Hazardous Wastes; Report to Congress.

6.   Kneip, T.J., Hirshfield, H.I., et. al., "Cadium in an
     Aquatic Ecosystem; Distribution and Effects, " 1st Ann. Progress
     Rep5^b  (1974) and 2nd Ann. Progress Report  (1975), New York
     University Medical Center Institute of Environmental Medicine,
     New York, NY  10016.

7.   Strahler, Arthur N. (1969) Physical Geography, John Wiley and
     Sons, Inc., Page 598.

8.   U.S. Water Resources Council. Floodplain Management Guidelines
     for Implementing E.G. 11988  (Federal Register, Vol. 43, No. 29,
     February 10, 1978) Page 23.

9.   Ibid, page 31.

-------
BD-15"

-------
BD-15
                  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

                  Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management

                  Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners
                                 and Operators of Hazardous
                                 Waste Treatment, Storage, and
                                 Disposal Facilities.
                           DRAFT
                    BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
    Section  250.43-2    Standards for Security
            U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
                    Office  of Solid Waste
                     December 15, 1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface
water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges and
emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being issued as a draft to
support the proposed regulation.  As new information is obtained,
changes may be made in the regulations as well as in this back-
ground material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and has been
revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions made
since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed Section 3004 regula-
tions shortly before their publication in the Federal Register.  We
have tried to ensure that all of those decisions are reflected in
this document.  If there are any inconsistencies between the
proposal (the preamble and the regulation) and this background
document, however, the proposal is controlling.

     Comments in writing may be made to:
     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste (WW-565)
     Hazardous Waste Management Division
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                        TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
I.    introduction

II.   Rationale  for the  Regulations
      A.    Damage Incidents

III.  Identification of  Regulatory Options

IV.   Analysis of Regulatory Options

V.    Identification of  Chosen Regulation and Associated Rationale

-------
I.   Introduction

     Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act gives the Administrator authority to promulgate regulations
establishing such performance standards, applicable to
owners/operators of facilities for the treatment,  storage,
or disposal of hazardous waste,  as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.  Section 3004 does not
specifically require regulations relevant to security
measures at facilities, however, there does exist  a hazard
to human health resulting from the unauthorized/unknowing
entry of persons and/or entry of domestic livestock on to
the active portions of hazardous waste treatment,  storage
or disposal facilities as documented by numerour incidents.
Therefore, it is necessary to establish certain minimum
requirements for security provisions at facilities sufficient
to prevent unauthorized/unknowing entry of persons and/or
entry of domestic livestock onto the active portions of a
facility.
     For the purpose of this document, the pertinent terms
are defined as follows:

     "Scavenging" means the unauthorized or uncontrolled remo
of hazardous waste materials from a facility.

     "Facility" means any land and appurtenances thereto used
for treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous waste

-------
     "Active Portion" means that portion of a facility where
treatment, storage, or disposal operations are being
conducted.  It includes the treated area of a landfarm
and the active face of a landfill, but does not include
those portions of a facility which have been closed in
accordance with the facility closure plan and all applicable
closure standards.

     "Disposal Facility" means any facility which disposes of
hazardous waste.

     "Storage Facility" means any facility which stores hazardous
waste, except generators who store their own wastes for less
than 90 days for subsequent transport off-site.

     "Treatment Facility" means any facility which treats hazardous
waste.

II.  Rationale for the Regulations.

     The  rationale for regulations relevant to security
measures  at facilities is obvious as so illustrated by the
following damage incidents.

     A.   Damage Incidents
          Grant County, Washington.  In 1972, mercury-treated
grain was found at the Wilson Creek dump in Grant County,
Washington, by an unsuspecting farmer.  He hauled it to

-------
his farm for livestock feed.  The episode was discovered
just before the farmer planned to utilize the grain.
     In 1969, three children in a New Mexico family
sustained serious alkyl mercury poisoning after eating
contaminated pork.  A fourth child suffered congenital mercury
poisoning after his mother consumed the contaminated pork in her
first trimester of pregnancy.  The hog had been fed grain
treated with methyl mercury type seed dressing.  The grain
originated from a seed company, where the father of the children
obtained the floor sweepings without charge and subsequently fed
these to the hogs he was raising.  About 100 bags of
similarly treated grain were discovered subsequently at
the community dump of another town in New Mexico.  It was
established by public health authorities that some of this dumped
grain - which originated from a different source than in the
previous case - had been scavenged and used as animal feed in
the area.  As a result, a large number of hogs, chickens, and other
animals had to be quarantined.
     Four cattle died and four others were adversely affected
when cows broke through a fence to a junk pile on which
there was an old bag of lindane.  Lab results showed 4400 ppm lindane
in the rumen contents of the dead animals.  The incident
occurred in Jasper, Newton County, Iowa, in September 1974.  The
carcasses and remaining lindane were buried.

-------
     The  following incident did not occur on the active
portion of a hazardous waste facility, however, this incident
does illustrate the curiosity children may have regarding
an "attractive nuisance" associated with hazardous waste.
Three boys become ill after playing in a 55-gallon drum which
they had  filled with water.  The drum formerly contained
De-Pester Parathion.  One boy, age 6, died from the dermal
entry of  parathion; the others, ages 7 and 6, were hospitalized,
administered Atropine, and released fully recovered.  The
incident  occurred on June 29, 1968, in Dunning, Nebraska.
     The  hazard associated with each of the wastes named in
the aforementioned damage incidents is ever present.  However,
the means for controlling accessability to the active portions
of a hazardous waste facility, for human health and environ-
mental protection, is accomplished via the proposed 3004 draft regula-
tions, Section #250.43-2.  Planned, organized and implemented
security  management provisions will undoubtedly either prevent
or minimize the unmitigated damage to human health and the
environment resulting from the absence of these proposed
regulations.
III. Identification of Regulatory Options.
     A.   Specific Standards Mandated by RCRA
     Specific standards addressing security provisions have
not been  mandated by RCRA.  However, the statement in the
Act, as may be necessary to protect human health and the
environment," strongly implies that no provision which

-------
protects human health and the environment be eliminated from
the 3004 requirements.
     B.   Existing Federal, State or Local Regulations that
could be adopted.
State of Washington Security Requirements.
     WAG 173-302-290  SECURITY REQUIREMENTS.  (1)  The operator shall
maintain all fences.
          (2)  The operator shall insure that controlled entry by
authorized persons is maintained at all times by:
               (a)  Having appropriate personnel on duty 24 hours  a
day;
               (b)  Requiring identification and logging in of all
persons entering; and
               (c)  Securing all facilities during non-operating
hours.
          (3)  The operator shall maintain facilities for telephone
and radio contact with the Hanford Reservation Security Patrol.
          (4)  The operator shall maintain all warning signs.
     Proposed and existing regulations of several states regardin
security requirements are summarized below:
     Minnesota proposed regulations (HW-4 and HW-8)  require:
     (1)  A hazardous waste facility shall control access to
the site.  This shall include adequate fences, gates,  and other
necessary features.

-------
          (2)  A chain link fence enclosing the storage area
together with other appropriate measures to secure the area
against unauthorized entry or damage shall be constructed for all
outside storage areas.
          (3)  The storage area shall have a secure access and, when
unattended, be locked.
          (4)  Scavenging shall not be allowed at a hazardous
waste facility.
     Pennsylvania's Rules and Regulations for Solid Waste
Management require:
          (1)  Access to the site shall be limited to those times
when an attendant is on duty.
          (2)  Hours of operation and other limitations shall
be prominently displayed at the entrance.  The sign shall be a
minimum size of 3 feet by 4 feet.
          (3)  A gate or barrier and fencing as approved by the
Department shall be erected to block access to the site during
times when an attendant is not on duty.
          (4)  Access by unauthorized vehicles or persons shall be
prevented.
          (5)  Scavenging shall be prohibited.

     In addition, they require in the permit application:

          (6)  All fencing and barriers to be constructed at a
facility shall be shown on the plans in full elevation, fully
dimensioned, and type of construction materials shall be
identified and specified.
                                 9

-------
Oregon
      (1)  Access to landfills which are not attended on a
twenty-four hour basis shall be controllable by means of gates
which may be locked, and the site shall be completely enclosed
by a perimeter fence unless access is adequately controlled by
the natural terrain features of the site.
      (2)  Signs shall be posted at a sludge spreading area as
required.  Signs which are clearly legible and visible shall be posted
on all sides of a sludge lagoon, stating the contents of the
lagoon and warning of potential hazard to health.
Texas
      (1)  To avoid abusive use of facilities or indiscriminate
dumping of wastes into a facility by persons other than those re-
sponsible for the facility's proper use, a 4 foot (or higher)
fence, wall, impassable ditch or similar device should be
provided around the site or facility.
      (2)  Where hazardous  (toxic, flammable, corrosive, etc.)
materials or conditions exist, care must be taken to ensure that
stock, pets, children or other persons cannot have easy access
to these stored or disposed of materials or conditions,
especially when the site or facility is unattended.   A six-foot
woven mesh fence or the equivalent is usally considered adequate
for this purpose.
                               10

-------
The California draft hazardous waste regulations state:
      (1)  The hazardous waste facility shall have posting and
fences as necessary to protect public health and safety, domestic
livestock or wildlife.
      (2)  Storage of hazardous waste shall be in a secure enclosure,
including but not limited to a building, room, or fenced area,
which shall be adequate to prevent unauthorized persons from
gaining access to the waste,  A caution sign shall be posted and
visible from any direction of access of view of  hazardous waste stored
in such enclosure.  Wording of caution signs shall be in English,
"CAUTION - HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREA - UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS KEEP
OUT", and Spanish, "CUIDADOr ZONA DE RESIDUES PELIGROSOS.  PROHIBIDA
LA ENTRADA A PERSONAS NO AUTORIZADAS".
IV.  Analysis of Regulatory Options.
     A.   Human Health and Environmental Protection Provided.
     The State regulations as listed under  (III)  (B) provide
for human health and environmental protection, however, the degree
of protection provided is determined by the structure and content of
the various state requirements.
Advantages & Disadvantages of various options are as follows:
     Option I  Specific requirements.
     Adoption of state regulatons of a specific nature,  (e.g.
State of Washington, Security requirements  #2(a)  (b)  (c).
           (1)  The operator shall insure that controlled entry by
authorized persons is maintained at all times by:
                (a)  Having appropriate personnel on duty 24 hours
a day;
                               11

-------
           (b)  Requiring identification and logging in of all
persons entering; and
           (c)  Securing all facilities during non-operating hours,
State of Pennsylvania #2...
          Hours of operation and other limitations shall be
          prominently displayed at the entrance.  The sign
          shall be a minimum size of 3 feet by 4 feet.
          #5 Scavenging shall be prohibited.
     State of California #5...
          Storage of hazardous waste shall be in a secure enclosure
including but not limited to a building, room, or fenced area, which
shall be adequate to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access
to the waste.  A caution sign shall be posted and visible from any
direction of access or view of hazardous waste stored in such
enclosure.  Wording of caution signs shall be in English,
"CAUTION - HAZARDOUS WASTE STORAGE AREA - UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS
KEEP OUT," and Spanish, "CUDADO1 ZONA DE RESIDUES PELIGROSOS.
PROHIBIDA LA ENTRADA A PERSONAS NO AUTORIZADAS".

Advantages:
     1)   Simplifies regulatory program.
     2)   Industry knows exactly what is necessary for compliance
     3)   Enforcement is less difficult.

Disadvantages:
     1)   Inflationary
     2)   Does not take into account unique problems and
          situations.
                                12

-------
     3)   Inhibits innovative and creative thinking.
Option  II - Performance standard with general minimum requirements.
State of Minnesota...
     1)   A hazardous waste facility shall control access to the
site.  This shall include adequate fences, gates, and other
necessary features.
     2)   A chain link fence enclosing the storage area together
with other appropriate measures to secure the area against
unauthorized entry or damage shall be constructed for all outside
storage areas.
State of Oregon....
     1)   Access to landfills which are not attended on a
twenty-four hour basis shall be controllable by means of gates
which may be locked, and the site shall be completely enclosed
by a perimeter fence unless access is adequately controlled by
the natural terrain features of the site.
Advantages:
     1)   Provides for minimum protection.
     2)   Terms... adequate, necessary and appropriate allows for
site specific design, operation and/or construction.
Disadvantages:
     1)   Terms... adequate, necessary and appropriate are vague
and subjected to individual interpretation.
     2)   Enforcement may be a problem.
     3)   Person making determination as to what is adequate,
necessary and appropriate may lack the necessary expertise.
Option III - Proposed 3004 Draft Regulations.
     Specific requirements... Notes allowing for deviation.
                               13

-------
V.   identification of Chosen Regulation and Associated Rationale.

250.43-2 Security
     (a)  Facilities shall have 6 foot (2m) high fencing
completely surrounding the active portion of the facility
capable of preventing scavenging, unpermitted treatment, storage or
disposal activity, the unknowing entry of persons, domestic
livestock or any other unauthorized entry.
     Note:  Facilities do not have to comply with the above
standard (250.43-2(a))  if the owner/operator can demonstrate
that the active portion of the facility in question is surrounded by
a natural or artificial barrier capable of preventing scavenging,
unpermitted treatment,  storage or disposal activity, the
unknowing entry of persons, domestic livestock or any other
unauthorized entry.
     (b)  Ingress through each gate or other access shall be
controlled by an attendant, mechanical or electromechanical
device whenever the facility is in operation, (e.g., security
personnel, key cards, or television monitors, respectively).
Each gate or other access shall be secured whenever the facility is
not in operation.
     (c)  A sign, in the English language and any other predominant
language of the area surrounding a facility (e.g., facilities
in states bordering Mexico and Canada shall have signs posted
in Spanish and French respectively), having the following legend -
(WARNING - Unauthorized Personnel Keep Out) shall be posted about
the active portions of the facility.  The sign shall consist of
block letters not less than four (4) inches in height.  The
                               14

-------
letters shall be of a color offering high contrast with the
background color of the sign.

     Note:  Facilities may deviate from the specified four  (4)
inch block letters and legend of the sign as specified in
Standard 250.43-2(d) provided that the facility owner/operator
can demonstrate that the proposed alternative sign in question
is legible and clearly visible from each and every access on to the
active portions of a facility and that the sign warns against
unauthorized entry or is unnecessary in light of the standards/ the
particular sites operation, wastes handled, etc., in making this
determination.

Advantages:
     1)   Industry knows exactly what is necessary for compliance.
     2)   Regulation with attached note allows for innovative and
creative thinking.
     3)   The regulatory process is simplified.
     4)   Enforcement is less difficult.
Disadvantages:
     1)   Specific regulations may be costly.
                                 15

-------

-------
BD-16
            Resource Conservation  and  Recovery Act

            Subtitle C  - Hazardous Waste  Management

            Section 3004 -  Standards Applicable  to Owners  and
                           Operators of Hazardous Waste
                           Treatment,  Storage, and Disposal
                           Facilities.
                             DRAFT
                      BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
   Section 250.43-3  -  Contingency Plan and Emergency
                        Procedures
                                             DECEMBER 15, 1978
            U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

-------
     This document provides background information and support

for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface

water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges

and emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being made

available as a draft for comment.  As new information is

obtained, changes may be made in the regulations, as well

as in the background material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and

has been revised to reflect information received and Agency

decisions made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed

Section 3004 regulations shortly before their publication

in the Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that all

of those decisions are reflected in this document.  If

there are any inconsistencies between the proposal  (the

preamble and the regulation) and this background document,

however, the proposal is controlling.

     Comments in writing may be made to:


     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste
     Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                   Table  of  Contents

  I.   Background for Regulations
 II.   Identification and  Analysis of  Regulatory Options
      A.   Who Specifies Contingency Plan and
          Emergency Procedures?
      B.   How Specific Should the Requirements Be?
      C.   Should Standards be Tailored for Different
          Types of Facilities?
      D.   Should Facilities be Limited in the Volume
          Handled?
III.   Compatibility of Contingency Plan Standards with
      Existing Federal Laws and Regulations.
      A.   Clean Air Act
      B.   Clean Water Act
      C.   The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
          Rodenticide Act
      D.   The Occupational Safety and Health Act
          of 1970
      E.   Other Regulations
 IV.   Appendix I - Analysis of Damage Cases

-------
I.   BACKGROUND
     The Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA)  gives the
Administrator the authority to promulgate regulations
establishing such performance standards, applicable to owners/
operators of facilities for the treatment, storage  or disposal
of hazardous waste identified or listed under Subtitle C,  as
may be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Such standards must include requirements respecting contingency
plans for effective action to minimize unanticipated damage
from any treatment, storage or disposal of any such hazardous
waste.  The contingency plans required are meant to be a plan
of action which can be implemented following an accidental dis-
charge, fire, or other emergency which threatens human health
or the environment.  They are to be implemented by  a responsible
official of the company and all employees are to be trained in
carrying them out.  Off-site emergency services, e.g.  fire depart-
ments, rescue squads, etc, are to be included in the plan.
     An analysis of the Agency's hazardous waste damage case
files  (Appendix 1} readily identifies the emergency situations
which the contingency plans should address.  Clearly,  the plans
must provide procedures for minimizing impacts from emergencies
involving spills, explosions, fires, and toxic gas  emissions.
In addition however, the contingency plans should outline pro-
cedures to be followed in the event groundwater is  polluted.

-------
II.  IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY OPTIONS
A.   Who Species Contingency Plans?
     This is the first question the Agency faced in preparing
these regulations.  There are two possible approaches.
     (1)  The Agency prepares a plan based on data submitted
     by the applicant.
     (2)  The applicant prepares the plan as part of his permit
     application; the Agency approves.
Option  (2) was chosen because the applicant is in a better
position to judge the potential for various types of problems
and to design procedures for minimizing impacts.  Agency
permit writers on the other hand would, of necessity  be
guided by documents from Headquarters which would not provide
needed flexibility to tailor procedures to the specific
problems peculiar to any given facility. The probable result
would be contingency procedures which  do not provide adequate
response to the emergency.
B.   How Specific Should the Requirements Be?
     The issue to be addressed here concerns the level of detail
to be contained in the uniform contingency plan standards.  Specific
                             «
requirements would provide Jin^ormity in application, thus providing
uniform response level.  However, due to the wide variety in
facility designs and sizes, site characteristics, and local
emergency services available at each location, it is difficult
to design specific standards which can be made applicable to all
kinds of facilities.  Additionally, considering the relatively
brief histofiy of the hazardous waste management industry, many

-------
innovations in techniques of treatment, storage and disposal,
as well as emergency response and remedial action are expected.
These developments would require constant revision of specific
standards governing contingency plans.
     Flexible more general requirements could state the objective
of the standard without specifying the technique to be employed.
These requirements enable the tailoring of contingency plans to
individual facilities and encourage innovation.  However,
evaluation of the adequacy of contingency plans becomes more
difficult, requiring extensive review by qualified regulatory
authorities.
     On balance, the Agency's goal was to provide requirements
as specific and detailed as possible consistent with the necessity
to have them cover all kinds of facilities.  Permitting officials
will receive guidance on how to evaluate contingency plans deve-
loped by  Applicants and how to identify shortcomings and
deficiencies,
C.   Should Standards be Tailored for Different Types of Facilities?
     This issue is similar to the last since both involve uni-
formity in regulations.  The concept here is that more specific
standards might be designed on a facility loss basis and, as
stated above,  more specific standards are desirable.
     On the other hand, the response one takes to an emergency
is more closely associated with the nature of the emergency
rather than the design of the facility.  Remedial action for
groundwater pollution is generally the same regardless of the
design of the source.  One fights a fire in much the same manner

-------
regardless of whether  a  storage tank or landfill is burning.
In this case, it depends more closely on/the nature of the waste
than on the  facility design.
     Because of  the peculiarities of differing facilities and
the differences, in the  wastes handled, the Agency has concluded
that tailoring  standards for contingency plans and emergency
response  to  classes of facilities would probably do little to
improve the  regulatory program.  On the negative side, such an
approach  would  cause the regulations to be much more complex.
D.   Should  Facilities be Limited in the Volume Handled?
     By establishing limits on the handling capacity of
individual facilities, the overall threat to human safety and the
environment might be reduced for two reasons.  By limiting  the
amount of hazardous waste at a given facility, the magnitude of
the maximum possible accidental release would be reduced; and
handling  limitations would force an increase in the number  of ot
facilities,  possibly resulting in an overall reduction in
transport of the wastes, and therefore the number of  transportation
related accidental releases.  However, there are also a  number
of disadvantages.
      (1)   An increased  risk of accidental release would  result
      from the greater number of  facilities.
      (2)   A policy of requiring  small  facilities would also
      increase the problem of  finding enough  suitable sites.
      Geological and hydrological constraints will  limit  the
      potential  number of suitable sites.   Popular  opinion may

-------
     be a factor also in that it may be more difficult,  in
     terms of citizens resistance, to establish many small
     sites than a few large ones, and development of adequate
     capacity poses a potentially serious hindrance to success-
     ful implementation of these regulations.
     C3)  A multitude, small facilities would be administratively
     more difficult to permit monitor, and enforce against.
     (4)  Limiting size may also preclude achieving economics
     of scale in facility design, thus driving up costs  and
     economic impacts.
In sum, the Agency has concluded that the advantages of  limitino
site capacity will be more than off-set by the disadvantages.  jn
effect, poorer oversight,  more facilities, and difficulties
in siting facilities may cause added environmental damage.
III. COMPATIBILITY OF CONTINGENCY PLAN STANDARDS WITH EXISTING
FEDERAL"LAWS AND REGULATIONS                   "     •     •	
     Section 1006 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
1976 requires that the provisions of the Act be integrated  with
the appropriate provisions of the Clean Air Act,  the Clean  Water
Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide  Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Marine Protection,  Research,
and Sactuaries Act of 1972 and other such acts which grant
authority to the EPA administrator,  to avoid duplication among
the acts and enable their  efficient administration and enforcexne
The purpose of this section is to review the provisions  of  the
above laws which deal with areas related to emergency response
requirements or contingency plans in order to establish  the
of existing laws with regard to contingency plan requirements
                               8

-------
A.   Clean Air Act
     Section 112 of the Clean Air Act authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to set standards for hazardous air pollutants at any level
"which in his judgment provide an ample margin of safety to
protect the public health".  Specifically, asbestos, beryllium
and mercury are three hazardous pollutants for which emission
limits have been promulgated.  However, emergency response
requirements for the accidental release of hazardous pollutants
above these levels are not addressed in the act.  Hazardous waste
facilities which handle substances for which emission standards
have been set under this act must meet these emission standards.
However, any contingency plan standards promulgated under RCRA
would be outside the scope of the Clean Air Act regulations, and
are thus    compatible.
B.   Clean Water Act
     In response to the President's request for the Council
on Environmental Quality to carry out subsection (c) (2) of
section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C.
1251, et seq.), the Council developed the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.  The objectives
of the Plan are "to provide for efficient, coordinated and
effective action to minimize damage from oil and hazardous
substance discharges, including containment, dispersal and
removal."  The Plan is effective "for the navigable waters
of the United States and adjoining shorelines and for the
contiguous zone and the high seas where a threat to the
United States waters, shoreface, or shelfbottom exists."

-------
     The most significant provision put forth under the Plan
potentially related to hazardous waste management facilities
is the requirement that any person in charge of an onshore
facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any discharge of
oil or a hazardous substance into navigable waters,  immediately
notify the nearest EPA or United States Coast Guard office of
such discharge.  In the event the responsible party is  unable
to eliminate the threat to the U.S. waters,  shoreface,  or
shelfBottom, the Federal government is assigned the task of
undertaking response activities to minimize damages from such
discharge.   The Federal government is then authorized to
bring suit against the party responsible for the discharge for
costs incurred in the response effort.
     In summary, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan imposes two requirements on  hazardous
waste facilities if an accidental release from such facilities
threatens navigable waters:  notification of EPA or the Coast
Guard, and recovery of the release.  Since both these requirement
are included in the contingency plan standards discussed earlier
there is no incompatibility between the contingency plan
standards promulgated under RCRA and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.
C.   The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
     Under the authority of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act, as amended by the Federal Environmental
Pesticide Control Act of 1972, the EPA promulgated "Regulations
for the Acceptance of Certain Pesticides and Recommended

-------
Procedures for the Disposal and Storage of Pesticides and
Pesticide Containers" (40 C.F.R. 165).   The following guidelines
pertinent to accidents at hazardous waste management facilities
were published:
     1.   "All accidents or incidents involving the storage
or disposal of pesticides, pesticide containers or pesticide
related wastes should be reported to the appropriate Regional
Administrator."
     2.   "Containers should be checked regularly for corrosion
and leaks.  If such is found, the container should be trans-
ferred to a sound, suitable, larger container and properly
labeled.  Materials such as adsorptive clay, hydrated lime
and sodium hypochlorite should be kept on hand for use as
appropriate for the emergency treatment or detoxification of
spills or leaks."
     3.   A number of accident prevention measures are suggested.
     4.   The use of protective clothing and respirators is
recommended for all employees handling pesticides.
     5.   "Where large quantities of pesticides are stored, or
where conditions may otherwise warrant, the owner of stored
pesticides should inform the local fire department, hospitals,
public health officials and police department in writing of the
hazards that such pesticides may present in the event of a fire."

-------
     In all likelihood, most pesticide-related wastes will
fall into the category of "hazardous waste " in the classification
to be promulgated under RCRA.  However,  all of the above requirements
are included in the contingency plan standards discussed earlier.
Therefore, no conflicting requirements would be introduced
through adoption of the contingency plan standards proposed
in this report.
D.   The Occupational Safety And Health Act Of 197Q
     This Act authorizes the Secretary of Labor to set mandatory
standards to protect the occupational safety and health of all
employers and employees of businesses engaged in interstate
commerce.  Section 6(b) (51 deals specifically with toxic
materials and other harmful agents requiring the Secretary to
"set the standard which most adequately assures that no
employee will suffer material impairment of health or financial
capacity" from regular exposure to such hazards.
     Specific requirements issued under this Act pertinent
to contingency plan standards include:
     1.   Emergency response requirements have been issued for
any facility which handles, processes, releases, or stores 4-
nitrobiphenyl, alpa-Naphthylamine, 4, 4'Methylene bis (2-
chloroanilinel, Methyl chloromethyl ether,  3,3'-Dichlorobenzidi
(and its salts), bis-Chloromethyl ether,  beta-Naphthylamine,
Benzidine, 4-Aminodiphenyl, Ethyleneimine,  beta-Propiolactone,
2-Acetylaminofluorene, 4-Dimethylaminoazobenzene,  or N-Nitrosodi
methylamine.  In the event of an accidental release which may
result in exposure to or contact with any of the above substan

-------
a.   The potentially affected area shall be evacuated
     as soon as the emergency has been determined.
b.   Hazardous conditions created by the emergency  shall
     Be eliminated and the potentially affected area shall
     be decontaminated prior to the resumption of normal
     operations.
c.   Special medical surveillance by a physician shall be
     instituted within 24 hours for employees present in
     the potentially affected area at the time of the
     emergency.
d.   An incident report on the emergency shall be made
     within 24 hours to the nearest OSHA Area Director.
e.   A written report shall be filed with the nearest OSHA
     Area Director within 15 calendar days of the event
     and shall include:
     i.   A specification of the amount of material
          released, the amount of time involved and an
          explanation of the procedure used in determining
          this figure;
     ii.  A description of the area involved and the extent
          of known and possible employee exposure and area
          contamination;
    iii.  A report of any medical treatment of affected
          employees and any medical surveillance program
          implemented; and

-------
          iv.  An analysis of the circumstances of the incident
               and measures taken or to be taken, with specific
               completion dates, to avoid further similar release.
     2.   Similar emergency response requirements have been issued
          for facilities handling vinyl chloride.
     The contingency requirements issued by OSHA for facilities
handling the aforementioned carcinogens concur with those
presented earlier for all hazardous waste facilities,  with the
additional requirement of filing reports with the OSHA Area
Director.  There are no incompatible provisions between the
existing OSHA regulations and those proposed under RCRA.
E.   Other Regulations
     In addition to the laws described above, the following
acts which deal either directly or indirectly with hazardous
waste were reviewed to determine if they contained provisions
related to contingency plans for hazardous waste management
facilities:
     -Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)
     -Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
      1972 (P.L. 92-532)
     -Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 USC 2011)
     -Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469)
     -Transportation of Explosives Act (18 USC 39)
     -Hazardous Materials Transportation Act of 1970 (P.L.
      91-4581

-------
     None  of  the preceeding acts were found to have applicability
regarding  contingency plan standards for the hazardous waste
facilities to be regulated by EPA under the Resource Conservation
and  Recovery  Act.  Specifically, Section 3004 of RCRA does not
mandate  regulations concerning transportation related accidents
(as  do the Transport of Explosives Act, the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act of 1970 and the Marine Protection, Research
and  Sanctuaries Act of 1972) or accidents involving the release
of radioactive wastes regulated under the authority of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.  Neither the Safe Drinking Water Act
nor  the  Toxic Substances Control Act grant authority to EPA
to promulgate regulations concerning contingency plan standards.
Conclusion
     In  conclusion, none of the contingency plan standards
proposed for  implementation under RCRA were found to be
incompatible  with existing Federal regulations, or in conflict
with the authorities granted under other acts.  However,  facility
operators  may find that contingency plans must meet supplementary
requirements  of other governmental regulations, such as OSHA
safety standards requiring supplementary fire equipment other
than mentioned in the "Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures"
standards  (Section 250.43-3).

-------
                   Bibliography





1.   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid



     Waste Management Programs.  Hazardous  Waste Disposal



     Damage Reports.





2.   International Research and Technology  Corporation,



     Final Report, IRT-492-R,  September,  1978.





3.   Clean Air Act



     (42 U.S.C. 1857}





4.   The Federal Water Water Pollution Control  Act,



     Section 311  C33 U.S.C. 1151)





5.   The Federal Insecticide,  Fungicide and Rodenticide



     Act, 1972 C7 U.S.C. 1351





6.   The Occupational Safety and Health Act of  1970.



     C29 D.S.C. 651}

-------
IV.  APPENDIX I - Analysis of Damage Cases
     On the afternoon of December 8, 1977, a series of explosion
and fires occurred at a waste treatment facility in New Jersey.
The initial explosion, occurring at approximately 2:15p.m.f  was
followed by between two and five additional explosions.  The
ensuing major fire period lasted about 1 1/2 hours, during which
time approximately 12 storage tanks and two tank trucks exploded
and/or burned.  Personnel began fire fighting operations until
the Local Volunteer Fire Department arrived.  Within a short
time, seven fire fighting units from nearby towns had responded
to the alarm with about 200 men.  Shortly thereafter, the N.J.
State Police arrived on the scene and assumed overall coordination
of activities.  Within 2 hours of the initial explosion, various
Federal and State agency personnel were also on the scene.
     Representatives of the N.J. Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the U.S.
Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHAl, the U.S.
Treasury Bomb Squad and state and local police worked with
the local public safety officers and company personnel to
minimize the immediate and longer-term damage from the fire
and explosions.  Of immediate concern was whether the toxicity
and quantity of the chemicals involved in the fire would
necessitate the evacuation of the nearby town.  Although it
had been determined that evacuation of the town was not
necessary, State and Federal authorities warned all persons

-------
who were in direct contact with the explosion scene to take
extra precautionary measures with clothing and equipment
because of possible toxic contamination.
     The incident claimed 6 lives and injured 12 from the
work force on site at the time; all were from various
contractors who were doing specialized maintenance work.  In
addition, about 40 firemen were admitted to the local hospital
for smoke inhalation and released after treatment.
     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 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.
     The ensuing fire, which also involved pesticide wastes,
     was extinguished by local firemen.  Afterwards, the
     firemen had to be examined at a local hospital to ensure
     that they suffered no exposure to pesticide fumes or
     dusts.1
     A hauler was unloading drums of flammable waste from
     a truck at a disposal site in California.  One of the
     drums, when disturbed, exploded or ruptured and the
     truck was immediately engulfed in flames.  The truck
                                           2
     was a total loss, but no one was hurt.
     While burying drums containing an unknown waste, a bull.

-------
dozer operator at a Waste disposal landfill in
Genessee County, Michigan began experiencing dizziness
and eye irritation.  As a result, he left his bulldozer
and upon returning found the machine in flames.  Evidently,
some of the drums contained volatile and flammable
substances, which ignited while he was gone.  The operator
was not injured, but damage to his bulldozer was estimated
at $10,000.3
On September 18, 1975, a man was fatally burned when
the compacter that he was operating struck a 55-gallon
drum of ethyl acetate.  He died three days later from
second and third degree burns.  The machine that he had
been operating  (valued at $100,000) was a total loss.
     The incident occurred after a scavenger/hauler
had deposited a load at a landfill, in Cook County, Illinois,
It is a 24-hour operation, and the delivery was made
in the dark hours of the morning.  The load had
contained two 55-gallon drums of ethyl acetate, the
first of which settled several feet into the fill and
the second - the one struck by the employee's machine
- settled on the surface.  The identity of the waste
generator and hauler was discovered from the label
on the remaining drum.
     CID was cleared of responsibility for the incident
as the landfill had a supplemental permit for hazardous
waste.  The employees family has a civil suit pending
against the waste generator and the waste hauler.4

-------
     Two serious fires occurred at Landfill  in St. Claire
     County,  Illinois during compaction operations On August
     29, 1973 and on April 4,  1974.   Both fires burned  for
     several days and were difficult to extinguish.  The
     specific cause is not known but the site  has accepted
     various industrial wastes for more than ten years.
     Some of these wastes came from Chrysler Corporation and
     Mallinckrodt Chemical Works and included  solvents  (phenols)
     and wastes from plastics manufacture.   The site no longer
     accepts barrels of unknown chemicals and  has obtained  a
     permit to dispose of nonhazardous industrial wastes.
     In October 1974, a bulldozer operator was killed in an
     explosion at an industrial landfill in  Edison Township,
     New Jersey, as he was burying and compacting several  55-
     gallon drums of unidentified chemical wastes.  The victim
     died as a result of burns covering approximately 85%  of
     his body.
     These cases all display the same mode of  occurrence,   it
appears, however, that actual handling of flammables is not
the only way fires involving hazardous waste originate.
Incompatible or highly reactive wastes in contact with  com-
bustibles which can act as fuel are also a source, as
illustrated by the following two incidents.
     At a dump in Contra Costa County, California, a large
     number of drums containing solvents were  deposited in a
     landfill area along with leaking containers of concen-
     trated mineral acid and several bags containing berylii^
     waste in dust  form.  The operators failed to cover  the
                                   10

-------
     wastes at the end of the day as is customary, and the
     solvents and acids interacted that night causing a large
     chemical fire.  Firemen and a nearby community might
                                                         7
     have been exposed to beryllium dust during the fire.
     The Wonewac Dump, in Juneau County, Wisconsin, has been
     the site of many fires involving wastes.  Fires would
     start when waste batteries shorted out and ignited sur-
     rounding combustible wastes.  One such fire occurred on
     February 12, 1974, and was visible for three miles.
     Small explosions in the fire caused scraps of metal to
     strike an investigating police officer and his squad
     car.
     Apart from the direct ignition of flammable wastes, which
appears to be the primary source of fires at H.H. facilities,
there is always the possibility that an ordinary fire starting
within some structure containing hazardous waste, for instance
a building where wastes are treated or stored, may lead to the
combustion of the waste themselves.  While the following
incident did not involve wastes, the stored material is no
more hazardous than the components of many industrial wastes.
Also, it serves to illustrate the potential for combustion of
wastes due to a fire with its primary source elsewhere.
     In April 1971, a fire occurred in a warehouse, Okanogen
     County, Washington, where about two tons of pesticides
     were stored, including guthion, parathion, endrin,
     dieldrin, DDT, and other chlorinated hydrocarbons.

-------
     Nearly 50 tons of fertilizer were also stored in the
     building.  Toxic emissions from the burning of these
     chemicals forced the evacuation of nearby residents.
     Officials also feared the possibility of explosions
     caused by the fertilizers.
          Nearly two million gallons of water were required
     to extinguish the fire.  Much of this water spilled into
     the street and flowed through gutters and storm 'sewers to
     the Okanogen River 1/2 mile away.  Endrin at a level of
     8-ppm was detected in the run-off into the river in
     in early April.  Also, a city well about 500 feet
     from the fire site showed a nitrate concentration of
     34.4 ppm in early June.  While this was still within
     the USPHS recommended drinking water standard of 45
     ppm, expectant mothers and small children were
     cautioned to avoid drinking the city water for a
                                            Q
     period of two weeks after the incident.
     Spills have also been a major hazard to human health and
environmental damage as documented by numerous incidents in
HWMD's damage files.
     Nuclear Fuel Service, Inc., disposes of containerized
radioactive reactor wastes into large trenches in West Valley
New York, and buried them for indefinite storage.  Most
trenches are located in an impervious clay and do not permit
water to percolate through the wastes.  Three trenches, however
became waterlogged in early 1975 and discharged wastes con-
taining radioactive strontium 90,  cesium 137, and tritium into

-------
the Cattaraugus River.  The New York Department of Environmental
Conservation ordered the company to stop receiving wastes until
the problem was solved.  Millions of gallons of water from the
trenches were processed for strontium, cesium, and tritium and
the leaking trenches abandoned.  This prompt treatment pre-
vented massive leakage into the river.  The company has resumed
operation and no further problems with its other trenches have
been reported.
     For several years, Mill Service, Inc. has operated a waste
treatment and disposal facility at South Huntingdon Township,
Pennsylvania, accepting approximately 90,000 gallons per day of
spent pickle liquors from Pittsburgh area steel mills.  In
November and December of 1974, acid waste discharged from the
supernatant on a sludge pond and poured into Sewickley Creek.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources ordered
the company to shut down until the pond walls were built up
and a new lined pond was constructed to receive wastes.  The
company has recently resumed operations.
     On September 27, 1972, heavy rains broke the earthen dike
of a former refinery waste lagoon which is currently owned by
Pleasant Township, Pennsylvania.  The released sludge entered
the Allegheny River and killed about 450,000 fish with an
estimated value of $75,000 along a 60-mile stretch.  Analysis of
the discharge entering the river at that time indicated the
following:  pH 1.7; COD 116,112ppm; iron 507.3 ppm; sulfates
56.5 ppm.  To stop the leak, the town built up the lagoon bank
and also has been adding clean fill as available.  Monitoring

-------
wells dug near the lagoon show that the groundwater quality
still is degraded.
     In February 1973, approximately 280,000 gallons of water
and 75,000 gallons of latex paint sludge were released into
Billiard Creek from a waste disposal lagoon of the Sherwin
Williams Company at Gibbsboro, New Jersey.  The sludge contained
high quantities of lead and mercury.  The dike wall, made of
sand, was washed out as a result of heavy rain.  The sludge was
detected in Billiard Creek down to about 3/4 mile downstream
from the source.  No significant environmental damage was
detected, although the recovered sludge contained 2,300ppm
lead and 17.2 ppm mercury (both determinations on dry sludge
basis).  A successful cleanup operation was performed by the
company.
     In October 1973, Chemquid Disposal, Inc. was fined
$24,000 by the Superior Court in Hackensack for spilling fish-
killing chemicals into a small creek in the Hackensack
Meadowlands of New Jersey.  The spill had occurred during the
previous New Year's weekend from a Chemquid truck parked
behind company offices on Route 20.  The company was in the
business of dumping liquid wastes from chemical companies at
landfills.
     Agway, Inc., of Chemung County, New York, operated a
fertilizer manufacturing plant at Big Flats, dumping waste
nitrate materials into a lagoon.  In the mid 1960's the
lagoon discharged a large volume of nitrates into the.
surrounding soil.  This discharge leached through the soil

-------
to the water table, and contaminated nearby wells.  Soon
approximately 20 domestic wells had nitrate levels above
100 ppm and were unusable for drinking.  The affected
families had to drink bottled water for several years until
a public water supply line became available to most residents.
The others finally regained use. of their wells as the nitrates
flushed out of the aquifer.  After this incident, Agway
abandoned use of the lagoon, placing its wastes on agricultural
lands as fertilizer.
     On October 27, 1968, a waste storage lagoon ruptured on the
plant site of the American International Refining Corporation
in Butler County, Pennsylvania, spilling waste sludge-containing
oils, acid wastes, and alkyl benzene sulfonate into the south
branch of Bear Creek.  The sludge flowed three miles down-
stream into the Allegheny River, killing an estimated 4.5
million fish valued at $108,000.  Because the company was in
poor financial condition, only a little over $20,000 in fines
was levied to cover the damage.

-------

-------
BD-17
                  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
                  Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
                  Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners
                                 and Operators of Hazardous
                                 Treatment, Storage, and
                                 Disposal Facilities.
                          DRAFT
                   BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
   Section  250.43-4  Standards for Training
                   U.S Environmental  Protection Agency
                      Office of  Solid Waste
                      December 15,  1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support

for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface

water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges

and emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and

disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being made

available as a draft for comment.  As new information is

obtained, changes may be made in the regulations, as well

as in the background material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and

has been revised to reflect information received and Agency

decisions made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed

Section 3004 regulations shortly before their publication

in the Federal Register-.  We have tried to ensure that all

of those decisions are reflected in this document.  If

there are any inconsistencies between the proposal (the

preamble and the regulation) and this background document,

however, the proposal is controlling.


     Comments in writing may be made to:


     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste
     Hazardous Waste Management Division  (WH-565)
     401 M Street, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                 Table of Contents
I.  Introduction
II.  Rationale for the Regulations
     A Damage Incidents
III.  Identification of Regulatory Options


IV.  Analysis of Regulatory Options
V.  Identification of Chosen Regulation
     Associated Rationale.

-------
              Background Document for Training

I.   Introduction
     The Congress of the United States, via Section 3004,
Subtitle C, of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 (PL 94-580) , mandates the Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate
regulations establishing standards applicable to owners and
operators of hazarodus waste facilities for the "training
for personnel" (employed at such facilities)" as may be
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
     Within the context of this docment, the pertinent terms
are defined as follows:
     "Training" m#MS formal instruction, supplementing
an employee's existing job knowledge, designed to protect
human health and the environment via attendance and successful
completion of a course of instruction in hazardous waste
management procedures including contingency plan implementation
relevant to those operations, at which the employee is
employed, at the facility.

     "Facility" means any land and appurtenances thereto
used for the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous
waste.

     "Contingency Plan" means an organized, planned,
coordinated course of action to be followed in the event
of a fire, discharge, or explosion which has the potential

                          4

-------
for endangering human health and the environment.







      "Regional Administrator" means the Regional Administrator



for the Environmental Protection Agency Region in which the



facility concerned is located, or his designee.







II.   Rationale for the regulations.



      The need for a comprehensive training program in



hazardous waste management is best supported by the fact



that  numerous incidents of human health and environmental



damage have occurred.  All of these incidents involve



poor  disposal and treatment techniques, errors in human



judgements, or other forms of improper waste management



resulting at least in part from a lack of training.



Actual cases citing lack of training as a direct cause are



rare  because such admission would be embarrassing and possibly



incriminating.  Even in cases where lack of training is obviously



involved, such as facility accidents, it is overshadowed by



economic factors which encourage disposal to be performed via the



cheapest (and usually most hazardous) method possible.  Additionally



when  accidents do occur the acute effects are normally



localized, involving employees and facility property, not



immediately affecting public health or the larger



environment.  However, the chronic effects of such accidents



(discharges, fires, explosions, etc.) have the potential

-------
to damage or degrade human health and/or the environment,
making such accidents an EPA concern.  A facility that
practices haphazard disposal  (or more appropriately.,
hazardous waste mismanagement) and has a philosophy negligent
of worker safety cannot be cognizant of public health and
environmental concerns.  The Kentucky State Department of
Health (1971) observed that both employer and employee are
willing to disregard known health hazards to achieve greater
production and profit.  The K.S.D.H.  (Kentucky State Department
of Health) concluded that in order to counter this tendency
a systematic and large-scale educational program will be
needed.

A)   Actual Damage Incidents.- -
     A notorious example of flagrant disregard for known
health hazards is the New Jersey landfill, Kin-Buc, (U.S.
EPA Publication No. 530/S.W. 151/June, 1975).  in October
1974, a bulldozer operator was killed in an explosion there
while burying and compacting several 55-gallon drums of
unidentified chemical wastes.  A subsequent investigation by
OSHA revealed that explosions and fires on the lift (working
face of the landfill) were commonplace.  Workers complained
that they received virtually no job or safety related traininq
The Kin-Buc situation is unfortunately not exceptional.
Results of a 1974 investigation of 10 landfill sites by R.c.
Keen (1975), showed that in many instances the operators
were exposed to potential hazards due to the nature of the

                          (c

-------
 operation and the  dangerous materials handled.   There was
 a noteable lack of supervision  and knowledge on  the  part of
 the operators.   Keen  suggests that qualified supervision and
 training courses be provided at each site.

      The following incidents did not occur  on  the  active
 portion of a hazardous  waste facility,  however,  these incidents
 do illustrate the  resulting damage to human life associated
 with the lack of training.

      The truck looked like hundreds of  others  that pass
 through this tiny  south Georgia town.   It was  on fire, and
 the volunteer firefighters were there quickly  to put it out.
 But they ignored - or the flames obscured - the  signs on the
 sides of the truck.   The signs  warned of "explosives," and
 within minutes, the cargo of dynamite blew  up, killing the
 entire fire department.

      Two years ago in Waverly,  Tennessee, a train  derailed.
 When nothing exploded immediately, crews cleared the track
 and train traffic  resumed.  Two days later, a  propane gas
 tanker - its walls damaged by the accident  - exploded
without warning and killed those nearby.  They happened
to  be  the fire  department chief, the police chief  and a
number of firemen.
                         7

-------
     The victims of increasingly frequent spills of hazardous
substances are most often firemen and other rescue workers.
Many officials explain that the firemen usually arrive
first and don't know what to do when they get there.
The Chief of the Jacksonville Fire Department's Hazardous Materials
Team stated that - "The fire service as a whole is not prepared
for hazardous materials incidents.  "We do lack in many areas
of training in hazardous materials," said the Hillsborough
County Fire Marshal, "I don't think any of us really feel
adequate in handling these hazardous materials," said Hillsborough
County director of emergency preparedness.
     The aforementioned damage cases have common.denominator -
training, or more specif ically, the lack of training.  if, i
fact, training is non-existent at the professional emergency
response team level, this further reinforces the need for
training at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities which treat
store and dispose of a variety of wastes capable of creating a
disastrous condition which has the potential to severely damaae
human health and the environment.

     The passing of RCRA, by Congress, provides an excellent
rationale and impetus for developing training regulations.
Hazardous waste management will, ber necessity, experience
new  technological advances and will correspondingly increase
 in sophistication.

-------
                     Such advances,  as well as increased
 demands for improved operating efficiency, will tremendously
 increase the need for a more highly-skilled and expanded
 work force at both the professional and subprofessional
 levels.

 B)    The potential damage to human  health and the environment
 resulting from a lack of training,  which is subject to
 regulation, is best illustrated in  the aforementioned damage
 incidents.

 III.  Identification of .regulatory-.options.
      (State, Federal, Local)
 A)    Specific Standards mandated by RCRA.
      Congress has authorized the Administrator to promulgate
 regulations establishing such performance  standards,  applicable
 to owners and operators of facilities for  the treatment,
 storage,  or disposal of hazardous waste  identified or listed
 under Subtitle C,  as may be  necessary to protect  human  health
 and the environment.   Such standards  shall include, but need
 not be limited to,  requirements  respecting training for
 personnel.

B)    Existing Federal,  State  or  local  regulations  that  could
      be adopted.

                           9

-------
State of California...
     60247.  Personnel Requirements for Operator.   (a)  The
     operator of a hazardous waste facility shall  maintain
     personnel at the facility as necessary to provide
     effective and timely action with regard to operation,
     maintenance, environmental controls, records, emergencies
     and health and safety.
       (b)   The operator shall provide at the facility  at
     least one qualified person who is able to conduct  field
     tests of wastes for at least pH and flammability if
     appropriate, when hazardous waste is accepted, except
     when the characteristics of the waste have been represented
     by sampling of previously accepted loads of waste  from the
     same source.
       (c)   The operator of a hazardous waste facility  shall
     provide adequate supervision to ensure that the operation
     of the facility and the activities conducted  at the
     facility are in compliance with all applicable laws,
     regulations, permit conditions and other requirements.
     The Department and local fire authority shall be kept
     currently advised of the names, addresses and telephone
     numbers, including emergency telephone numbers, of the
     operator, station manager and supervisor.

State of New York...
SECTION 360.7 Facility Operator Requirements
(a)  Within 18 months after the effective date of  this Part,

-------
     employees in responsible charge at existing sanitary
     landfills, secure landburial facilities, incinerators
     and other facilities as directed by the Department,
     shall have attended and successfully completed a
     course of instruction in solid waste management pro-
     cedures relevant to the facility at which they are
     employed.  Such courses shall be provided or approved
     by the Department.
(b)  Employees in responsible charge at new facilities of
     the types listed in (a) above, and new employees in
     responsible charge at existing facilities of the types
     listed in (a) above, shall have 12 months from their
     date of employment to attend and successfully complete
     a course of instruction.
(c)  The Department shall issue a certificate of attendance
     to each employee successfully completing a training
     course.  Attendance at a Department approved course
     prior to promulgation of these rules and regulations
     shall adequately satisfy these training requirements.

State of Washington...
     Wac 173-302-320  PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS.  The operator
shall maintain adequate numbers of qualified personnel at
the disposal site to provide effective and timely action for
operation, maintenance, environmental controls, records,
emergencies, health and safety, according to the approved
yearly operating plan.

-------
     As a minimum, the operator shall provide personnel
having knowledge and background in the following areas:
     (1)  Inspecting and checking manifests for completeness
and  accuracy;
     (2)  Applied chemistry as it relates to reactivity,
explosiveness, and flammability; and
     (3)  Industrial hygiene and/or toxicology of industrial,
commercial, and agricultural chemicals, and emergency
procedures.

State of Minnesota has the following proposed training
regulation.
     The facility permittee shall have facility personnel
trained and instructed as specified in the operations manual
shal 1 make available - to -the *Diree tor -recordsr thratr doctmrerrtr---—
that such training and instruction has been given to facility
personnel, and shall take all reasonable efforts to insure
that procedures outlined in the operations manual are carried
out by facility personnel.

IV   Analysis of regulatory options.
     Option I...
     Adoption of proposed or implemented state regulations
or guidelines from:
     A)   California
     B)   New York
     C)   Minnesota
     D)   Washington

-------
 Option II...
      Personnel  must  take  a  specified minimum  amount of
 training relevant to hazardous waste management.

      This regulatory option is prescriptive on  a  temporal
 basis.   It guarantees that  hazardous waste facility personnel
 will  receive  an as yet to be specified minimum  amount of
 training on hazardous waste management  (e. g. 80h).  Establishing
 a minimum,  time period will be difficult because  EPA does not
 have  a sufficient data base to either justify or  accurately
 specify one.  Development of a supportive data  base in the time
 period alotted  would be difficult to accomplish.   Furthermore,
 the minimum amount and kinds of training needed varies widely
 between personnel and therefore cannot be generalized.
 Consequently, any number  chosen would either  require too
much  training for some people or too little for others.

      One advantage of this  option is its flexibility.  The
 training period can  be increased to encompass new subject
material.   Additionally,  no subject areas are specified,
therefore both  course content and length can be tailored
to the  needs  of the  trainees.  This is desireable  since
the needs of  the trainees vary by job position, facility
and geographic  location.  Ideally, designation  of  course
curricula and length of program will be the responsibility
of the  permitting officials,  who are in a position to best
assess  the  needs of  their areas.

                             /3

-------
     Although training programs might vary from one Region
or State to the next, enforcement would not be difficult
because on a national level the specified minimum training
period would be uniform, making compliance easy to ascertain.
Determining the effectiveness of the program would pose a
problem under these circumstances.

     Another problem with this approach is that the length of
a course is at best only a rough indication of the value of a
training program.  For example, all 2 week courses, even in
the same subject, will not provide equal amounts of training
Subjective items such as instructor quality and course
organization can greatly affect the value of the training and
cannot be quantified as. part, of a regulation..

Option III...
     Personnel must be trained to perform their job(s) with
a degree of proficiency and awareness that ensures protection
of public health and the environment.

     This option can be categorized as a general performanc
standard.  It explicitly cites the objective to be achieved
by training; "job performance with a degree of proficiency and
awareness that ensures protection of human health and the
environment."  This has the advantage of reducing misinterpretati
and circumvention of the designated objective.

-------
     Option III is similar to Option II in that neither
specify subject areas therefore both possess the same
advantages.  Additionally, Option III does not designate
a required minimum training period, making it more flexible
than the previous option.  Specifying a minimum amount of
training may not be necessary if the stated objective  (in
Option III) can be fulfilled.

     The flexibility of Option III encourages the innovation
needed to improve and develop methods of training capable of
achieving the desired objective.  The drawback is that a
uniform method of determining whether or not the training
program is reaching its goal is not specified.  The burden of
developing such a method would be on the permitting official.
Because flexibility may breed curricular diversity combined
with variable training it may not be possible to ascertain
the effectiveness of the program on a uniform scale.
Accordingly, this regulation could be implemented in a
nonuniform and unfair manner.

Option IV
     Personnel must be trained to perform their job(s) with
a degree of proficiency that insures protection of public
health and the environment.  Training shall include but shall
not be limited to the following areas:
     A)   Environmental awareness
     B)   Contingency procedures

-------
     C)   Environmental sampling and monitoring
     D)   Basic skills
     E)   Treatment processes and systems
     F)   Equipment operation and maintenance
     G)   Regulations
     H)   Handling procedures

     Option IV is the same as Option III except it specifices
subject areas thought to be essential in reaching the objective
of "job performance with a degree of proficiency and awareness
that ensures protection of public health and the environment. "
It has the same advantages and disadvantages, as Options II
and III that are associated with not specifying the length of
the course.  This will allow for a tailoring of the program
to meet the varied needs of the trainees.

     The designation of required subject areas lends uniformity
to the training program.  Uniformity facilitates program
implementation.  Ascertaining the effectiveness of the proaram
                           ir-
may be difficult due to dif£ences in program length and level
of subject presentation.  This disadvantage seems unavoidable
if the diverse needs of the trainees are to be catered to.

     Another problem associated with specifying the course
curriculum is that the subject areas identified may be incomplete
or some may be unnecessary.  The general consensus from meetings

-------
with industry and government suggests that the subject
areas identified are viable.

     A variation of Option IV would be to implement the
specified subject areas as guidelines.  Compensation for
addition or deletion of courses would be greatly facilit .ated,
However, if compliance is not mandatory this option may
be no better or worse than Option III.

Option V
     Adoption of the proposed 3004 regulations.
V    The chosen regulations with applicable rationale are
as follows:
     250.43—4  Training.
      (a)  Within six  (6) months after the effective date of
these regulations, or date of employment, personnel at new
and existing facilities shall have attended and successfully
completed a course of instruction in hazardous waste management
procedures, as prescribed in EPA's "Training Manual" for
owners/operators of facilities relevant to those operations,
at which the employee is employed, at the facility.

     The intent of the above regulation is to identify
the course of instruction administered and to ensure that

-------
     whe training has been satisfactorily completed.
     (b)  Owners/Operators of facilities for the treatment,
storage or disposal of hazardous wastes shall
     (1)  maintain the following records, and make them
available to the Regional Administrator upon request:
          (i)  a list of the job titles of all
               positions at the facility related to hazardous
               waste management.
         (ii)  a written job description for each position
               listed under (b)(1) (i) which shall include
               the requisite skill,  education, responsibilites
               and duties related to each position;
         (iii)  a written description of the type and quantity
               of introductory and continuing training that
               will be administered to each person filling a
               position listed under (b)(1)(i).
          (iv)  records that document that the training required
               under  (a), has been administered to facility
               personnel;

     The intent of the above regulation  is to identify the
position associated with hazardous waste management; discern
the training needs of each position; maintain recorded
evidence that  training had-been administered.

      (2)  have their  personnel  trained  in contingency
procedures  as  prescribed  in the facility's  contingency plan
required under Section  250.43-3,  and
                         ir

-------
      (3)  have their personnel take part in an annual



review and update of their initial training in contingency



procedures, and other hazardous waste management procedures



relevant to those operations, at which the employee is



employed, at the facility.







Section 250.43-3 provides for a Contingency Plan and Emergency



Procedures at facilities.  To ensure positive implementation



of the Plan, training relevant to the procedures of the Plan



and annual physical participation is essential.

-------

-------
BD-18
                   Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act
                   Subtitle  C - Hazardous Waste Management
         Section  3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators
                       of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage,  and
                       Disposal Facilities.
                                  DRAFT
                            BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
 Section 250.43-5 Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
                   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                           Office of Solid Waste
                             December 15, 1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface
water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges and
emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being issued as a draft to
support the proposed regulations.  As new information is obtained,
changes may be made In the regulations as well as in this back-
ground material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and has been
revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions made
since then.  EPA made changes In the proposed Section 3004
regulations shortly before their publication In the Federal
Register.  We have tried to ensure that all of those decisions
are reflected in this document.  If there are any inconsistencies
between the proposal (the preamble and the regulation) and this
background document, however, the proposal is controlling.

Comments in writing may be made to:

     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste
     Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
     401 M St., S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

Legislative Authority

     Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-
580, hereinafter called the Act), creates a framework to control
hazardous waste.  Congress has found that such waste presents
"special dangers to health and requires a greater degree of
regulation than does nonhazardous solid waste"  (Sec. 1002(b)
(5).  Because of the seriousness of this waste problem.  Congress
intended that the States develop programs to control it.  In the
event that States do not choose to operate this program, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1s mandated to do so.

     Subtitle C creates a management control system which for
those wastes defined as hazardous requires "cradle-to-grave"
cognizance, including appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting throughout the system.  Section 3001 requires EPA to
define criteria and methods for identifying and listing hazardous
wastes.  Those wastes which are identified or listed
                                  - 2  -

-------
 as  hazardous  by these means  are  then  included  in  the management
 control  system constructed under Section  3002-3005  and  3010.
 Those  that are excluded will  be  subject to  the requirements  for
 nonhazardous  solid waste  being carried out  by  States under
 Subtitle D under which open  dumping is prohibited and environ-
 mentally acceptable  practices are required.

 Background and Alternatives

                  Section  3004 -  Standards Applicable to
                  Owners and  Operators of  Hazardous  Waste
                Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities

     Section  3004 standards  define the levels  of  environmental
 protection to be achieved by hazardous waste treatment, storage,
 and disposal  facilities (hereinafter  referred  to  as hazardous
 waste  facility(ies)  or facility(ies)  and  provide  the criteria
 against  which EPA officials  will  measure  applications for permits.

     These facility  standards are key provisions  in the structure
 regulating the handling of hazardous  waste.  The manifest is
 Initiated by  the generator,  carried by the  transporter  and is
 completed when such  wastes are received by  those who treat,
 store, or dispose of hazardous waste  and  is confirmed by return
 of  the original  manifest to  the  generator.

     Congress  mandated that  the  facility operator would maintain
 records  of all  hazardous waste handled, comply with the manifest
 system established under Section  3002, and periodically report to
 the  Administrator. 1,2

     Each  facility is to keep the following information on file
 as  part  of Us  record from which  periodic reports may be required:

     (1)    A copy of the manifest, which accompanied each shipment
 of  hazardous waste received;  and

     (2)    An  operating log.

     Each  facility must also  report periodically as specified:

     (1)   An  annual  report summarizing the Information  on
manifests  received;  and

     (2)   A quarterly report .of all  shipments  of hazardous waste
which are  not  accompanied  by a manifest or delivery document.

-------
     Congress realized that the major problems to be addressed in
the hazardous waste area are the lack of information concerning
the components, volumes, sources, and disposition of hazardous
waste.  To date;available information on hazardous waste generation
and disposal is limited to the narrow investigation of a handful
of States.  This has resulted in a lack of knowledge about the
actual volume of hazardous waste being generated and disposed, of
the geographical distribution of the facilities, and the extent
to which hazardous wastes are transported.

     Section 3002 (Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous
Waste) applies standards to persons producing hazardous waste.
These standards require the creation of a manifest, reporting,
and recordkeeping system which will track the wastes from the
point of generation to their ultimate disposition at hazardous
waste facility.^/k

                                Manifest

     The basis of section 3004 requirements for reporting and
recordkeeping is the manifest system established under section
3002.  There data provide the Administrator with the information
necessary to close the loop on hazardous waste movement.

     The manifest format (see Table IV for a sample manifest
format) was modeled after the Department of Transportation's
requirements for shipping papers.  Each shipment of hazardous
waste regulated by EPA must be accompanied by a copy of the
manifest just as each shipment of hazardous material regulated by
the Department of Transportation  (DOT)  must be accompanied by a
shipping paper.  The manifest is not a federal form but a format
containing information necessary in providing safe transport of
the waste.  The manifest is the tracking document which traces
the waste from the generator, to the transporter, and to the
hazardous waste facility.  Ultimately, the manifest is used by
the facility operator to develop the annual summary report.

                                Reporting

     The report (see Table I for a sample facility report form)
will be submitted by mail to the EPA Regional  Office within which
region the hazardous waste facility is located.  The type of
reporting required of the generator is a quarterly "exception
report and an annual "summary" report.
                                  -  4 -

-------
     The quarterly exception report is only submitted if a
shipment of hazardous waste is not accompanied by a manifest.

     The quarterly exception report will  contain the following
information:

     (a)   The facility's identification code, name, and address;

     (b)   The closing date of the annual reporting period;

     (c)   The word "unmanifested" under the column titled
"Manifest Document Number."

     (d)   The name and address of the source, if known, or
transporter.

     (e)   The name and common code of the hazardous waste
(under "Shippina Description"), by its Department of
Transportation (DOT) proper shipping name (49 CFR 172), or
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) name (as listed
under Section 250.14 of Subpart A of this Part), if the DOT
proper shipping name is not applicable.  However, if the DOT
proper shipping name contains the words "NOT OTHERWISE
SPECIFIED" (NOS) the EPA name and common code (as listed under
Section 250.14 of Subpart A of this Part) must also be designated
on the manifest -after the-HOST

     (f)   The quantity of each hazardous waste received;

     (g)   The units of volume or weight of each quantity in
pounds (P), tons (T), gallons (G), million gallons (MG), or cubic
yards (CY), and

     (h)   The certification:  "I have personally examined and am
familiar with the information submitted in this certification,
and I hereby certify under penalty of law that this information
is true, accurate, and complete.   I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including
the possibility of fine and imprisonment.";  and

     (i)   The signature of an authorized representative of the
facility owner or operator, and the date.

     The annual summary report will contain  the following in-
formation:

     (a)   The facility's identification  code, name,  and address;

     (b)   The closing date of the annual reporting period;

-------
  ^ (c)   The identification code of each hazardous waste
generator from which a hazardous waste was received during the
reporting period (For international shipments, the name and
address of the generator shall be designated.);

     (d)   The name and common code of each hazardous waste
appearing on the manifest under "Shipping Description" which
was received from each hazardous waste generator;

     (e)   The quantity of each hazardous waste received from
each generator;

     (f)   The units of volume or weight of each quantity in
pounds (P), tons (T), gallons (6), million gallons (MG), or
cubic yards (CY);

     (g)   The method of treatment, storage, or disposal for
each specific waste;

     (h)   The certification:  "I have personally examined
and am familiar with the information submitted in this certica-
tion, and I hereby certify under penalty of law that this
information is true, accurate, and complete.  I am aware
that there are significant penalities for submitting false
information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.";
and

     (i)   The signature of an authorized representatives of the
facility ownwe or operator and the date.

     Several ^ates (Texas, California, Illinois, etc.) have
hazardous waste management programs in operation today.  In
most cases the frequency of the reporting is on a shipment
by shipment basis or on a monthly basis where each shipment
occurring during the month of that report is listed (see
Table II Reporting, for a discussion of State reporting require-
ments).  The potential paper work impact on EPA and on the
regulated community make these alternate requirements un-
satisfactory compared to the Federal Program being proposed.
The Agency also investigated the possibility of a quarterly
or a semiannual report listing all shipments of hazardous waste.
This style of reporting potentially could facilitate enforce-
ment, but the task of managing such a large data base with
present and predicted resources would be difficult (see Table
III for paper flow impacts).  Therefore, it was determined that

-------
if enfor/cement is to be effective and if a manageable reporting
program is to be instituted only reports on shipments not
accompanied by a manifest should be submitted on a quarterly
basis and only a summary report on all hazardous waste treated,
stored, or disposed of be made annually.

     Each facility owner or operator also must prepare the
following other kinds' of reports and submit them by mail to
the EPA regional office within which region the facility is
located.

     (1)   A quarterly report based on monitoring data and
a report within 7 days after the discovery of any problem
detected by the monitoring system (see Table V Monitoring
Records and Reports, for State reporting requirements and
Tables VI and VII for samples of monitoring data report formats);

15'16 and

     (2)   A one time report on closure plans and procedures
before hazardous waste activities commence (see Table V Closure
Reports, for State Reporting requirements).  This report shall
include a description of how the facility shall be closed,
possible uses of the land after closure, and anticipated time
of closure.  Then, 15 days before partial closure of any treat-
ment or landfill operation and 90 days befc/e final closure of
a treatment facility or 180 days"~before flffal closure of "a
treatment facility or 180 days before final closure of a
disposal facility the administrator must be notified.17

     In addition to reporting, the facility owner or operator
is to call the National Response Center, U.S. Coast Guard,
toll free number or the government office predesignated in
the applicable regional contingency plan pursuant to 40 CFR
1540 immediately after discovery or any incident which has
the potential for human health or environmental damage or
which requires initiation of a contingency plan.18,19

     These reports, many of which are developed from the
facility's records and are required for many of the same
reasons, will assist the Administrator in the prevention of
harm to the facility personnel, the general public, and the
environment.  This 1s accomplished by balancing the facility
operations against its permit which was established prior to
the facility being allowed to handle hazardous waste and which
specifies the conditions under which such operations can be
conducted safely.20*2
                                 - 7  -

-------
     In the event that the permit was in error and human health
or environmental damage occucs; the reports act as a source of
information which can be used to prevent future problems in new
and existing facilities.22

                              Recordkeeping

     The recordkeeping requirement for quantities of hazardous
waste received and treated stored or^ disposed of at facilities
is the retention of the manifest for a period of three years.

     The recordkeeping requirement was modeled after state
requirements for similar situations and after industrial practices
(see Table V Recordkeeping, for State recordkeeping require-
ments).  It was found that records, such as shipping papers and
other related documents are retained for a period of years
ranging from one to ten.  In the majority of cases, however, such
documents are retained for three or more years.  Because the
manifest is the operator's only certification that the hazardous
waste was received at the facility and properly handled, and in
order to allow the minimum time for enforcement proceedings to
occur; a three year recordkeeping requirement was chosen.

                              OPERATING LOG

     The operating-log is a-record used by the facility owner or
operator to develop periodic reports mailed to the EPA regional
office within which region the facility is located.  These
reports will be used to determine if the facility is in compliance
with its permit established under section 3005 (permits for
Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities) and to assist the
Administrator in making inspections.

     The operating log will contain the following information:

     (1)   A description and analyses of each hazardous wast&and
its location in the facility if stored or landfilled.  This
information is necessary to ensure that the waste described on
the manifest is what is being received at the facility and that
only compatible wastes are stored or landfilled together in order
to prevent fires and explosions.  In addition to the prevention
of haphazard disturbance of very reactive wastes, the ability to
locate and to retrieve the waste from the landfill is important.
In the event that new technology is developed which can reprocess
or reuse such waste, landfills may in the future become areas of
new resources.  Further, if a public health or an environmental
                                 - 8  -

-------
damage incident occurs the source of the problem 1n the facility
can be pinpointed and corrected.   Thus, it is important that this
part of the operating log be retained until  closure of the
facility at which time it will be turned over to the Administrator
(see Table V Waste Location, records for State recordkeeping
requirements);?

     (2)   Groundwater and leachate monitoring data will be
recorded and filed on a quarterly and annual basis (see Tables VI
and VII .for sample formats for monitoring data records).  The
retention of monitoring data is necessary in order to measure and
to control the release of hazardous waste from the facility into
the environment.  This safeguard can prevent public health and
environmental damage.  These records will remain on file for a
period of three years.  The three year recordkeeping requirement
for monitoring data is based on current state regulations and
industrial practices (see Table V Monitoring Records and Reports,
for State recordkeeping Requirements):8,9

     (3)   The results of daily visual inspections, facility
operating conditions (I.E., temperature, pressure, fedrate,
etc.). and incidents requiring the initiation of a contingency
plan or resulting in human health or environmental damage will be
recorded and filed for a period of three years.10,11 Inspections,
operating conditions, and incident records are key in predicting
problem areas-at 'the - facility*- Th4s -information is-nat-'onJy
useful in predicting problems and in determining if a facility is
in compliance with its permit but also acts as a source of needed
data for the creation of new facilities.  If problem areas are
documented new facilities will pose less of a threat to public
health and the environment;12 and

     (4)   Training records of facility personnel slving job
title, skills, education, job related responsibilities, and on
the job training will be retained until facility closure.  It has
been documented  1n EPA damage files, that in the past, persons
handling hazardous waste have been unaware of the dangers In-
volved in their  job.13  Congress has specifically mandated that
personnel working .at such facilities be trained and made aware of
such risks.14  In order that facility personnel be protected, as
provided for by  the Act, such training and records will become a
permanent part of an employee's file.
                                    -  9 -

-------
                                FOOTNOTES

1    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, U.S.  Code,
     Vol. 42, sec. 3004 (1976).

2    U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H. Doc.  94th Cong.,
     2d sess., 1491, pp. 28, 57.

3    U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H. Doc.  94th Cong.,p. 2&.

4    Ibid, pg. 26.

5    Ibid, pp. 2, 26, 56.

6    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, U.S.  Code,
     Vol. 42, sec.  3002 (1976).

7    U.S., Congress, House, Report of the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H. Doc.  94th Congress,
     2d, sess., 1491, pp.  6, 18,  57.

8    Ibid, pp. 28, 57.

9    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, U.S.  Code,
     Vol. 42, sec. 3004 (1976).

10   Ibid.

11   U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H. Doc.  94th Cong.,
     2d Sess., 1491, pp. 6, 28.

12   Ibid, pp. 7.

13   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,  "Damage Cases,"
     (EPA Docket, 1978).

14   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. U.S.  Code, Vol.
     42, sec. 3004 (1976).

15   U.S. Congress, House, Report of  the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce. H. Doc.  94th Cong.,
     2d sess., 1491, pg. 28.
                                  -  10 -

-------
16   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,  U.S.  Code,
     Vol. 42, sec.  3004 (1976).

17   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,  U.S.  Code,
     Vol. 42, sec.  3004 (1976).

18   Ibid.

19   U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H. Doc.  94th Cong.,
     2d sess., 1491, p. 28.

20   Ibid, pp. 7, 28.

21   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,  U.S.  Code,
     Vol. 42, sec.  3004 (1976).

22   U.S. Congress, House, Report of the Committee on
     Interstate and Foreign Commerce, H. Doc.  94th Cong.,
     2d sess., 1491 p.  6.
                               -  11  -

-------
                                                                         Form  Appox.
                                                                         QMS  No.
                                       TABLE  I
                       TSOF (TREATMENT, STORAGE OR DISPOSAL FACILITIES) REPORT
                                          IDENTIFICATION"
NAME
ADDRESS












MANIFEST poniHFHT NO.











-




CL'O'SING DATE
I4STP INFORMATION 	
SHTPPTNR nrSfffTPTTHN 	











ftWnriTY











UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT

•








COMMENT'S
1 certily that  the aoove information 1s correct to the best of my Knowledge and belief
                       Signature
                                                                      Date
                                               -  12  -

-------
                                TABLE II

 Reporting

     Several States currently have regulations respecting reporting,
based on manifests as described below:

     The Texas Water Quality Board requires receivers of Class I
waste to compile a monthly Receipt Summary from their copies of
shipping tickets.  These reports are to be transmitted to the
Texas Water Quality Board by the 25th day of each month for all
shipments originating (shipped) during the prior month.  The
quantity and classification of waste shall be itemized by shipping
ticket number on reporting forms provided by the Board.  Generators
(persons producing hazardous waste) who dispose of Class I wastes
on-site may also be required to compile an Annual Disposal Summary
from their records of these activities to be submitted to the
Board.  If such a summary is required, the dates of reporting are
determined by the Executive Director of the Board.

     Minnesota's proposed regulations for hazardous waste manage-
ment would require a facility permittee to submit a monthly
summary to the Director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
for all wastes which have been managed during the previous month
as specified in the Agency permit.
     California's proposed .regulatioosu
hazardous waste disposal sites to send legible copies of all
completed hazardous waste manifests to the Department on a monthly
basis.  Also, under these regulations, operators of off-site
hazardous waste disposal sites are required to submit to the
Department by the 15th day of each month a report which includes
the following:

     1.   the amount of fees due and paid to the owner the
          previous month,

     2.   information on hazardous waste delivered to him
          during the previous month other than by pipeline,
          consisting of a legible copy of the complete manifest
          for each load of hazardous waste accepted, and a
          report that summarizes the numbers of loads of haz-
          ardous waste received, disposed, of on land, and
          applied to land.

     3.   Information on hazardqus waste delivered to him during
          the previous month by pipeline, consisting of a
          record of each hazardous waste disposed of during the
          previous month, showing the Identity, source, chemical
          composition, weight or volume, physical  state,  haz-
          ardous properties, and method used to dispose of each
          waste.
                                - 13  -

-------
     Operators of on-site hazardous waste disposal  sites  will  be
required to submit a monthly report to the Department by  the 15th
day of each month.  These reports must include:

     1.   a record of each hazardous waste disposed of during
          the previous month, showing the identity, source,
          chemical composition, weight or volume, physical  state,
          container type, hazardous properties and  method used
          to dispose of each waste;

     2.   a report that summarizes the amount of fees due and
          paid to the Department for that month.

     Regulations of Washington's Department of Ecology would
require hazardous waste facilities to report the original manifests
collected during the previous month, complete financial reports
during the previous year, and copies of all written requests for
disposal of waste at a site within one week of their receipt.

     Regulations of New York's Department of Environmental  Con-
servation require simply that reports on forms acceptable to or
provided by the Department be submitted at a frequency specified
in the operation permit.

                                 TABLE III

Paper Flow Impacts

     The Hazardous Waste Management Division of EPA "Notification
System Supportive Services" study, contract No.  68-01-4631  Published
December 21, 1977, listed approximately .38 million generators of
hazardous waste.  The study "Characterization of Potential  Permittees
under Section 3005 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act"
Contract No. 08-01-4456 published June 8, 1977 estimated .45
million generators of hazardous waste,  Assume (1)  the average of
the two estimates to be the number of hazardous waste generators
regulated under Subtitle C Section 3002,

     (.38 + .45) X 10?     =    .42 X 1<#
and (2) that these generators are uniformly distributed among the
States.

     The Texas Water Quality Board has indicated that in the month
of May 1977 approximately 2500 tickets (manifests)  were issued by
600 to 1200 industrial generators.
                                 -  14  -

-------
      Assuming  the Texas experience is typical, and 3 manifests per
 generator  per  month as an average, then if the manifest were used
 as  the  report;
             6
      .42 X 10^ generators X 3 manifests/generator/month =

 1.26  X  1C£ manifests/month
      EPA would receive  1.26 million manifests per month or 126,000
manifests  per Region per month if no States assumed the hazardous
waste program.

      On the  other hand  assuming one monthly summary report per
generator  pjr one quarterly summary report per generator, then
                                  (>.
      1 report/ generator X .42 X lO/ generators =
             I*
      .42 X 10J? report/month or quarter

      Thus, EPA would be receiving 420,000 monthly or quarterly
summary reports or 42,000 monthly or quarterly report per Region
assuming no  States assume the hazardous waste program.

Paper flow impact on a  typical EPA Regional Office when comparing
manifest reporting to monthly, summary reports:

      126,000 manifest - 42.000 reports      X
             126,000

      100 = 66.7% decrease in paper flow impact when using a
                 monthly, summary report instead of the manifest
                 as the report.

 Paper flow  impact on a typical EPA Regional Office when comparing
manifest reporting to quarterly, summary reports;

      126,000 manifest   X  3 month/quarter  =  378,000 manifest/quarter
then,
       378.000 manifest  - 42.000 reports
             378,000

      X 100 = 88.9% decrease in paper flow impact when using a
                   quarterly, summary report Instead of the
                   manifest as the report.

Paper  flow impact on a typical EPA Regional Office when comparing
monthly, summary reports to quarterly, summary reports:
                              -  15 -

-------
     42,000 reports/month   X  3  months/quarter   =  126,000 reports/quarter
then,
      126,000 reports  -  42,000  reports
             126,000

     X 100 = 66.7% decrease  in  paper  flow  impact  when using
                   a quarterly, summary  report instead of a
                   monthly,  summary report.

Paper flow impact on a typical  EPA Regional Office when comparing
quarterly, summary reports to annual, summary reports;

     42,000 reports/quarter  X 4 quarters/year = 168,000 reports/year
                                             ;
      168,000 reports  -  42.000  reports X 100 =
             168,000

     75% decrease in paper flow impact when using
         an annual, summary  report instead of a
         quarterly, summary  report.
                             -  Ifi -

-------
                                                  TABLE  IV
                 HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST
                                                                            MANIFEST OOCUMSNT NUMBER
                                               IDENTIFICATION
1 .^.~-;".^.-.'.;;-\
CNCRATOR
MANSPONTS*
SO* (TREATMENT. 3TON-
«C OM O13POSAU rACIUITYl
I.O. CODE


-
NAMC



AOOMCSS



O»T« 5MIPPE
O* RECCIVEC

rfe^iSiif;*^,''
»v»X"'.S- >'•';";'••

                                             WASTE INFORMATION
SHIPPINS OCSCMtPTION
,
- -




HAZANO Cl-ASS





•
QUANTITY




t m

(Compl»t» AfflltuMu Column)
UNIT






SOMTAINCK Tff






                                          EMERGENCY INFORMATION
MEDIATE RESPONSE INFORMATION
                                                                                              PHONE NUMBKK
ECIAU HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS
IHMENTS
                                               CERTIFICATION
ifs is to certify that the above-named materials are properly classified, described, packaged, marked and labeled,
dare in proper condition for transportation according to the applicable regulations of the Department of Trans—
rtarion and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
                         GENERATOR SIGNATURE
                                                                                          DATE
his is to certify acceptance of the hazardous waste shipment.
                           ANSPOH TES
 ts is to certify acceptance of the haz.irrious u'as/e foe rreafmenr, storage, or disposal.
                                                                                          GATE
  p^/rn 3709-11 r^-7.-)

-------
Recordkeeping

     Common and contract carriers, as required by the Interstate
Commerce Commission for interstate transport and the State Public
Utility Commission or the State Public Service Commission (PUC/
PSC) for intrastate transport, require that a record be kept in the
form of a bill of lading, waybill, invoice, etc...  These documents
contain the following information:  the shipper's name, address,
etc., the transporter's name, etc., the consignee, the quantity of
the material, and description of the material.  Since these types
of records are currently being kept, EPA has developed the record-
keeping standards so as not to create additional  unnecessary paper
handling and storing.  The intent is to require that a record be
kept, which would contain information on the source and delivery
points of each shipment of the waste, date of pick-up and delivery,
quantity of waste transported, and description of waste.   The
record, therefore, could be a copy of the manifest (which may take
the form of the bill of lading, waybill, etc.,) thus requiring in
most cases the retention of records already being kept.

     The retention of the records should coincide with the statute
of limitations, or with existing Federal and State requirements.
State requirements for retention of shipping documents for intra-
state transport vary widely from one to to ten years (see Attachment
I) bored on the State Public Utility Commission (PUC) and Public
Service Commission (PSC) requirements reviewed.  When these State
Commissions had no recordkeeping requirement, the State  Health
Department or Department of Natural Resources regulations were
reviewed.  Sixteen State PUC's and PSC's require  the period of
retention of records to be three years.   In those States  with no
PUC and PSC requirements, two State Health Departments require
retention of records by waste haulers for a period of five years or
longer.  Therefore, a total  of twenty-seven States require retention
of records for at least three years.   Of the remaining twenty-four
States, ten have no recordkeeping requirements either by  the PUC or
Health Department; four have a one year retention requirement.

     Two States, Texas and Washington,  currently  have regulations
specificly requiring the retention of records for shipments  of
hazardous waste:

     Texas requires hazardous waste shipping tickets  to be kept by
facility operators, but does not specify the time period  for
 which such tickets whould be maintained.   Draft  regulations  of
                             -  18  -

-------
Washington would require hazardoutf waste  facility operators  to
retain at least one copy of the manifest  at the  disposal  site.
No deadline for how long the manifests  must be kept is  specified.
No other states require the maintenance of copies of hazardous
waste manifests.
                                     - 19  -

-------
                                                             ATTACHMENT I
           State Recordkeeping Requirements (Period of Retention in  Years)
State
Al abama
Alaska
Ari zona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut  •
District of Columbia
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Oennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Agency Requirement
Public Utility Comm.
Public Service Comm.

       *6
      **6
        2
        3
        3
        2
        2
       N.A.
       N.A.
         1
         3
         2
         5
       N.A.
       **2
      **10
         1
         5
       N.A.
         3
       N.A.
         3
       N.A.

         3
         3
       N.A.
         3
         3
         3
       N.A.
       N.A.
         3
         3
         3
       N.A.
         3
       N.A.
      ***2
         3
         1
         2
         2
       N.A.
          2
Other Agency Re-
quirements	
      N.A.
      *10 Health Dept,
      3 I EPA
      N.A.

      1 Health Dept.

      2 Dept. of  Natural
        Resource


      N.A.
      N.A.
      *5 DEP
      N.A.

      N.A.
       3  Health Dept.
                                          -  20  -

-------
Utah                             N.A.                            N.A.
Vermont                          N.A.                            N.A.
Virginia                         N.A.                            N.A.
Washington                         3
West Virginia                      5
Wisconsin                          6
Wyoming                          N.A.                            N.A.


                               *State  Regulations Pending
                                **Statute of Limitation
                               ***Records held for Audit
                                           -  21  -

-------
Waste Location Records

     Several States currently have regulations requiring records
on waste location as described below:

     Texas requires waste generators who dispose of hazardous
waste on-site to maintain records of their on-site disposal
activity,  As a minimum, these records are to include information
regarding the quantity, characteristics and classification of the
waste, and the method and location of disposal.  These records
must be kept a minimum of three years from the date of disposal or
shipment.  These facilities are also required to maintain copies
of shipping tickets.  The Texas Water Quality Board also provides
guidelines on the proper techniques of recording waste disposal at
hazardous waste management facilities.  These guidelines are:

     1.   Waste Disposal Records

          Purpose;  In addition to any internal operational
          information that a disposer may need, this Information
          may be needed for:

          a.   Periodic reports to the Texas Water Quality
               Board as required in regulations (Board Order
               No. 75-1125-1).

          b.   Entry to county deed records as required by Texas
               Water Quality Board regulations.  Validation of
               entry to county records will be kept available
               by the disposer.

     California presently requires operators of Class I and Class
II-l sites (generally those accepting hazardous wastes) to maintain
at their business address legible records of the volume and type
of Group I waste received at the site and the manner and location
of disposal.  Such records are required to be maintained for a
period of a least 10 years on forms used for liquid waste hauling.
If disposal operations cease, the records have to be forwarded to
the regional Water Resources Control  Board.

     California draft regulations are more explicit in their
recordkeeping requirements.  In these proposed standards, hazardous
waste operators are required to maintain at their business addresses
for a minimum of 3 years the following information:

     1.   The names, addresses and telephone numbers of the
          waste producer, hauler, processor and disposal site
          operator.
                                 -  22 -

-------
     2.   The source, identity,  chemical  composition,  volume,
          physical  state, container type  and hazardous properties
          of each load of waste  received, hauled or stored at
          the site.

     3.   The method used to process or dispose of each waste.

     4.   The date that each hazardous waste was received for
          storage.   Copies of completed manifests may  serve this
          purpose.

     Additionally, the operator of a hazardous waste disposal  site
where solid and hazardous wastes are not co-mingled will be required
to record on a grid or other suitable map the general  location
where hazardous wastes have been disposed of.  The ha/zardous
waste types shall be identified on the grid or map by  at least the
following separate types of waste where applicable:  acid solution,
alkaline solution, pesticides, paint sludge, solvent,  tetraethyl
lead sludge, chemical toilet waste, tank bottom sediment, oil
drilling mud, contaminated oil and sand,  and latex waste.

     Several states have drafted regulations respecting the
disposition and location of wastes at hazardous waste  management
facilities.
     The Washington Depariraent^f-£coJosy-^a^
requiring hazardous waste operators to maintain records at the
site for each burial trench and evaporation pond referenced to the
nearest USGS bench mark to define the exact location and boundaries
of each trench or pond.  A current copy of all such survey records
would have to be kept at the County Auditor's office.  The survey
records would have to contain the following information:

     1.   dimensions of the trench,

     2.   its relation to the marker,
                             W
     3.   volume and type of jsaste buried, and

     4.   dates of beginning and of completion of burial
          operations. '

     Draft regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control  Agency
(MPCA) would require records for both stored and disposed  hazardous
wastes.  Under these regulations a facility permittee would have
                                  - 23  -

-------
to maintain a log of  the date that each waste shipment arrives,
the name of the  generator of the shipment, the name of the trans-
porter who delivered  the shipment, the identity of the row or tank
in which the waste  is stored, and the date that the shipment
arrived from the facility (or date of processing).  For land
disposal facilities,  a  log or ledger will be required for each
cell and shall document the name of the generators of the wastes,
the date of acceptance  of each  shipment and amount in gallons or
tons, and the composite chemical composition.  The summarized
ledger is submitted to  the MPCA Director at the closure of each
cell, or before  such  time, if requested by the NPCA Director.

Monitoring Records  and  Reports

     Currently,  only  the State  of Texas has some  regulations
concerning recordkeeping or monitoring data (see  attachment  II for
sample form):

     Texas generally  requires hazardous waste disposal facilties
to maintain such a  groundwater  monitoring recordkeeping/reporting
system.  The Texas  Water Quality Board provides guidelines for
such a system:

     This system should include a record  system whereby samples
are regularly taken and analyzed.   The parameters analyzed would
normally include static water depths  in wells  (where  applicable),
pH and total dissolved  solids as well  as  other  ions  that  would be
expected to  be generated by  the disposal  activity.

      For each of these  parameters a  chart  should  be  originated
with  samples dates  shown  from left  to  right on  the horizontal axis
and  parameter concentrations  shown  on  the  vertical  axis.   Parameter
concentrations determined  by  analysis  should  be posted on the
chart.   Background  concentrations  of the  parameters  to be analyzed
should be  established prior  to  any  waste  disposal at the  site.
 Normally a  more  complete analysis  of the  groundwater at  the  site
which includes  parameters  that  will  not  be monitored on  a regular
 basis should be  completed.   This  will  provide  background  informa-
 tion on those  parameters which  have not  been  selected to  monitor
 the quality of the  groundwater  in the  vicinity of the disposal
* site.

 When and if a  significant increase  from background concentrations
 is detected, the disposer should  notify the  Texas Water  Quality
 Board district office  by telephone  within 24  hours and  confirm  the
 notification by letter within 4'8 hours.
                                   -  24 -

-------
TOPIC:  Records
                                 ATTACHMENT II
                      3UNDKATER  MONITORING RECORD
 Jisoosal Site:    A3C  Disposal Company. Inc."
 Parameters Monitored:   pK," TDS
. 8 .D
8r\
. J
•~7 f\
/ « O

6e
-3
-0
C c:







i , i


;






c ., .t
-











r^3





•

^fc**«^ -.
















•
-
• ?


•









i


r —

;




— — WT —



                                                                   "Backcrrourid.
                 I  5/1  .1/1.  I/l  5/1  V'  I/1  5/I  ?/i  \/».  5/1  I/I
                 .  1976        1977        1978        ' 1979
           I/'/75 Date Background Established
fai»U
£00
c ~ r\
5^0
O5
500
c-< '
450
400
350 :


^
s



I i-


1 —




'1 5


rN
^^j
;


>\ «?




r^.


'i i




^-*

•
i 5/


«
.x^
^



1 «T<







l •'/




.


rl 51







t <:





*

ri







h =;/






J
i
( -..
                                                                    Bacl-cgr o urid
                ."  1976        1977        IS78          1979
           * 11 ,*.. "^ 7*\a*-i'fifc ^.^^*V'^-*'*"/^>?1"^^ ^*^C?~^ V^ ' ** T '"^ 1!%^
           * / | / 7 3 iJ C. t— S OGfc-rv<-,j.CJtl4iL. «« 9 ^ C^ JM «. •• O * . «• ^h
                                       - 25  -

-------
Closure Reports

     Currently, two States, Illinois and California, have require-
ments respecting such reports.

     The Illinois EPA requires hazardous waste landfill owners or
operators, upon completion or closure, to file a detailed descrip-
tion of the site, including a plot with the appropriate county
land recording authority for the county 1n which the site 1s
located.

     California requires that an operator of a waste disposal site
must, prior to cessation of disposal operations, submit a technical
report to the appropriate regional board describing the methods
and controls to be used to assure protection of the quality of
surface and ground waters of the area during final operations and
with any proposed subsequent use of the land.
The report must be prepared by or under the supervision of a
registered engineer or a certified engineering geologist.  The
regulations also request that the technical report be furnished to
the regional board 90 days prior to cessation of disposal opera-
tions.  The report, accompanied by a map of the disposal  site,
should describe the following:

     1.   the 4)oundar-ies~o£ areas~used~for-..was-te, disposal,.

     2.   control  of surface drainage flow through the site,

     3.   evaluation of the anticipated settlement due to
          decomposition and consolidation of the wastes,

     4.   manner of surface drainage control 1n waste disposal
          areas,

     5.   thickness of cover and physical  properties, including
          permeability, expansion characteristics and credibility,

     6.   relationship of disposal area to underlying ground-
          water quality,

     7.   location of groundwater monitoring points (Class II
          sites),

     8.   proposed subsequent use of land.
                                 -  26  -

-------
                        TABLE VI

                MINIMUM MONITORING ANALYSIS

A minimum analysis shall  quantify the  following charac-
teristics:
(A)   Specific Conductivity, mho/cm at 25o C

(8)   Temperature, oC (Field and Laboratory)

(C)   Total dissolved Solids (TDS), mg/llter

(D)   Chloride, mg/liter

(E)   pH

(F)   D1 sso 1 ved Organ te Carbon•••(DOOtrmg/Titer
(6)   Two principal metals (ones found in the waste in
      the largest quantities or which best serves as
      Indicators), mg/Hter.
                         -  27 -

-------
                     TABLE VII

         COMPREHENSIVE MONITORING ANALYSIS
A comprehensive analysis shall  quantify the following
characteristics:
(A)   Specific Conductivity, mho/cm 250 C
(B)   Temperature, C (Field and Laboratory)
(C)   pH
(D)   Total dissolved Solid, mg/liter
(E)   Total suspended Solid, mg/liter
(F)   Total Setteable Solid, mg/Hter
(G)   Disolved Organic Carbon (DOC), mg/liter
(H)   Total Chlorinated Hydrocarbo-ns ,• mg/TIte*
(I)   Phenolic Compounds (as Phenol), mg/liter
(J)   Metals
      Aluminum, mg/liter
      Arsenic, mg/liter
      Beryllium, mg/liter
      Cadmium, mg/liter
      Chromium, mg/liter
      Copper, mg/liter .

-------
                       TABLE  VII  (cont.)
            Iron,  mg/liter
            Magnesium,  mg/Uter
            Manganese,  mg/Uter
            Mercury,  mg/Uter
            Nickel , mg/l1ter
            Selenium, mg/liter
            Silver, mg/liter
            Z1nc, mg/l1ter
      (K)    Ammonia (as N), mg/liter
      (L)    Chlorides, rag/liter
      (M)    Cyanide, mg/liter
      (N)    Fforide, rag/liter
      (0)    Nitrate, mg/Uter
      (P)    Nitrite, mg/liter
      (Q)    Phosphate, Total, mg/Uter
      (R)    Ortho-phosphate (as P), mg/Uter
      (S)    Organic Contamination scanning by Gas
            Chromatography.
Note:  After the baseline level has been established the
       comprehensive analysis may be reduced so as to
       eliminate any compounds not found 1n the waste
       handled at the facility.

-------

-------
                     DRAFT

              BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
      RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
      SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
      SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
      OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
    TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
SECTION 250.43-6   STANDARDS FOR VISUAL INSPECTION
                                        DECEMBER  15,  1978
       U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

-------
     This document provides background information and
support for regulations which have been designed to protect
the air, surface water, and groundwater from potentially
harmful discharges and emissions from hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities pursuant to
Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
of 1976.  It is being issued as a draft to support the
proposed regulations.  As new information is obtained,
changes may be made in the regulations, as well as in this
background material.
     This document was first drafted months ago and has
been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed
Section 3004 regulations shortly before their publication
in the Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that all
of those decisions are reflected in this document.  If
there are any inconsistencies between the proposal (the
preamble and the regulation) and this background document,
however, the proposal is controlling.
     Comments in writing may be made to:
          Timothy Fields, Jr.
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Office of Solid Waste                 (•
          Hazardous Waste Management Division (WJf-565)
          401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D. C.  20460

-------
Introduction
     Section 3004 of RCRA gives to the Administrator the
authority to promulgate regulations establishing performance
standards applicable to hazardous waste treatment, storage
or disposal facilities, as may be necessary to protect
human health and the environment.  These regulations shall
include requirements respecting satisfactory reporting,
monitoring and inspection of hazardous waste facilities
by owners and operators.
     An effective way to achieve compliance with Congress*
mandate might be to require treatment, storage or disposal
facility owners and operators to conduct periodic inspections
which would discover #hort-term and potentially dangerous
situations.  These types of incidents should be remedied
immediately before their effects are compounded and result
in a condition which adversely affects human health and
the environment.  The term "owners and operators" refers
to owners of hazardous waste management facilities as well
as operators, supervisory personnel or other qualified
personnel delegated by the owner to perform certain
inspection duties.
     Some aspects of this document may overlap with the
background document supporting monitoring regulations.
This document, however, addresses only the issue of /

-------
                              -2-
by visual inspection.  The regulatory options discussed  in
this document are requirements for inspections to be con-
ducted by facility owners and operators under Section 3004(2).
     Inspection regulations cannot be strictly enforced
due to manpower restrictions.  It would be virtually impossible
to check for actual compliance with the regulations at each
facility.  Their function would be to encouage the use of
inspections as an efficient facility practice.  Several
possible means exist for achieving compliance.  One would be
to require inspection plans to be submitted to the permit-
ting agency.  Another possibility would be to require the
results of the inspections to be reported on a routine
basis.

State Survey
Minnesota
     The criteria for operating hazardous waste storage areas
(HW-4-E) require that all tanks be regularly inspected and
maintained so that no leakages occur.
     Proposed hazardous waste regulations require facilities
to submit final plans regarding all aspects of the facility
including an operations manual giving the operator guidance
and direction on how the facility should be operated and
maintained,  etc.  The operations manual requires that
inventory control procedures include maintenance and in-
spection schedules for insuring that containers in storage
are labeled properly, marked and not leaking.

-------
                               -J-
     Additional  requirements  are  placed  on  owners  and
operators  of  hazardous waste  land disposal  facilities,
land spreading facilities and noncontainerized  storage
facilities.   Provisions  for a construction  and  operations
manual which  would contain inventory control procedures
including, when  applicable, a maintenance and inspection
schedule insuring that containers  in storage are properly
labeled, marked  and not  leaking,  a thorough description  of
the type and  frequency of inspection or maintenance that
shall be done on storage areas, dikes, equipment storage
tanks, liners, cover materials, the leachate collection
system, etc.  are required.

Illinois
     No visual inspections by owners and operators are
required.  State authorities inspect site facilities monthly.

Texas
     No visual inspections by owners and operators are requi^
State regulatory authorities inspect sites on a monthly basis
or more frequently if there are problems or if the facility
is large or handles extremely hazardous waste.

California
     No visual inspections by owners and operators are req£
Inspections by the solid waste board,  water quality board or
local regulatory authorities occur on a monthly basis.

-------
                              -4-
Oregon
     No visual inspections by owners and operators  are
required.  State regulatory officials conduct visual
inspections approximately ten times per year.

Washington
     No visual inspections by owners and operators  are
required.  Proposed regulations set frequency of inspections
by the state at "no less frequently than quarterly".  The
frequency of inspection, however, varies if there are
problems in existence at the facility, etc.

Summary of State Inspection Requirements
     With the exception of Minnesota, most of the surveyed
states have only general maintenance regulations, e.g.,
requiring submission of an operation plan which includes
procedures that will ensure compliance with permit  conditions,
without designating specific requirements.  This implies
that periodic inspections should be conducted at the facility,
but does not lay out with specificity the frequency of
inspection or the areas to inspect.  Most of those  regulations
do not impose any duty on the owner or operator to make
inspections of certain things at certain times.

Regulatory Options
     Option I;   General regulatory language.  "Owners and
Operators of facilities shall conduct inspections of facilitv

-------
                              -5-
conditions as are reasonable and necessary to protect: huma
healtn and the environment. "
Advantages:
     Nonspecific regulatory language allows more latitude
     and flexibility in enforcement.  Enforcement authorities
     would be able to decide the scope of the actual inspect!'
     as well as make the determination as to the length of
     time between inspections which are reasonable and
     necessary to protecting human health and the environment
     This could be done on a case-by-case basis according to
     the nature of the waste, etc.
Disadvantages:
     Difficulty in compliance because of nonspecificity of
     language (i.e., frequency of inspections, areas to
     inspect).
     May result in non-uniform implementation.
     Option II;  General regulatory language coupled with
specific recommendations, such as:  "An owner/operator of a
facility shall conduct inspections of facility conditions as
are reasonable and necessary to protect human health and
the environment.
     The following applicable areas are recommended for
inspection:
      (1)  Storage areas for rust, corrosion, cracks in
          storage devices, missing or improper labels, and
          spills;

-------
                              -6-
      (2)  Dikes for possible damage or  structural weakening,
          and drainage systems for possible  stoppage;
      (3}  Operating and monitoring equipment and readings
          to ensure normal operation and  readings;
      (4)  Emergency response equipment  to ensure that  it
          meets the requirement  specified in Section
          250.43-4(1)(4);
      (5)  Fences or barriers surrounding  the facility
          for possible damage;
      (6)  Vegetation on or around the facility for  possible
          damage; and
      (7)  The active portion of  the facility for fugitive
          air emissions.
Visual inspections should be conducted  daily and the results
recorded in the facility's daily operating log."
Advantages:
     Clearly defined duties for  owners  and operators.
     Flexibility in enforcement.
     Recommendations, although bearing  no actual legal
     weight, aid in enforcement  because of the "reasonable
     and necessary" criteria in  the general  statement.
     Aids enforcement officials  in judging the adequacy
     of inspections.
Disadvantages:
     Possible loophole in enforcement because  suggestions
     are not legally enforceable.

-------
                         -7-
Option III.  Specific regulatory language.
(a)  "An owner/operator of a facility at least once  a
     day, shall visually inspect the following:
     (1)   Storage areas for rust, corrosion, cracks  in
          storage devices, missing or improper labels,
          and spills;
     (2)   Dikes for possible damage or structural
          weakening, and drainage systems for possible
          stoppage;
     (3)   Operating and monitoring equipment and
          readings to ensure normal operation and
          readings;
     (4)   Emergency response equipment to ensure that
          it meets the requirements specified in Section
          250.43-4(1)(4);
     (5)   Fences or barriers surrounding the facility
          for possible damage;
     (6)   Vegetation on or around the facility for
          possible damage;  and
     (7)   The active portion of the facility for
          fugitive air emissions.
(b)  The  observations made in each visual inspection
     shall be recorded in the facility's daily operating
     log."

-------
                                -8-
Advantages:
     Specific and clearly defined duties which are not
     subject to broad interpretation, either in imposing
     liability or escaping liability.
     More easily enforceable, less discretionary.
Disadvantages:
     More difficult to formulate regulations in that
     specific areas for inspection must be pinpointed.
     Establishing a figure for  frequency of inspections
     may be difficult and also  tends to make the regulation
     more inflexible.  (This would limit enforcement
     possibilities.)
     Varied nature of facilities may make certain aspects of
     these requirements inapplicable.
     Restricts flexibility of facility operating procedure.
     Option IV;  Promulgate no  regulations for inspections
by facility owners and operators.
Advantages:
     Saves time and personnel in enacting and implementing
     a regulation.
     Inspections would be adequate in some states which
     already provide for frequent (monthly) inspections.
Disadvantages:
     Inspections would be inadequate in states not providing
     for more frequent inspection.
     Requirement is mandated by the Act ("Such standards shall
     include ... requirements respecting ... inspection.").

-------
                             -9-
Identification and Rationale for Chosen Regulatory Option;
     The following regulations have been proposed under
Section 250.43-6, Visual Inspections:
     (a)   An owner/operator of a facility at least once
          each day shall visually inspect the following:
          (1)  5$ftorage areas for rust, corrosion, cracks in
               storage devices, missing or improper labels,
               and spills;
          (2)   Dikes for possible damage or structural
               weakening, and drainage systems for possible
               stoppage;
          (3)   Operating and monitoring equipment and
               readings to ensure normal operation and
               readings;
          (4)   Emergency response equipment to ensure that
               it meets the requirements specified in
               Section 250.43-4(1)(4);
          (5)   Fences or barriers surrounding the facility
               for possible damage;
          (6)   Vegetation on or around the facility for
               possible damage;  and
          (7)   The active portion of  the facility for
               fugitive air emissions.
     Note:      Visual inspections for certain aspects of
               facility operations may be  conducted less
               frequently than  daily  if the  facility
               owner/operator can demonstrate that lesser

-------
                            -10-
               requirements would still provide for adequate
               protection of human health, and the environment,
      (b)  The observations made in each visual inspection
          shall be recorded in the facility's daily operating
          log.
     The purpose of the visual inspection regulation is to
require facilities to make routine checks for easily spotted
potential environmental problems.  The results of these
daily inspections could then be recorded in a logbook similar
to those used by many facilities to record the results of
their daily operating procedures.  Ideally, the inspections
should be quick and simple so that they can be repeated
frequently at little cost.  The intent is to detect leakages,
short-term accidents and equipment deterioration.
     Option III, the regulatory format which we have chosen
to implement in the regulation, is one which we feel best
protects human health and the environment by specifically
delineating what is required of owners and operators
regarding visual inspection.
     Comments were received on an earlier draft of the
regulations which stated that it is unnecessary to conduct
daily inspections of all the items listed under 250.43-6(a).
It is the Agency's opinion that, in order for the intent
of this section to be maximally achieved, it is necessary
that these checks be made on a daily basis.  However, in
response to these comments, the standard has been rewritten
to afford some flexibility through the mechanism of the  note

-------
                             -11-
added to standard 250.43-6(a).  The revised standard now
allows for a relaxation of the daily visual inspection
requirement for certain aspects of the facility's
operations if the owner/operator can demonstrate that
lesser requirements would still provide for adequate pro-
tection of human health and the environment.

Response to Comments
1.   Comment;  More definition of the qualifications of
     owner and operators is necessary.  Each site would
     have a different level of expertise.   Therefore, the
     regulations should refer to the owner or operator,
     "registered professional engineer:, or other qualifift.
     third party representative."

     Response:  We feel that the level of  expertise needed
     to perform the inspections we have recommended is not
     very high.  Presumably, the owner, operator, supervise!
     personnel, or a person designated by  the owner would
     be competent to handle the inspection,  it would be
     in the owner's or operator's best interest to have
     someone of competence conducting the  inspections.
     in addition, the qualifications necessary to perform
     such inspections cannot be generalized into a standard'

 2.   Comment;  "Inspections are well and  good by facility
      owners and operators but certainly they must be

-------
                             -12-
     by permitting and controlling agencies."

     Response:  The Agency's current intent is to make
     visual inspection plans a permit condition.

3.   Comment;  "Proper operation requires these items to be
     performed daily during normal working hours.  A routine
     daily operating log should include these items on a
     checklist."

     Response:  This requirement will be part of the
     recordkeeping regulation which is covered in
     Section 250.43-5 of the Section 3004 regulations.

4.   Comment t.  a.   How far beyond the facility should
                   vegetation be checked for damage?
               b.   How is  damage to be  determined?
                   -   What about low level,  chronic
                      impacts to vegetation?  How are
                      they determined?"

     Response;  The intent  of the visual  inspection regulation
     is to detect leakages/ short-term accidents  and
     equipment deterioration.  Therefore, we do not  feel  it
     is necessary to outline with specificity the exact
    distance beyond the facility that vegetation should

-------
                          -13-
be checked.  The damage we are interested in detecting
is that which is obvious to a person scanning the
area around the facility, e.g., areas on the ground
devoid of vegetation or where vegetation is dying,
etc.

-------

-------
  BD-20
        Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
         Subtitle C-Hazardous Waste Management
          Section 3004 - Standards Applicable
      to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
      Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
                         DRAFT

                  BACKGROUND DOCUMENT


Section 250.43-7 Standards for Closure and Post-Closure
         U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Office of Solid Waste
                   December 15, 1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface
water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges
and emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being made
available as a draft for comment.  As new information is
obtained, changes may be made in the regulations, as well
as in the background material.
     This document was first drafted many months ago and
has been revised to reflect information received and Agency
decisions made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed
Section 3004 regulations shortly before their publication
in the Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that all
of those decisions are reflected in this document.  If
there are any inconsistencies between the proposal  (the
preamble and the regulation) and this background document,
however, the proposal is controlling.
     Comments in writing may be made to:
     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste
     Hazardous Waste Management Division  (WH-565)
     401 MStreet, S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS









I.   INTRODUCTION




II.  RATIONALE FOR REGULATION




III. IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS REGULATORY OPTION




IV.  IDENTIFICATION OF CHOSEN REGULATION AND ASSOCIATED RATIONALE

-------
I.   Introduction

     The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 does
not specifically mandate that regulations be written directing
the closure or providing for longterm care of hazardous waste
facilities.  The language of Section 3004 (6) provides that the
standards shall include, "but need not be limited" to the
                                                       OUWJ
following areas/ reporting, monitoring, and maintenance,!operation
                                     et
of such facilities.  It can be implie? that since Congress carefully
provided for the operation and maintenance of hazardous waste
facilities that they also intended for EPA to regulate
in the area of closure and Post-closure care.  The standards
include partial closure of a facility, i.e., when one portion of
a  site will no  longer be used, as well as the final  closure
of a facility.
     The following definitions should aid the reader in under-
standing the area of concern covered by this document and the
regulations for which this document is intended as background
information.

-------
     When used in this document, the following terms  have



the meanings given in the Act:



     (1)  "Administrator" - Sec. 1004(1)



     (2)  "disposal" - Sec. 1004(3)



     (3)  "Federal Agency" - Sec.  1004(4)



     (4)  "hazardous waste management"  -  Sec. 1004(7)



     (5)  "open dump" - Sec. 1004(14)



     (6)  "person" - Sec. 1004(15)



     (7)  "resource recovery"  -  Sec. 1004 (22)



     (8)  "sanitary landfill"  -  Sec. 1004(26)



     (9)  "sludge" - Sec. 1004(26A)



     (10)  "solid waste" - Sec. 1004(27)



     (11)  "solid waste management" - Sec. Ioo4(28)



     (12)  "solid waste management  facility"  - Sec.  1004(29)



     (13)  "State" - Sec. 1004(31)



     (14)  "storage" - Sec.  1004(33)



     (15)  "treatment" - Sec.  1004(34)



     Other  terms used in this  Subpart  have the  following



meanings:



      (1)  "Act" means the  Resource Conservation and Recovery



          Act of 1976,  Public  Law 94-580.

-------
      "Active Portion" means that portion of a facility where
 treatment,  storage, or disposal operations are being conducted.
 It  includes the  treated area of a landfarm and the active
 face  of  a  landfill, but does not include those portions of a
 facility which have been closed in accordance with the facility
 closure  plan and all applicable closure standards.
      "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).
      "Close Out" means the point in time at which facility
 owners/operators discontinue operation by ceasing to accept
 hazardous  waste  for treatment, storage, or disposal.
      "Closed Portion" means that portion of a facility which
 has been closed  in accordance with the facility closure plan
 and all  applicable closure requirements in this Subpart.
      "Closing Date" means the date which marks the end of a
 reporting  quarter or reporting year.
      "Closure" means the act of securing a facility pursuant
 to the requirements of Section 250.43-7.
      "Closure Procedures" means the measures which must be
 taken to effect closure in accordance with the requirements
 of Section  250.43-7 by a facility owner/operator who no longer
accepts  hazardous waste for treatment, storage,  or disposal.
      "Contamination" means the degradation of naturally
occurring water, air,  or soil quality either directly or
 indirectly  as a result of man's activities.

-------
     "Cover Material" means soil or other material that is
used to cover hazardous waste.
     "Direct Contact" means the physical intersection between
the lowest part of a facility (e.g., the bottom of a landfill,
a surface impoundment liner system or a natural in-place soil
barrier, including leachate detection/removal systems)  and a
water table, a saturated zone, or an underground drinking water
source,^ or between the active portion of a facility and any
navigable water.
     "Disposal Facility" means any facility which disposes of
hazardous waste.
     "Endangerment" means the introduction of a substance into
groundwater so as to:
     (i)  cause the maximum allowable contaminant levels
          established in the National Primary Drinking Water
          standards in effect as of the date of promulgation
          of this Subpart to be exceeded in the groundwater; or
    (ii)  require additional treatment of the groundwater in
          order not to exceed the maximum contaminant levels
          established in any promulgated National Primary
          Drinking Water regulations at the point such water
          is used for human consumption; or
    Ciii)  Reserved (Note:  Upon promulgation of revisions to
          the Primary Drinking Water Standards and National
          Secondary Drinking Water Act and/or standards for
          other specific pollutants as may be appropriate),
     "EPA means the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

-------
     "EPA Region"  means the States and other jurisdictions in
the ten EPA Regions as follows:
     Region I   -    Maine/  Vermont,  New Hampshire,  Massachusetts,
                    Connecticut,  and Rhode Island.
     Region II  -    New York,  New Jersey,  Commonwealth of Puerto
                    Rico,  and  the U.S. Virgin Islands.
     Region III -    Pennsylvania, Delaware,  Maryland,  West Virginia,
                    Virginia,  and the District of Columbia.
     Region IV  -    Kentucky,  Tennessee, North Carolina,
                    Mississippi,  Alabama,  Georgia,  South  Carolina,
                    and Florida.
     Region V   -    Minnesota, Wisconsin,  Illinois, Michigan,
                    Indiana, and Ohio.
     Region VI  -    New Mexico,  Oklahoma,  Arkansas, Louisiana,
                    and Texas.
     Region VII -    Nebraska,  Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa.
     Region VIII-    Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
                    Utah,  and Colorado.
     Region IX  -    California,  Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii,  Guam,
                    American Samoa,  and the Commonwealth  of the
                    Northern Mariana Islands.
     Region X   -    Washington,  Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.

-------
     "Facility" means any land and appurtenances,  thereon and
thereto, used for the treatment, storage, and/or disposal of
hazardous waste.
     "Final Cover" means cover material that is applied upon
closure of a landfill and is  permanently exposed  at the surface.
     "Groundwater" means water in the saturated zone beneath
the land surface.
     "Hazardous Waste" has the meaning given in Section 1004(5)
of the Act as further defined and identified in Subpart A.
     "Incinerator" means an engineered device using controlled
flame combustion to thermally degrade hazardous waste.   Examples
of devices used for incineration include rotary kilns,  fluidized
beds, liquid injection incinerators,  cement kilns,  and  utility
boilers.
     "Incompatible Waste" means a waste unsuitable  for
with another waste or material, because the commingling might
result in:
     (i)  Generation of extreme heat or pressure,
     (ii)  Fire,
   (iii)  Explosion or violent reaction,
     (iv)  Formation of substances which are shock  sensitive
          friction-sensitive, or otherwise have the potential
          or reacting violently,
     (v)  Formation of toxic (as defined in Subpart A)  dusts
          mists, fumes gases, or other chemicals, and

-------
  (vi)  Volatilization of  ignitable or  toxic  chemicals
       due  to heat generation,  in such a manner  that the
       likelihood of contamination of  groundwater,
       or escape of the substances into the  environment/
       is increased, or
(vii)   Any  other reactions which might result in not meeting
       the  Air Humai; Health  and Environmental Standard.

-------
     "Leachate" means the liquid that has percolated through
or drained from hazardous waste or other man emplaced materials
and contains soluble, partially soluble, or miscible components
removed from such waste.

     "Leachate Monitoring System" means a system beneath a
facility used to monitor water quality in the unsaturated zone
(zone of aeration) as necessary to detect leaks from landfills and
surface impoundments.   (For example,  a pressurlvacuum lysimeter
may be used to monitor water quality in the zone of aeration.)

     "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.

     "Monitoring" means all procedures used to systematically
inspect and collect data on operational parameters  of the
facility or on the quality of the air, groundwater,  surface
water, or soils.

     "Monitoring Well" means a well used to obtain  water
samples for water quality analysis or to measure groundwater
levels.
                             8

-------
     "Navigable Waters" means "waters of the United States,
including the territorial seas".   This term includes, but
is not limited to:

     (i)  All waters which are presently used, or were used
          in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
          interstate or foreign commerce, including all
          waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of
          the tide, intermittent streams, and adjacent wetlands.
          "Wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or
          saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency
          and duration sufficient to support, and that under
          normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
          vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated
          soil conditions.  Wetlands generally include swamps,
          marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs,
          prairie potholes, we^meadows, prairie river overflows,
          mudflats, and natural ponds.
     (ii)  Tributaries of navigable waters of the United States,
          including adjacent wetlands;
    (iii)  Interstate waters, including wetlands; and
     (iv)  All other waters of the United States, such as
          intrastate  lakes, rivers,  streams, mudflats, sandflats,
          and wetlands, the use, degradation or destruction of
          which would affect or could affect interstate
          commerce, including, but not  limited to:

-------
           (Al  Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands
               which are or could be used by interstate travelers
               for recreational or other purposes;
           CB1  Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands
               from which fish or shellfish are or  could be
               taken and sold in interstate commerce; and
           CC1  Intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands
               which are used or could be used for  industrial
               purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
      (v)  All impoundments of waters of the United  States other-
          wise defined as navigable waters under this paragraph
      "Non-Point Source" means a source from which pollutants
emanate in an unconfined and unchannelled manner, including,
but not limited to, the following:
      (i)  For non-point sources which are not controllable through
          permits issued pursuant to Sections 301 and 402 of the
          Clean Water Act.   Non-point source water  pollutants
          are not traceable to a discrete identifiable origin
          but result from natural processes,  such as nonchannelled
          run-off, precipitation,  drainage,  or seepage.
    (ii)  For non-point sources of  air contaminant  emissions,
          this normally includes any landfills,  landfarms,  surface
          impoundments, and basins.
      "On-site" means on the same or geographically  contiguous
property.  Two or more pieces of property which are geographically
contiguous and are divided by public or private right(s)-of-way
are considered a single site.
                              10

-------
     "Owner/Operator" means the person who owns the land on
which a facility is located and/or the person who is responsible
for the overall operation of the facility.
     "Partial Closure Procedures" means the measures which must
be taken by facility owners/operators who no longer accept
hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal on a specific
portion of the site.
     "Permitted hazardous waste management facility (or permitted
facility)" means a hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility that has received an EPA permit in accordance with the
requirements of Subpart E or a permit from a State authorized
in accordance with Subpart F.
     "Point Source" means any discernible, confined, and discrete
conveyance, including, but not limited to, the following:
     (i)  For point sources of water effluent, any pipe, ditch,
          channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure,
          container, rolling stock, concentrated feeding
          operation, vessel, or other floating craft from
          which pollutants are or may be discharged; and
    (ii)  For point sources of air contaminant emissions, any
          stack, duct, or vent from which pollutants are or
          may be discharged.
     "Post-Closure Care" means the monitoring and facility
maintenance activities conducted after closure.
     "Regional Administrator" means the Regional Administrator for
the Environmental Protection Agency Region in which the facility
concerned is located, or his designee.

-------
     "Run-off" means that portion of precipitation that drains
over land as surface flow.
     "Saturated Zone (Zone of Saturation)" means that part of
the earth's crust in which all voids are filled with water.
     "Soil Barrier" means a layer of soil of a minimum of 1.5
meters (5 feetl in thickness with a permeability of 1 X 10-7
cm/sec or less which is used in construction of a landfill or
a surface impoundment.
     "Sole Source Aquifers" means those aquifers designated
pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act of
1974 (P.L. 93-523)  which solely or principally supply drinking
water to a large percentage of a populated area.
     "Storage Facility" means any facility which stores hazardous
waste,  except for generators who store their own waste on-site
for less than 90 days for subsequent transport off-site,  in
accordance with regulations in Subpart B.
     "Storage Tank" means any manufactured non-portable covered
device used for containing pumpable hazardous waste.
     "Surface Impoundment" means a natural topographic depression
artificial excavation,  or dike arrangement with the following
characteristics:
     (i)   it is used primarily for holding,  treatment,  or disposal
          of waste;
    (ii)   it may be constructed above,  below,  or partially in
          the ground or in navigable waters (e.g.,  wetlands);
   (iii)   it may or may not have a permeable bottom and/or sides.
          Examples include holding ponds and aeration ponds.

                           IL

-------
      "Treatment Facility" means any facility.which treats
hazardous waste.
      "Unsaturated Zone  (Zone of Aeration)" means the  zone
between the  land surface and the nearest  saturated zone, in
which the interstices are occupied partially by air.
      "United States" means the 50 States, District of Columbia,
the 'Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,  Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern  Mariana
Is^aJJnds.
      "Underground Drinking Water Source"  (UDWS) means:
      (i)  an aquifer supplying drinking water for human
          consumption, or
    (ii)  an aquifer in which the groundwater contains less
          than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids; or
   (iii)  an aquifer designated as such by the Administrator
          or a State.
      "Underground Non-Drinking Water Source" means an underground
aquifer which is not a UDWS.
      "Water  Table" means the upper surface of the zone of
saturation in groundwaters in which the hydrostatic pressure
is equal to  atmospheric pressure.

-------
II.  Rationale for the Regulation

     Regulations dictating the manner in which facilities shall
be closed are necessary because the potential for abuse in this
area is great and the probability of injury to human health and
the environment in the event of such abuse is high,  as  was seen
as a result of the Love Canal incident at Niagra Falls,  N.Y.
It is important that regulations be promulgated in this area
in order to prevent such incidents and the abandonment  or sloppy
closure of hazardous waste sites.  Regulations are also necessary
to provide for an orderly and safe return of closed site land to
acceptable future uses.

-------
III. Identification and Analysis of Regulatory Options
     A.   Existing State Regulations and Guidelines
     Most of those states reviewed required that closure methods
and plans be included as part of the facility permit to be
approved by the permitting Agency prior to facility operation.
However, only a few of the states had specific regulatory
language specifing specific method(s) of facility closure and/
or responsibility and time of duration for post-closure maintainence,
Some states have specific regulations and/or guideline for disposal
sites only, some for facilities in general regardless of type
and some had specific regulatory language or guidelines for
both.  All the states surveyed had addressed facility post-closure
care apart from facility closure.
     The following are excepts from regulations and/or guidelines
in a few of the states with hazardous waste management programs
which directly address facility closure and post-cloasure care.
Other state programs or regulations are similar to the ones
discussed here.
California;   (Section 2535, Disposal Site Design and Operation .
             Information, 1976)
     California requires that an operator of a waste disposal
site, must, prior to cessation of disposal operations, submit
a technical report to the appropriate regional board describing
the methods and controls to be used to assure protection of the
quality of surface and ground waters of the area during final
operations and with any proposed subsequent use of the land.

-------
The report must be prepared by or under the supervision of
a registered engineer or a certified engineering geologist.
The regulations also request that the technical report be
furnished to the regional board 90 days prior to cessation
of disposal operations.  The report, accompanied by a map of
the disposal site/ should describe the following:
     1}   the boundaries of areas used for waste disposal,
     2}   control of surface drainage flow through the site,
     3}   evaluation of the anticipated settlement due to
          decomposition and consolidation of the wastes,
     41   manner of surface drainage control in waste disposal
          areas,
     5)   thickness of cover and physical properties, including
          permeability, expansion characteristics and
          erodibility,
     6)   relationship of disposal area to underlying ground-
          water quality,
     7)   location of groundwater monitoring points (Class II
          sites),
     8)   proposed subsequent use of land.
     Additionally California address post-closure care and
responsibility as follows.
     "The owner of the waste disposal site shall have a continuing
responsibility to assure protection of usable waters from the
waste discharge, and from gases and leachate that are caused by
infiltration of precipitation or drainage waters into the waste
disposal areas or by infiltration of water applied to the waste
disposal areas during subsequent use of the property for other
purposes.                    ^

-------
 The  owner  of  the property used for waste disposal is considered
 to be  responsible  in assuring protection measures are taken after
 completion of disposal operations."
     In addressing  site closure California has developed
 general regulatory  language coupled with some specific
 recommendations which owners/operators must be concerned when
 closing the site which they feel would'assure protection of
 the  environment.  However, when addressing post-closure care
 and  maintainence no recommendations are provided to the site
 owner/operator as  to what he must do to assure protection of
 human  health  and environment or how long such protection
 measures must continue after completion of the disposal operations.
 Such a situation could lead to enforcement problems and lack
 of long-term  environmental protection.
 Illinois;   (General Refuse and Hazardous Waste Disposal Site
            Responsibility Act)
     "Section 4.   (Closing plan required).  Every owner and operator
of a hazardous waste disposal site or a general refuse disposal
 site shall file a closing plan with the (State)  Environmental
Protection Agency for approval.  Such closing plan shall includes
but  not be limited to, final contours, berms,  landscaping and
protective screening of the hazardous waste disposal site or
general refuse disposal site."
                              IT-

-------
     "Section 5.  (Responsibility period for hazardous waste
disposal sites).  The owner and operator of a hazardous waste
disposal site shall be responsible for the hazardous waste
disposal site for a period of 3 years after closure of the site.
The owner and operator shall monitor said site for gas migration,
drainage problems, erosion, settling, ground and surface waste
pollution and other environmental and safety problems which occur,
and shall take whatever remedial action is necessary to solve any
such problems which occur at the site during the 3 year period.1*
     Illinois, like California, addresses site closure with
general regulatory language with some specific requirements
which must be addressed in a closure plan.  But, again, does
not give specific duties and requirements, which may be subject
to broad interpactation.
     Illinois does go beyond the above regulations for post-
closure care and maintainence in California by specifying a
specific period an owner/operator shall be responsible for the
closed site and what the owner/operator must do to protect the
environment during this period.  This situation lends itself
to easier enforcement situations and is less discretionary.
     Illinois also has legislation* which requires owner/operators
to establish an Escrow fund for the purpose of completing final
closure and/or post-closure maintainence if not done so by the
owner/operator.  Thus, providing insenitive for completion of
site closure and post-closure care.

-------
Maryland;  (Senate Bill No. 977)
     "(k) As condition to the issuance of a permit/  the department
may require a permit holder to:
     (3)  Restore to the extent reasonably practicable, the
          facility site to its original condition when use of
          the area for designated hazardous  (waste)  substances
          disposal is terminated;
     (7)  Maintain a surety bond in the name of  the  State in an
          amount estimated by the department to  be sufficient to
          cover any costs for:
                (I)  The monitoring, maintaining, and (enclosing)
                    closing the facility;
              (II)  The security of the facility after closure;
                    and
             (III)  Guaranteeing fulfillment of  all  permit
                    requirements; or
     (m)  The department pursuant to the applicable  provisions of
the real property article, may condemn any land  or facility used
for disposal of designated hazardous substances  if it determines
that:
     (1)  The condemnation is necessary to provide for proper
          perpetual care and monitoring of the facility;
     (2)  Future disturbances of the land poses  a substantial
          treat to (humans, living organisms, or the environment)
          the natural resources of the state; or
     (3)  The facility poses a substantial threat to the public
          health ..."

-------
     Maryland, in general regulatory language,  address both
facility closure and post-closure care and maintainence.   Although
substantial similar to Illinois, they are not as specific (e.g.
do not establish time limit for post-closure care)  and thus are
proyfe to non-uniform implementation and difficulty in facility
compliance because non-specificity of language  (e.g., restore to
extent practicable . . .,  not specifying amount  of surety  bond) .
However, such an approach allows for more latitude and flexibility
in enforcement, i.e., applying regulations on a case by case basis.
New Jersey;  (Specific Engineering design requirements for
             Secure Chemical Landfills, Preliminary Draft)
     "12. Hazardous Waste Management Facilities shall be  closed in
such a manner so as to negate their causing future hazards to
human health or the environment.
     Facility owners shall be responsible for terminating operations^
closing the facility and continuing facility maintenance  after
closure in an environmentally safe manner.
     13. Final Closure Plan;  Prior to termination of operation of
a Hazardous Waste Management Facility or commencement of  closing
operations, a final closing plan shall be submitted for approval
to the New Jersey Solid Waste Administration, no later than six
months and no earlier than one year prior to anticipated  date of
closure.  This plan shall be consistent with the engineering design
submitted to obtain a New Jersey Solid Waste Administration
permit.  In addition, said closing plan shall include the follow-
ing;
                             20

-------
     i)   A description of plans and procedures to be followed
          in the termination of. operations at the facility
          indicating adequate protection of the public health
          and environmental concerns.
    ii)   A description of disposal methods for any residual
          waste or any other contaminated materials that remain
          at the facility at the time of closure;
    iii)  A description of the method of documentation for
          structures and equipment remaining at the facility
          after closure.
     iv)  A description of the methods to be used to limit public
          access to the closed facility.
     In addition to the closure plan requirements listed, final
closure plans for secure  (chemical) landfill shall include the
following:
     i)   Maps and drawings detailing original and final contours,
          site features and thesite location of different types
          of Hazardous Waste.
    ii)   Procedures for controlling disposal of leachate and
          prevention of leachate migration into the environment.
   iii)   Plans for final cover and sealing, and the means for
          runoff and soil erosion control.
    iv)   Procedures for correcting future emergencies or leachate
          or gas migration problems.
     v)   Groundwater and gaseous emission monitoring programs.
                             1\

-------
    vi)   A financial statement indicating an owner's ability
          to meet the requirements of Section 9 regarding site
          closure, perpetual care and future liabilities related
          to a closed site.
     The closure plan shall be approved by the New Jersey Solid
Waste Administration in total or in part before closing operations
may commence.  Closure shall be in accordance with the approved
plan or any amendments thereto.
     14.  Closure Financing;  The operator of any Hazardous Waste
Management Facility shall establish an escrow account for the
purpose of financing final closure and maintenance after closure.
Such escrow account shall be maintained at a level sufficient
to finance all foreseeable costs and liabilities associated with
closure and perpetual maintenance of the site.  Such cost may be
amortized over the expected life of the facility.  Contributors
   Die
to -fee- escrow account shall adjust their contributions to reflect
modifications of facility life expectancy and fluctuations of
projected closure and maintenance costs.  Escrow account status
shall be reported to the New Jersey Solid Waste Administration
annually.
     15.  Perpetual Maintenance (Reserved)
     16.  Future Use of Site
          i.   Prior to any new landfilling operation, on the
               property the operator shall obtain from the
               Solid Waste Administration a new registration
               and engineering plan approval.
                             22.

-------
         ii.   No residential dwelling shall be constructed on
               an area previously use for the disposal of
               Hazardous Wastes.
        iii.   Any structures built on a Hazardous Waste disposal
               site subsequent to its closing shall be equipped
               with adequate gas and fume control or venting
               systems.
         iv.   All excavations on a site previously used for the
               disposal of Hazardous Waste shall be in accordance
               with the New Jersey Solid Waste Administration rules
               for disrupted landfill operations, N.J.A.C. 7:27-2.7,
     New Jersey address final site closure and future use of the
site, however, has not as yet developed regulations for post-
closure care and maintainence.  New Jersey addresses these issues
with general regulatory language combined with specific require-
ments for  site closure.  Such language clearly defines duties
                                                   OJuSL
which are  not subject to broad interpretation, and «s»- therefore
more easily enforceable and less decretionary.  Enforcement is
aided through general statements £$ requiring methods which
provide protection of public health and the environment although
this allows  flexibility for compliance it gives the owner/operator
no indication of how this is to be achieved.
Minnesota  (HW-4)
p.   Hazardous Waste Facility Closure Other than Hazardous Waste
     Land  Disposal Facilities
     1.    The facility operator shall give the Agency a minimum
of 90 days written notice prior to the closing of the facility.
The written notice shall include:
                            23

-------
          a.   Anticipated last day of operation;
          b.   The existing inventory count and the
     inventory reduction schedule; and
          c.   A discussion of how conditions of the
     Hazardous Waste Facility Permit will be met.
     2.   The facility operator shall remove, before the facility
is closed, all ha2ardous waste from the facility unless other-
wise authorized by the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit.
     3.   The facility operator shall meet the conditions of the
facility's Hazardous Waste Facility Permit for closing the
facility.  This provision shall apply even if the  Permit has
expired or has been suspended or revoked.
     4.   The facility operator shall submit certification to
the Agency by a registered professional engineer that the
facility has been closed in accordance with the requirements
of this regulation and the Hazardous Waste Facility Permit.
E.   Hazardous Waste Land DisposalFacility Closure
     1.   The facility operator shall give the Agency a minimum
of one hundred and eighty (180)  days written notice prior to
closing a Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facility.   The written
notice shall include:
          a.   Anticipated last day of operation;
          b.   A discussion of how the requirements of
     this regulation shall be met; and
          c.   A discussion of how conditions of the
     Hazardous Waste Facility Permit shall be met.
                           2f

-------
     2.   The facility operator shall close the Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Facility in accordance with the following require-
ments:
          a.   The facility operator shall close access to the
     facility and prevent additional waste disposal.
          b.   The facility operator shall provide, construct,
     and maintain measures to protect groundwater and surface
     water and to control air emissions from the facility.
          c.   The facility operator shall cover the hazardous
     waste with an adequate amount of cover material to eliminate
     blowing of the hazardous waste and to minimize leachate
     production by the hazardous waste.
          d.   On all areas that have been covered with soil,
     the facility operator shall cover the area with adequate
     topsoil and provide vegetation that is sufficient to perevent
     erosion.
          e.   The facility operator shall establish and maintain
     a final grade that promotes surface water runoff without
     excessive erosion and shall divert surface water drainage
     around and away from the disposal area.
          f.   The facility operator shall construct, maintain
     and operate a gas monitoring system, a groundwater monitoring
     system, and a surface water monitoring system.
          The facility operator shall record a detailed
     description, including a plat, with the county register of
     deeds.  The description shall include a statement that the
     site has been used for the disposal of hazardous wastes,

-------
     the general types and location of wastes,  depth of  fill,
     and other information of interest to potential land owners.
          h.   The facility operator shall file with the Agency
     and with the appropriate county office a final plot plan
     and cross sections that delineate the location of each
     major type of waste disposed of at the facility..
     3.   The facility operator to whom a Hazardous Waste Facility
Permit has been issued shall close the facility as  required by
the Permit.  Such a facility operator shall submit  certification
to the Agency by a registered professional engineer that the
Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facility has been closed in
accordance with the requirements of this regulation and  the
Hazardous Waste Facility Permit.  This provision shall apply
even if the Permit has expired or been suspended a  revoked.
     4.   A facility operator who closes a Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Facility shall perform the following long  term  main-
tenance, monitoring, and surveillance of the facility:
          a.   Maintain the impervious liner and final
     cover.
          b.   Maintain surface water drainage in a manner
     that minimizes erosion.
          c.   Treat contaminated surface water runoff.
          d.   Collect and treat leachate.
          e.   Continue the gas monitoring system,  the ground-
     water monitoring system, and a surface water monitoring
     system for the time period that the hazardous  waste may
     pose a threat to the environment.

-------
          f.   Remove hazardous waste from the facility in the
     event the hazardous waste poses a threat to air, land,
     or water resources of the state, or public health and
     safety.  The facility operator shall perform such removal
     regardless of the cause of the threat.
     5.   A facility operator who closes a Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Facility shall establish and continue in effect financial
arrangements that are adequate to finance the long-term maintenance
monitoring and surveillance required by this regulation.
     Minnesota, in addressing closure and post-closure care of
a facility, has developed specific regulatory language which
                                                       f
defines the duties the owner/operator must comply with^or the
protection of the environment.  With such a regulatory approach
these duties are not subject to broad interpetation, therefore,
they are more easily enforceable and less decretionary.  However,
the inflexibility of such specific regulations discourage industry
from developing new and innovative techniques to protect human
health and the environment.
Wisconsin;   (An Act - Relating to establishing a hazardous waste
            management program under Department of Natural Resources
             (DNR),  . . ., 1977)
     Major features of the hazardous waste management program
established  in this proposal are as follows:
     "1.  Procedures for site approval -
          	If the DNR finds that the site is suitable, the
          applicant is eligible to submit a plan of operation,

-------
which details how the facility will be developed,
operated and finally closed when waste is  no  longer
accepted.  The plan of operation covers all phases
of a site life, including for disposal facilities
long-term care necessary after the site is closed  ...
4.  Long-term care of closed facilities -  The original
plan or operation for a solid or hazardous waste dis-
posal facility will contain provisions for long-term
care of a closed facility.  (Long-terra care can include
routing maintenance, monitoring, leachate  collection
and disposal and maintenance of surface contours.)  This
proposal also contains a procedure for eventual termina-
tion of the owner's or operator's responsibility to con-
tinue to provide long-term care.  In the original  plan
of operation, the DNR can require up to 10 years of
long-term care, unless the licensee for a  particular
facility agrees to a longer period of time.   After this
time period expires, a decision on termination is made
by the DNR.  There is provision for a hearing, and the
burden is on the DNR in this proceeding to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that additional long-term
care is necessary to adequately protect the  environment.
Additional long-term care, if required, can  be of 2
types:

-------
           (a)  If the additional long-term care is of a type not
           anticipated in the plan of operation, the costs of it
           are paid by the waste management fund (see item 5
           below);
           (b)  If the additional long-term care was anticipated in
           the plan of operation, the DNR can require the owner or
           operator to provide it for up to an additional 10 years.
           If the latter determination is made, the owner or oper-
           ator has the option to either provide the care, or offer
           to sell the closed facility to the DNR.  If an offer to
           sell is made, the offerer and the DNR each select an
           appraiser, who jointly determine a fair market value of
           the facility.  If they cannot agree, the appraisers
           select a 3rd appraiser, who establishes a binding valua-
           tion.  Once valuation is completed, the DNR must make a
           60-day offer to purchase at the established price.  If
           the owner or operator instead chooses to continue to
           provide long-term care, another similar review is per-
           formed at the end of the additional time period."
Wisconsin  has developed specific regulations for the establishment
of a  hazardous waste management program.  Regulations specify
that  the DNR; "prepare and adopt minimum standards for the
location,  design, construction,. sanitation, operation and
maintenance of  ...facilities."  However, the state of Wisconsin
has very specific regulations establishing the dut(e|a)s and
responsibilities of facility owners and operators for long-term
care  of closed facilities.  Such standards are clearly defined,

-------
   not  subject  to  broad  interpretation,  easily  enforcable,and  less
   discretienary.  Additionally, Wisconsin  regulation sets a specific
   time period  for duration of  p/st-closure care.  However, the
   DNR  has  establish  an  option  to  continue  post-closure care based
   on evidence  that such post-closure care  is necessary to protect
   the  public health  and the environment.   This approach would
   provide  maximum protection of the environment without undue
   burden placed on the  facility owner/operator.  Further discussion
   on other such regulatory options for  post-closure care and
   responsibility  is  addressed  below.
         The Agency recognizes that environmental hazards exist after
   closure  of sites where wastes remain  {i.e. landfills).  Accordingly
   there is a strong  need for post-closure  care, maintenance,  and
   monitoring.  The problem is  how long?  This-discussion suggests
   several  options as to how this  issue  may be  resolved, and presents
   the  option the  Agency adopted for regulation.
,B. Options  log  _?osl-Clt>aufl£ O**e ****  M*t*k**Nc£
         (1)  Require  Long-Term  Care of Landfills Forever
         Ideally, this option would provide  the  best human health
   and  environmental  protection possible.   It would however, cause
   severe enforcement problems  and legal battles.  A disposal
   facility may dissolve upon closure and leave no individual,
   company,  or  state  organization  responsible for continuing
   post-closure maintenance.  It would be an unfair obligation to
   .a facility owner or operator since no one can predict the future
   with reasonable accuracy much more than  about 100 years.  This
   option is most  like that established  by  the  state of Maryland.

-------
      An alteration of  this  option may be  to require  long-term
 care for forever  unless  a facility  can  prove  sometime  shorter
 would be sufficient.   This  would require  both site and waste
 specific evaluations and put the burden of proof on  the  facility.
      (2)   Require Long-Term Care for Some Finite Time
      Setting a finite  time  makes enforcement  procedures  more
 practical and legal disagreements would be reduced.  The question
 that needs to be  answered is would  the  finite time adequately
 protect human health and the environment.  The predetermined
 time would have to be  both  a waste  and  site specific determination,
 Several times which could be selected and the reason why are
 presented below:
      20 years would match financial responsibility requirement
      100 years may be  the limit of  reasonable prediction.
      33 years which represents one  generation.
      3  years which represents the Illinois regulations.
      10 year which represents the Wisconsin regulations.
      (3)    Require Long-Term Care for some finite time and then
            after  that  time  re-evaluate  to see if continued care
            is necessary.
      This option  would also make enforcement  procedures more
practical and tend to  reduce legal  disagreements.  Waste and
site specific criteria could also be used to  re-evaluate the
facility's condition after  some finite  time.   It would incorporate
                                                i
any  technological advances  developed during the ^finite time
which may allow a more accurate determination of the need for
continued care and maintenance.
                          31

-------
     (4)- Require Long-Term Care As Long As Waste Is
          Hazardous
     Next to requiring long-term care forever, this option
would provide the next greatest protection to public health
and the environment.  This approach is most like that of the
state of Minnesota.
     The difficulty in this approach would be in determining
just how long landfilled waste remains hazardous.  It has
been proposed that hazardous waste which is deposited in a
secure landfill would remain hazardous for such a long time
that it might just as well be considered hazardous forever.
The primary problem with this approach is that a detailed
method for determining if the waste in a landfill is still
hazardous has not been identified or demonstrated.  It
appears possible that soil core sampling techniques could be
used to obtain samples of the waste which would then be
analyzed to determine if it were hazardous according to the
Section 3001 criteria.  However, core sampling could cause
problems such as puncturing a landfill liner or allowing
infiltration.  Perhaps technical advances in the future
would make this determination easier.
     Wisconsin uses an approach most similar to option  (3) .
Under their regulations as discussed above, the facilities
are responsible for long-term care and monitoring until the
end of the 10-year period.  The Agency is then required to
hold a hearing on any decision to terminate the surveillance,
                         32.

-------
If it is demonstrated that additional care is necessary, the
operator is given the option to provide it or sell the site
to the State Department of Natural Resources.
     EPA has adopted option 3 as a method to regulate post-
closure care and maintenance.  This option presents certain
advantages and some disadvantages which are outlined below:
Advantages;
     o Owners/operators could request that, at the discretion
       of the Regional Administrator, a determination be made
       at any time after site closure, should data be sub-
       mitted to warrant such review that some or all post-
       closure requirements be discontinued.
     o The standard would be flexible in that facilities
       posing a lesser human health and environmental risk
       will not have to comply with as stringent requirements
       as all other facilities.
     o As new technologies are developed and as more site
       data are collected, a more accurate determination may
       be made as to the need for continued care and
       maintenance.
     o Owners/operators would have the ability to be released
       from all or part of their maintenance operations, if
       determined to be no longer necessary.
     o The option facilitates implementation in that no
       facility-by-facility evaluation is necessary at the
       outset, and the burden is on the facility owner/
       operator to later show that post-closure care is no
       longer necessary.
                            33

-------
Disadvantages:
     o May be burdensome for the Agency to make  determina-
       tions every time owners and operators of  facilities
       request them to do so.  Reviewing and evaluating new
       data will become time consuming.
     o May provide less adequate protection of human health
       and the environment due to reductions in  a maximum
       time period  (option 4).
     o Unacceptable discharges may not occur until sometime
       after a facility has been released from its monitoring
       obligation.
     In summary/ this option prescribes a maximum time
requirement for post-closure care and at the same time provides
the flexibility and the incentive for new technology and data
to decrease this time requirement for all or certain aspects
of post-closure care.  Should a problem occur after the time
period or after the owners or operators of the facility have
been released from post-closure requirements, the EPA could
still respond using its imminent hazard authority under
Section 7003 of RCRA.
     Further discussion on post-closure care is  presented in
Section IV of this document.  Rationale for the  20-year period
                                  fte
required in these regulations fromAdate of closure for owners/
operators to provide long-term care and maintenance is also
presented.
                          34-

-------
IV.  Identification of Chosen Regulation and Associated
     Rationale
     The purpose of the closure and post-closure standards
is to reduce the potential for damage to human health and the
environment which can arise from improper facility closure
and inadequate post-closure care and maintenance.
     The regulatory format which the Agency has chosen to
implement in the regulation is one of specific regulatory
language combined with notes which provide a basis for devi-
ation from the standard.  It is one which the Agency feels
best protects the human health and the environment.  It com-
bines almost all of the advantages of the options discussed
in Section III by specifically delineating what is required
of owners and operators regarding closure and post-closure,
while at the same time providing some flexibility through
the mechanism of the note.  However, not all of the stand-
ards are accompanied by notes.  For some standards the Agency
believes that it is not possible for the facility owner/
operator to deviate from the standard and still protect
human health and the environment.  .      , ,   ,- ,
                           aJo^uJk #&*•<***"*** efrhwlHlff
     The following regulations^have been proposed under
               7
Section 250.43-/, Closure and Post-Closure:
     (a)  In addition to complying with the requirements of
     this Section, an owner/operator of a facility shall
     also comply with the applicable Financial Requirements
     in Section 250.43-9.

-------
   . - Examination of EPA data on recent damage incidents
indicates that there is no reliable classification
process by which the relative hazards from differing
wastes and differing treatment, storage,  and disposal
processes can be established.  The dollar values of
damages in EPA files range from $100,000  to $40 million.
However, it is not unrealistic to imagine claims con-
siderably greater than $40 million.  Clearly, the EPA
cannot require every firm to maintain financial respon-
sibility sufficient to cover the largest  foreseeable
claim.  For this reason, the EPA has attempted to
establish (with very little actuarial data and minimal
experience with a regulated hazardous waste industry)
                                            of Htu*fr*.HeAKKcuU.4
a degree of coverage that provides OHHB protectionAand
is not prohibitive in terms of cost.
     The background document for Financial Requirements
Section 250.43-9 of Section 3004 of RCRA  should be
consulted for further rationale.
(b)  An owner/operator of a facility from which hazard-
ous waste will not be removed and will remain in the
facility after closure (e.g., a landfill)  shall record
in the deed of the property on which the  facility is
located a stipulation that use of the property by the
owner/operator or any future owner of the property after
closure shall be conducted in a manner to prevent

-------
disturbance of the integrity of the final cover, the



liner/ or the monitoring systems of the facility.



     The objective of this standard is to minimize the



possibility of hazardous waste remaining on site from



escaping to the environment and deleteriously affecting



the human health and environment.  In order to maximally



effectuate this end, residences should not be built on



the site and agricultural operations should not be



conducted.  The potential for harm is particularly great



in such areas.  If farming were allowed on the land the



additional danger of plant uptake of hazardous waste



constituents and subsequent feeding of the crops to



animals and humans would be present  (either directly



or indirectly).  The uncontrolled construction of resi-



dential areas  could disturb a disposal site allowing the



release of wastes.  Additionally/ the drinking water



wells commonly found in residential areas could be



contaminated from disposal sites.



     From a legal standpoint, restriction of future land



use for other  than residential or agricultural purposes



can be justified by looking to Congressional intent as



to what RCRA was supposed to achieve.  Congress gave EPA



broad authority to promulgate regulations which would



protect public health and the environment.  In order to



maximally achieve this end/ an approved plan for future



use of the site must be determined.

-------
     The desire to retrieve a waste for purposes of
recycling may arise.  In such situations, the facility
would be allowed to disturb the site if it can demon-
strate that no harm will result to public health and
the environment.
(c)  The owner/operator of a facility shall submit a
closure plan to the Regional Administrator prior to
beginning treatment, storage, and/or disposal operations,
or at the time of and as part of the application for a
permit pursuant to Subpart E.  The closure plan shall
include, but not be limited to:
     (1)  A description of how the facility shall be
     closed.
     (2)  A description of possible uses of the land
     after closure.
     (3)  The anticipated time until close-out, the
     estimated time(s) required for closure and any
     anticipated partial closures.
     The objective of submitting a closure plan prior
to beginning treatment, storage, and/or disposal oper-
ations and as part of the application for a permit
pursuant to Subpart E, is to assure that the site will
be closed in an orderly and safe manner in compliance
                                             itejIOJAl
with these standards.  It is important for the. Adminis-
trator to know in advance how a facility will be closed

-------
what safeguards and monitoring systems will be employed,
etc.  The purpose of these closure standards is to assure
that facilities are secured, i.e., treated or isolated in
a controlled manner such that human health or animal
life will not come into direct or indirect contact with
the waste and that no leaks or discharges of the waste
into the environment occur subsequent to facility
close-out.
     Agency policy is not to have closed hazardous waste
sites completely restricted from public use indefinitely.
The Agency supports reclaiming such sites for some useful
purpose after closure.  Therefore, a description of
possible uses of the land after closure has been completed
is required in the closure plan.
     An estimate of site life, i.e., the length of time
anticipated to exhaust the treatment, storage, and/or
disposal function of the facility, and the estimated
time required for closure and anticipated partial
closures is necessary in the closure plan to enable the
Regional Administrator to evaluate the cost of final
closure for the facility.  This information will also
be used as necessary in determining the size of the
secured trust fund required by 250.43-9(a)(1,2)  for the
closure of the facility.

-------
(d)  An owner/operator of a facility other than a
landfill shall notify the Regional Administrator:
     (1)  of intent to close out the facility at least
     15 days before close-out; and
     (2)  of completion of closure at least 90 days
     before closure.
     The objective of this standard is to allow time
for inspection to assure compliance with the standards.
The numerical time limits are established from the
precedent set by the Minnesota Hazardous Waste Regula-
tions and are set in order to give permitting officials
some advance notice so that they can oversee the
closure operations and insure that they have been done
properly.  It also provides a sufficient length of time
in which future use of the land can be negotiated.

-------
(e)  An owner/operator of a landfill facility shall
notify the Regional Administrator:
     (1)  of intent to partially close the facility
     (i.e., close a portion of the facility) at least
     15 days before partial closure;
     (2)  of intent to close out the facility at least
     15 days before close-out; and
     (3)  of completion of closure at least 180 days
     before closure.
     The objective of this standard is to allow for time
for inspection to assure compliance with the standards.
The numerical time limits are established from the prec-
edent set by the Minnesota Hazardous Waste Regulations
and are set in order to give permitting officials some
advance notice so that they can oversee the closure
operations and insure that they have been done properly.
It also provides a sufficient length of time in which
future use of the land can be negotiated.  The land dis-
posal facility notice requirement is a slightly longer
time period because these facilities present more of a
threat to human health and the environment in their
closed state than do biological and chemical treatment
plants, lagoons and incinerators.  In addition, there are
more arrangements to be made concerning the closure of
landfills, such as monitoring, covers, security, etc.

-------
(f) - Within 90 days after close-out,  all disposal
operations shall be completed and all hazardous waste
shall be removed from storage and treatment operations
and disposed of in accordance with requirements in Sub-
parts B, C, and D.
     The objective of this standard is to require owners
and operators of hazardous waste facilities,  which are
in the process of closure, to dispose of all hazardous
waste and hazardous waste residues remaining on site
after close-out, in an expeditious and safe manner for
the protection of public health and the environment.
     EPA's hazardous waste damage files contain numerous
incidents of deleterious effects to air, ground and sur-
face water resulting from hazardous waste facilities
whose owners and operators failed to adequately dispose
of wastes subsequent to the closing of a facility.  A
good example of such an incident is the now abandoned
Silresim chemical treatment site in Lowell, Massachusetts.
An estimated 20,000 leaking drums of hazardous chemicals
and chemical treatment and processing equipment remained
on this site for an extended period of time,  posing a
substantial threat to human health and the environment.
Cost for adequate removal and disposal of these wastes
will be in excess of $1.5 million.
     The 90-day period after close-out for this stand-
ard was established by the Agency as being a reasonable

-------
time frame for the completion of all disposal opera-
tions.  It should be emphasized that this standard only
requires that all disposal operations must be completed
within this 90-day period following close-out; it does
not require completion of the entire closure procedures
specified in each facility's closure plan as submitted
at the beginning of operation as part of the application
for a permit pursuant to Subpart E.
     The removal from storage of all hazardous waste
for prompt disposal at facility close-out is necessary
because these facilities are not usually designed to
contain and/or store waste for an extended period of time
without proper treatment and/or disposal.  Thus, there
is a high probability that such waste would escape to
the environment if not removed.
(g)  Closure shall be completed within three years after
close-out.
     The objective of this standard is to require that
closure be limited to a finite time in order that the
closed site can be put to some use other than for the
perpetual storage and/or ultimate disposal of hazardous
waste.                       The future land use of the
                         in 4J|£ doWJK. ?lw
closed site must be specifiediand completed within a
reasonable period of time.  Accordingly, the Agency
feels that a specific time limit is necessary for the
completion of closure to assure that site decontamin-
ation, removal of equipment, continued monitoring, and

                     43

-------
an expeditious transition of the land to an acceptable
purpose is accomplished without unnecessary delay.
     The Agency has set a maximum three-year limit for
the completion of closure.  The Agency believes this
allows more than adequate time for site closure, placing
no undue burden on the owner or operator of the facility.
It should be noted that it is to the owner's and/or
operator's advantage to complete site closure without
unnecessary delay in order to "start the clock" for post-
closure care, which continues for 20 years from the
completion of closure, unless the owner/operator can
demonstrate otherwise, which would result in a shorter
period for post-closure care and maintenance.
(h)  At completion of closure, all equipment used in
the operation shall be properly disposed of or decon-
taminated by removal of all hazardous waste and residues.
     The objective of this standard is to eliminate the
threat of contamination from hazardous waste to human
health and the environment which might result from direct
or indirect contact with waste residues or contaminated
equipment used for the treatment, storage, and/or
disposal of hazardous waste.
     The disposal or decontamination of all equipment
used in the operation by the completion of closure is
necessary to assure that discharges of waste harmful

-------
to human health and the environment will not occur.
Additional rationale pertinent to this standard is
included in (f) and (g) of this section.
(i)  At completion of closure, all facilities shall be
secured so that humans or animal life cannot come into
contact with hazardous waste, and so that discharges of
waste harmful to human health or the environment will
not occur.
     The objective of this standard is to assure that
all the procedures required for site closure, i.e.,
completion of treatment and disposal of on-site waste
and decontamination and removal of equipment, will result
in acceptable site closure at some future point in time.
Thus, the Agency believes that completion of site
closure is only acceptable if the owner/operator of a
facility complies with the above standard; to render
waste non-hazardous and/or isolate such waste in a manner
which will not violate the human health and environmental
objectives of RCRA.
(j)  At completion of closure, all required equipment
shall be provided and arrangements shall be made to con-
tinue post-closure monitoring as required in paragraph
(n)(l.) at landfills and other facilities where hazardous
waste has not been removed as part of closure.
     At facilities from which the hazardous waste are
not removed, there exists the potential for leakage
and leaching; therefore, provisions for monitoring are
a necessary requisite for closure.

-------
     For further rationale and discussion  on  the
requirements concerning long-term monitoring  and  waste
containment refer to the draft background  documents for
Sections 250.43-8, Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring;
and 250.45-2, Landfills; also refer to rationale  for
(n)(1) in this document.
(k)  At completion of closure, and again upon completion
of post-closure care (in the case of a landfill and
other facilities where hazardous waste is  not removed
as part of closure), the owner/operator shall submit to
the Regional Administrator certification by  the owner/
operator and certification by a registered professional
engineer that the facility has been closed in accordance
with the requirements of this Subpart.
     Certification by a registered professional engineer
provides an  added assurance that closure operations have
been properly carried out, thereby reducing  the need for
inspection and  facilitating enforcement.
 (1)  Within  180 days after completion of closure, the
owner/operator  of a landfill or other facility where
hazardous waste is not  removed as part of closure, shall
file with the local land authority and the Regional
Administrator,  a  survey plat, certified by a registered
professional land  surveyor, indicating the type and
location of  hazardous waste disposed of in the facility.

-------
     The filing of a plat is necessary to insure that
there will be a properly recorded report of what was
done on the site.  This also helps to ensure that
future use of land will be appropriate.
(m)  An  owner/operator of a landfill or other facility
where hazardous waste is not removed as part of closure
shall provide post-closure care for a period of at least
20 years from the date of closure.
Note:  The owner or operator may request that, at the
discretion of the Regional Administrator, a determina-
tion be made of whether some or all post-closure require-
ments may be discontinued earlier than  20 years after
closure.  The facility owner or operator shall bring
forth evidence showing why post-closure care need not
continue, i.e., no leaks have been detected, advanced
technology was used, alternate disposal techniques were
employed, etc.
     Long-term care of hazardous waste  landfills is very
important because of the environmental  hazards associ-
ated with these types of facilities after closure.
Maintenance of monitoring and groundwater protection
devices until the landfilled waste is no longer con-
sidered hazardous is necessary in order to adequately
protect human health and the environment.  The problem
with this requirement is that methods for determining
how long landfilled wastes remain hazardous after final

-------
closure of the fill have not been developed in  detail
or demonstrated.  This raises the question of how long
post-closure care, maintenance and monitoring should be
required.  The plan adopted is modeled  after Wisconsin*s
approach (see discussion in Section III).  Long-term
care would be required for some finite  time, i.e., 20
years, after which time a re-evaluation would take
place as to whether continued care would be necessary.
Enforcement procedures would be greatly facilitated and
legal disagreements would tend to be lessened.   Time
would be saved by setting a front end time limit
because a facility-by-facility determination as to the
length of time long-term care and maintenance would be
required of each facility would not be  necessary.
     Waste and site specific criteria could also be
used to re-evaluate the condition of the facility before
or after the 20-year period.  Technological advances
developed during this period would allow a more accurate
determination of the need for continued care and
maintenance.
     A 20-year period, as opposed to another time period
for post-closure care was established for many  reasons.
Foremost are the extreme financial and economic burdens
which would be imposed on owners/operators of  facilities
if longer post-closure periods were required.   Various

-------
options were considered by the Agency (see Section III
of this document and Financial Requirements background
document) in which longer time periods were determined
to be financially too burdensome on the industry.  The
monitoring requirements for landfills specify as a con-
dition for issuance of a permit that the zones of aeration
and saturation directly beneath and surrounding the
facility, respectively, be monitored not only during
post-closure but for the operating life of the facility.
Thus, the Agency is confident that if no movement of
hazardous constituents is detected within this time
frame then the probability that movement will occur is
small.  Twenty years, to the best of the Agency's knowl-
edge, provides adequate protection of the environment
and human health.  It should be emphasized that if
accidents do occur after 20 years, the owner/operator
is liable for damages to the third parties.
(n)  Post-closure care shall consist of at least the
following:
      (1)  Monitoring and reporting in accordance with
     the requirements of Section 250.43-8(c)  (2,3, and
     4) and  (d)(1 and 2).
      (2)  Maintenance of facility security and waste
     containment devices.
     Post-closure care, as specified in 250.43-7(m) is
required for a landfill or other facility where hazard-
ous waste is not removed as a part of the closure plan.

-------
In nearly all cases, hazardous waste landfills have the
potential to leak, thus creating a potential threat to
human health and the environment.  Therefore, such
facilities should be monitored in such a manner as to
indicate as early as possible the movement of contamin-
ants so as to predict, as early as possible, the potential
for endangerment of the groundwater.
                                The fundamental objective
of monitoring landfill sites is to serve as a backup to
waste containment structures and/or devices.
     The waste containment structures at these facilities
must be maintained in order to function properly, i.e.,
they must maximize waste containment and minimize escape
                                                   Tlr
of hazardous waste constituents to the environment./\ EPA
recognizes that the escape of small quantities of waste
may not have deleterious effects to the environment,
however, the Agency is unaware of any method to determine
what release rates of what waste constituents would be
acceptable.  Therefore, these waste containment struc-
tures and devices must be maintained for as long as the
waste is determined to pose a threat to human health
and the environment.
     Further rationale concerning the above standard may
be found in the background documents for Groundwater
and Leachate Monitoring  (Section 250.43-8) and Landfills
 (Section 250.45-2).

-------
(o)  If the owner/operator of  a  facility transfers the
ownership or operation of the  facility during the 20-
year post-closure care period/ the new owner/operator
shall comply with the requirements of this Section.
     The objective of this standard is to assure that
post-closure care is not discontinued because of trans-
fer of ownership of a facility.   There are numerous
hazardous waste damage incidents within EPA files,
resulting from  tvlflck e>f Rc*poMSvbl£  posf-closure CARE  due
to d«.«weeeuA teftNifcA* cT s*ftf owMcfc*K»e<               This issue
is further discussed in the  background document for
Financial Requirements  (Section  250.43-7).

-------

-------
BD-21
                Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
                Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
                Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to Owners
                               and Operators of Hazardous Waste
                               Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
                               Facilities.
                             DRAFT
                      BACKGROUND DOCUMENT Section 250.43-8
   Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring
             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  Office of Solid Waste
                  December 15, 1978

-------
This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect the air,
surface water, and groundwater from potentially harmful
discharges and emissions from hazardous waste treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. It is
being made available as a draft to support the proposed
regulations.  As new information is obtained, changes may be
made in the regulations as well as in this background material

This document was first drafted many months ago and has been
revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions
made since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed Section
3004 regulations shortly before their publication in the
Federal Register.  We have tried to ensure that all of those
decisions are reflected in this document.  If there are any
inconsistencies between the proposal (the preamble and the
regulation) and this background document, however, the
proposal is controlling.

Comments in writing may be made to:
          Timothy Fields, Jr.
          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
          Office of Solid Waste (Wff=565)
          Hazardous Waste Management Division
          401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                    Table of Contents







  I.   Introduction



 II.   Rationale for Regulation



III.   State Regulations



 IV.   Regulatory Options



  V.   Identification of and Rationale for Chosen Regulation



      References



      Annex

-------
                DRAFT BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
          GROUNDWATER AND LEACHATE MONITORING

I.  Introduction
                         p
     Section 3004 of the ^resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA) mandates that the EPA Administrator
promulgate regulations establishing such performance standards
applicable to owners and operators of facilities for the
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes as may
be necessary to protect human health and the environment.
The Act specifically requires that such standards be written
that shall include requirements respecting satisfactory
monitoring of such hazardous waste management facilities
(HWMF).  This document will be concerned with groundwater
and leachate monitoring at hazardous waste management facilities!
since improper disposal, storage, or treatment of hazardous
wastes can pose a serious threat to human health and the
environment.
     The HWMF should be monitored in such a manner as to
indicate as early as possible the movement of contaminants
from the HWMF into the unsaturated zone so as to predict, as
early as possible, the potential for endangerment of the
groundwater or impact on specified groundwater quality.
The fundamental objective of monitoring HWMF sites is to
serve as a backup to the design and operating standards for
such facilities.

-------
Definitions
(a)  When used in this Subpart, the following  terms have  the
meanings given in the Act:
      (1)  "Administrator" - Sec.  1004(1)
      (2)  "disposal" - Sec. 1004(3)
      (3)  "Federal Agency" -  Sec.  1004(4)
      (4)  "hazardous waste management"  -  Sec.  1004(7)
      (5)  "open dump" -  Sec.  1004(14)
      (6)  "person" - Sec. 1004(15)
      (7)  "resource recovery" -  Sec.  1004(22)
      (8)  "sanitary landfill" -  Sec.  1004(26)
                                 6
      (9)  "sludge" - Sec. 1004(25A)
     (10)  "solid waste"  - Sec. 1004(27)
     (11)  "solid waste management" -  Sec.  1004(28)
     (12)  "solid waste management facility" - Sec. 1004(29)
     (13)  "State"  - Sec. 1004(31)
     (14)  "storage" -  Sec.  1004(33)
     (15)   "treatment"  -  Sec.  1004(34)
 (b)   Other  terms  used  in this Subpart have the following
meanings:
      (1)   "Act" means  the Resource Conservation and Recovery
          Act of  1976,  Public Law 94-580.

-------
(3)   "Active  Portion"  means  that portion of a facility
     where  treatment,  storage, or disposal operations
     are  being conducted.   It  includes  the treated
     area of  a landfarm and  the active  face of a
     landfill,  but does not  include  those portions  of
     a facility which  have been closed  in accordance
     with the facility closure plan  and all applicable
     closure  standards.
(4)   "Annular Space" means  the space between the bore
     hole and the casing.  A bore hole  is the man-made
     hole in  a geological  formation  for installation
     of a monitoring well.
(5)   "Aquifer" means a geologic formation, group of
     formations, or part of  a  formation that is capable
     of yielding useable quantities  of  groundwater  to
     wells  or springs.
(6)   "Attenuation" means any decrease in the maximum
     concentration or  total  quantity of an applied
     chemical or biological  constituent in a fixed
     time or  distance  traveled resulting from a physical
     chemical, and/or  biological reaction or transfor-
     mation occurring  in the zone of aeration or  zone
     of saturation.

-------
(19)   "Contamination" means  the  degradation  of
      naturally  occurring water,  air,  or  soil
      quality  either directly  or indirectly  as  a
      result of  man's activities.
(24)   "Disposal  Facility" means  any  facility which
      disposes of  hazardous  waste.
(25)   "Endangerment" means  the introduction  of  a
      substance  into groundwater so  as to:
      (i)   cause the maximum allowable contaminant
           levels  established in the National  Primary
           Drinking Water standards  in effect  as  of the
           date  of promulgation  of this Subpart to
           be  exceeded  in the groundwater;  or
     (ii)   require additional treatment of  the  ground-
           water in order not to exceed the  maximum
           contaminant  levels established in any
           promulgated  National  Primary Drinking Water
           regulations  at the point such water is
           used  for human consumption; or
    (iii)   Reserved (Note:   Upon promulgation  or
           revisions to the Primary  Drinking Water
           Standards and National Secondary  Drinking
           Water Standards  under the Safe Drinking
           Water Act and/or  standards  for other
          specific pollutants as may be appropriate).

-------
(26)   "EPA"  means  the U.S.  Environmental Protection
      Agency.
(27)   "EPA Region" means  the  States  and other
      jurisdictions in the  ten EPA Regions  as
      follows:
      Region I  - Maine, Vermont,  New Hampshire,
      Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and Rhode Island.
      Region II -  New York, New Jersey, Commonwealth of
      Puerto Rico, and the  U.S.  Virgin Islands.
      Region III - Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,
      West Virginia,  Virginia, and the District  of
      Columbia.
      Region IV -  Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina,
      Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South  Carolina,
      and  Florida.
      Region V  - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois,  Michigan
      Indiana,  and Ohio.
      Region VI -  New Mexico,  Oklahoma, Arkansas,
      Louisiana, and Texas.
      Region VII - Nebraska,  Kansas, Missouri, and
      Iowa.
      Region VIII  - Montana,  Wyoming,  North Dakota,
      South  Dakota, Utah, and Colorado.
      Region IX -  California,  Nevada,  Arizona, Hawaii
      Guam,  American Samoa, and the  Commonwealth  of
      the  Northern Mariana  Islands.
      Region X  - Washington,  Oregon, Idaho, and  Alaska
                         8

-------
(28)   "Facility"  means  any  land and appurtenances,
      thereon  and thereto/  used for the treatment,
      storage,  and/or disposal of hazardous  waste.
(37)   "Generator" means any person or Federal Agency
      whose act or process  produces hazardous waste
      identified or listed  under Subpart A;  provided,
      however,  that certain producers may or may not
      be generators depending on whether they meet
      the criteria specified in Section 250.29 of
      Subpart B.
(38)   "Groundwater" means water in the saturated
      zone beneath the land surface.
(39)   "Hazardous Waste" has the meaning given in
      Section 1004(5) of the Act as further defined
      and identified in Subpart A.
(41)   "Hazardous Waste Landfill" means an area in
      which hazardous waste is disposed of in accordance
      with the requirements of Section 250.45-2.
(42)   "Hydraulic Gradient"  means the change in hydraulic
      pressure per unit of distance in a given direction.
(47)   "Leachate" means the liquid that has percolated
      through or drained from hazardous waste or other
      man-emplaced materials and contains soluble,
      partially soluble, or miscible components
      removed from such waste.

-------
(48)   "Leachate Collection  and Removal  System"  means  a
      system capable  of collecting leachate  and/or
      liquids generated within a  hazardous waste
      landfill, and removing the  leachate and/or
      liquids from the  landfill.   The system is placed
      or constructed  above  the landfill liner system.
(49)   "Leachate Detection System" means a gravity
      flow drainage system  installed between the top
      and bottom liners of  a surface impoundment
      capable of detecting  any lechate  that  passes
      through the top liner.
(50)   "Leachate Detection and Removal System" means a
      system capable  of detecting the presence  of
      leachate and/or liquids beneath the bottom liner
      system of a landfill,  and is capable of periodi-
      cally removing  leachate and/or liquids if found
      or known to be  present.
(51)   "Leachate Monitoring  System" means a  system
      beneath a facility used to  monitor water  quality
      in the unsaturated zone (zone of  aeration) as
      necessary to detect leaks from landfills  and
      surface impoundments.    (For example,  a pressure-
      vacuum lysimeter may  be used to monitor water
      quality in the  zone of aeration.)
                       10

-------
(52)   "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.
(55)   "Monitoring"  means all procedures used  to syste-
      matically  inspect  and  collect data on operational
      parameters of the  facility or on the quality of
      the  air, groundwater,  surface water, or soils.
(56)   "Monitoring Well"  means a well used to  obtain
      water samples for  water quality analysis or
      to measure groundwater levels.
(61)   "Owner/Operator" means the person who owns the
      land on  which a  facility is located and/or the
      person who is responsible for the overall operation
      of the facility.
(63)   "Permitted hazardous waste management facility
      (or  permitted facility)"  means a hazardous waste
      treatment, storage, or disposal facility that
      has  received  an  EPA permit in accordance with
      the  requirements of Subpart E or a permit from
      a State  authorized in  accordance with Subpart F.
(69)   "Regional  Administrator"  means the Regional
      Administrator for  the  Environmental Protection
      Agency Region in which the facility concerned
      is located, or his designee.
                       11

-------
(71)   "Reporting Quarter"  means  the three (3)  month
      time  period covered  by each quarterly  report;
      the reporting quarters end on the last day of
      March,  June,  September,  and December.
(73)   "Representative Sample" means a sample having
      average characteristics of all groundwater in
      the aquifer beneath  the facility.
(76)   "Saturated Zone (Zone of Saturation)"  means that
      part  of the earth's  crust in which all voids are
      filled with water.
(80)   "Soil Barrier" means a layer of soil of a
      minimum of 1.5 meters (5 feet) in thickness
      with  a permeability  of 1 x 10~7 cm/sec or less
      which is used in construction of a landfill or
      a surface impoundment.
(82)   "Sole Source Aquifers" means those aquifers
      designated pursuant  to Section 1424 (e) of the
      Safe  Drinking Water  Act of 1974  (P.L.  93523)
      which solely or principally supply drinking
      water to a large percentage of a populated area.
(83)   "Storage Facility" means any facility which
      stores hazardous waste, except for generators
      who  store their.own  waste on-site for less
      than  90 days for subsequent transport off-site,
      in accordance with  regulations in Subpart B.
                         12

-------
(85)   "Surface  Impoundment"  means  a natural topo-
      graphic depression,  artificial excavation,  or
      dike  arrangement with  the following character-
      istics:  (i)  it is  used primarily for holding,
      treatment,  or disposal of waste;  (ii) it may be
      constructed above,  below, or partially in the
      ground or in navigable waters (e.g., wetlands);
      and (iii)  it may or may not  have  a permeable
      bottom and/or sides.   Examples include holding
      ponds and aeration  ponds.
(89)   "Treatment Facility" means any facility which
      treats hazardous waste.
(93)   "Unsaturated Zone (Zone of Aeration)" means the
      zone  between the land  surface and the nearest
      saturated zone, in  which the interstices are
      occupied  partially  by  air.
(95)   "Underground Drinking  Water  Source" (UDWS)
      means:
           (i)   an aquifer supplying drinking water
                for human consumption;  or
          (ii)   an aquifer in which the groundwater
                contains  less than 10,000 mg/1 total
                dissolved solids;  or
         (iii)   an aquifer designated as  such by  the
               Administrator or a State.
                          13

-------
(96)   "Underground Non-Drinking Water Source"  means  an
      underground aquifer which is  not a UDWS.
(99)   "Water Table" means the  upper surface  of the
      zone of saturation in groundwaters in  which
      the  hydrostatic pressure is equal to atmospheric
      pressure.
                      14

-------
II.  Rationale  for  Regulation

      (A).   Importance  of  the ground-water resourcel

     Almost one-half of  the population (48%) of the United

States depends  upon ground water as a source of drinking

water.   (Figure 1).  Of  the total population, 29% use ground

water delivered by  community systems and another 19% have

their own domestic  wells.   The rural population depended

upon ground water is much higher (94%) than the population

served by public supplies (37%).
    SURFACE WATER -
    PUBLIC SUPPLIES
    51
                                            GROUND WATER -
                                            PUBLIC SUPPLIES
                                                 29
                                          GROUND WATER -
                                          RURAL DOMESTIC
                                          SUPPLIES  19 %
                             SURFACE WATER -
                             RURAL  DOMESTIC
                             SUPPLIES  I  %

    Figure  1.   Population served by source and supply,  1970
                            15

-------
The other large users of ground water  are public  supplies

and irrigation which rely on ground water to  the  extent of

34 and 36 percent, respectively.   In terms  of absolute

quantity, irrigation accounts  for  67 percent  of total ground-

water withdrawal.  Public supplies are the  second largest

consumer of ground water.  Figure  2 illustrates the  break-

down of ground water withdrawal by use.
                 SELF-SUPPLIED
                 INDUSTRY-
                 12%
PUBLIC SUPPLIES-

      M- %-
    ELECTRIC
       UTILITY
          2%
                          IRRIGATION-.67* %
                                     «  »
    Figure 2.   Total  ground  water  withdrawal,  by use,  197Q.1)

                             16

-------
(B) Damage Cases:
     The following documented damage cases illustrate the
potential for groundwater contamination from hazardous
waste land disposal sites:
     1.  In Minneapolis-St. Paul area, the industrial
         solvent isopropyl ether disposed of in pits from
         mid 1950's to 1965 contaminated a private well
         near the disposal site in May 1966.  Water from
         the well in the disposal area contained a maximum
         of 650 ppb isopropyl ether.  After the disposal
         in pits discontinued, three wells installed for
         dewatering purposes have been pumped continuously
         since January 1968.  Discharged water is piped
         5.5 miles to Mississippi River outlet.  Manufac-
         turing company has reportedly spent over $400,000
         to correct the situation.
     2.  Chromate plating wastes were discharged into an
         infiltration pit in Douglas, Michigan for about
         3 years.  The glacial-drift aquifer was contaminated
         for at least 1,000 feet in one direction from the
         pit and to a depth of at least 37 feet.  All private
         wells in the village were condemned because there
         was no practical way to test the water quality in
         each one.  Water from wells supplying the village
         had a chromate content of 0.8 mg/1 in 1947.
                            17

-------
 3.  The Ansul Company manufactures agricultural
     herbicides in Marinette, Wisconsin, which
     resulted in the production of salt wastes con-
     taining arsenic.  The company had accumulated many
     tons of these salts at their plant location.
                       r
     Surveys by Ansul and the Wisconsin Department of
     Natural Resources (DNR) had indicated localized
     heavy groundwater contamination.  Contamination
     of the Menominie River/ adjacent to the plant,
     had occurred with maximum levels in the sediment
     found to be 35 ppm of arsenic  (USPHS standard
     is 0.05 ppm).
 ^  The river contamination had been attributed to
     7,500 tons of the salt wastes which has been stored
     on a loading dock within 10 feet of the river.
     A well at the dock had been found to yield water
     containing about 1.0 mg/1 arsenic.  The DNR had
     ordered the Ansul Company to construct new storage
     facilities for the salt wastes.  Two new storage
     facilities were to be built, the first for the
     daily salt waste production and the second for
     the wastes currently stored on site.
4-4.  An aluminum plant in Monroe County, Ohio had grossly
     contaminated the ground water under its site with
     flourides, high pH, and other trace chemicals.
     The water was also discolored.  The source of
                          18

-------
contamination was leachate from a used tailing
pond and used potline piles.  As a partial solution
the firm was treating the pollution source with
acid.  They have also developed interceptor wells
between their source of pollution and their main
production well.  The OEPA did recognize that
these actions were beneficial in containing the
pollution within the aquifer under the firms site.
However, if the firm were to discontinue operations
and thus discontinue the use of the main production
well, the use of the inceptor well, and the use of
acid treatment, the site would be a major source of
pollution for many years- after the plant closed.
A chemical plant in Hamilton County, Ohio which
utilizes two infiltration lagoons for waste disposal
had contaminated a very  productive aquifer.  This
was discovered  recently  when a new well was developed
on a nearby property.  Follow up studies revealed
that several other wells in the area were also
contaminated.   Abnormally high values of sodium,
potassium, nitrogen, sulfates, phenols and high
TOG values were found.   A few of these constituents
in several of the contaminated wells exceeded
standards for drinking water.
                    19

-------
y
X   An arsenic pesticide was used to control a
    grasshopper infestation near Perham,  Minnesota
    in 1934.  After the infestation was under control,
    the unused pesticide was buried in an unmarked
    shallow trench far from any urbanized areas.   In
    1972 a shallow well was installed near the pesti-
    cide disposal area to serve as a water supply for
    a local construction company.  Soon after the
    well was placed in service, thirteen employees
    were stricken with what was later diagnosed to be
    arsenic poisoning.  All of the thirteen employees
    required medical treatment and two had to be
    hospitalized.  One employee was hospitalized for
    more than a month and still suffers from nerve
    damage.
    Since August 1968, a commercial laboratory in
    Myerstown, Pennsylvania, has disposed of its
    arsenic waste by surface storage within the plant
    area  (some of waste materials not known).  This
    practice apparently has led  to contamination of
    the ground and subsequent migrations into ground-
    waters  through leaching, ionic migration actions,
    etc. ,  abetted by  the geologic and edaphic character
    of  the  plant site.   In  order to meet discharge
    requirements and/or eliminate the waste hazard,
                         20

-------
    the company has had to design and construct a
    system of recovery wells to collect the arsenic
    effluent from groundwaters in the area.  Recovered
    arsenic and current arsenic waste  (previously
    stored on the land) are now retained in storage
    lagoons.  Presumably, the sludge from these lagoons
    was periodically reclaimed in some way.  Lagoons of
    this type are generally not well attended and may
    result in environmental catastrophes.
?
"SU  A large landfill in southeastern Wisconsin was
    permitted to accept toxic and hazardous wastes.
    The site was underlain by 37 m  (120 ft.) of glacial
    till on dolomite.  Water-supply wells in the area
    are finished in the bedrock at a depth of 53 to
    76 m (175 to 250 ft.).  Monitoring wells completed
    to depth of 7.6 to 15 m (25 to 50 ft.) in the till
    showed some contamination.  Most noteworthy was
    one well which shows traces of electronegative
    compounds,  4.9 mg/1 of volatile organic compounds
    (heptane, octane, etc.), and 0.11 mg/1 of high-
    boiling organic compounds (plasticizers, esters,
    napthalene,  etc.).   No information was available
    on the  quality of water from wells completed in
    the bedrock.
                          21

-------
10.  In 1971, a major chemical company contracted with
     a trucker to haul approximately 6,000 drums of
     petrochemical wastes to a landfill for disposal.
     Instead, most of these wastes were transported
     to an abandoned chicken farm in New Jersey, where
     they were stockpiled and subsequently dumped.
     Within two years, a major aquifer had become
     contaminated with petrochemicals, resulting
     in the condemning of approximately 150 private
     wells.  The cost of extending public water supply
     into the area was about $300,000.  Moreover, this
     incident resulted in adverse impact on local
     building and development.  The exact magnitude
     of the environmental and economic damage has not
     yet been delineated.
                    22

-------
III.  State Regulations
     A survey of various state hazardous waste regulatory
programs yielded the following information:
California2
     The California State Water Resources Control Board is
the agency regulating disposal sites and monitoring of
hazardous wastes.  Monitoring plans are developed case-by-
case, based upon the detailed geologic and hydrologic
requirements of the permit.  The monitoring programs for
hazardous waste disposal facilities may include any or all
of the following components:
     1.  Monitoring of local ground and surface water from
         locations considered to be within the radius of
         influence of a disposal site; and from a background
         location.  These data may be compared.  The regu-
         lations observe that collection of baseline data
         is important because it may offer a basis to
         discount claims of degradation of water quality
         which may be filed later by other parties.
     2.  Periodic site inspection, sampling, and analysis
         of wastes performed by agency personnel.   The
         operator is allowed to collect samples for
         replicate analysis.
     3.  Installation of piezometers or monitoring wells
         at critical locations.
                              23

-------
     4.  Operation of continuous fluid level measuring
         instruments at seepage collection drains and
         dumps.
     5.  Monitoring wells, located on the basis of local
         ground and surface-water hydrology, from which
         the disposer may be required to collect samples.
     The selection of constituents for analysis and evaluation
is related to the type of waste being disposed.  The basic
program includes testing for pH, electrical conductivity or
total dissolved solids/ chloride, hardness, and total
alkalinity.  Specialized monitoring of hazardous waste
disposal may require sample analyses for toxic materials,
heavy metals, organics, color, BOD, tannins and lignins,
with field tests for carbon dioxide.  Gas probes for methane
and carbon dioxide may also be required.
     At sites receiving up to 200 tons of wastes daily,
monitoring reports are generally required on a quarterly
basis.  Sites receiving more than 200 tons daily must submit
monthly reports.
Illinois3
     The Division of Land and Noise in the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (IEPA) is responsible for the
State's hazardous waste management program.  The agency has
developed a monitoring philosophy which begins with site
selection standards designed to permit sites thought to be
geologically capable of confining leachates without their
                           24

-------
having any adverse effects on either surface or ground-water
quality.
     The state has a policy of nondegradation, but believes
the philosophy of "zero discharge" to be geologically and/or
economically impossible.  Criteria developed for land dis-
posal of hazardous wastes place considerable emphasis upon
the origin and composition of the materials to be disposed
of.  The waste generator is required to list the standard
industrial classification  (S.I.C.) number for the industrial
activity from which waste is derived.  IEPA has assigned a
number  to each of the subgroups in the S.I.C. table.  These
numbers are used to determine the minimal scope of chemical
analyses required with  the permit application; this waste
characterization provides a guide for future ground-water
monitoring.
     IEPA uses a landfill simulation leaching test to deter-
mine the environmental  impact of the waste material.^  This
test is applied to hazardous wastes for which a disposal
permit  is required, according to the previously mentioned
grouping of wastes by S.I.C. numbers.  Theoretically, waste
characterization should permit design of a waste-constituent-
oriented monitoring program at each site.
     The agency usually requires installation of at least
one monitoring well hydraulically upgradient  and one down-
gradient, placed  as close  as possible to the  deposition
area.   The monitoring wells may penetrate shallow perched
                             25

-------
water zones which are widespread in Illinois.  If contami-
nation is detected, IEPA interprets this as an "early
warning signal" indicating possible later contamination of
the underlying water-table aquifer.5
Maryland**'7
     The program to monitor storage and disposal of hazardous
wastes in Maryland is in the early stages of implementation,
following the 1976 enactment of a law entitled Safe Disposal
of Designated Hazardous Wastes, and promulgation of applicable
regulations by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
(DNR).  The law requires that the DNR establish procedures
for monitoring of hazardous and industrial substances from
the time of generation to the time of final disposal.  it
specifically directs the DNR to set minimum requirements for
operation, maintenance, monitoring, reporting, and super-
vision of hazardous wastes at only especially permitted
facilities.
Minnesota^
     Hazardous waste management regulations are being promul-
gated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's Hazardous
Waste Management Section.  These revise existing controls to
permit monitoring of wastes from the point of generation to
the disposal site, principally through surveillance measures
designed to comply with RCRA's emphasis on manifest systems
and site location controls.  A noteworthy addition to the
                         26

-------
regulations is designed to curb discharge of hazardous
wastes to sewers after they have been diluted sufficiently
to meet NPDES requirements.
     Minnesota does not confine monitoring to wells, but has
written regulations designed to provide sufficient predisposal
information to tailor sampling programs for case-by-case
evaluation.  Minnesota has not written minimum monitoring
requirements defining the number of wells, their construc-
tion, or other site-related directives.  A hydrogeologic
report on subsurface conditions must be provided for each
type of hazardous waste disposal, storage and treatment
facility.  The disposer is required to submit a monitoring
plan with provisions for soil borings and ground-water
monitoring wells and piezometers, for sites designed for
hazardous waste containerized storage, land treatment, and
land disposal facilities.
     The agency may require the applicant to assess the
potential of the soil to attenuate the hazardous waste and
any leachate through ion exchange, absorption, adsorption,
precipitation, and other such mechanisms.  At the same time,
the permittee must submit  a review of the anticipated products
from such mechanisms including both final and intermediate
biochemical metabolites and chemical degradation products.

-------
to be analyzed by the permittee to:  (a) inventory and iden-
tify incoming hazardous waste, (b) conduct air and ground-
water monitoring programs, and (c) monitor the management of
waste produced by the operation of the facility.9
New Jersey^-0
     Regulations promulgated by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection  (DEP) in 1975 prohibit opening of a
new solid waste facility without prior installation of a
ground-water monitoring system.  Background water-quality
data must also be obtained and recorded before any waste is
deposited at the site.  The DEP may also require installation
of monitoring systems at sites in operation prior to September
1975.  All monitoring system approvals are made on a case-
by-case basis.  Each disposal facility receiving hazardous
wastes must have interception, collection, and treatment
systems for any leachate generated at the site.
     The submission of the required monitoring data must be
made annually, at which time the registrant is required to
provide a statement updating the information contained in
the initial registration statement.  The registrant must
notify the DEP within 30 days of any change in status of the
operation covered by the original statement.  The regu-
lations stipulate that the following be included in the
annual analyses of samples collected as part of the monitoring
program:
                             28

-------
- presence of organisms of the Coliform Group
- turbidity
- color
- taste
-odor
- arsenic  (As)
- barium  (Ba)
- cadmium  (cd)
- chromium (hexavalent  Cr+6)
- cyanide  (CN)
- fluoride (F)
- lead  (Pb)
- selenium (Se)
- silver  (Ag)
- A.B.S./L-A.S.  (Alkyl-Benzene-Sulfonate and Linear-
  Alkyl Surfonate  or  similar methylene blue reactive
  substances  contained  in synthetic detergents)
- chloride (Cl)
- copper  (Cu)
- hardness (as CaCO3)
- iron  (Fe)
- manganese  (Mn)
- nitrate  (N03)
- phenolic compounds  (as  phenol)
- sodium  (Na)
- sulfate  (S04)
                         29

-------
A.B.S./L-A.S.  (Alkyl-Benzene-Sulfonate and Linear-Alkyi Surfonate
or similar methylene blue reac±ive substances contained in
synthetic detergents)
chloride (Cl)
copper  (Cu)
hardness (as CaCO^)
iron  (Fe)
manganese (Mn)
nitrate  (N03)
phenolic compounds  (as phenol)
sodium  (Na)
sulfate  (SO4)
total dissolved solids
zinc  (Zn)
COD
BOD
   Each third month the analyses shall include the following:
chloride (Cl)
hardness (as CaC03)
iron  (Fe)
phenolic compounds  (as phenol)
total dissolved solids
COD
BOD
                            30

-------
New York - At the present time, New York State is in the process of
iirplementing a program designed to upgrade hazardous waste disposal
and monitoring practices.  The program will be managed by the Hazardous
Waste Bureau of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
     Regulations classifying ground water and establishing water-quality
effluent standards have been proposed by the DEC.  The standards/ if
approved, will be applicable to industrial waste treatment, including
hazardous waste management facilities designed both for treatment and
storage.      The regulations set specific requirements for groundwater
protection and monitoring with special precautionary measures required
at land burial facilities used for hazardous waste disposal.       At
these sites, monitoring programs will be established by the DEC on a
case-by-case basis.  A minimum of three monitoring wells, with two
located hydraulically downgradient from the solid waste fill area,  is
required.
     Ground-water sampling frequency is set as part of the operating
permit.  Baseline water quality must be established prior to use of the
site.  The regulations are applicable to both new and modified secure
land burial facilities, which are defined as 'a disposal facility meeting
the design and operation requirements (	) for the proper disposal of
hazardous wastes so that such wastes are immobilized or otherwise
prevented from release to the environment or rendered harmless or decomposed
into harmless materials within the facility.'
     Implementation of the proposed standards, together with adherence
to the regulations for solid waste management facilities which went into
effect in August 1977, should provide for effective monitoring of any
    hazardous waste facilities in the State.
                                 31

-------
Ohio - In 1976, the Ohio EPA promulgated new solid waste regulations
viiich gave the Agency's Office of Land Pollution Control (OLPC).  Division
of Hazardous Wastes, more authority.     These regulations influence
future monitoring of hazardous waste storage, and disposal facilities
two ways.  They provide a specific definition for ground-water pollution,
and stipulate that sites must be located in geologic formations where
permeability of the clay is such that the time required for the movement
of leachate through the walls or bottom of the landfill to ground water
or surface water must be 1,000 years under a 'hydraulic gradient of 1.2.v
Pollution of ground water is defined as the 'entrance of any substance
into such waters in such quantities as to prevent or materially interfere,
either immediately or cumulatively, with any use of such waters otherwise
possible, or in such quantities as would require such waters to be treated
prior to use.'   This policy of long-term protection of existing ground-
water quality is further reinforced by the site data and monitoring
requirement of the regulations.
      The 1976 landfill regulations specify that'very hazardous waste1
    \0
-------
Pennsylvania - The Division of Solid Waste Management in Pennsylvania's
Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for the permit-
 ting and surveillance of monitoring programs associated with the disposal
of hazardous waste throughout the State.  At present, there are no facil-
 ities designed specifically for this purpose.  However, since passage of
RCRa, the Division has received inquiries from waste disposal firms
interested in establishing facilities.
     The Division's monitoring authority was strengthened considerably
by a 1977 revision of State Solid Waste Management Pules and Regulations
applicable to industrial waste disposal sites.  The permitting procedures
are designed to promote full disclosure of site and waste characteristics
through two-phase permitting procedure.  Data solicited from the applicant
include complete coverage of pertinent geologic and ground-water condition.
Phase I requires the applicant to describe monitoring proposed as part of
the project, and to delineate specific monitoring points.  However, the
permit application advises that 'wells are not to be drilled until the
Department approves the design, location, and specifications.'
     The basic approach to monitoring hazardous waste management facilities
in Pennsylvania begins with the assumption that all sites are ultimate
disposal sites, with waste storage capabilities of the site dependent upon
a wide range of environmental factors.  For this reason, the regulations
stipulate that   'monitoring points should not be located more than 500
feet from the permitted area, in order to obtain ground-water samples
capable of being analyzed for contaminants as close as possible to the a
actual place of deposition.'
     One monitoring well must be installed hydraulically downgradient
and one monitoring well upgradient from the deposition area.  This is
considered to be the minimum requirement for each project.  However, DER
approval of hazardous waste monitoring projects is to be on a case-by-case
basis with provision for additional monitoring wells at the discretion of
the agency.  Design of the monitoring wells and sampling procedure are

                                     33

-------
dictated by the terms of the project permit.
     The regulations stipulate that each monitoring well must be purged
prior to obtaining water samples.  Chemical analyses of water samples
from the monitoring well and other hydrologic data must be submitted
quarterly.  Constituents included in the analyses are determined on a
case-by-case basis, according to the chemical and physical properties
and the volume of the materials disposed of.
     17,1?
Texas  - The Texas Water Quality Board is actively involved in a program
to insure that monitoring requirements are satisfactory at both on-site and
off-site hazardous waste storage and disposal facilities.  Operators are
required to comply with guidelines established in May 1976 for the
implementation of approved monitoring-leachate collection systems.
The agency reports that there are  'more than a dozen1 sites in the state
which do meet the requirements.
     Although the board has  '  established^zero discharge philosophy
for hazardous wastes-and landfills,, it reooj^gnizes that all facilities
eventually will discharge after closure of the operation, and therefore
long-term post-operational surveillance is required in order to minimize
possible damage to ground or surface water beyond the site.
     The agency has established a three-phase monitoring program.
Phase I involves sampling to establish background water quality at the site.
Phase II mandates a periodic sampling program, the results of which must
be reported to the agency monthly during the first year of site operation,
and quarterly thereafter.   Phase III of the monitoring program extends
sampling and analysis of ground water and leachate for a number of years
after the site is closed.  The sampling frequency and time period of
monitoring after closure is established by the agency at the time of
permitting.  Registration of hazardous waste disposal operations is on
a case-by-case basis with the number of sampling points and/or monitoring
wells set by the agency.  The registration procedure was initiated as
a means of obtaining information on existing waste disposal sites.

                                 34

-------
     Sampling point distribution and monitoring procedures are dictated
by hydrogeologic conditions and types of waste likely to be encountered.
Guidelines developed by the TWQB call for three sampling points  'under
idg*1 conditions,1 that is, where the underlying earth materials are
fairly homogeneous/ irrpenreable,and uniformly sloping in one direction.
The monitoring wells should be equally spaced on a line through the
center of the disposal area extending from the area of highest water-
table elevation to the lowest water-table elevation on the property.
     All monitoring wells must be cased , with the annular space between
the zone of saturation and the surface completely backfilled or plugged
with cement or packed with clay, to prevent percolation of surface
water into the well bore.  The well casing must be fitted with a removable
cap to prevent entrance of runoff and rainfall.
     Plans submitted for monitoring systems must address the procedure
to be followed if sampling indicates leaching from the disposal site.  The
plans should include a description of steps to be followed to determine
the cause of the problenuand -institute corrective rneasuresv
     Leachate collection systems should provide for monitoring and
treatment of leachate.  Treated leachate must either meet TWQB discharge
standards, or be recycled to the facility producing the leachate.  For
sites accepting hazardous wastes,the agency recommends monitoring systems
aqplcying both wells and leachate collection systems in order to maximize
the capability for early detection of pollutants leaking from the facility.
         monitoring systems are not accepted as a substitute for liners
   situations where geologic or hydrologic conditions indicate the need
for lining of the disposal site.  Conversely, lining of these sites does
not rule out the requirement for a monitoring system.
     TWQB guidelines stipulate that in situations where more than one water-
bearing stratum is present, each individual water-bearing unit should be
          by properly spaced lines of three wells.
                                   35

-------
Wisconsin - The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR)  views
monitoring as one portion of the total hazardous waste management program,
required principally as a surveillance tool with the data generated  to
be used in enforcement procedures. Facilities approved by DNR are not
required to obtain any local permits or authorizations which may otherwise
be necessary to operate the facility.  Licensing involves three steps/
with monitoring and closure plans to be submitted as part of the first step
for the feasibility report.  A waste classification plan incorporated in
the law would assign all waste to classes, based upon the relative degree
of hazard posed by the waste.  The principal emphasis on monitoring
devices is related to the long-term care provisions of the proposed law.
In this respect, it should be noted that DNR views installation of monitoring
devices and their operation as a final check of the operation of the
facility, rather than as a substitute for hydrogeologically sound site
criteria.
     In the original plan of operation, the DNR can require up to 10 years
of lone-term care, unless the licensee agrees to a longer period of time.
After this time period expires, a decision on termination is to be made
by the DNR.
                                    36

-------
IV. Regulatory Options
          In absence of a ground-water monitoring system, any; contami-
nation taking place will not be detected until the contaminated
ground water: (a) discharges at the ground surface,  (b)  enters surface.
water where it causes visible changes, or (c)  intercepts a puraping-
well where a -water quality change is noticed.   Ground water is nob
observable nor is it generally a direct source of water for biota
that might be deleteriously affected by a lowering of quality.  Therefore,
contamination may occur and continue unnoticed unless it, produces visible
changes at the land surfaces.
          One purpose of ground-water monitoring is  to  verify the
integrity of engineering and construction features designed to
prevent leakage of  liquid waste or leachate.   Should the containment system
fail, an effective inonitoring system will detect, contamination before
the contaminants have spread beyond the property boundary or to supply
wells.  This early warning capability is desirable as steps to minimize
contamination can be taken before a large volume of the aquifer has been
'affected. The very fundamental objective of monitoring  is to serve
as a check on potential leachate contamination.  At existing site "where
ground water contaminaiton has begun, it is important:, to protect: the users
 (present and future) of the ground.water.  At'new sites and at existing
sites where contamination has not occurred, protection of the ground
              A^i
water resource'gggLreceive-additional emphasis.
                               37

-------
     The Agency has considered two different ways to
monitoring the hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities.  One approach, it would require monitoring the
ground water only.  The disadvantage of this approach is once
groundwater contamination has taken place, it is virtually
impossible to remove it.  Groundwater monitoring alone does
not sufficiently protect the environment because the leak must
move through and cause extensive contamination of the zone of
aeration before it reaches and contaminates the groundwater.
The other approach is considered to combine ground water
monitoring of unsatruated zone which shall allow detection of
leachate contamination at all stages.  The Agency recognizes
that the technology of leachate monitoring is still being refined,
but the equipment for such monitoring is currently available.-
Although sampling the zone of aeration is difficult and some
of the methods are expensive, EPA considers leachate monitoring
extremely important because it can provide an early warning.
Once groundwater contamination has occurred, it is extremely
difficult or impossible to remedy, particulary where an aquifer
is located far beneath a facility.
     These proposed rules require groundwater and leachate
monitoring at all landfills and surface impoundments.  The
groundwater monitoring requirements specify installation of a
minimum of three monitoring wells hydraulically downgradient
from the facility and one well upgradient from the facility.
The leachate monitoring requirements specify the installation
                          38

-------
of a Leachate Monitoring System under the primary liner or
natural soil barrier of landfills and surface impoundments.
Sampling and analysis is required at regular intervals to
to determine changes in concentrations of chemical consitu-
ents in groundwater and leachate.
     The Agency has established a three-phase monitoring
program.  Phase I. involves sampling to establish groundwater
quality at the site.  Phase II. manadates a periodic sampling
program/ the results of which must be reported to the Agency
quarterly.  Phase III. extends sampling and analysis of ground-
water and leachate for a number of years after the site is closed.
          A contract is granting to provide for publication of
     an "Air and Groundwater Monitoring Manual for Hazardous
     Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facities".  The
     purpose of the manual is to provide specific guidelines
     to owners and operators of these facilities as to the
     requirements promulgated under the authority of Section
     3004 of RCRA related to air and groundwater monitoring.
     Information to be included in this manual would allow
     owners and operators to determine the kind of monitoring
     network required, and the types of monitoring facilities
     or methods required.  Additionally, the manual will be
     used by permit granting officials in determining the
     adequacy of monitoring -plans and protocols used at
     facilities requesting permits (in accordance with Section
     3005 regulations) to treat, store and dispose of
     hazardous waste.
                               39

-------
 V. Identification of and rationale for chosen  regulation
250.43-8  Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring
     An owner/operator of a landfill or surface impoundment
     facility shall install/ maintain and operate a .Ground-
     Water Monitoring System and a Leachate Monitoring System
     as specified in this Section and shall comp-ly" with the
     Sampling and Analyses and the Recordkeeping and Reporting
     Requirements of this Section.
     All landfills and surface impoundments  are  potential
threats to degrade gound water.  Landfills  are  constructed by
placing wastes in excavations and covering the material with
a soil cover. Even though wastes in landfill are covered,
leachate can be generated by the infiltration  of precipitation
and surface water runoff. Ponds  and lagoons  are  commonly
considered to be liquid-tight, but the potential for leakage
of large quantities of fluids from these sites,  can lead to
pollute groundwater and surface  water.  A  planned monitoring
systems shall be established in such a manner to detect
as early as possible the movement of contaminants from the
facility into the groundwater. This will allow the determination
of the potential for endangement of the groundwater and any
impact on specified groundwater quality.  Remedial measures
can therefore be stated as early as possible to  minimize
or eliminate adverse environmental and health  effects.
                           40

-------
250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring

(a) Groundwater Monitoring System
     A Groundwater Monitoring System shall consist of a
     minimum of four (4) monitoring wells meeting the
     following specifications:

     (i) At least one well shall be located in an area hydrauli-
         cal]y upgradient from the active portion of the facility
         so as to yield samples representative of the background
         quality of the groundwater which flows under the
         facility.

     (ii) A minimum of three  (3) monitoring wells shall be
          installed hydraulically downgradient of the active
          portion of the facility and shall be sunk to different
          depths in order to detect any leachate which has
          migrated into groundwater(s) underlying the facility
          property.  Each well shall be constructed to draw
          samples from the depths where the faciltiy owner/
          operator can demonstrate that contamination is most
          likely to occur.

     (iii) At least one of the three(3) wells specified in  (ii)
           shall be located immediately adjacent to the active
           portion of the facility.  The other wells shall be
           located within the property line of the facility
           to provide the greatest opportunity for interception
           of any leachate that migrates into groundwater(s)
           underlying the facility.

     (2)  All monitoring wells  shall be cased, and the annular
         space shall be backfilled with an  impermeable material
         in order to prevent surface water  from entering the
         well bore and inter-aquifer water  exchange.
Note:  A Groundwater Monitoring  System shall not to required
       or a  lesser  degree of  groundwater monitoring may be
       utilized,  if the  owner/operator can demonstrate, at the
       time  a permit is  issued under  Subpart E,  that the geologic
       and

       hydrologic conditions  underlying the facility indicate
       no potential for  discharge  to  groundwater.

       Wells may  be sunk to draw samples at a single depth if it
       can be demonstrated by' the  facility owner/operator that it
       is the depth where contamination is likely to occur.

                             41

-------
     The basic objectives of a monitoring program is to
detect and evaluate potential or existing ground-water
degration caused by leachate.  In this approach, wells or
other monitoring devices strategically located with
reference to ground-water flow direction  are sampled
at regular intervals to determine changes in concentrations
of chemical constituents in the ground water or the sample
from other monitoring devices.
     The number of monitoring wells required is site
specific with either large sites or any site within a
complex hydrogeologic-setting-requiring-a greater-number
than small or hydrogeologically simple sites. If the geologic
setting of the area of site is not complex, and the ground-
water gradient has been accurately defined, a minimum of four
monitoring wells is necessary. However, with complex geohydro-
logic conditions, a larger number of wells might be required
                      ao,23
for adequate monitoring. On the other hand, installation
of monitoring wells may not be necessary in locations
where the depth of ground water below the land surface
is sufficiently great and/or rainfall low enough so that
solid waste leachate does not reach ground water.
                            42

-------
     The  location of the background monitoring well  in  an  area
hydraulically upgradient is critical if  there is  a gound-water
mound  associated with the site.  This  mound occurs  because
the  recharge rate at that particular location is  greater than
in the surrounding area. The mounded ground water creates  a
gradient  different from the natural gradient. For a  limited
distance/ water will flow radially from  the center of the  mound.
Because mounding of of ground water is possible,  the background
well should be placed outside of the range of influence on the
natural upgradient side of the site. However, if  the location
of the background well is too far from the site,  the
water  sample collected from the well might not be repre-
sentative of the ground water which flows under the  site
and may be contaminated by other sources.
     One of the downgradient wells should be immediately
adjacent to the site in order to detect the leachate entering
the ground water. The other downgradient-: wells should be  in
close  proximity to the landfill in order to detect the leachate
plume  as soon as possible.   Once leachate enters  the ground
water, it is diffiuclt to control; the sooner its presence is
noted, the easier it will be to initiate remedial action.
                          43

-------
     Improperly constructed monitoring wells can pollute the

ground water and/or induce inter-aquifer leakage which can


cause movement of pollutants of from one aquifer to another.


Therefore, finishing-'the well is an important step  .and

should not be overlooked in monitor well construction.


When the monitoring well is backfilled and sealed to the


ground surface, the casing should be capped to prevent


foreign material from entering the well.  The cap for the

well casing should be designed to provide easy access and

protection against vandalism.


     If the physical behavior of contaminant bodies is not


ocmpletely known, there is almost no way of anticipating where

the plume of contaminant will be within an aquifer.  The monitor!!1

devices collecting water at multiple depths to screen the


entire aquifer is recommended at this situation. A single well


screening the entire aquifer is not appropriate because the
                                               it WiJ^
type of construction could cause complications.  it may contribut'
                          44

-------
To the vertical spread of contaminant by providing a conduit
for ground-water movement.  Knowledge of the characteristics
and the types of waste materials at individual site is  .
important design the well for allowing sampling of the ground-
water in that portion of the saturated zone where water
containing leachate is most likely to occur.  Contaminants
less dense than water may move along the top of the zone of
saturation, whereas, contaminants more dense than water may
move downward under the influence of gravity into the lower
portion of the aquifer.
                            45

-------
250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring
(b)  Leachate  Monitoring System
  (1)  A Leachate  Monitoring System shall be installed within
      the  zone  of aeration  underlying  the  facility without
      drilling  through  the  bottom and  side liners  or soil
      barriers  of the landfill or surface  impoundment and
      shall be  designed to  collect samples in the  zone  of
      aeration  between  the  bottom of the liner or  soil
      barrier of  the landfill  or  surface impoundment and the 4op
      of the  water table.
  Note: A Leachate Monitoring System  shall not be required if
      the  owner/operator can demonstrate that an alternative
      leachate  monitoring tehcnique will detect leaks as
      effectively as the system presented  in this  paragraph.
      A leachate  detection/removal system  installed below the lifl
      liner or  soil barrier of landfill pursuant to Section 250.*
      -2(b)(12) and a leachate detection system installed be lew
      the  liner or soil barrier of surface impoundments pursu/
      to Section"250^45-rSfcH^)' shali;  be ^onsi^erec/anr~aeceptatrt*
      substitute  for a  Leachate Monitoring-System.

     The zone of  aeration,  also called the unsaturated  zone
is part of the earth's  crust where the voids are filled with air
and (usually) where some water is held by  molecular attraction.
It is through this zone that percolating waters must pass to
recharge or contaminate the groundwater.   Within the zone of
aeration, liquid movement  is primarily vertical; only minimal
horizontal movement is  possible  because of the controlling
force of gravity. Since horizontal movement of fluids in the
unsaturated  zone  is;.minimal, effective monitoring  of contaminant
migration from hazardous waste management  facilities must of
                          46

-------
 necessity be performed directly beneath, or adjacent to the

 area where the waste has been placed.  The monitoring system

 installed by drilling through the bottom and side liners  or/

 soil barriers will cause disruption  of the site integrity and.

 produce pathways for liquid movement from the site thus creating

 more environmental risk.
                         a.
     This regualtion requires^Leachate Detection System installed between
                                            a
 top and bottom liners of the surface impoundment and Leachate Detection
                                            A
 and Removal System installed below the liner or soil barrier of landfill*.

 Ene  purpose of these systems is to detect any failure of  the

 top  liner, a zone of aera-non monitoring sys-fem is not required

in this case.

      Monitoring the zone of aeration in hydrageologic env±±—
                                                             olO
onments were the water table is 1.5  to  3 meters C5—10 feet)

below the landfill is probably not necessary.  Since monitoring

in the zone of saturation will be effective'in detecting  a leaJc.

-------
250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate Monitorino
(c) Sampling and Analysis

(1) The background level of the quality of both the ground-
    water and the water in the zone of aeration underlying
    the facility shall be established by conducting the
    comprehensive analysis specified in paragraph(c)(6)
    on samples collected: from the Groundwater Monitoring
    and Leachate Monitoring Systems on a monthly basis for
    at least one year..
    For a new facility, comprehensive analysis of monthly sample
    shall begin at least three months prior to the treatment.,
    storage oar disposal of any hazardous waste at the facility.

Note: Samples withdrawn from a Leachate Monitoring System during
    the background monitoring schedule may be analyzed for
    representative characteristics of the comprehensive
    analysis if an adequate volume of sample cannot be collected
    to analyze for all of the characteristics specified in  the
    comprehensive analysis.
     All groundwater contains natural chemical constituents

 in  solution.  The kinds and amounts of constituents depend

 upon the geochemical environment, movement, and source of th

 groundwater.  An accurate and complete record of existing

 ground water quality is necessary to determine background

 water quality in a monitoring program,  The background quality

 for each monitoring well will serve as baseline to draw

 reliable conclusions for possible contamination in the future

 Reliable data on background quality of ground water will al

 be  of critical importance relative to regulatory and legal

-------
considerations. Therefore, consideration must be given to both
the ground-water quality which occurs naturally, as well as other
possible sources of contamination which may affect the background
quality.
     Once a monitoring program has been in operation for an
appreciable period of time, the data obtained form it can be
used to provide specific analytical profiles and seasonal tre
fluctuation for ground water and/or samples from the zone of
aeration for a giving site. Statistical analyses of the profiles
will provide such important statistical values as normal
ranges, means, and standard deviations for each of the parameters.
     Knowledge of the ground-water quality existing at the
site prior to its activation for waste management is important
because:
   1) The water may contain naturally occurring elements that
could be mistaken for contaminants.
   2) The only accurate way to measure contamination resulting
from waste management activities is to compare to conditions
existing previously.
   3) Man's activities on off-site locations may have produced
contaminants that are moving beneath the new HWMF.
                            49

-------
  4)  Knowledge of conditions existing prior to establishment
of the waste facility protects the owner from complaints
or law suits alleging that ground-water supplies  have been
damaged.
                             50

-------
250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate  Monitoring

(c)  Sampling and Analysis

  (2)  After the background level has been established pursuant
      to paragraph  (c)(1), samples shall be taken from the
      Groundwater Monitoring System at least once a year and a
      analyzed pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (c)(6)
      and,in addition,  samples shall be taken from the Ground-
      water Monitoring System on the following frequency and
      analyzed pursuant-to the requirements of paragraph (c)(5):
    (i)  semi-annually,  if the ground water flow rate ranges betweei
        25 and 50 ra/year (82 and 164 ft/year),or
    (ii) quarterly, if the ground-water flow rate is greater than
        50 in/year (164 ft/year) .

  (3)  After the background, level has been established pursuant to
      paragraph (c)(1), samples shall be taken from the Leachate
      Monitoring System at least once a year and analyzed in a
      accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(6)  and,
      in addition, samples shall be taken from the Leachate
      Monitoring System at least once each quarter and analyzed in
      accordance with the requirements of paragraph (c)(5).

  Note:  This requirement is waived if the owner/operator- -can
      demonstrate that the quantity of any samples that can be
      obtained from the Leachate Monitoring System *B- insufficient
      for conducting the required analyses.
      The principal characteristic of concern in selecting

 a sampling frequency is the rate of ground-water flow at the
     ad
 site. The flow rate will be primarily dependent upon the

 aquifer porosity and permeability as well as the hydraulic

 gradient existing at the site,  Ground-water flow rates ranging

 in orders of magnitude from a few meters per year in an

 impervious intergranular porosity aquifer to tens of meters

 per day in the more unpredictable fracture and solution

                            51

-------
porosity aquifers. The higher the rate of ground-water flow,
the greater the monitoring frequency needed.

     The monitoring devices in the zone of aeration should be
monitoring as intensively as those placed in the zone of saturati1
in the view of the difficulties which are most likely to be
encountered in attempting to obtain a sufficient sample from
the various devices which are located in the zone of aeration.
This standard is accompanied by a note to deviate the require-
ment.
                           52

-------
250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate Monitoring

(c)  Sampling and Analysis


 (4) If after the background levels are established
     pursuant to paragraph  (c)(1), the analyses of samples
     taken pursuant to paragraph  (c)(2) Or  (c)(3) shows that
     the quality of the groundwater or the water in  the zone
     of aeration significantly differs, as determined by the
     Student's t , single-tailed  test at 95  percent confidence
     level, from the background quality of these waters,
     the owner/operator shall:
                i
   (i)  notify the Regional Administrator within 7 days after
       such a finding;

   (ii) determineAif possible, the cause of the difference in
       quality (e.g-., the result of a spill, a design failure,
       and improper operating procedure) ; and

   (iii)  determine the extent of groundwater contamination or
       the potential for groundwater contamination and discontinue
       operation of the facility until the Regional Administrator
       determines wha-t^aGfeLonS'-'are^-to-"be taker*.
      Statistically  analysis  of monitoring  data  provides  an

 objective  way  to  compare  and make  decisions  about a significant

 amount increment  of a chemical species.   In  dealing with a

 small samples  as  well as  large samples.   Single-tailed student's
     (See/Wc*es)
 t test^is  an effective method to evaluate  two different groups

 data to see if there is significant different or no essentially

 difference between  each other.   The 95  %  confidence level of

 the single-tailed t test  is  considered  to  serve as an aid in the

 diagnosis  of leachate contamination problem  for regulatory
                              53

-------
purpose.  If a statistically significant increase in the
concentration of a chemical species is detected, an investigation
should be conducted immediately to minimize or eliminate adverse
environemntal and health effects.
                           54

-------
'."(0.43-8 Groundwater and  Leachata Monitoring

(c)  Sampling and Analysis

(5)  A minimum analysis shall quantify the following charac-
    teristics of the sample:             0
  (i) Speciifc conductivity, mho/cm at 25 G
  (ii) PH
  (iii)  .. - Concentrations of the chloride, mg/liter
  (iv)   ." Concentrations of the total dissolved solids , mg/liter:
  (v) ..   Concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, xag/liter
  (vi) The concentrations of ^principal hazardous constituents^
      or indicators thereof, found in the largest quantity
      in the hazardous waste disposed of in the facility, mg/liter.


(6)  A comprehensive analysis shall quantify tlie following
    characteristics of the sample:                • •
  (i) Those characteristics listed in paragraph. (5)
  (ii) The concentrations of the contaminants aaadJLeveis of
      the properties liste'd in Appendix II, except radioactivity
      levels if facility does not treat f store, or dispose of
      waste containing radioactive substances .
 % i ii )  Concentration. . of
  (iv) Concentration of nickel, mg/1'iter
  (v)  Concentration of cyanide , ..rag/liter
  
-------
Specific conduct!vity, mho/cm at 25°C
     The presence of charged ionic species in solution makes
the solution conductive.  As ion concentrations increase,
conductance of the solution increases;  therefore,  the conduc-
tance measurement provides an indication of ion concentration.
When monitoring ground water, specific conductance can be
readily measured in the field and the result is a  .general
indication of dissolved-solids concentration.  Temperature
is very important when performing conductivity measurements,
because of the pesponse of the conductance value to tempera-
ture change is somewhat different for different salts and
different concentrations.  It is necessary to record tempera*
ture with conductivity measurements, or to adjust  the tempera-
ture with conductivity measurements, or to adjust  the temperature
of the samples prior to making conductivity measurement.
     The pH of  ' water represents the interrelated result
of a number of chemical equilibria.
Accurate measurement of pH in the field should  be  standard
                          56

-------
practice for all ground-water samples, A pH measurement
taken at the moment of sampling may represent the original
equilibrium conditions in the aquifer satisfactorily, but
the pH determined after a period of time from sampling may
have no relation to the actual conditions due to the sample's
gain or lose of carbon dioxide. Most ground water found in the
Unites States has a pH value ranging from around 6.0 to 8.5.
A departure from a normal pH could indicate the influx of acidic
or alkaline industrial wastes.  The pH of most ground waters
are slightly basic because of the presence of carbonates and
bicarbonates in the subsurface geology.

Concentrations of the chloridefmg/liter
     The element chlorine is a member of the halogen group
oif the elements and the most important and most widely distri-
buted of the halogens in natural water.  Chloride is present in
all natural waters, but mostly the concentrations are low.
Exceptions occur where streams receive inflows of high-chloride
industrial waste or are affected by oceanic tides.
     It is known that chloride ions move with the water through
most soils with less retardation and can be measured as an
indicator of contamination. The chemical behavior of chloride
in natural water is very tame and subdued compared to the other
                           57

-------
major ions. Chloride ions do not significantly enter  into
oxidation or reduction reactions, form no important solute
complexes with other ions, do not form salts of  low solubi-
lity, are not significantly adsorbed on mineral  surfaces.

Concentrations of the total dissolved solids, ing/liter
     Because of the wide variety of inorganic and organic
materials encountered in the analyses for solids,concentration
of the total dissolved solids is used to evaluate of  water
quality as a indicator for monitoring purpose.

Concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, mg/liter
     Organic contaminants may enter ground water by infiltratioa
of precipitation from the hazardous waste site.  AS a  result
of accidental spills and leak f industrial organic waste
may lead to groundwater contamination.  Both natural  and
man-make contaminants can have undesirable effects on health.
The dissolved organic carbon determination can indicate the
organic contaminants and can be used as indicator for monitoring
purpose,
                             58

-------
 The concentrations of principal hazardous constituents
 or indicators thereof, found in the largest quantity in
 the hazardous waste disposed of in the facility.
      A large numbers of heavy metals and organic compounds
 in industrial waste are disposed on land or surface impoundment
 every year.  The concentrations of specified componants can be
 very high at sites where the untreated industrial effluent is
 leaking from a surface impoundment and reaching the saturated
 zone almost unchanged in chemical composition.  To analyse::the
 principal hazardous constituents  or indicators  to gain  the
 early  warning for contamination of the groundwater is deemed
 important.
Comprehensive analysis
     The purpose of monitoring is to detect .discharges which
may endanger groundwater.This analysis must include all substances
covered by the Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standard.
Other hazardous material such as beryllium,nickel, cyanide
arid organic pollutants shall be analyzed for the purpose of
monitoring . For a first step in the evaluation, identification
of the organic compounds detected is not necessary. Only after
establishing their presence is it necessary or desirable to
                            59

-------
identify the organic species. The organic content in a water
sample may be compared to the content in the samples from
background quality of the well by means of comparing retention
times of the peaks in the gas chromatogram, Peaks whose retention
times are equal may be presumed to represent the same substance.
                            60

-------
250.43-8 Groundwater and Leachate  Monitoring


(d)  Recordkeeping and Reporting

(1)  An owner/operator of a facility shall forward to the
    Regional Administrator, at the end of each reporting
    quarter, two copies of the monitoring data developed
    pursuant to the requirement of paragraphs (c)(2) and
    (c)(3)  during- the reporting quarter.

(2)  An owner/operator of a facility shall be required to
    retain for a minimum of 3 years, all records of monitoring
    and analytical activities and data, including all original
    strip chart recordings and instrumentation calibration
    and maintenance records.
     Effective groundwater quality management requires that

relevant infromation be available to the decision maker in a

concise, comprehensive-,- "timely,~-economical,- -arid reliable manner,

Relization of these goals can be  accomplished with good

recordkeeping and reporting requirement.
                           61

-------
                      REFERENCES

1. Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water,
   Ihe Report to Congress, Office of Water Supply and Office of
   Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA, Jan., 1977.
2. California State Water Resources Control Board, "Waste Discharge
   Requirements for Nonsewerable Waste Disposal to Land", (Part £),
   December. 1976.
3. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Special  Waste Land
   Disposal, Permits Criteria,  1977.
4. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Special  and/or Hazardous
   Wastes Permit Information, Module E.  1977.
5. Piskin, R.«^2Suitah1 1 ity^of, T.anrlf i Hs--.for .Disposal of-^Hazardous.
   Wastes in Illinois", Waste Age, July, 1976.
6. Chapter 618, 8.1413.2(5)  Maryland Natural Resources Article.
   (as amended March, 1977)
7. Chapter 618,8.1413.2(N)  Maryland Natural Resources Article.
   (as amended March, 1977)
8. Maryland Water Resources Administration Regulation 08.05.04.04(b).
   March, 1977.
9. HW7, Contents of Hazardous Waste Facility Permit Applications,
   Proposed REgulations, August, 1977.  Minnesota Pollution Control
   Agency.
10. Rule 7:26, 2-1 et seq., New Jersey Deparbrent of Environmental
    Protection, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.  July, 1974.
11. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Rules and
    Regulations, Part 703 et se^. Aug., 1977.
                                   62

-------
                    REFERENCES  (Cont'd)

12. New York Department of Environmental Conservation Rules and
    Regulations, Part 360.8 et seqf Part 703.9 et seq, August, 1977.
13. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Hazardous
    Wastes, "Criteria for Landfill Disposal of Hazardous Waste in
    Ohio", June 26, 1976.
14. Draft Criteria for the Disposal of Very Hazardous Wastes in Ohio.
    June, 1976.
15. Supplementary Geology and Ground Water Information, Module 5A-
    Phasel, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,
    Water Quality Management and Solid Waste Management.  March, 1975,
16. Chapter .75, -Regulation .75.38,-et.-seq..-,..Pennsylvsmia.-Departrnent..o£.
    Environmental Resources, Solid Waste Management Regulations,
    June, 1977.
17. Texas Water Quality Board, Technical Guideline No. 6, May, 1976.
18. Texas Water Quality Board, Industrial Solid Waste Management
    Regulation, Sec. 3-07.  Dec., 1975.
19. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Hazardous Waste
    Management Guidelines and Procedures.  1977.
                               63

-------
                     REFERENCES  (Cont'd)








 20. Wehran Engineering Corporation, and Geraghty & Miller, Inc.



    'Procedure manual for ground-water monitoring at solid waste



    disposal facilities'.  U. S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste,



    EPA/530/SW-611, 1977.



 21.  ' A Manual of Laws, Regulations, and Institutions for Control



 of Ground  Water Pollution'. U. S. EPA-440/9-76-006, 1976.



 22. U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency.  The Prevalence of



    Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at



    Selected Industrial Waste Land Disposal Sites.  1977.



23. Mooij, H.,  F.  A. Rovers and A.  A.  Sobanski.   Recommended



    Procedures for Landfill Monitoring Programme Design and



    Implementation. Environment Canada,  Proceedings of  an



    international seminar.  EPS 4-EC-77-3. May 1977.



24. U. S.  Department of Health,  Education,  and Welfare.,  Effects



    of Land Disposal of Solid Wastes on Water Quality.   SW-2ts



    1978.



25. Geological  Survey Water-Supply  Paper 1473 ,  Study And Interpertation



    of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water.   1970
                             64

-------
                       Annex
The  'Srrall Sarrpling Theory"  Student's Single-tailed t test,
is  to be used to determine the singnificant acouftt of increment
of  a chemical species by corrparing the concentration with the
baseline level.
Suppose two sanples hava sauple nurrber, ireans and standard
deviations given by N,, N-V X.^, "X2/ and s,, s2 respectively.
       X = Nean =
                      N
                                      (X-x):
       s = Standard"  '. Deviation =
        2             (X-X)2
       s  = Variance = — —	—
                          N
Then, there are two hypotheses:
       HQ : X, -» Xjr and. there- is -essentially no difference
                     beti-^en the groups
       H, : X. 5^ xl, and there is a significant difference
                     between the groups
Under the hypotheses HQ/
                                where  O1' =
                                                         - 2
Tlie distribution \vith    =» N, + ri2 - 2  degree of freectota-
                             T
On the basis of single-tailed^test atA?5% confidence level,,
                 H  -2
                               (Tho valije fron the table at
                                65

-------
                     Annex
If t

p / we cannot reject H,, and there is a significant difference between the group. Sarsple calculation: Reduce raw data : Specific conductivity Background Sarcple A. 805 730 700 820 695 825 775 800 750 850 Total 3750 Sangole No. (N) 5 Mean (x) 750 Variance (s2) 2770 4000 5 800 1250 Sarole B 34OO 1800 1560 2100 1480 10340 5 2068 490176 (I) Calculate t for independent sanple (Background vs Sanpile &J 5 x 2770 -+ 5 x 1250 " -5 + 5 - 2 800 -"750 - 50 Degree of* freedom jj = + N -2 -5-1-5-2 = Q 1.58 66


-------
                   Annex
Therefore, 1.58 < 1.86,  there is essentially ro difference
                        between the sanple.

 (II) Calculate t for independent sanple  (background vs Sacple B)
                                  *5 x 2770 + 5 x 490176
                •-T-I     —j— j      i
                Nr+N2-2     /     5 + 5-2
            555
                 Y,             2068-750
                                               _
±.  _         _ __      _ . ----     =s 3.754
                        555 X/V5T1/5
                                     /V5T
Therefbre, S.754^1.86,  there is a significant difference
                         between the sanple.
                              67

-------
                        Annax


Table : Perccntile Valuss  (t ) for Students t Distribution vzith.

        TJ Dagreejof Freedom
V
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
•51
21.
22
23
24
25
^.95
6.31
2.92
2.35
2.13
2.02
1.94
1.90
1.86
1.83
1.81
1.80
1.78
1.77
1.76
1.75
1.75
1.74
1.73
1.73
1.72
1.72
1.72-
1.71
1.71
1.71
1.645
SourcG:';Thcory and Problems of Statistics"
       (Schiiuni Publishing Co.) 19GL
                             68
                                                ^ EJurray R. Spiegel

-------

-------
  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
  Section 3004 - Standards Applicable to
  Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities
                   Draft

            Background Document
  Section 250.43-9 Financial Requirements
                               Date:  December 15, 1978
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Office of Solid Waste

-------
                           Preface

     This document provides background information and support
for regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface
water, and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges and
emissions from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976.  It is being issued as a draft to
support the proposed regulations.  As new information is obtained,
changes may be made in the regulations as well as in this back-
ground material.

     Numerous revisions have been made in the proposed Section
3004 regulations since the background document was initially
drafted.  We have tried to revise the document to reflect the
latest decisions made by the Agency.  If there are inconsisten-
cies between the proposed preamble and regulation and this back-
ground document, the proposed material takes precedence.

     Comments in writing may be made to:
          Mr. Ronn N. Dexter
          Environmental Protection Agency
          Office of Solid Waste
          HWMD -  (WH-565)
          401 M Street, S.W.
          Washington, D.C.  20460

-------
                        INTRODUCTION

      The  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976  (RCRA)
provides  in  Section 3004(6), that the EPA "shall promulgate
regulations  establishing such performance standards,., as may
be  necessary to protect human health and the environment...
qualifications as to ownership, continuity of operations and
financial responsibility as may be necessary or desirable..."
      The  Financial Requirements regulations  (250.43-9) in Sub-
part  D  sets  forth these standards for owners and operators of
hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities:
      1)   Continuity of operation regulations which include
closure and  post closure monitoring and maintenance,access and default,
      2)   Financial responsibility which consists of   two
areas:       site life liability and post closure liability
and remedial action, and
      3)   Transfer of ownership.
      Continuity of Operation regulations insure that an owner
or  operator  will establish the necessary financial resources to
guarantee that the physical needs of a site, including closure
and post  closure monitoring and maintenance as required under
Section 250.43-7, will be accomplished.

      The  characteristics of an ideal solution to continuity of
operation problems are oriented toward the institutional
interests and capabilities of the hazardous waste management
industry.  The characteristics may be described as follows:
                                1

-------
     1)  strengthening the ability of hazardous waste manage-
ment companies to meet financial responsibilities, including
site closures, post-closure monitoring, and maintenance;
     2)  Providing compelling incentives to the companies to
carry out these functions;
     3)  Creating an enduring back-up institution to step in if
companies fail to carry out these functions.  The back-up insti-
tution must have the capability to organize remedial efforts,
legal capacity to do so, and the funds with which to pay for the
efforts; and
     4)  Providing an orderly, safe return of closed site land
to other uses.

     Two principles should guide the continuity of operations
structure.  First, the funds required to carry out functions on
sites that are abandoned or otherwise inadequately maintained
must be assured before the abandonment happens and during the
time the site is generating income, i.e. while it is still
accepting wastes.  Alternatively, funds could be gathered from
existing site operators for ex post facto application to an
abandoned site.  Second, funds gathered in anticipation of a
potential default by operators should be refunded to the
operators who fulfill their obligations.  If refund is not made,
operators will lose incentive to discharge those obligations,
and the institution designated to handle occasional and emergency
site abandonments will instead find itself routinely handling  an
unnecessarily large number of site closure and post-closure
operations.

-------
     With the exception of those things done to respond to the
problem of the excessive longevity of hazard and responsibility,
the intent of continuity of operation requirements is not to
relieve hazardous waste management operators of their obligations,
but to ensure operational needs in the event of their default.

     Very little guidance as to the meaning of financial
responsibility appeared in committee reports.  However, the
following text accompanied the Senate's version of the act,
which was ultimately adopted.

          "One of the specific conditions... is the
          requirement that facilities providing
          treatment... meet minimum qualifications
          on ownership, financial responsibility, and
          continuity of operations.  In a situation
          where the best accepted method of dealing
          with a hazardous waste may be long term
          stabilized storage, a permit must contain
          provisions to assure that the storage site
          will be maintained over that period.  In
          addition, there must be adequate evidence
          of financial responsibility, not only for
          the operation of the site, but also to
          provide against any liability if the
          material escapes the storage."

-------
     Based on this guidance it appears that the term financial
responsibility was intended to mean the ability to pay for
injuries to others resulting from the escape of hazardous
wastes into the environment.

     Briefly, the provisions in the Financial Requirement regu-
lation can be divided into six areas as follows:

     1)  Closure
     Hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal site owners
are responsible for closing their sites in a manner consistent
with regulations promulgated under Section 250.43-7.  in order to
ensure that adequate funds are available to meet closure respon-
sibilities at the time they are needed, owners will be required
under the Continuity of Operation regulations to establish
individual trust funds at the time the permit is issued.

     2)  Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance
     Each disposal facility (e.g., landfill)  owner will be
required to maintain the site and monitor for possible leakage
for 20 years following the site's closure.  To insure that funds
are available, the regulations will require the buildup of
individual site trust funds over the operating life of the
facility.

-------
     3)  Access and Default
     The Regional Administrator, employees and agents of the EPA,
shall have the right to enter a facility to carry out the closure
and/or post closure monitoring and maintenance in the event these
requirements are not being met.  The Regional Administrator also
has the right to use all or part of the funds in the closure/
post closure trust funds to carry out these activities.

     4)  Site Life Liability
     Each hazardous waste management facility is liable for
damages to health and the environment attributable to the facility,
To insure that such liability is covered to a responsible extent,
financial responsibility regulations will require each site owner
to maintain a specified level of liability for claims against
damages to persons or their property.

     5)  Post Closure Liability and Remedial Action
     Financial Responsibility must also be maintained after a
disposal site ceases operation, because the potential for
damage still exists.  In the current draft of the regulation,
requirements for post closure financial responsibility are being
reserved.  Due to the uncertainties associated with long term
disposal of hazardous wastes and the unavailability of non-sudden
liability coverage from the private sector, the EPA has considered
seeking additional legislative authority to create a federally
administered fund.

-------
     6)  Transfer of Ownership
     The Transfer of Ownership standard has been included in
the proposed regulation in order to guarantee that the money
in the post closure monitoring and maintenance trust fund
will remain secure in the event ownership of a disposal
facility changes.

     In the remaining sections of this background document the
regulations and regulatory alternatives will be discussed.  The
discussion will be organized into two chapters:  Rationale and
Description and Analysis.

     In the Rationale chapter, the need for promulgating the
financial requirement regulation is examined.  Several damage
cases are presented to illustrate the necessity for assurance
of facility closure, post-closure monitoring and maintenance,
and financial responsibility for damages to persons and property.

     The next chapter of the paper, Description and Analysis.
will present an analysis of the proposed regulation and the
alternatives that were considered by the EPA.  The first four
topics deal with the Continuity of Operation regulation.  They
include Facility Closure, Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance.
Access and Default and Alternatives for Meeting Continuity of
Operation Objectives.  The first three of these sections examine
regulatory alternatives, (e.g., time periods for developing the
closure trust fund, number of years post closure monitoring and
maintenance must be accomplished).  The fourth section deals with

-------
alternatives to the site specific trust fund required by the
regulation for closure and post closure monitoring and mainte-
nance.  The EPA considered minimum owner assets, bond require-
ments and industry mutual assessment requirements as alterna-
tives to the trust fund requirement.

     The next two topics in this chapter describe the
Financial Responsibility Requirement and the regulatory alterna-
tives considered by the EPA.

     The final section, Transfer of Ownership discusses the
reasoning and alternatives for this portion of  the regulation.

-------
                          RATIONALE





     The Financial Requirement regulation (250.43-9) is divided



into three sections:  Continuity of Operation, Financial



Responsibility and Transfer of Ownership.








     The Continuity of Operation regulation will set up a



reserve of funds to assure that closure and post-closure respon-



sibilities as required under Section 250.43-7 of RCRA can be met,







     The primary objective of the Financial Responsibility



regulation is to ensure a source of funds accessible to the



legal process, that would be sufficient to meet legitimate



claims for damages resulting from the escape of hazardous wastes



into the environment.








     The Transfer of Ownership standard has been included in



the proposed regulation in order to guarantee that the money in



the post closure monitoring and maintenance trust fund will



remain secure in the event ownership of a disposal facility



changes.








     EPA damage files show that in many cases damaged parties



had no recourse for claims because the facility owner or



operator made little or no provisions to establish financial



responsibility.  Also, in many instances when facilities were



ordered closed or declared bankruptcy there were insufficient



funds to clean-up, close(and maintain the site properly.



                               8

-------
      The  following incidents from the EPA files illustrates the
magnitude of the problem.

Love  Canal, N.Y.
      In 1836, a U.S. Government engineer surveyed the Niagara
County area, looking for a possible site for a ship canal to
connect Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.  He reported that Lewiston,
New York, by virtue of its location on the Niagara River at the
base  of a 300-foot escarpment, not only was an excellent place
for a ship canal, it also had excellent potential as a source of
cheap water power.

      Unfortunately, the Canal was never completed.  In the 1920's
the excavation became a chemical and municipal disposal site for
several chemical companies and the City of Niagara Falls.
Chemicals of unknown kind and quantity were buried at the site
for a 25-30 year period, up until 1953.  After 1953, the site
was covered with earth, by the Hooker Chemical Co.  The land
was sold  to the Board of Education which in turn, sold it to a
private developer.

      In the late 1950's homebuilding began directly adjacent
to the Love Canal landfill.  Over a period of time about 100
homes were built and an elementary school was opened.

-------
     Love Canal has numerous chemicals which have been buried
within its boundaries for more than 25 years - toxic ingredients
which are infiltrating scores of nearby homes, posing a serious
threat to human health and upsetting the domestic tranquility
of hundreds of families living in this middle class community.

     The Love Canal problem began to surface in recent years
as chemical odors in the basements of the homes bordering the
site became more noticeable.  This followed prolonged heavy
rains and one of the worst blizzards ever to hit this section
of the country.
     To date, more than 80 chemical compounds have been identifed
in the landfill by the Health Department's Division of Laboratories
and Research and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Eleven of these are known or suspected of causing cancerous
growth in laboratory animals, and one - benzene - is a well-
established human carcinogen.

     It was found that a higher incidence of birth defects,
and miscarriages among other health effects, existed among the
residents at Love Canal, which prompted the city to declare a
medical emergency in August 1978.

     Priority was given to securing temporary housing for
families with children under two years of age and pregnant
women.  Some 41 top priority families were identified in the
first two "rings" of homes - the 235 properties nearest the
former canal bed.
                              10

-------
     Following issuance of Health Commissioner Whalen's
August 2 order, the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) assumed overall responsibility for reviewing remedial
engineering plans at the Love Canal.

     Specifically, DEC would:
     o  Provide onsite supervision of construction activity at
the Love Canal site;
     o  Assist the Niagara County Board of Health in its mandate
to abate the public health nuisance at the site;
     o  Consult with the Niagara County Health Department, the
State Department of Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to develop a long-range engineering solution;
     o  Review the cleanup actions proposed by the county in the
consultant report by Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, which
proposed the construction of a tile drainage system in the
southern section of the Love Canal site; DEC also must give
final approval to the detailed design and engineering plans;
     o  Review and approve plans to minimize hazardous exposure
during construction;
     o  Conduct additional studies, in cooperation with the State
and County Health Departments and the City of Niagara Falls, to
define the boundaries of the Love Canal landfill; to measure
through continued air, water,and soil sampling, the extent to
which contaminated waters have moved away from the site; to
determine the extent of groundwater aquifer contamination; and
to determine the effectiveness of the proposed drainage system
                             11

-------
to contain and remove the contaminated groundwater from the site.

     The Niagara County Board of Health and the Niagara County
Health Commissioner were ordered to,
     (a)  Take adequate and appropriate measures to cause the
removal from the Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site of all
chemicals, pesticides and other toxic material which lie exposed
or visible on the surface of the site.
     (b)  Take appropriate and adequate measures to limit
accessibility to the site by the installation of suitable fencing
or other effective means, together with periodic surveillance
and monitoring.
     (c)  Take all other appropriate and necessary corrective
action to abate the public health nuisance now existing at the
Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site, including immediate
steps to determine the feasibility of lowering the elevated levels
of organic contamination in the air of basements by the moisture-
proofing and venting of such basements in cooperation with the
New York State Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation.
     (d)  Take all appropriate and necessary steps to undertake
necessary engineering studies seeking a long-range solution to
decontamination of the site.  In connection therewith, that
consultation and cooperation of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and the New York State Department of Health be
sought, and approval of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation be obtained.
                               12

-------
     The State recommended that approximately 280 families leave
their nearby homes because of the hazard posed by the chemicals.
The State promised to buy their homes at fair market values.
Most residents took the State up on their offer to relocate.  The
cost of the operation was an estimated $11 million.  Remedial
work, expected to cost another $10 million, was started to
drain off the buried chemicals.

     Love Canal illustrates the ignorance, lack of vision, and
inadequacy of laws which allow the indiscriminate disposal of
such toxic materials.

St. Louis Park, Minnesota
     Between 1917 and 1972, Reilly Tar and Chemical Company and
Republic Creosoting Company operated on an 80 acre site in
St. Louis Park  (population 50,000), a western suburb of
Minneapolis.  Reilly Tar and Chemical refined coal tars to
produce creosote, which was then used by Republic Creosote to
treat ties and timbers.  The creosote waste  (e.g., creosote oil,
coke) was discharged into a ponding area in  the southern part
of the property.

     The creosoting operation  has long been  a suspected source
of groundwater contamination.  In the early  1930's a tar-like
taste was detected in municipal and private  shallow wells.
However, no action was taken against the companies at the time
since deeper groundwater resources were readily available.
                               13

-------
     Routine investigation by the St. Louis Park Municipal
Water Supply in 1973 detected low levels of phenolic compounds,
possible carcinogens which are breakdown products of creosote
oils, in raw water from deep municipal wells.  The recent
discovery spurred an intensive investigation to uncover the
extent and degree of groundwater contamination.

     Tests for soil and water contamination were conducted by
the Metropolitan District Office, Minnesota Department of Health,
and the St.  Louis Park Water Department.  The surface soil of
much of the 80 acre site was found to be saturated with coal
tar waste.  The contaminants appeared to move downward and
southward readily with the groundwater.

     Although the ultimate effect of contaminants migrating
in groundwater is unpredictable, there is a serious concern for
protecting potential and presently used deeper supplies.
Unfortunately, industrial wells that are somewhat confined
in the area were recently abandoned and migration of
contaminants away from the site began to accelerate.
Slight contamination already detected in deep aquifers at the
site was attributed to recharge through uncased wells.  As
remedial action, the city closed three wells in the area of the
disposal site.  These wells were believed to be conduits for
surface contamination of deeper aquifers.  Another well will
be closed in the near future.
                              14

-------
     According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency  (MPCA),
 the  Reilly Tar and Chemical Company and the Republic Creosote
 Company have contributed nothing to the cleanup of the  site.
 The  City  and State have spent in excess of $500,000 for ground-
 water monitoring and pollution studies.  In addition, the
 city incurred the following costs:

     $20,000 - three wells capped, cleaned and filled
               with sand
     $750,000 - lining of storm sewer ponds,  and pipes  in
                vicinity of the site to prevent creosote
                contamination
     $2-3000 - special treatment of water main near the site
     $50-60,000 - excavation of two to three  acres of
                  contaminated material in part of property
                  redeveloped by the city
     $10,000 - soil borings

     Estimates of cleanup vary from $20 to $200 million,
depending upon the method used.  A $500,000 study  (one-
half federal; one-half state funded) to be conducted by the
U.S.G.S.  over the next two years will determine the feasibility
of using  a system of barrier wells for containment of the
pollutants.  The gradient control system would capture  coal
tar  derivatives and dispose of them in septic sewers or in a
waste water treatment facility, depending upon degree of
contamination.  Total cost of implementing this technique is as
                              15

-------
yet unknown.  The barrier system will probably be coupled
with excavation and removal of an undetermined volume of
contaminated soil.  This would cost upwards of $20 million
depending upon amount of material, transport, and method of
disposal.  The city of St. Louis Park anticipates spending
an additional $10,000 to $20,000 to build new wells and
$50,000 for closing a fourth.  Cost of possible carbon filtra-
tion of municipal water, future water monitoring expenses,
and professional time has not been accounted for in these
figures.

     In the early 1970's complaints were filed against the
companies by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and
the plant was closed down in 1972.  At the same time, part
of the companies property was being considered for redevelopment
by the city.  The companies went out of business and sold the
property to the city of St. Louis Park.  The city, unaware of
the seriousness of contamination, signed a "harmless" agreement
freeing the companies of responsibility for cleanup of the
site.  Tests have since shown widespread contamination of soil
and groundwater, which necessitates expensive cleanup of the
site.  A court hearing initiated by the State to amend a
complaint against the Reilly Tar and Chemical Company was
necessary to determine upon whom the burden of cleanup should
fall.  The companies involved are reportedly operating in
Indianapolis, Indiana.
                              16

-------
     The two case summaries above illustrate the magnitude
of the problems encountered where there are no sufficient
funds set-aside for the closure/ and post closure maintenance
and monitoring of a hazardous waste management facility, or to
ensure financial responsibility on the owners part.

     The Love Canal and St. Louis Park episodes emphasize the
fact that in many cases, damaged parties have no recourse for
claims because the facility owner or operator made no provisions
to establish financial responsibility.  Funds to conduct routine
maintenance and monitoring of groundwater, which might have
prevented contamination were never established.  Thus, it was not
until evidence of damage appeared that responsibility was ass
There is no guarantee that the responsibility party will have
available the necessary funds to make all claims good, and to
restore the site to a level where it no longer poses a threat
to human health and the environment.
                             17

-------
          DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED
         REGULATION AND THE REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

     The EPA has proposed regulations in six separate areas
to ensure that adequate resources will be available for
Continuity of Operation and Financial Responsibility.  The
six areas are (1)  facility closure, (2)  post closure monitoring
and maintenance, (3) access and default, (4) site-life liability,
(5) post closure,  financial responsibility for hazardous waste
disposal facilities and (6) transfer of ownership.

                      Facility Closure
     The Facility Closure regulation will assure a source
of funds to close a permitted facility after operations have
ceased.  The regulation will require each owner or operator
of a hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facility
to estimate the cost of final closure in accordance with the
technical closure requirements contained in Section 250.43-7.
This estimate will then be evaluated by the Regional Administrator.
Upon approval of the estimate, the owner or operator will
be required to establish a secured trust fund for the closure
of his or her facility.  The trust shall be deposited with and
maintained by a bank or other approved fiduciary.

     The size of the trust will be computed by determining the
site life of a facility, in years, and multiplying the closure
cost estimate by the corresponding Present Value Factor given
                              18

-------
in the regulation.  Since the closure trust fund will be



established at the beginning of operations but not needed until



closure/ the EPA has taken into account the interest that will



accrue from the fund in determining the fund size. (See  Table 1) .







     The EPA has used a real interest rate of 2% to determine



the present value factor.  The real interest rate is the net



interest gained from investment minus inflation.  As closure



and post closure funds are likely to be invested in interest



bearing securities of the U.S. (or possibly some other secure



investment), the real interest rate is likely to be relatively



low (i.e., 1.0% to 2.0%).







     When an owner or operator has ceased operations at a



hazardous waste management facility and has completed closure



of the site, as prescribed in Section 250.43-7, he or she



may apply to the Regional Administrator for return of the



funds in the trust.







     In previous drafts of the Continuity of Operation regula-



tion, the owner or operator was required to develop a site



specific trust fund for closure but was allowed to deposit



annual cash payments over a portion of the operating life of



the site.  For example, in the first draft of the regulation,



the owner or operator was required to deposit equal cash payments



for the first five years of operation to be equivalent to the



closure cost estimate.  To ensure that the necessary funds would





                          19

-------
                           Table 1

               Real Interest Rate on Ten Year
                 U.S. Government Securities
     Year of Issue

          1943
          1944
          1945
          1946
          1947
          1948
          1949
          1950
          1951
          1952
          1953
          1954
          1955
          1956
          1957
          1958
          1959
          1960
          1961
          1962
          1963
          1964
          1965
          1966
          1967
Real Interest Rate*

     -2.89
     -2.45
     -2.34
     -2.79
     -1.74
     - .16
     - .04
     - .76
     - .59
       .28
       .68
       .41
       .62
       .77
      1.32
      1.01
      1.99
      2.36
      1.11
      1.10
       .55
       .43
     - .38
     - .77
     -1.14
*Both real and nominal interest rates on U.S.  government
 securities have varied enormously historically.   Table 1
 shows the post-war real rates of return for U.S.  govern-
 ment 10-year securities (both shorter and longer  terms
 securities tended to have slightly lower real rates of
 return during this period).   During the post  war  period,
 real rates of return on 10-year government bonds  have
 varied from -2.89 percent to a high of 2.36 percent.   The
 arithmetic mean for the period examined is approximately
 zero.  The table shows only  real interest rates through
 1967 because after this date the bond would not yet have
 matured.

 Derivation:  real interest rate equals nominal interest
 rate minus the inflation rate divided by 1 plus the infla-
 tion rate.  This formula is  an approximate which  somewhat
 underestimates the real interest rate when the bulk of the
 inflation occurs in the final years and overestimates when
 the inflation occurs early in the life of the bond.
                           20

-------
Nominal Interest Rates from Moody's investor services,
Inflation Rates from Economic Report of the President
(1977), derivation of real interest rates by EPA.
                          21

-------
always be available  in  the  event  a  facility closed  in  the
first five years before the entire  amount  for closure  was
deposited, the permit holder was  also required to obtain a
surety bond equal to the undeposited amount.

     Surety bonds are used  to guarantee the performance of
an obligor over a specified period  of time.  Performance
is defined very specifically.  The  bond issuer, such as a
surety broker, "stands in place of  the principle" and  pays
the amount to the agency in whose name the bond was issued,
if the obligor fails to meet the performance requirements.
The surety company then looks to the obligor for indeminifi-
cation.  Unlike insurance,  a surety bond does not relieve
the obligor of its obligations.  Surety bonds do not cover
risk sharing.  Surety companies do not ever expect to  lose
financially on any bond they issue.

     In the second draft of the regulation, the five year
time period for building up the cash was lengthened to one
half of the estimated site  life.  Again, the remaining, unpaid
portion of the closure estimate would be supplemented with a
surety bond.   The EPA decided on this alternative because it
was felt that requiring an  owner or operator of a hazardous
waste management facility to establish this fund in the first
five years might result in  a negative cash flow.   Clearly,
this would pose a severe financial burden on the facility.

                              22

-------
     In the proposed draft, however, the length of time to
develop the closure trust fund was shortened, so that an
owner or operator must post the entire amount at the time the
permit is granted.  It would seem that this policy is a total
departure from the logic in the second draft to increase the
pay-in period.  However, in the proposed draft of the regula-
tion, the surety bond has been omitted.  Research done by the
Office of Solid Waste indicated that most firms would not be
able to attract a surety bond.  Commonly, a surety company
will issue a bond only when it is satisfied that the obligor
has adequate assets to reimburse the surety company for the
amount of the bond if it is forfeited.  Without a surety bond
there is no guarantee that funds will be available if a
facility closes prematurely.  Since the closure costs repre-
sent a minor portion of the funds required under this regula-
tion and since the availability of funds for closure are
considered extremely important to assure the protection of
public health and the environment, the EPA feels that it is
reasonable to require the total amount for closure be
established as a condition of receiving a permit.

     Although the closure requirements have been made more
stringent in the proposed regulation, as compared to previous
drafts, it is important to note that requirements under the
post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance section have been
made less burdensome.

                             23

-------
           Post Closure Monitoring and Maintenance

     Every permitted hazardous waste disposal owner/operator
will be required to maintain the site and to monitor the site
for possible leakage for twenty years following site closure,
as required under Section 250.43-7.  By definition hazardous
waste treatment and storage facilities will not be required
to comply with the post closure monitoring and maintenance
requirements, since all wastes will be removed from the
facility at the time of closure.

     To ensure the availability of funds for this activity,
the EPA will require each disposal facility to establish
individual trust funds.

     Each owner or operator of a hazardous waste disposal
facility should file with the Regional Administrator, as
part of his or her application for a permit, an estimate of
the annual cost for post closure monitoring and routine main-
tenance in accordance with the technical closure requlation
in  section 250.43-7.  This estimate will be submitted to the
Regional Administrator  for approval.

      This trust shall be similar  in structure to the one
developed for  facility  closure.   However,  instead of posting
the entire amount  as a  condition  of receiving a permit, the
trust for post closure  monitoring and maintenance will  be
built up over  the  life  of the  site, or  twenty years which  -
ever is shorter.
                             24

-------
      One year after closure, in compliance with 250.43-7, and
every year thereafter for a period of twenty years, an owner
or  operator who has carried out all necessary post closure
monitoring and maintenance may apply to the Regional Administrator
for reimbursement in an amount equal to the yearly monitoring
and maintenance costs.

      In previous drafts of the regulation the permit applicant
was required to establish the entire trust fund for post closure
monitoring and maintenance within the first five years of
operation.  Due to the severe economic impacts resulting from
this requirement, the EPA decided to lengthen the pay in period
to  one half the expected site life.  Payment stretched out over
a longer period of time, will require a higher total deposit,
but will lower the annual costs.  This arrangement was similar
to  the trust developed for facility closure.  The facility owner
o£  operator would deposit a cash deposit every year for the
first half of the site life.  Initially, the regulation required
that the portion of the post closure monitoring and maintenance
cost estimate that was not deposited would be supplemented with a
surety bond.  As was the case with the closure regulation, very
few facilities have sufficient net liquid assets to obtain a
surety bond for this amount.
                             25

-------
     Therefore, the EPA omitted the surety bond requirement
from the proposed regulation.  Of course, this alternative
increases the risk that funds may not be available to monitor
and perform routine maintenance if a site closes before the
entire amount is deposited.

     The EPA feels that having total funds available upon receipt
of a permit to assure proper closure of a site is relatively more
important than requiring total funds for post closure monitoring
and maintenance in order to safeguard public health and the
environment.  Since the surety bond requirement was omitted from
the regulation, there is no way to guarantee funds would always
be available in the event a facility was ordered closed or went
bankrupt.  Therefore, EPA now requires the entire amount for
closure be deposited at the time a permit is granted.  The EPA
realizes that this requirement poses a larger financial burden
on the facility owner/operator as compared to developing the
trust over a specified number of years.  Therefore, to lessen the
overall financial impact by lowering annual costs, the pay in
period for the post closure monitoring and maintenance trust
fund has been increased to the life of the site, or twenty years
whichever is shorter.

     The amount of the annual cash payment for post closure
monitoring and maintenance shall be calculated by multiplying
the annual post closure operating costs determined under
Section 250.43-9(a) (2) (i) by 16.35 and dividing that product
                               26

-------
by the appropriate Sum of Annuity Factor from the table in
the regulation.  The period of payment is equal to the site
life of the facility unless the life exceeds twenty years.
In this event the appropriate Sum of Annuity Factor will be
24.297.

     The EPA has assumed that the trust will be an interest
bearing fund.  A real interest rate of 2% was used to determine the
size of the fund.  A real interest rate implies that nominal interest
will exceed inflation by 2%.  With a real rate of return of 2%, a
facility owner or operator will need an amount 16.35 times
larger than the estimate made under Section 250.49-9 (a)(2)(i)
at the time of closure.  This fund will be large enough to
monitor and maintain a facility for twenty-years.  The sum of
annuity factor compensates for the amount of interest a fund
earns while it is being developed,  (i.e., during the operation
of the site).
     In earlier drafts of Section 3004 an owner or operator
of a disposal facility was required to maintain and monitor
for leaks  after closure, until the  site no longer poses a
hazard.  Therefore the Financial Requirement for post closure
monitoring and maintenance required the owner operator to
establish  a perpetual care fund.  This regulation was changed
from, perpetuity to twenty-years because the EPA determined a
perpetual  care requirement was burdensome both technically
and economically.  Furthermore, many of the comments received

-------
from outside reviewers cautioned the EPA that this requirement
may seriously discourage any new entry into the hazardous
waste management industry.
                             28

-------
                     Access and Default

     The Access and Default regulation, Section 250.43-9
(a)(3)  was added to the Continuity of Operation section in
the proposed draft to provide for rapid or emergency access
to a site, and allow the EPA to carry out closure and post
closure monitoring and maintenance.

     Both Section 3008 and 7003 of RCRA provides for access
to a site, however neither gives the EPA the right to enter a
facility immediately.

     Section 3008 of RCRA provides for federal enforcement of
the RCRA Hazardous Waste Management requirements.  The enforce-
ment procedure provides 1) that a violator be notified of his
failure; 2) if the violation extends 30 days beyond notification
the Administrator may either issue an order requiring compliance
within a specified time, or initiate a civil action for relief;
3) if the violation occurs in a state which maintains its own
authorized hazardous waste program, the state shall be given
30 days notice prior to initiating civil action or issuing an
order to the violator.  4) If the violator fails to respond to
the order, he may be subject to a civil penalty of $25,000 for
each day of continued non-compliance, and the violator's
license may be suspended or revoked.

     Section 7003 of RCRA provides for response to an imminent
hazard.   It provides that if a hazardous waste operation
                              29

-------
presents "an imminent and substantial endangerment to health
or the environment, the Administrator may bring suit... to
immediately restrain any person for contributing to the illegal
disposal... or to take such other action as may be necessary".
The Administrator is required to notify the affected State of
any such suit.

     Clearly, neither of these actions provide for the type of
access needed to protect human health or the environment from
the potential release of hazardous materials from a site that
is being improperly operated, or one that has been abandoned.
                             30

-------
 Alternatives for Meeting Continuity of .Operation Objectives

     Both the closure and post closure regulations require the
owner or operator to establish individual trust funds to assure
continuity of operation.

     The trust fund concept is the only method that requires
the establishment of an independent entity charged with assuring
continuity of performance.  The fund would be administered by a
trustee, who is legally responsible for the appropriate use of
the fund.  The fund would be used only for closure and post
closure maintenance.

     Trust funds present a general advantage over other possible
methods of meeting continuity of operation objectives.  Funds are
built up during the time a facility's income is greatest, and
then secured for use when an operator's immediate interest in a
site is at its lowest; when it has ceased producting revenue but
still requires maintenance expenditures.

     The two different types of trust funds, industry-wide and
site-specific, have different advantages and disadvantages.  An
industry-wide fund would be used only in an emergency where an
operator has defaulted on the closure or post closure require-
ments.  This would require a smaller capital investment than
would be required for the site-specific fund.  Unfortunately, if
the industry-wide fund were to be adopted in the regulation,

                            31

-------
additional legislation would be required.

     The major advantage of the site-specific trust fund
approach is that each owner or operator would be reimbursed
after the closure and post closure obligations were met.
Naturally, the site-specific trust fund provides a strong
incentive to meet continuity of operation requirements.

     The EPA has also considered several alternative methods
in addition to the trust fund, that will guarantee closure
and post closure responsibilities will be met.  The alterna-
tives that were considered are:

     1)  Minimum Owner Asset Requirements
     2)  Bond Requirements
     3)  Industry Mutual Assessment Requirements

                    Minimum Owner Assets
     Net assets or liquid net assets would serve as an
indication of the stability and reliability of a hazardous
waste management facility.  Presumably, a firm with high
assets would be unlikely to abandon a site without fulfillin
the closure and post-closure requirements.  This is especial")
true if the owner or operator operates other permitted facin  •

     The advantages of this option are that a facility that
qualifies would not have to tie up large sums of capital.
                             32

-------
However, the disadvantages against adopting this alternative
are also compelling.  Only the largest firms would be able to use
this method, while smaller to medium sized firms would have to
commit funds during operation.  This would put the smaller firms
at a definite competitive disadvantage.

     Furthermore, there is no guarantee that a company with a
high level of assets will remain solvent.  If the presumption
that reliability is directly related to assets is incorrect and
a company becomes insolvent, the regulatory agency, and society
generally, are left with no recourse, and no assets to apply to
the needs of the site.

                      Bond Requirements
     Bonds are usually used to guarantee performance of a
specified activity.

     Bonds are not designed to cover risk, nor provide any
mechanism for risk sharing.  Unlike insurance, a bond does
not relieve the obligor of obligations.  Several types of
bonds are available to a facility owner or operator.  Usually,
a surety company will issue a bond only when it is satisfied
that the obligor has adequate resources to reimburse the
surety company for only funds disbursed under the bond.  If the
surety company is not totally confident that it can recover,
the bond applicant may be required to post collateral.  The
collateral may reach 100% of the cash required.  This is
essentially a cash bond.  Surety companies never expect to lose
                             33

-------
financially when they issue a bond.

     Bonding is a commonly used device to assure performance.
The advantages of bonding are significant.  Bonds will provide
assurance that a permit holder will perform closure and post
closure functions as required by law.  From a regulatory stand-
point, bonding is a simple requirement to administer.   For
those owners or operators that can demonstrate sufficient assets
bonds are a relatively inexpensive requirement.   Unfortunately,
for those companies judged unbondable by surety firms, a cash
collateral will be required.  This may prove a serious obstacle
to the financially weaker firms, even though they are  fully
reliable and stable.  Probably the biggest disadvantage with
bonding is that they usually guarantee performance over short
periods of time.  Bonds are usually renewed every one  or two
years and can be cancelled, usually after a thirty day notice
Thus, a hazardous waste management firm facing financial
difficulties that jeopardize its future ability to fulfill its
performance obligations, may decide to discontinue its bond or
more conceivably, discover that a surety company will  not renew
the bond, precisely at the time when financial assurance is most
needed.
                         34

-------
          Industry Mutual Assessments Requirements

     A final approach for meeting continuity of operation
objectives is an industry-wide mutual assessment organization.
This type of organization would assess industry members to
cover closure and post closure costs of abandoned member sites.
The costs would be divided between each member of the mutual
assessment association on a predetermined basis.  Each member
is liable for its share of the costs.

     An industry wide mutual assessment association has a number
of advantages:  1) the initiative for self administration comes
from the industry; 2) the industry will have a collective
interest in the content, implementation and enforcement of the
regulations; and 3) the funds required to implement the assess-
ment system will not be much larger, generally, than the costs
of providing for those facilities that are abandoned.  There-
fore, if no sites were abandoned, no assessments would be
required.

     The disadvantages, however, may eliminate this alternative
from further consideration.  Similar to an industry-wide trust
fund, the EPA can not require a mutual assessment association,
without additional legislation.  The mutual assessment association
is totally dependent on the voluntary cooperation of the hazard-
ous waste management industry.  If site abandonment problems
occur frequently and assessments are high, low risk members
would probably leave the association in favor of other methods
                             35

-------
of meeting continuity of operation objectives.

     Another diadvantage of the mutual assessment organization
is that it does not offer strong incentives to industry to meet
continuity of operation requirements.

                     Site Life Liability
     Each hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal
facility is liable for damages to health and the environment.
To ensure that sites can cover such liability to a responsible
extent, the regulations will require a treatment, storage,
or disposal facility to show evidence of a minimum of $5 million
of financial responsibility during the life of the site.
Financial responsibility can be established by liability
insurance, self-insurance, a combination of the two or some
other method of financial responsibility acceptable to the
Regional Administrator.

     In the first draft of the Financial Responsibility regula-
tion, the EPA required all permitted facilities to purchase
insurance coverage from a pool of insurance companies willing
to participate in meeting claims against hazardous waste
management facilities.  Such pools exist for liabilities
associated with nuclear hazards, marine oil spills, aviation
accidents, and similar high risk activities.
                             36

-------
     The EPA could probably require all permit applicants to
purchase coverage from the pool as a condition of receiving
a permit.  However, the EPA could not compel the insurance
industry to form the pool.

     EPA received comment on the first draft of the regulation
regarding the point that the pool concept may be in violation
of the antitrust laws.  Since all permitted facilities were
required to purchase coverage from the pool, this would
essentially exclude any insurance companies that wished to
offer the coverage outside the pool.  For these reasons the
pool requirement was dropped from the next draft.

     In later drafts of the regulation, the EPA allowed a
facility to establish financial responsibility by either
obtaining liability insurance, self insuring or by demonstrating
some other means of financial responsibility acceptable to the
Regional Administrator.  However, if self insurance is used,
a firm can not  self insure for more than 10% of its equity.
Ten percent is  considered to be extremely conservative by
industry.  However, equity is not a stable  indicator of a firm's
ability to self insure.   Self insurance is  totally dependent
upon a firm's economic viability.  For example, the EPA does
not want a facility with  liquid assets of $5 million self
insuring for the  total amount required under the regulation.
                                37

-------
     The main reason for allowing self insurance is to allow
firms to take a deductible on their coverage.  For example,
if a firm has a $50,000 deductible (i.e., the firm pays the
first $50,000 of any settlements), the remaining coverage would
be considerably cheaper.  This is similar to the deductible
for automobile insurance.  Clearly a $100 deductible policy
is cheaper than a policy containing no deductible.  This is
because the probability for an occurrence with claims in the
deductible range is much greater than one in the catastrophic
range.
     In the proposed draft of the regulation, the minimum
level of financial responsibility will remain at $5 million.
However, very little acturial data to support this figure
exists.  Examination of EPA data on recent damage incidents
indicates that there is no reliable classification process by
which the relative hazards from differing wastes and differing
treatment, storage and disposal processes can be established.
The dollar values of damages in EPA files range from $100,000
to $40 million.  However, it is not unrealistic to imagine
claims considerably greater than  $40 million.  Clearly, the
EPA can not require every firm to maintain financial respon-
sibility sufficient to cover the  largest foreseeable claim.
For this reason, the EPA has attempted to establish  (with very
little actuarial data and minimal experience with a regulated
hazardous waste industry) a degree of coverage that provides
some protection and is not prohibitive in terms of cost.
                               38

-------
      The  EPA  has considered  several options to  the proposed
 regulation.   In the  first draft of the regulation, a permitted
 facility  was  required to maintain financial responsibility for
 $10 million during the life  of the site and in  perpetuity after
 a  disposal site closed.  The ability of disposal facilities to
 provide $10 million  of financial responsibility would be assured
 by developing a perpetual care account.  The fund would be
 large enough  so that the interest would pay the premiums.

      One  of the big  drawbacks with this regulation was that
 it tied up vast amount of capital, both while a facility was
 operating and after  closure.  However, the major problem with
 this  draft was that  coverage in perpetuity for  sudden and non-
 sudden events wasn't available.  No insurance firm was willing
 to commit itself to  insure against the risks associated
with  long term disposal of hazardous waste.  Even if the
 coverage  was  provided by the insurance industry, it could
 easily be cancelled  by the insurance company since the policy
 would be  up for renewal every year.

      Since the earlier drafts of the regulation, the EPA has
 met with  representatives from insurance companies, the hazard-
 ous waste management industry and environmental groups.  As a
 result of these meetings the EPA has decided to propose additional
 legislation to establish a national hazardous waste disposal
 liability fund for post-closure liability.  This fund would be
                               39

-------
funded by a surcharge levied on the amount of waste  disposed.



Clearly,  the national fund will eliminate  a great  deal of  the



uncertainty associated with long term disposal  of  hazardous



waste.







      Since the national fund concept has been considered,  the



EPA has met again with members of the insurance industry in



order to assess the probability for offering non-sudden/non-



accidental coverage during the operating life of a site.   The



EPA is very optimistic that non-sudden/non-accidental coverage



will be available from the private sector  in the amount re-



quired.
                                  40

-------
         Post Closure Liability and Remedial Action

     In the previous drafts of the regulation the method that
initially received the greatest emphasis for meeting the post
closure financial responsibility objectives was liability
coverage.  Unfortunately most liability policies in effect
only offer protection against sudden occurences such as
explosions, pipline ruptures or abrupt failure of containment
vessels.  In general, hazardous waste management facilities in
the United States have insurance protection against this type
of occurence.  However, the critical insurance protection for
liability from hazardous waste disposal is non-sudden/non-
accidental coverage.

     A national liability fund to provide this coverage for
hazardous waste disposal facilities is currently being studied
by the EPA.  This fund would provide the necessary resources
for third party claims and remedial action in  the event a damage
incident occurs at a hazardous waste disposal  facility after
closure.
     Normally, this area of coverage could be provided by the
private insurance industry in the form of a Comprehensive
General Liability policy.  However, due to the uncertainties
and long term  ("long tail") risks associated with land disposal
 (i.e. , landfilling) of hazardous wastes, most  insurance companies
are unwilling, or at best extremely reluctant, to underwrite
                                41

-------
this activity.  The few firms that do offer this coverage
charge such prohibitively high rates that most companies
currently in the hazardous waste disposal business could not
afford the premiums.

     For this reason, the EPA intends to reserve proposal of
this section of the Financial Requirement Regulation and propose
a Federally administered, privately financed central fufld.   The
fund would be developed by a surcharge levied on each ton of
hazardous waste.  As currently envisioned, the fund would be
administered by a federal agency, perhaps the Treasury
Department, EPA, or a Congressionally mandated administering
agency.  The EPA administered RCRA permitting system would be
used to enforce payments to the fund.  If a facility failed to
pay its assessed fees the permit authorizing operation of the
facility could be revoked.  The charge could be levied either
on each ton of waste disposed or on each ton generated with
a rebate for wastes which are detoxified or recycled.  In the
former case, treaters and storers would not be taxed since
their operations create no post closure hazards.

     Due to a lack of experience with a regulated hazardous
waste industry, there is no actuarial data which can be used
to predict the necessary size of the fund or the charge per
ton.  Flexibility will therefore be required to change the
disposal tax as experience dictates.
                               42

-------
      The  fund would indemnify permitted facilities for third
party damage suits and for remedial  (cleanup) activities from
unexpected  accidental discharges after a facility has been
closed properly in accordance with RCRA regulations.  In this
regard the  implementing regulations  for the  fund would not
attempt to  modify the legal liability process; thus payment
would not be made until after the appropriate court action had
been completed.  Facilities would not be eligible for indemni-
fication  by the fund unless closure  and post closure responsi-
bilities  had been carried out in accordance  with RCRA
regulations.

      There  are two problems associated with  such a fund:

      (1)  Since RCRA does not provide authority to mandate
          such a fund, Congressional action  is needed.
          The Agency is currently preparing  a legislative
          initiative.

      (2)  This fund could not practically or equitably
          provide needed resources for suits or cleanup
          activities associated with facilities closed
          prior to the RCRA permitting process.  Abandoned
          sites, such as Love Canal  in Niagara Falls, are
          currently creating serious health  problems some
          of which may cost $50 million to cleanup.
                             43

-------
                    Transfer of Ownership

     Section 3004(6) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act calls for the issuance of ownership requirements as may be
necessary and desirable.

     In the proposed version of the regulation the EPA has
included requirements covering the transfer of ownership.  This
regulation will ensure that the closure and post closure trust
funds will remain with the land in the event the property is
sold.  Briefly/ the regulation states that if the owner or
operator of a facility transfers the ownership or operation of
the facility during the twenty year post closure care period
the funds shall remain in the trust fund until all post closure
requirements are satisfied.

     In the first draft of the Financial Requirement regulation
the permit holder had to own the site in fee simple.  There are
several reasons why the EPA would be interested in promulgating
regulations that would specify ownership requirements.

     In many cases, individuals or organizations, exposed to high
risks of potential liability, will attempt to shield part or all
of their assets from potential claimants.  For example, a hazard-
ous waste disposer may organize the firm so that it is divided into
individual subsidiaries.  One subsidiary may own and operate
                               44

-------
the transport business, while another, with no significant assets
of its own, would perform the actual disposal operation.  It is
important to realize that there is no implication of intential
misconduct with this type of arrangement.  The organization is
attempting to partition its assets in such a way to provide
protection to the parent corporation in the event of a catastropic
loss.

     A second problem associated with ownership is the possibility
that a waste disposer might rent the site over which he would have
no authority after-termination of his lease.  This arrangement
could essentially release the operator from any liability for
closure, routine monitoring and maintenance or damage.

     The clearest solution to these problems would be for the EPA
to require that organization applying for the permit be required to
own in Fee Simple the land, as well as the assets in cash,buildings,
vehicle and facilities used in the operation for which the permit
is issued.  Those who commented on this regulation felt this
requirement was extremely burdensome and probably illegal.

     In the later drafts of the regulation, all ownership require-
ments were omitted.  It was felt that the closure and post closure
trust funds would guarantee the availability of resources to
maintain the site no matter who owned the land.  Also, since the
                                 45

-------
EPA is considering the creation of a National liability fund



to assume the responsibility for damages at properly closed



sites there would be no need to require strict fee simple



ownership.
                            46

-------

-------
                   DRAFT

            BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
   RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
   SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
   SECTION 3004 - STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO
   OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
 TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
    SECTION 250.44  STANDARDS FOR STORAGE
SECTION 250.44-1  STANDARDS FOR STORAGE TANKS
SECTION 250.44-2  STANDARDS FOR CONTAINERS
                                  December 15,  1978
    U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
            OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE

-------
I.   Introduction
     A.  RCRA Mandate for the Regulation:
     The Congress of the United States, via Section 3004 of Subtitle C
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-
580), mandated that the Administrator of the Environmental  Protection
Agency promulgate regulations establishing performance 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.  These standards are to include, but not be limited to,
requirements respecting (.1) location, design, and contruction, and (2)
operating methods, techniques and practices of these facilities.
     Compliance with this mandate, therefore, necessitates the establishment
of regulations that would protect human health and the environment from
the adverse effects of air and water pollutants from hazardous waste
storage.
     In addition to the general storage standards, storage tank and
storage container standards are also being promulgated under Section
3004.  The Act does not specifically require that such standards be
written, but it is believed that improper tank/container use, handling
and/or disposal can pose a threat to human health and the environment,
and thus storage tanks and containers should be regulated.

-------
     This document will, therefore, be concerned with the standards for
                                                       £ -
storage (Section 250.44), storage tanks (Section 250.441), and containers
               <; -
(Section 250.442).

     B.  Key Definitions:

     Definitions given in Subtitle A, Section 1004 of RCRA pertinent to

the establishment of storage tank performance standards under 3004 are

as follows:

     "The term  'storage', when used in connection with
     hazardous waste, means the containment of hazardous
     waste, either on a temporary basis or for a period of
     years in such a manner as not to constitute disposal
     of such hazardous waste."

     "The term  '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 environ-
     ment or be emitted into the air or discharged into
     any waters, Including groundwaters."

     Additionally, the following terms are pertinent to this area of

regulation amd are defined as follows:

     Container means any portable enclosure in which a material can be

stored, handled, treated or disposed.  Typical examples are 55 gallon

drums, bottles, bags, and canisters.

     Incompatible Waste means a waste unsuitable for commingling with

another waste or material, because the commingling might result in:

-------
     (1)   Generation  of  extreme  heat or  pressure,
     (2)   Fire,
     (3)   Explosion or violent reaction,
     (4)   Formation of substances  which  are  shock
          sensitive,  frictionsensitive,  or otherwise  have
          the potential  of reacting  violently,
     (5)   Formation of toxic  (as defined in  Subpart A)  dusts,
          mists,  fumes,  gases, or other  chemicals,
     (6)   Volatilization of ignitable  or toxic  chemicals
          due to  heat generation,  in such a  manner  that the
          likelihood  of  contamination  of groundwater, or
          escape  of  the  substances into  the  environment, is
          increased,  or
     (7)   Any other  reactions which  might result in not meeting the
          Air Human  Health and Environmental  Standard.

     Secondary Container means a storage device into  which a container
can be placed for the purpose of containing  any leakage of hazardous
waste from such emplaced container.
                                            ^  -
     Storage Tank means  any manufactured nonportable  covered device used
for containing pumpable  hazardous waste.
     Triple Rinsing  means the cleaning of containers  three times, each
time using a volume  of appropriate solvent equal to approximately ten
percent of the container's capacity.

-------
      True Vapor Pressure means the pressure exerted when a solid and/or
/iquid is in equilibrium with its own vapor.  The vapor pressure is a
 function of the substance and of temperature.
      Vapor Recovery System means a vapor gathering system capable of
 collecting vapors and discharged gases and a vapor processing dispoaal
 system capable of processing such vapors and gases so as to prevent
 emission of contaminants to the atmosphere.
      Venting Device means equipment used to equalize pressure in a
 storage tank under conditions which cause pressure or vacuum beyond the
 tank design limits.
      With regard to the term 'storage1, the Act does not specify when
 storage begins.  This lack of specificity causes a problem because it
 makes it difficult to determine when the storage regulations should
 apply to generators.  That is, because it is practically impossible to
 remove a waste from its generating source the instant that the waste is
 created, all generators must store a waste for some temporary period
 before treating, disposing or shipping offsite.
      The Agency feels that it would be inappropriate to require generators
 to comply with 3004 storage regulations the  instant a waste is generated.
 This position  is based on the following three premises:

-------
     1.    The probability that hazardous waste will damage
and subsequently leak from a storage device into which it
has recently been placed is low.
     2.    The application of 3004 storage regulations to all
generators does not meet Congressional intent to regulate
them separately.  That is, Subtitle C of RCRA mandates that
a separate set of regulations be promulgated for generators
of hazardous waste (Section 3002) and operators and owners
of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities
(Section 3004}.  Since the regulations applying to generators
are clearly distinguished from those applying to storage
facilities, the Agency has concluded that the intent of
Congress was to regulate generators differently than from
those that store hazardous waste.
     3.    Generators frequently stockpile hazardous waste
until an amount is collected which is economically feasible
to transport.  The additional cost of smaller and more
numerous trips of hazardous waste from the facility as soon
as the waste is generated (which would be necessary in order
for generators to avoid having to comply with 3004 storage
regulations) would be unreasonable.

-------
     However, the Agency also recognizes the tendency for
generators to accumulate considerable quantities of hazardous
waste over extended periods of time.  For such prolonged
storage, the generator should have to comply with 3004
regulations.
     Therefore, the Agency has decided that a reasonable
temporary period should be stipulated which allows a generator
to accumulate hazardous waste onsite with the intent to ship
offsite, without being considered to be a storage facility
operator.  90 days was selected as this interim period.
This approach eliminates the overlap between generators and
those that store waste, meets the Congressional intent, and
provides public health and environmental protection.
     Accordingly, a storage facility has been defined as
being any facility which stores waste, except for generators
who store their own waste for less than 90 days for subsequent
transport offsite, in accordance with regulations in Subpart- 8.
#. II.    Rationale for the Regulation
     A  recent inventory of the types of environmental damage
which have occurred in 421 land disposal systems studied by
the Agency shows that 15 cases were related to the storage
of wastes.   Ten cases resulted in discharges to groundwater
and five cases resulted in direct contact poisoning of
personnel.

-------
TANKS:
     Inventories such as the one cited above  indicate that
improperly managed tanks which store hazardous waste pose a
significant threat to human health and the environment and
thus should be regulated.
     Tanks or vessels which store hazardous wastes are
vented to allow the escape of gases and vapors, thereby
preventing internal rupture or other damage to the tanks
from expansion of the volatile constituents.   However,
periods of higher ambient temperatures when volatiles escape
often correspond to the worst days  meteorologically for
volatile materials  to contribute to atmospheric pollution.
     Depending upon the chemical and physical properties of
the waste stored, volatile  hazardous wastes can pose a
threat to both the  community and environment.  Volatile
organics vented to  the atmosphere can react with nitrogen
oxides in the presence of sunlight in a complex reaction to
form ozone.   Because such materials were recognized as ozone
percursors, a National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air
Quality Standard was promulgated for total hydrocarbons  (160
Mg/rn^ measured as a three hour average between 6 a.m. and 9a m  )
     Two cases of air pollution associated with storage
tanks have been identified by EPA.  One case involved a
storage tank which was left unattended for several years in
a small business facility.  After the facility changed
hands, the new owner in cleanup operations loosened a screw
on the storage tank which had apparently slowly built up pressure

-------
and the pressurized stream of liquid which was released
caused eye injury and property damage.  Subsequent analysis
revealed that the tank contained a waste pesticide solution.
An undetermined amount of vapor was emitted to the atmosphere.
     The second case involved organic lead fumes escaping
from solvent recovery, storage, and transporting operations.
The problem began with initial storage where there were
problems with escaping fumes.  Subsequently, various recovery
techniques were tried but discontinued because of escaping
vapors.  The wastes are currently stored awaiting the
development of disposal/reuse methods.
CONTAINERS:
     Improperly managed containers which store hazardous
waste also pose a significant threat to human health and the
environment, as evidenced by the following discussion of
numerous incidents of damage which have resulted from the
haphazard storage and disposal of containers contaminated
with hazardous wastejtf.
Surface Water Contamination via Run-off
1.   From 1969 to 1972, an estimated 15,000 drums of industrial
     wastes containing cyanides, arsenic, cadmium, chromium,
     petroleum products, acids, and miscellaneous other toxic
     and corrosive materials were dumped on farm land in
     Illinois.  The problem first received attention in May

-------
1974, when three dead cattle were discovered in the area.
Pathological examination revealed that the cattle had
                     Q
died of cyanide poisoning.  Chemical analysis of nearby
surface water run-off indicated a maximum cyanide
centration of 365 ppm.   (The U.S. Public Health Service
drinking water standard for cyanide is 0.2 ppm) .  After
the dumping had ceased but before the damages were
evident, a portion of the affected farm land was purchased
                        i
by a company which was subsequently faced with the clean-
up problems.   A consulting firm,  hired by the new owners,
has prepared a comprehensive study of this incident,
which documents the substantial damage to local wild-
life, vegetation, and groundwaters.
In Riverside County, California,  several drums of
phosphorus, osychloride, phosphorus thipchloride and
   o
thi^nyl chloride were improperly dropped off at a dump.
Later, during a flood, the drums were unearthed, ruptured,
                           **
and washed downstream.  The released hydrogen chloride
gas and contaminated the water.
In June, 1973, a major chemical company in Virginia
contracted with a processing firm in Alabama to pick up,
haul and dispose of approximately 10,000 durms of aramid
waste, containing 30 to 80 percent sulfuric acid.  Most

-------
     of the wastes were shipped in 208 liter (55-gal.)  steel
     drums and 190 liter (50-gal.)  fiber drums.  The wastes
     brought to Alabama were never processed and remained in
     two open storage areas and in one enclosed warehouse.
     Due to weathering, physical stress, and the corrosive
     and harsh nature of the wastes, many of the drums stored
     in the two open areas disintegrated and their contents
     spread over the adjacent ground.  In addition to con-
     tamination of local waters (chemical analysis of samples of
     drainage water from the storage site indicated a very
     high acidity and high concentrations of heavy metals),
     the storage of waste at the three locations presented a
     great fire hazard.  On March 9 -10, 1976,  a fire broke
     out at the site, and two fire fighters became ill, pre-
     sumably due to inhalation of toxic fumes.
Groundwater Contamination
4.   In 1971, a major chemical company contracted with a
     trucker to haul approximately 6,000 drums  of petrochemical
     wastes to a landfill for disposal.  Instead, most of these
     wastes were transported to an abandoned chicken farm in
     New Jersey, where they were stockpiled and subsequently
     dXumped.  Within two years, a major aquifer had become
     contaminated with petrochemicals, resulting in the
     condemning of approximately 150 private wells.  The cost

-------
of extending public water supply into the area was
about $300,000.  Moreover, this incident resulted in
adverse impact on local building and development.
The exact magnitude of the environmental and economic
damage has not yet been delineated.
Several sheep and cattle and a foxhound died, and many
cattle became seriously affected, on two farms close
to a factory producing rodenticides and pesticides in
Great Britain.   (This case illustrates the similarity
of problems that exist in highly industrialized  nations.)
The drainage from the factory  lead into a succession of
ponds to which the  animals had unrestricted  access and
from which  they  are therefore  likely to have drunk.
Investigations showed that a field on the site was a
dumping ground for  large metal drums and canisters, many
of which had rusted away, and  their contents were seeping
into the ground.  Residues from the manufacture  of
fluoroacetamide  were dumped on the site  and  percolated
into the drainage ditches leading to the  farm  ponds.
                             MA/
Veterinary  evidence indicated^the assimilation of
fluoroacetamide  was possible if  the  animals  had  drunk
contaminated water. Ditches and ponds were  dredged and
the  sludge  deposited on  a site behind the factory.
All  sludges and  contaminated soil were  subsequently
excavated,  mixed with  cement,  put  into  steel drums

-------
     capped with bitumen, and dumped at sea.  The presence
     of fluoroacetamide in the soil and associated water
     samples persisted at very low but significant levels
     and thus delayed the resumption of normal farming  for
     nearly 2 years.
Dispersal of toxic dusts from leaky containers
6.   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
      s/)So Ma. tai/s/~a00
-------
     resulting in chemicals being sprayed locally in the
     workshop, but no one was harmed.
9.   An employee transferred two five-gallon cans of waste
     vinyl cyanide and water from a still to a supposedly
     empty waste drum.  As the employee rolled the drum to
     a storage area across the road, it exploded.  Waste
     material sprayed out on the employee^.  He believed that he
     saw a flash at the time of the explosion.  The drum was
     thrown approximately forty-eight feet, wrapping around
     a steel guard post.  The employee received thermal and
     possible chemical burns to both feet.

     The waste drums contained still bottoms  from the stripping
     of a vinylation mixture.  The exothermic reaction, causing
     the drum to rupture, was probably a combination of
     cyanoethylation and polymerization.
Volatilization of Toxic Chemicals Due to Compaction of Containers
3.0.  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 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.

-------
     The ensuing fire,  which also involved dispersion of
     pesticide wastes,  was extinguished by firemen.  The
     firemen were examined to ensure no exposure to pesticide
     dusts.
11.  In October 1974, a bulldozer operator was killed in
     an explosion at an industrial landfill in New Jersey, as
     he was  burying and compacting several 55-gal. drums of
     unidentified chemical wastes.  The victim died as a result
     of burns which covered about 85% of his body.
Emanation of Poisonous Gases Due to Improper Storage and
Disposal of Containers
12.  At a drum reclaiming plant in northern California, 15
     men were poisoned by gases given off from drums.  It is
     presumed that this incident occurred because of inadequate
     storage procedures by the company involved.
13.  At least eighteen persons were hospitalized and two firemen
     suffered permanently disabling lung damage in California
     in 1973 after inhaling a nematocide emanating from an
                               i      /)/
     undepleted 300-lb pressyrjized ca^ster that had been
     improperly disposed of by the manufacturer.  A businessman
                                                a.
     had obtained the canister in order to "make.nice stand-
                                                f\
     up fireplace."
Damage to Vegetation and Domestic Livestock
14.  A firm engaged  in the disposal of spent chemicals generated
     in the Beaumont-Houston area ran into considerable
     opposition in Texas and subsequently transferred its

-------
     disposal operations to Louisiana.  In October 1972,



     this firm was storing and disposing of toxic chemicals



     at two Louisiana locations:  De Ridder and DeQuincy.



     At the DeRidder site, several thousand drums of waste



     (both meta}/and cardboardtype, some with lids and some


                                           tf*'7
     without) were piled up at the end of a airport runway



     apron within a pine tree seed orchard.  Many of the drums



     were popping their lids and leaking, and visible vapors



     were emanating from the area.  The pine trees beside the



     storage area had died.  At the same time, the firm was



     preparing to bury hundreds of drums of hazardous waste at



     the DeQuincy location, which is considered by EPA to be



     hydrogeologically unsuitable for such land disposal.



     Finally, court action enjoined this firm/ from using



     the DeRidder and DeQunicy  sites; however, the company has



     just moved  its disposal operations near Villa Platte  in



     Evangeline  Parish, where the same problems exist.



3.5.  On July  9,  1969, in  Patterson, Louisiana, the owner of



     a farm  noticed several pigs  running out of a cane  fi/LJgld;



     some of  the animals  appeared to  be undergoing convulsions.



     It appears  that aldrin-treated seed and containers  had



     been dumped on the  land  in a field and that  the  pigs,



     running loose, had  encountered this material.  Eleven



     of  the  pigs died.   Analysis  of rumen  contents  showed  230.lj&



     parts per million  aldrin  and 1.13 parts per  million dieldrin.

-------
     These are but a few of the damage reports in the EPA

files attributed to the careless handling/ storage and/or

disposal of hazardous waste-contaminated containers and

storage tanks.  The types of incidents considered heretofore

do not fall under the category of accident, but rather as

occurrences which could have been avoided by prudent and

responsible hazardous waste management,'* therefore it stands

to reason that regulations for the handling, storage and

disposal of waste-contaminated containers and storage tanks

should be written.



III. Identification of Regulatory Options

     A.   Standards mandated by RCRA:

     These requirements have been deemed by the Agency as

     the basis for developing standards for storage tanks and

     containers.  Sections 3004(3) and (4) state that the

     standards to be promulgated by the EPA shall include

     requirements respecting:

     "(3)  treatment, storage, or disposal of all such waste
     (hazardous) received by the facility pursuant to such
     operating methods, techniques, and practices as may be
     satisfactory to the Administrator;"
     11 (4)  the location, design, and construction of such
     hazardous waste treatment, disposal, or storage
     facilities;"
* Lazar, Emery C. "Damage Incidents from Improper Land
 Disposal."  Journal of Hazardous Materials. 1  (1975/76), p. 16:3

-------
     B.   Existing Federal and State Regulations:

          1.   Federal Regulations

               (a)  Tank Regulations

     "Standards of Performance for Storage Vessels for

Petroleum Liquids" was promulgated on March 8, 1974 by the

EPA.  Applicable storage tanks are those with more than

40,000 gallons capacity and are designed to withstand

pressures up to but not in excess of 15 psig without venting.

     The standards for hydrocarbons as stated in this

regulation  are as follows:

      (1)  If the true vapor pressure of the petroleum

          liquid, as stored, is equal to or greater than

          78 mm Hg (1.5 psia), but not greater than 570  mm

          Hg  (.11.1 psia), the storage vessel  shall be

          equipped with a floating roof, a vapor recovery

          system, or their equivalent.

      (.2)  If the true vapor pressure of the petroleum
          liquid as stored is greater than  570 mm Hg

          (.11.1 psia), the storage vessel shall  be equipped

          with a vapor recovery  system or its equivalent*

          Caaa Piguee 1);

     Additionally, the Occupational Safety  and Health  Administration

(OSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor has  promulgated regulations
                             tufyf£/>
applying to  storage tanks and are intended  to protect  workers from

fires  and explosions.  Normal venting and relief venting for fire

-------
exposure for above ground tanks are required by OSHA for
the storage of petroleum liquids  (for Reference see 29 CFR
Part 1910, Subpart H, Section 1910.106.
     Although it would seem that the regulations promulgated
by EPA and OSHA are inconsistent, they in fact apply to the
same facilities consistently since venting required by OSHA
need not be uncontrolled (i.e., without a vapor recovery
system).  Likewise, a requirement for vapor recovery systems
by EPA need not preclude the design and construction of an
emergency vent to the atmosphere.
               (b)  Container Regulations
     In the past four years the EPA has proposed or promulgated
guidelines and regulations for the storage and disposal of
specific types of containers.  These guidelines and/or
regulations could be modified or expanded to encompass all
types of hazardous waste containers.
I.   Federal Register, Volume 39, No. 85 - "Pesticide and
Pesticide Containers" .  In order to promulgate recommendations
for the disposal of pesticide containers, containers were
divided into 3 groups:
     a.   Group I Containers.  Combustible containers which
          formerly contained organic or metallo-organic
                              j ca.dsn/i//v j  or QSJISJ/C
          pesticides, except.^ should be disposed of  in a
          pesticide incinerator, or buried in a specially
          designated landfill.
                             /9

-------
b.   Group II Containers.  Non-combustible containers which
     formerly contained organic or metallo-organic
     pesticides, except organic mercury, lead, cadmium,
     or arsenic compunds, should first be triple-
     rinsed.  Containers in good condition may then be
     returned to the pesticide manufacturer or formulator
     or drum reconditioner for reuse with the same
     chemical class of pesticide previously contained,
     providing  such reuse is legal under currently
     applicable U.S. Department of Transportation
     regulations, including those set forth in 49 CFR
     173.28.  Other rinsed metal containers should be
     punctured  to facilitate drainage prior to transport
     to a facility  for recycle as scrap metal or  for
     disposal.  All rinsed containers may be  crushed and
     disposed of by burial in  a  sanitary  landfill,  in
     conformance with  State and  local standards  or  buried
     in the field by the user  of-the pesticide.   Unrinsed
     containers should be disposed  of in  a  specially
     designated landfill, or  subjected  to incineration
      in a pesticide incinerator.
 c.   Group III  Containers.   Containers  (both combustible
      and  noncombustible) which formerly contained organic
      mercury,  lead,  cadmium,  or arsenic or inorganic
      pesticides and which have been triple rinsed and

-------
          punctured to facilitate drainage, may be disposed

          of in a sanitary landfill.  Such containers which are

          not rinsed should be encapsulated and buried in a

          specially designated landfill.

Regarding the storage of pesticide containers/ in this same

ruling the EPA made the following recommendations:

a.   Storage sites.  Storage sites should be selected with due

     regard to the amount, toxicity, and environmental hazard

     of pesticides, and the number and sizes of containers to

     be handled.  When practicable, sites should be located

     where flooding is unlikely and where soil texture/structure

     and geologic/hydrologic characteristics will prevent the

     contamination of any water system by runoff or percolation.

     Where warranted, drainage from the site should be contained^

     (by natural or artificial barriers or dikes) ......

b.   Operational Procedures.  Pesticide containers should be

     stored with the label plainly visible.  If containers are
     Q.c/)d/frc/) tohas) rt£Widj -/An ccirtwts j/tcv/d Ae./*/&£Ad //? £,
     not in goodAsuitable container and properly relabeled.

     If dry excess pesticides are received in paper bags that

     are damaged, the bag and the contents should be placed in

     a sound container that can be sealed.  Metal or rigid

     plastic containers should be checked carefully to insure

     that the lids and bungs are tight.  Where relevant and

     practicable, the following provisions should be considered:

-------
     1)   Classification and separation.   (i) Each pesticide
         formulation should be  segregated and  stored under
         a  sign  containing the  name of  the formulation.   Rigid
         containers should be stored  in an upright  position
         and all containers should be stored off the ground,  in
         an orderly way,  so as  to permit ready access  and
         inspection.   They should be  accumulated in rows or
         units so that all labels are visible, and  with lanes
         to provide effective access.  A complete inventory
         should be maintained indicating the number and
         identity of  containers in each storage unit.   (ii)
         Excess pesticides and  containers should be further
          segregated  according  to the  method of disposal to
         ensure that  entire  shipments of the same class of
          pesticides  are disposed of  properly,  and that
          accidental  mixing of  containers of different categories
          does not occur during the removal operation.
     2)   Container inspection  and maintenance.  Containers
          should be checked regularly for corrosion and leaks.
II   Federal Register, Volume 41, No.  112 - "Vinyl Chloride;
Recommended Procedures for Disposal of Aerosol Cans":
                                                 *s
     Final disposal of VCM-containing aerosol  can should be
     undertaken  using methods listed  in order  of preferred
     priority:

-------
     1.   High temperature incineration (except for products
          containing heavy metals);
     2.   Burial in a State-approved chemical (or hazardous)
          waste landfill;
     3.   Burial in a separate area of a State-approved
          sanitary landfill.
Ill  Federal Register, Vol. 42, No.  100 - "Polychlorinated
Biphenyls (PCBs)";
a.   Disposal requirements for PCS containers - unless
     decontaminated, a PCB container shall be disposed of:
     1.   in an incinerator, or
     2.   in a chemical waste landfill, provided that the PCB
          container shall first be drained, and flushed internally
          if necessary/ so that remaining PCB chemical sub-
          stances and PCB mixtures constitute no more than 0.5
          percent of the total volume of the container.
b.   Storage requirements for PCB containers
     The facilities at which the containers are to be stored
must meet the following specifications:
     i.   An adequate roof to prevent rainwater from reaching
          the stored PCBs.
     ii.  An adequate floor which has continuous curbing with
          a minimum six inch high curb.  Such floor and curbing
          must provide a containment volume equal to at least

-------
     two times the internal volume of the largest PCB
                                           £*•
     equipment or PCB container stored therm or twenty-
     five percent of the total internal volume of all
     PCB equipment or containers stored therein/ which-
     ever is greater.
iii. No drain valves, floor drains/ sewer lines/ or
     other openings that would permit liquids to flow
     from the curbed area.
iv.  Continuous, smooth, and impervious construction for
     floors and curbing such as Portland cement concrete.
v.   All PCB containers shall be checked for leaks at
     least once every 30 days.  All leaking containers and
     their contents shall be transferred immediately to
     properly marked nonleaking containers.
vi.  Any PCB container used for the storage of liquid PCB
     chemical substances or li^quid PCB mixtures shall
     comply with the specifications of the Department
     of Transportation Materials Transportation Bureau
     Hazardous Materials Regulations/ 49 CFR 173.346
     (41 PR 42544, September  27, 1976).  Any PCB containers
     used for the storage of  nonliquid PCB mixtures/ PCB
     articles, or PCB equipment may vary from 49 CFR
     173.346 by meeting DOT Spec.  5, Spec. 5B or Spec. 17C
     with removable  heads.

-------
c.   Decontamination of PCS containers - Essentially, what
the EPA has required for the decontamination of the containers
is a standard, triple-rinse procedure:
     Any PCB container to be decontaminated shall be decon-
     taminated by flushing of the internal surfaces of the
     container three times with a solvent containing less
     than 0.05 percent PCB chemical substance in which the
     solubility of PCBs is five percent or more by weight.
     Each rinse shall use a volume of the normal diluent equal
     to approximately ten percent of the PCB container's
     capacity.  The solvent may be reused for decontamination
     until it contains 0.5 percent PCB chemical substance.
     The solvent shall then be disposed of as a PCB mixture.
     2.  State Regulations
     In most states, regulations governing the storage of
     hazardous wastes are  part of general hazardous waste
     regulations.  The guidelines which are applied to hazardous
     waste disposal are also applied to waste storage
     facilities.  In many states, waste storage is not
     specifically mentioned in regulations; however, waste tank
     or container storage and handling are described at the
     time engineering plans for a waste disposal facility are
     submitted for state review and approval.

-------
 The following are excerpts from regulations and/or
 guidelines in those states with programs deemed most
 progressive.  /-Minnesota:   (proposed regulations HW-4)
K	,	s 	
*As explicable,  containers  and j^ojtable tanks used to
 store hazardous waste shall meet the following minimum
 reauirements:
                                                  °J
 Containers  and  tanks  shall be of sturdy,  leak-pro/x con-
 struction.  Containers  shall be of  adequate wall  thickness,
 of weld hinge and seam  strength,  and of  sufficient  material
 strength  to withstand side and bottom shock while filled
 without impairment of the  ability of the  container  or
 tank  to fully contain the  waste.
 Except during filling or emptying,  a container or tank
 shall be  securely closed so that there is no escape of
 waste or  its  vapors.  This provision shall  not apply when
 in conflict with other  applicable state  or  federal  laws.
 Lids,  caps, hinges, or  other closure devices shall  be  of
 sufficient  strength and construction so  that when closed they
 will  withstand  dropping, overturning or  other shock without
 impairment  of the container's or tank's  ability to  fully
 contain the waste.  Gasketed closures shall be fitted  with
 gaskets of  efficient  material which will  not be deteriorated
 by the contents.

-------
Containers, tanks and their closures shall be constructed
of materials which will not undergo chemical reaction with
the contained waste or with other substances that the
container may contact if such a reaction may impair the
container's or tank's ability to fully contain the waste.
Containers and tanks constructed of material that may
undergo such reaction shall be protected with a non-
reactive liner.
Nails, staples, and other metallic devices shall not
protrude into the interior of the outer packaging in such
a manner as to be likely to cause failures.
Corroded or damaged containers or tanks shall not be used
to contain hazardous wastes.  Such containers, before
being reused to store hazardous wastes, shall be repaired
or reconditioned in compliance with 49 CFR 173.28.
Until a drained or emptied container or portable tank has
been thoroughly cleaned and sufficiently rinsed to
remove all significant residual hazardous waste, the
container shall be considered to contain hazardous waste
and shall be stored, handled, transported, and disposed of
as required by these regulations.  Cleaning solutions and
rinsates shall be disposed of in accordance with applicable
laws and regulations.

-------
Minnesota also proposes to require that Hazardous Waste
Storage Areas meet the following minimum design and construction
requirements:
1.   Storage of hazardous waste is prohibited in buildings,
                         v
     completely enclosed Vehicle trailers or other enclosed
     areas in any area where a spillage or leakage of hazardous
     waste or a solution thereof may potentially enter waters
     of the state or may potentially cause violation of state
     air quality regulations through drains, sewer inlets,
     sanitary sewers; doorways, vents, tunnels, pipes,
     windows, permeable earth or soil floors or other routes.
     Safeguards shall be constructed and maintained that are
     adequate to prohibit escape of spilled or leaked
     hazardous waste from a building or an enclosed storage
     area.  Incompatible wastes shall be stored within
     separate safeguards.
2.   Storage of hazardous waste is prohibited at any outdoor
     storage location, except as provided for in HW-4 D-4,
     without safeguards adequate to prevent the escape or
     movement of the hazardous waste or a solution from the
     site in the event of the failure of a container, tank or
     piping.  Incompatible wastes shall be stored within
     separate safeguards.

-------
3.    For storage of containers, storage tanks or portable tanks



     at any outdoor location,, or in any structure, vehicle



     trailer, or other unit or area which is not completely



     enclosed, an impervious continuous dike or wall shall



     entirely surround the storage area and enclose an emergency



     storage volume.  The volume shall be equal to the larger



     of the capacity of the largest enclosed storage tank or



     portable tank plus one foot of freeboard or the total



     capacity of all containers plus one foot of freeboard.



     The dike or wall shall be sturdily constructed to securely



     hold such a volume of hazardous waste.



4.   An impervious liner with a permeability of less than 500



     gallons per acre per day under the entire storage area



     and enclosure of such construction or composition either



     natural or artificial as to prevent (in case of any failure



     of the storage tank or container), the seepage, percolation



     or other movement of hazardous waste or solution into the



     underlying ground-shall be constructed.  The permeability of



     this basin seal should be as low  as possible.  The impreviou



     liner shall extend to include areas beneath containers,



     tanks, and the surrounding berms  or dikes.



5.   Loading and unloading locks, vehicle-loading racks and fill



     pipe areas shall be constructed to contain spillages and

-------
     leakages of hazardous wastes that could occur as a
     consequence of hazardous waste transfer activities or
     storage at these areas.  The containment area shall be
     constructed to prevent escape of spilled hazardous waste
     or a solution thereof to outside the containment area,
     whether by overflow, drains, sewers, seepage into the
     ground, or any other route.  The containment area shall
     be completely on top of an impervious liner 500 to prevent
     percolation or other movement of spilled hazardous waste
     into the ground.
6.   If diking is impractical due to space limitations, vehicle
     access, or other causes, alternative methods of safeguards
     may be allowed in lieu of the above requirements.
     Alternative safeguards shall include an emergency storage
     volume equal to the above requirements and shall be over
     an impervious liner that extends sufficiently to contain
     the waste in the event of spillage."
Regarding operation criteria for Hazardous Waste Storage Areas,
Minnesota proposes to require that:
     "Containers of hazardous waste which are corroded or
     otherwise damaged shall be replaced as soon as possible
     and all leakages be properly recontainerized."
Washington;  (from draft No. 2 - "Hazardous Waste Regulation",
3-20-77).

-------
 1.   Empth  non-combustible containers  Cwhich previously



     contained extremely hazardous  waste)  that are decon-



     taminated and drained by processes  equivalent to triple



     rinsing shall not be considered extremely hazardous waste.



 2.   Containers  holding extremely hazardous waste shall not



     be opened,  or handled and stored  in a manner which may



     rupture the containers,  or cause  them to leak,  unless



     a.   severe container damage requires transfer to another
         t


           container,  or



     b.   detoxification is planned, or



     c.   waste  sampling becomes necessary/'



 Texas;   (From Technical Guideline #9:   "Non-Compatible Wastes",



           of the Texas Water Quality Board's Industrial Solid



           Waste  Management Regulation,  issued 5-3-76).



     In its discussion of the handling and disposal of non-



 compatible wastes, the Texas guidelines  include the following



 suggestions concerning containers:

it

 1.   Non-compatible wastes should not  be mixed in the same



     transportation or storage container.



 2.   A  waste should not be added to an unwashed transportation



     or storage  container that previously contained a non-



     compatible  waste.

-------
3.   Non-compatible waste should not be combined in the same


     pond, landfill, soil mixing area,  well, or burial


     container.  An exception is the controlled neutralization


     of acids and alkalies in disposal areas.  Containers which


     hold non-compatible wastes should be well separated by


     soil or refuse when they are buried.  Ideally, separate


     disposal areas should be maintained for noncompatible


     wastes.
                                                              /r
4.   Non-compatible wastes should not be incinerated together.


California;  California also addresses the issue of con-


tainerized non-compatible wastes in its draft regulations,


dated 4-1-77.


1.   Storage and transportation containers holding wastes


     which might be incompatible shall be separated from each


     other or protected from each other in order to prevent


     the wastes from mixing should the containers break or


     leak.


2.   A waste shall not be added to an unwashed container that

                                              ^
     previously held an incompatible material.


In addition, California has proposed the following other


requirements for the storage and disposal of hazardous waste


containers.

-------
' 1.   The operator  (of a hazardous waste facility) shall

      provide or otherwise arrange for special equipment such as

      lifts, ramps  and lines to remove containerized hazardous

      waste from vehicles and containers if necessary to

      prevent hazards to public health, personal  safety,

      wildlife or domestic livestock.

 2.   Containers may be opened, emptied or buried within a

      hazardous waste area only if the nature of  the waste and

      the precautions taken preclude fires, contamination of

      persons with  hazardous waste, discharge of  a hazardous waste

      outside the hazardous waste area and movement of hazardous

      waste to an area outside the hazardous waste area.

      Otherwise, containers holding hazardous wastes shall not

      be opened, handled or disposed of in a manner which may

      rupture the containers or cause them to leak, before they

      are buried.

 3.   Empty containers contaminated with hazardous materials

      shall be stored, handled, processed and disposed of as

      hazardous wastes.

 4.   Nonstationary containers used for storing hazardous waste

      shall be such that the containers can be safely trans-
                                 i*
      ported, handled, or moved.

-------
     The State of California also issued information and
guidelines that were to be utilized in the "Used Pesticide
Container Cleanup Project", held during the period of March 1
thru 12, 1971.  Although the guidelines were drawn up specifically
                                            /
for pesticide containers, they could possiblje be broadened to
encompass other types of hazardous waste containers.  The
following are selected passages from these guidelines:
1.   The pesticide containers to be revieved at the approved
     disposal sites must be rinsed.
2.   At the end of each day's disposal operation the containers
     should be completely covered with soil.
3.   The desired equipment for compaction and burial of
      ^°
     cntainers is a crawler-type tractor equipped with a
     bulldozer
4.   The container unloading area should be in or adjacent to
     the burial area; containers should not be dumped down a
     long slope or on open dump face.  If the area is sloped,
     it may be advantageous to construct a low control berm
      (.1 foot  high) since containers may roll and be scattered
     prior to actual compaction.
                                                 vT*
5.   Upon arrival  (at the waste facility) the containers should
     be crushed and compacted into the landfill immediately,
     unless they are taken to a segregated, enclosed storage

-------
      area.   If  the  containers  are  stored,  they should be

      rendered unusable  prior to  storage,  and crushing and

      compaction should  start immediately  upon removal from

      storage when the appropriate  equipment is available.

 6.    Always  keep lids and bungs  tightened on metal,  glass,
                                              a.
      and plastic containers.   Used bags and s^cks should be

      stored  in  closed secondary  containers.

 7.    Check  stored used  pesticide containers routinely for

      corrosion, leaks,  breaks, etc.,  to assure that  a

      hazardous  condition does  not  develop in the storage area.

 8.    After metal containers  have been decontaminated they
                                             H
      may be  stored as any other  scrap metal.

 South Carolina;  Similar to  California's  regulations, the

 regulations  cited from  South Carolina pertain to the storage

 and disposal of pesticide containers:
*
 1.    Metal  and  Glass Containers:

      a.   Pesticide containers less than  20 gallons  shall be

          hauled to a special  designated  area for disposal.

      b.   Used  metal or glass  pesticide containers which hold

          less  than 20  gallons of  liquid  pesticide shall be

          rinsed and drained three (3)  times with water or

          other spray carrier  immediately and the rinse

          solution drained from the container into the tank mixt

-------
     c.    Pesticide containers equal to or more than 20



          gallons shall be salvaged, if possible.   These



          containers shall be rinsed by the same procedure



          as the smaller containers named in (b) above.



          The containers shall then be stored using minimal



          precautions until they can be sold to a drum recon-



          ditioner.



2.   Fibrous/ Paper, and Plastic Containers:


     p    i i
     jfest0c£>de containers made of fibrous materials, paper,



     or plastic shall be disposed of in a special designated



     area in the same manner as the metal containers with the



     exception of being rinsed.  Fibrous, paper, and plastic



     containers shall be covered immediately after being



     brought to the landfill or stored in metal containers with



     a cover on each container until such time as the desired



     amount is received for proper covering without wasting



     time and effort of the operator.

                                                                ¥
3.   No open burning of pesticide containers shall be permitted.



Oregon;  Again, these proposed rules pertain only to pesticides,



but have the potential to suffice for other types of containers



as well.



     "Noncombustible containers, including but not limited to



     cans, pails or drums constructed of steel, plastic or



     glass/ shall be decontaminated by triple rinsing or jet

-------
rinsing or jet rinsing of containers for liquid or
solid pesticides or by other methods approved by the
Department.  Noncombustible fumigant pesticide containers
shall be decontaminated by standing open to the atmosphere
with closure removed in an upsidejjf down position for a
period of five C5) or more days.  Decontamination shall
be performed immediately but not to exceed two (2)
days after emptying of containers.
Combustible containers, including paper bags andarums,
but not including plastic containers, shall be disposed
by:
(a)  burning of combustible containers in an incinerator
     or solid fuel fired furnace which has been certified
     by the Department to comply with applicable air
     emission limits or;
(b)  open burning of not more than 50 pounds in any day,
     except those used for organic forms of beryllium,
     selenium, mercury, lead, cadmium or aresenic.
     Open burning shall be conducted in compliance with
     open burning rules, OAR Chapter 340, Division 2,
     Subdivision 3, according to requirements of local
     fire departments and districts and in such a manner
     as to protect public health, susceptible crops,
     animals, surface water supplies and waters of the State

-------
     EPA's review of State's waste storage regulations or
guidelines indicates that:
     —   Most states do not regulate hazardous waste
          storage specifically.
          Many permit applications for waste disposal also
          include storage facilities.  The procedures for
          waste storage are reviewed Calong with the re-
          mainder of the application) by the state personnel
          who determine approval or rejection on a case-by
                  i
          case basgs.
          Hazardous  waste regulations in some states are
          very weak; these are the states that do not mention
          waste storage in their regulations.
          Most state hazardous waste storage restrictions
          have been formed with emphasis on protection of
          water resources.
          Hazardous waste storage regulations generaly involve
          design and operating standards.
3.  Others:  EPA also reviewed standards that have been
     used and may be applied to the  design and construction
     of hazardous waste storage tanks from the following sources:
     (1)  American Petroleum Institute Standard No. 620.
          Recommended Rules for the  Design and Construction
          of Large,  Welded/ Low-Pressure Storage Tanks,
          Third Edition, 1966.

-------
(2)   American Petroleum Institute  Standards  No.  12A,



     Specification  for Oil  Storage Tanks  with  Riveted



     Shells,  Seventh Edition,  September 1951,  or No.  650,



     Welded Steel Tanks for Oil  Storage,  Third Edition,



     1966.



(3)   American Petroleum Institute  Standards  No.  12B,



     Specification  for Bolted  Production  Tanks,



     Eleventh Edition,  May  1958, and  Supplement  1,



     March  1962; No.  12D, Specification for  Large



     Welded Production Tanks,  Seventh Edition, August



     1957;  or No. 12F,  Specification  for  Small Welded



     Production Tanks,  Fifth Edition,  March  1961.



     Tanks  built in accordance with these standards



     shall  be used  only as  production tanks  for  storage



     of  crude petroleum in  oil-producing  areas.



(4)   Underwriters'  Laboratories, Inc., Subjects  No.



     142, Standard  for Steel Aboveground  Tanks for



     Flammable and  Combustible Li^quids,  1968; No. 58,



     Standard for Steel Underground Tanks for  Flammable



     and Combustible Li^quids,   Fifth Edition, December



     1961;  or No. 80,  Standard for Steel  Inside  Tanks



     fo^Oil-Burner  Fuel,  September 1963.

-------
 IV*  Analysis of  Regulatory  Options
 Option 1  General regulatory language.   For  example,  "all
                                                      *
 storage facilities  shall be  located, designed, constructed,
 and operated in such a manner as to assure no adverse
 effect on human health and the environment./^Advantages:
 -    Non-specific regulatory language allows more latitude
     and flexibility in enforcement.   Enforcement authorities
     would be able to decide on a case-by-case basis whether
     a particular storage facility was located,  designed,
     constructed,  and operated in such a manner as to prevent
     the release of hazardous substances to the environment.
     Such an evaluation could take into consideration juoh
     such factors  as the type of waste stored, local climate,
     the type of storage device used by the facility, the
     amount of time that the waste is stored before disposal,
     etcetera.
Disadvantages:
     Difficulty in compliance because of non-specificity of
     language (e.g.  type of storage device to be used,
     specific diking requirements)
     May result in non-uniform implementation.
     In the absence of specific national standards, there will
     be no means by which to assist or compare the Equivalency
     of state hazardous waste programs to the federal program.

-------
     States may find it difficult to develop adequate
     hazardous waste programs without the existence of
     federal standards as guidance.
Option 2  General regulatory language coupled with specific
recommendations. For example, "all storage facilities shall
                               #
be located, designed, constructed, and operated in such a
manner as to assure no adverse effect on human health and
the environment.  Listed below are a number of recommendations'
that should be given consideration by storage facility owners/
operators in order to ensure that the storage facility will
pose the least amount of threat to human health and the
environment..."   (See excerpts from Texas guidelines on
page 31 for an example of a list of recommendations to be
considered).
Advantages:
     Clearly defines factors for owners/operators to be
     concerned with in locating, designing, constructing,
     and operating an environmentally sound storage facility.
     Provides flexibility in enforcement.
     Recommendations, although bearing no legal weight, a/d in
     enforcement because of the "as to assure no adverse effect
     on human health and the environment" criteria in the
     general statement.
     Aids  enforcing officials in judging the adequacy of
     the design and operation plans of the storage facility.

-------
     Provides a basis for assessing the equivalency of state
     programs.
Disadvantages:
     Possible loophole in enforcement because suggestions
     are not legally enforceable.
Option 3  Specific regulatory language.  For example, "storage
tanks which contain volatile waste shall not be /ented directly
to the atmosphere if they have a storage capacity in excess
of 19,000 liters (5000 gallons)".
Advantages:
     Specific and clearly defined duties which are not subject
     to broad interpratation, either in imposing liability
     or escaping liability.
     Theua.easily enforceable, Ipss discretionary.
     Provides a basis for assessing the equivalency of state
     programs.
Disadvantages:
     Thege^difficult to formulate regulations in that specific
     requirements for storage areas, tanks, and containers
     would have to be pinpointed.
     Varied nature of the waste stored at facilities may make
     certain aspects of these regulations inappropriate.
     Inflexibility of specific standards discourages industry
     from developing new and innovative technologies to store
     hazardous waste.

-------
Option 4  Specific regulatory language coupled with notes


which provide a basis for deviation from the standard.  For


example, "storage tanks which contain volatile waste shall

       V
not be Rented directly to the atmosphere if they have a


storage capacity in excess of 19,000 liters (5000 gallons).

                                     V
Note:  Facility owners/operators may Xent their storage tanks


with a capacity in excess of 19,000 liters (5000 gallons)


directly to the atmosphere if it can be demonstrated that such

       V
direct /enting would not cause the Air Human Health and


Environmental Standard (Section 250.42 - 3) to be exceeded."


Advantages:


     This approach has all the advantages of option 3, plus


     it affords a degree of flexibility which option 3 lacks.


     That is, the mechanism of the note provides a basis


     for deviation from the standard if the facility owner/


     operator can demonstrate to the EPA Regional Administrator,


     prior to receiving a permit, that the proposed alternative


     method meets the objective of the standard.


Option 5  Promulgate no regulations pertaining to the storage


of hazardous waste.


Advantages:


     Saves time and personnel in enacting and implementing a


     regulation.


     Storage of hazardous waste would be adequate in some stated


     which already provide for specific storage requirements in


     their hazardous waste regulations.

-------
Disadvantages:
     Storage of hazardous waste may be inadequate in states
     not providing for specific storage requirements.
     Requirement is mandated by the Act ("Such standards
     shall include... requirements respecting... storage...
     of all such waste (hazardous) received by the facility...
     and the location, design and construction of such
     hazardous waste... storage facilities").
V  Identification and Rationale for Chosen Regulatory Option;
     The purpose of the storage standards (Sections 250.44,
250.44-1, and 250.44-2) is to prevent the release of hazardous
substances from the storage facility to the environment.
     Option III, the regulatory option which we have chosen
to implement in the regulation, is one which we feel best
protects human health and the environment by specifically
delineating what is required of owners and operators of
storage facilities.
     The storage standards are unusual when compared to most
of the other sections of the 3004 regulations in that none of
the storage  standards are accompanied by notes  (the option 4
regulatory format).  The reason why the Option  4 format was
not selected for any of the  storage standards is because the
Agency believes that it is not possible for  the facility owner/
operator to  deviate  from these particular standards and still
meet the objective of  the standard.

-------
^^^^^^^^o^5^r^^^^cr.^^^^^^s^^^^»^^^^^^^^wQi**«AQj-\-is>  \ o Cvi* i* j.un  4*~j\j • "it i



                           Standard



250.44     (a)   An owner/operator of a storage  facility, as



           defined in Section 250.41, shall  store the hazardous



           waste in either a storage tank or storage container



           and shall comply with the requirements of this Section.



                                Standard



250.44     (b)   Storage of hazardous waste  shall be conducted in



           such a manner that no discharge  of hazardous waste



           occurs.



                      Rationale for Standards (a) and  (b)



      The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)



defines  "storage" when used in connection  with hazardous waste/



to  mean  the "...containment of hazardous waste, either on a



temporary basis or for a period of years,  in such a manner as



not to constitute disposal of  such hazardous waste.  A key word



in  the above definition is disposal, which is  defined in RCRA



as  follows:

-------
     "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
     contituent thereof  may enter the environment or be
     emitted into the air or discharged into any waters,
     including ground waters."
     Taken together, the above definitions in RCRA have ^
been judged as requiring that "storage" be performed in a
zero-discharge manner if it is to be in accordance with the
intent of RCRA.  Standard 250.44  (b), therefore, was written
in order to clarify the no-discharge aspect of the definition
of storage.  The Agency believes that storage, as defined in
RCRA,  cannot be achieved unless the waste  is enclosed in a
storage container or  storage  tank, hence the reason why standard
250.44  (a) was proposed.
                              Standard
250.44     (c)  An owner/operator  of  a storage  facility  shall
           visually  inspect  the facility daily  in  accordance
           with the  requirements  of Section 250.43-6  for the
           purpose of  detecting any potential  discharge  of
           hazardous waste.
                              Rationale
      Visual inspections of storage facilities are required  in
order that leakage  of hazardous  waste from storage devices  (e.g.
tanks and containers) can be detected,  and remedial measures  can
be taken  to minimize or prevent  the movement of hazardous waste

-------
outside the storage area.  Inspection of the storage facility



serves as an early warning device which allows time for



correction before fires or explosions occur, or ground and



surface water is contaminated, thereby reducing the risk to



human health and the environment.



                            Standard



250.44     Cd)  .An owner/operator of a facility may be required



          by the Regional Administrator to comply with all or



          part of the groundwater and leachate monitoring



          requirements of Section 250.43-8, if the Regional



          Administrator determines that there is a potential



          for discharge of the hazardous material.



                             Rationale



     Monitoring of storage facilities is required in order that



leakage of hazardous waste from storage devices  (e.g. tanks



and containers) can be detected, and remedial measures can be



taken to minimize or prevent the movement of hazardous waste



outside the storage area.  Monitoring of the storage facility set



as an early warning device which allows time for correction befoj:



groundwater sources are contaminated, thereby reducing the risk



to human health and the environment.



                               Standard



250.44     (e)  Each storage area shall have a continuous base



          which is impervious to the material being stored, and



          shall be designed and constructed so that any surface



          water runoff or spill can be contained until the wast



          can be removed.

-------
                              Rationale
     The purpose of this requirement is to reduce or eliminate
the possibility that a hazardous waste emanating from a storage
device will contaminate the groundwater.  To preclude such an
occurrence, it is necessary that the base of the storage area
be correlated to the type of waste being stored in terms of
base permeability and integrity.
                              Standard
•250.44     (f)  Hazardous waste which the Regional Administrator
          determines would cause the Air Human Health and
          Environmental Standard  (Section 250.42-3) to be
          exceeded if it were held opened to the environment/
          particularly with regard to volatility and toxicity,
          shall be stored in a storage tank(s) or a storage
          container(s) until the hazardous waste is disposed of,
          treated or incinerated in accordance with the require-
          ments of this subpart.
                        *•

                              Rationale
     This regulation specifies which hazardous wastes require
storage in tanks.  Rather than basing this determination on
a single factor  (i.e., true vapor pressure), the overall
characteristics of the waste are used.  For example, if the
waste has a high degree of toxicity or volatility and would
cause the Air Human Health and Environmental Standard to be exceeded
when stored in an open manner, such as a settling pond or lagoon,
this regulation requires that the waste be stored in a storage
tank or a storage container.
                              49

-------
                             Standard
250.44    (g)  Storage tanks and containers shall be of sturdy
          and leakproof construction in accordance with the
          Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
          regulations for storage of flammable and combustible
          liquids (29 CPR Part 1910, Subpart H, Section 1910.106).
                              Rationale
     Because storage of hazardous waste must be accomplished
in a "zero discharge" manner, by definition this requirement
necessitates that storage be "leakproof," so as to prevent
the release of hazardous waste to the environment.
     OSHA's responsibility is to ensure worker safety, and
for this reason,  OSHA has written explicit design specifications
for the storage of flammable and combustible liquids.  These
design specifications are deemed to be adequate to ensure that
tanks and containers are sturdy and leakproof, and therefore
the EPA has decided to adopt OSHA's storage regulations.
                               Standard
250.44    (h)  Storage tanks and containers shall be constructed
          of materials which are compatible with the hazardous
          waste to be contained or shall be protected by a
          liner compatible with the hazardous waste to be
          contained so that the ability of the storage tank o/
          container to contain the waste is not impaired.

-------
250.44(1)  A hazardous waste shall not be contained in an unwashed
          storage tank or container that previously held an incom-
          patible material (See Appendix I) .
                  Rationale for (h) and  (i)
     Both standards,  (h) and (i) , are concerned with the contact
of incompatible materials .  Reaction between incompatible
substances may produce potentially hazardous situations, such
as heat generation, fires, explosions, or release of toxic
substances. Such situations have potential for severe adverse
public health and environmental effects.
     These regulations are designed to prevent contact of a
hazardous waste with the wall of a container or tank with which
it is incompatible or with a waste with which it is incompatible,
thereby reducing a potential source of the aforementioned hazards.
                                      \
250.44     (j)  The identity and location of all stored waste
           shall be known  (e.g. via labelling and recordkeeping)
           throughout the entire storage period.
                              Rationale
     Many  accidents involving hazardous waste are attributed
to persons not knowing what the material is that they are
handling.  Presuming the substance to be non-hazardous, the
person may not handle the material with the degree of caution
that one would normally exercise  if the material was known to
be hazardous.  To preclude this type of situation, it is required
that the identity of the waste be known throughout the storage
period.

-------
     Additionally, in the event of an emergency,  it  is



necessary to know the location of all stored waste in order  that



those wastes which are vulnerable to the emergency  (e.g.  explosive



waste during a fire) can be quickly removed, or otherwise



isolated.



D. GLouiuje TaiAb. (SuuLiun 250.44-'l)



     The strategy employed in developing storage  tank



regulations was first to determine which wastes require storage



in tanks, and secondly to determine how storage areas are to



be constructed to prevent the escape or leakage of hazardous



waste from the tanks to the environemnt.



                              Standard



250.44-1  (a)  Storage tanks which contain volatile  waste



               shall not be vented directly to the atmosphere



               if they have a storage capacity in excess  of



               19,000 liters (5000 gallons).



                              Rationale



     This regulation was developed to prevent dangerous expansion*



or harmful evaporation resulting from the storage of



a large amount (Volume  19,000 liters)  of volatile waste.

-------
     The selection of 5000 gallons as the threshold above
which indirect venting is required is based on the fact that
the typical carrying capacity of transport vehicles for hazardous
wastes is 5000 gallons.  To require these transport vehicles to
be equipped with indirect venting devices would impose an unduly
harsh financial burden on the owners of these vehicles.
     In addition it is felt that the amount of volatiles which
a,
^monate from a storage tank containing less than 5000 gallons will
be relatively small, such that human health and the environment
will not be inordinately impaired if direct venting of these
vehicles is allowed.
     The agency recognizes, however, that there are instances
when it would be best to not take advantage of the flexibility
afforded by this standard, e.g., for those hazardous wastes
which are extremely volatile and/or toxic.  Under such
circumstances, the indirect venting of storage tanks would be
necessary.
                            Standard
250.44-/   (b)  All storage tanks above ground shall have a
          spill confinement structure(s)  (e.g., dike or trench),
          with a capacity equal to the entire contents of the
          largest storage tank, plus sufficient freeboard to
          allow for the containment of precipitation resulting
          from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.

-------
                               Rationale

     The degree of protection for tank storage areas was

chosen to be equal to the capacity of the largest storage

tank because:

1)   There is a precedent for this mandatory standard.  It

     is adopted from EPA's Oil Pollution Prevention regulations,

     CFR 40, Part 112.7(e) (2) (ii);

2)   In storage areas which house more than one tank, the

     probability that more than one tank will simultaneously

     leak or rupture is very low;

3)   The majority of tank spills and ruptures occur at a slow,

     rather than at an instantaneous and complete rate of

     release;

4)   Those tank ruptures which do occur instantaneously are

     associated with violent explosions.  In such a situation,

     a protection device would be relatively ineffective in

     containing the spill anyway.

     The capacity of protective devices used to enclose tanks

must allow for accumulation of water due to precipitation

when stored outside.  Because of the regional differences in

precipitation within the U.S., the allowances for precipitation

was selected to be based on the amount of precipitation that

can be expected from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.

                               Standard
        /
250.44-2  (c)  Diking requirements and operating procedures

               for storage tanks shall be in accordance

               with EPA's oil or hazardous

-------
     pollution prevention regulations £40 CFR Part 112,
     Subchapter D)  issued pursuant to Section 311 of the
     Clean Water Act.
                              Rationale
     Section 1006 of RCRA mandates that all provisions of RCRA
shall be integrated with the appropriate previsions of the
Clean Water Act.  To this end, this regulation has been
written to comply with Section 1006's mandate to integrate
with other acts.
C.  Storage Containers (Section 250.44-2)
     The intention of the storage container regulations is to
prevent the release of hazardous substances from waste -
contaminated containers into the environment.  These regulations
will apply to both full containers and those which have been
emptied and have residues.  Since in both cases the containers
have been contaminated with hazardous waste, the term "contaminated
container" is used in these regulations to denote both "full"
and "empty" containers.	 -
                               Standard
250.44-2  (a)  If a container is not in good condition or if
          the contents of a storage container begin to leak,
          the hazardous waste in the container shall be
          recontainerized in a storage container(s) in good
          condition.
250.44-2  (b)  A storage container holding hazardous waste shall
          not be opened, handled or stored in a manner which
          may rupture the containter or cause it to leak.

-------
                     Rationale for (a) and  (b)


     Both standards, (a)  and (b),  are concerned with leakage


of hazardous waste from containers.  Because storage of


hazardous waste for any period of time must provide for

                                 (L
"zero discharge" by definition th^n/  this requirement


necessitates that storage also be done in a leakproof manner.


In order to ensure compliance with this definition, standard


(a) requires that all containers be examined for defects  (e.g.


faulty seams, excessive corrosion, other damage, etc.) in


order to determine if the containers are suitable for storage


of hazardous waste.


     Storage or disposal of hazardous waste in containers


without first examining the containers for defects has resulted


in serious consequence to public health, the environment, and


property.  For example, concentrated mineral acid in Case History


no. 6 (cited earlier in this document) trickled out of its


container in such a way that the acid contacted organic solvents.


This encounter started a large chemical fire and dispersed


beryllium dust which was disposed of nearby.  Contract with


beryllium dust by personnel could have led to serious health


problems.


     The purpose of standard (b)  is to limit handling of


containerized waste by personnel to the bare minimum.  It is


thai^ihe less often a waste is handled, the less opportunity


will be for container damage and subsequent leakage of the


hazardous waste from the container.

-------
                            Standard
250.44-2  (c)  A storage facility which stores hazardous waste
          in storage containers shall have a spill confinement
          structure(s)  (e.g., dike or trench) with a capacity
          equal to 10 percent of the containerized waste, plus
          sufficient freeboard to allow for containment of pre-
          cipitation resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm.
                           1  Rationale
     The degree of protection for container storage areas was
chosen to be equal to 10 percent of the containerized waste
(and not the capacity of the largest container, as is true
with the storage tank regulations) because it is likely that
more than one container will be leaking simultaneously and
therefore, the degree of protection for containerized hazardous
waste storage areas should be greater than the capacity of the
largest enclosed container.  On the other hand, the likelihood
that all of the enclosed containers will be leaking simultaneously
is quite small, and to require a protection device capable of
containing the total volume of waste stored would be overly
stringent.  Therefore, the interim value of 10 percent of the
stored waste was selected as a reasonable degree of protection
against the anticipated amount of hazardous waste emanating from
stored containers.
     The capacity of protective devices used to enclose containers
must allow for accumulation of water due to precipitation when
stored outside.  Because of the regional differences in pre-
  . .     .                                                     uxtni.
cipitation within the U.S., the allowances for precipitationwas

-------
selected to be based on the amount of precipitation that can
                                        /n
be expected from a 24-hour, 25-year storjrf.
                             Standard
250.44-2   (d)   Storage containers holding hazardous waste
          which are incompatible  (see appendix I) shall be
          separated from each other or protected from each other
          in order to prevent the wastes from mixing, should the
          containers break or leak.
                             Rationale
     This regulation is concerned with the mixing of incompatible
hazardous wastes in storage containers.
     When potentially incompatible wastes come in contact with
one another, reactions between the incompatible chemical
constituents in the wastes may create hazardous situations such
as heat and pressure generation, explosions, fires or release of
toxic substances.  These hazards have potential for adverse
effects on public health, property and equipment^and the environ-
ment.
     Case History No. 9  (cited earlier in this document)
demonstrates the importance of inspection and cleaning of used
containers before reuse  for hazardous waste storage.  Vinyl
cyanide waste was transferred into an "empty" waste drum.  The
drum in fact had a residual mixture of a vinylation process.
The resultant polymerization reaction produced sufficient heat
and pressure to rupture  the drum. Fortunately, the workers
involved sustained only  minor injuries, although fatalities

-------
could have occurred.  The intent of this standard is to
minimize this type of potentially dangerous situation.
                              Standard
250.44-2  (e)  Empty combustible storage containers  (e.g.,
          fibrous and paper containers), which previously
          contained hazardous waste, shall be:
      (1)  incinerated in a facility which complies with
          the requirements of Section 250.45-1, or
      (2}  disposed in a landfill which complies with the
          requirements of Section 250.45-2.
                              Rationale
      The burning of empty combustible containers is  allowed
because incineration provides for safe disposal of these
containers while, at the same time, does not  take up space in
the  limited  number of hazardous waste  landfills.  However, where
incineration of these containers  is impracticable, this
regulation allows  for the disposal  of  these containers  in land-
fills which  comply with  the  requirements  of Section  250.45-2.
                                Standard
 250.44-2   (_f)   Empty non-combustible  storage  containers (e.g.,
           metal and glass  containers)  which previously contained
           hazardous waste,  shall be:
       (11   Cleaned by removing hazardous waste residuals
           at a permitted facility and
           li)   transported to a drum reconditioner; or
                transported to a metal or glass recovery  facility
                as scrap for resource recovery;

-------
     (2)   Transmitted to a permitted drum reconditioner,

          with the appropriate manifest;  or

     (3)   Reused with the same type of waste previously

          contained,  or with another compatible waste

          provided such reuse is lawful under currently

          applicable U.S. DOT regulations, including those

          set forth in 49 CFR 173.28.

                             Rationale

     The emphasis of this regulation is on resource recovery.

The advantage of such an approach is two-fold:

     (1)  the amount of hazardous waste that must be disposed

          of is reduced

     (2)  a hazardous pollutant  (the contaminated container)

          is transformed into an economic asset.

     A recent EPA publication furnished the following data

regarding the recycling of containers:

     It is shown that single use drums require twice as much
energy per fill as heavier drums which can be reconditioned.
This is because the greatest energy  requirements in the steel
drum system are for the manufacture  of steel.  It takes
approximately 10 times as much energy to manufacture a drum
as it does to recondition a drum.  A change from the existing
mix of reusable and single use drums to an all 18 gage drum
system with an average of eight  reconditionings per drum
(nine fills), would create energy  savings of  17,043 billion
BTU per year.  This is 23 percent  of th^total energy requirements
for the existing  system  and enough energy to  provide electric
power for one month to a  city the  size of San Francisco.   It is
envisioned that  further  energy  savings could  be realized  if  the^
number of reconditionings of  reusable drums could be increased««

-------
 2  Prussing, L.L., and J.E. Prussing.  The Energy Requirements of
    Steel Drum Manufacturing and Reconditioning.  In Corson, A.S.,
    P.A. Savage, and C.A. Baggatts, eds.  Proceedings: the 1975
    Public Meeting on Hazardous Waste Management, Newark, NJ,
    Rosemont, IL, Houston, TX, and San Francisco, CA, Dec. 1975,
    V.I. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs Publication
    SW - 9p. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    1976

                              Standard

 250.44-2  (g)   Paper bags contaiminated with hazardous waste

           shall be stored in closed secondary containers.

                              Rationale

      The concern of  this  regulation is  with  leakage  of hazardous

 waste from  paper bags to  the  environment.  It is thought that

 the requirement  to place  paper bags  in  secondary containers  will

 prevent  this type of leakage  from occurring.

                              Standard

 250.44-2  (h)  All containers received at hazardous  waste

          facilities shall be in compliance with Section 250.25

          (containers) of Subpart B.

                             Rationale

     The purpose of ...this .standard is to alert owners and operators

of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities that

a separate set of container regulations exist which  apply to

generators of hazardous waste.  Familiarization with the generator

standards will enable the owner/operator to protect  himself

against accepting containers which do not meet 3002  requirements,

and which could be an indication of faulty container construction.

-------

-------
BD-24
                    Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery Act
                   Subtitle C -  Hazardous  Waste  Management
       Section  3004 -  Standards Applicable  to   Owners  and Operators
                       of  Hazardous Waste  Treatment, Storage, and
                       Disposal  Facilities.
                                    FINAL



                           BACKGROUND DOCUMENT


             Section 250.45 Standards for Treatment/Disposal
                 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Solid Waste
                           December 15, 1978

-------
     This document provides background information and support for
regulations which are designed to protect the air, surface water,
and groundwater from potentially harmful discharges and emmissions
from hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
pursuant to Section 3004 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976.  It is being issued as a draft to support the proposed
regulations.  As new information is obtained, changes may be made in
the regulations as well as in this background material.

     This document was first drafted many months ago and has been
revised to reflect information received and Agency decisions made
since then.  EPA made changes in the proposed Section 3004 regula-
tions shortly before their publication in the Federal Register.  We
have tried to ensure that all of those decisions are reflected in
this document.  If there are any inconsistencies between the pro-
posal (the preamble and the regulation) and this background document,
however, the proposal is controlling.

Comments in writing may be made to:

     Timothy Fields, Jr.
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     Office of Solid Waste
     Hazardous Waste Management Division (WH-565)
     401 M St., S.W.
     Washington, D.C.  20460

Legislative Authority

     Subtitle  C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-580,
hereinafter called the Act), creates a framework to control hazardous
waste.  Congress has found that such waste presents "special dangers
to health and requires a greater degree of regulation than does
nonhazardous solid waste" (Section 1002 (b) (5)).  Because of the
seriousness of this waste problem, Congress intended that the
States develop programs to control it.  In the event that States do
not choose to operate this program, the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) is mandated to do so.

     According to the legislative history, House Rep. 94-1491 at 2
(1976), "An increase in reclamation and reuse practices is a major
objective of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act."  This
theme is emphasized in the two major objectives of the Act stated in
Section 1003:  protection of public health and the environment and
conservation of valuable material and energy resources.  Resource
recovery 1s desirable for several reasons:  it reduces the need for
raw materials, while virgin materials are becoming scarce; it can
save energy; and it reduces the volume of waste that must be disposed.

-------
Treatment vs. Disposal

     While safe techniques for land disposal (e.g., landfilling) can
protect public health and the environment, land disposal waste
management options generally do not provide opportunities for
resource conservation or recovery.  Furthermore, land disposal of
hazardous waste entails substantial long term monitoring and security
efforts, with associated costs, because the waste is contained but
not destroyed.

     In contract, waste treatment options, such as incineration and
chemical/physical/biological treatment, can destroy hazardous waste
(or render it non-hazardous) once and for all, while providing the
potential for energy and/or material recovery at the same time.
Treatment, therefore, responds to both objectives established by
Congress.  In many cases, treatment may be less costly than land
disposal in the long run when credits for energy and material
recovered, and long term monitoring and security costs associated
with land disposal are taken into account.  Also, the public is more
likely to accept a treatment/recovery facility than a land disposal
facility.

     For these reasons, the Agency perfers treatment as a hazardous
waste management option over land disposal.  The Agency recognizes,
however, that some hazardous waste is not amenable to treatment, and
that land disposal is the only feasible option for such waste.
Thus, both options are necessary.  Further, the Agency does not
presume to know in advance what the economic, health and environ-
mental trade offs will be for a given hazardous waste in a given
waste management situation.  Consequently, in most cases, the Agency
has not specified that only one management option is permitted.

     Rather, in Section 250.45 (a), the Agency states its preferance
for treatment options vs. land disposal options, where practical.

Radioactive Waste

     Some owners/operators of hazardous waste management facilities
may not be familiar with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules
regarding disposal of discrete radioactive waste, such as radioiso-
tapes used in hospitals and laboratories.  Consequently, Section
250.45 (b) mostly restates the requirements that facilities at which
discrete radioactive waste is disposed need a license issued by the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission or an Agreement State, in addition
to a RCRA permit.

-------
  Ignltable,  Reactive,  Incompatible,  and  Volatile  Waste.

       An  exception  to  the  general  Agency policy,  mentioned above,
  against  specifying waste  management  options  is found in Section
  250.45 (c) which prohibits  treatment or disposal of ignitable,
  reactive, incompatible, and volatile waste in landfills, surface
  impoundments,  basins, or  landfarms.  The Agency  has taken this
  position because damage cases show that  fires, explosions, and other
  releases of  hazardous contaminations to  the  air  are likely to occur
  when  such waste is  treated  or disposed  of in facilities where waste
  is not segregated  by type,  and where controls of air emissions are
  not generally  used.

       Ignitable and  reactive wastes are defined in Subpart A, and
 more  details can be found in background documents under that Sub-
 part.  Incompatible Waste is defined in Appendix  I  of these  proposed
 Subpart D regulations by various groupings of waste which have
 potential to cause various types of reactions.   This definition is
 taken from the California State Department of Health regulations.
 For a detailed discussion on volatile waste,  see  the Background
 Document  entitled "Regulations to Control Air Emissions"  under
 Subpart D.

      A note  associated with Section  250.45 (c)  allows a deviation
 from the  general  prohibition on  treatment and disposal of ignitable,
 reactive, incompatible,  and volatile waste in landfills,  surface
 impoundments, basins,  or landfarms provided the facility  owner/
 operator  can  show  during the permit  issuance  process that such
 treatment or  disposal  will  not release air contaminants above  the
 surface of such facilities at concentrations  such that any one
 contaminant will exceed  permissible  contaminant levels established
 by  the U.S. Occupational Safety  and  Health Administration (see 29
 CFR 1910.1000)  for  various  substances, nor that the sum of the air
 contaminants  in a mixture,  expressed  as  ratios of contaminant
 concentrations  to permissible  contaminant  levels  for each contaminant,
 will not  exceed unity above  the surface  of such facilities.  This
 possible  deviation  was provided because  there may be some waste
 management situations (e.g., where only  one type of waste is  handled)
 which  can achieve control of air emissions sufficient to protect
 human  health  and the environment.  In addition, the owner/ operator
 must demonstrate that such wastes will not damage the structural
 integrity of  the landfill, surface impoundment,  or basin,  or  affect
 the attenuation capacity of a landfarm, through heat generation,
 fires  or explosive reactions.  It has been documented in EPA's
 damage files  that such management in  the past  could  have prevented
many accidents resulting in environmental and  human  health harm.

-------
     For a detailed discussion of why OSHA permissible air contamine,
levels were used 1n this Case, see the Background Document entitled
"Regulations to Control Air Emmissions."

     Air Monitoring;  Owners and operators of hazardous waste
incinerators are required to continuously monitor and record tem-
perature in the combustion zone or after burner, and carbon monoxide
concentrations in the emissions.  Other facility point sources,
particularly new types of resource recovery technologies, must be
better understood before emission requirements and air monitoring
requirements are prescribed.

     Air sampling at non-point sources (e.g., surface impoundments,
landfills) is not required 1n these regulations.  Sampling at a non-
point source may be a permit condition, if the owner/ operator
wishes to deviate from a standard that is accompanied by a note
prescribing the terms of such a deviation.  If the note allows a
demonstration of compliance with the air standard, air sampling may
be used as part of this demonstration.

     Air sampling procedures for non-point sources are under develop-
ment.  A manual will be provided by EPA following promulgation of
these rules to describe the procedures by which air sampling at non-
point sources could be accomplished.
                                  .  4  -

-------