-------
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 tp / 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 -
-------