(40 CFR 260, 264, and 122)
 Permitting of Land Disposal Facilities; Landfills
  This document (ms. 1941.37) provides background
   information on EPA's proposed regulations for
          land disposal of hazardous waste
                     July 1981

                         TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION                                                 Pag e  4

I.   NEED FOR REGULATION                                     Page  4

  A. Potential for Environmental Damage                      Page  4
  B. Actual Damage IncidentsPage  6
     (1) Ground Water Contamination                          Page  6
     (2) Surface Water Contamination                         Page 15
     (3) Ground and Surface Water Contamination              Page 17
     (4) Major Public Health  Damages Caused  by
         Chemicals Migrating  from Disposal  Sites             Page 19
     (5) Explosions and Fires                                Page 20
     (6) Toxic Fumes Resulting from Mixing of
         Incompatible Wastes                                 Page 26
     (7) Explosive or Hazardous Gases Migrate
         from Landfill                                       Page 27
     (8) Formation of Water Soluble Toxic
         Substances from Ruptured Drums                      Page 28
     (9) Wind Dispersal of Hazardous Wastes                  Page 28

II.  ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS                                   Page 30

1.   Applicability - 264.300                                Page 30

2.   General Design Requirements - 264.301                  Page 30

ISSUE;   Leachate monitoring system                            Page 30

ISSUE;   Liner systems                                         Page 32

ISSUE;   Leachate collection and removal systems               Page 33

3.   General Operating Requirements - 264.302               Page 35

4.   Inspection and testing - 264.306                       Page 36

ISSUE;   Field inspection and testing                          Page 36

ISSUE;   Leachate monitoring                                   Page 38

5.   Surveying and recordkeeping - 264.309                  Page 39

6.   Closure and post-closure - 264.310                     Page 42

ISSUE;   Final Cover                                           Page 42

ISSUE;   Post-closure care                                     Page 44

7.   Special requirements for

     ignitable or reactive waste - 264.312                  Page 45

 8.   Special requirements for
     incompatible wastes - 264.313                         Page 47
 9.   Special requirements for
     liquid waste - 264.314                                Page 43
 ISSUE; Disposal of bulk liquids                             Page 48
  A. Proposed regulation and rationale                      Page 48
  B. Summary of Comments on TermsPage 50
  C. Discussion                                             Page 50
  D. Summary of Other Comments                              Page 54
  E. Discussion                                             Page 56
 ISSUE; Containerized liquids                                Page 60
 !0-   Special requirements for containers - 264.315         Page 64
 11.   Special requirements for
     classes of facilities - 264.316                       Page 66
ISSUE; Distance from the historical high water table        Page 66
III. REFERENCES                                             page 70


     Requirements for landfills were proposed on 18 December 1978

(43 FR 58946-59028).  Numerous comments were received on that

proposal at public hearings and as written comments.  A summary of

the comments and Agency responses, pertinent to the Part 264

regulations, is presented  in  Part  II of this document.  The reader

is also referred to two other background documents:

     (1)  Background Document, Section 250.45-2, Standards for

          Landfills, U.S.  EPA, Office of  Solid Waste, December 15,


     (2)  Background Document, 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart N, Interim

          Status Standards for Landfills, U.S. EPA, Office of Solid

          Waste, May 2, 1980.

     Numerous damage cases have been documented demonstrating the

need to establish standards for landfills.  Many are cited in the

above referenced documents.   The citations in those documents have

been significantly amended, and are cited in full in this document.

Additional information on  the cited cases and additional examples

af damage resulting from land filled waste may be found in the Land

Disposal Division Damage Case File, U.S.  EPA, Office of Solid Waste.

     A minor change has been made  in the definition of a landfill in

Part 260 to exclude seepage facilities from the definition.


  A. Potential for Environmental Damage

     EPA files contain many examples of environmental damage from

improper land disposal of  hazardous waste.  Although damage to

ground water is the most common occurrence, improper land disposal

has resulted in surface water and air pollution as well.  The
following discussion describes reported incidents involving the
contamination of all these media as well as public health damage
that has occurred.
     An EPA ground water report, entitled "The Prevalence of
Subsurface Migration of Hazardous Chemical Substances at Selected
Industrial Waste Disposal Sites,"1 investigated the likelihood of
ground water contamination at hazardous waste land disposal sites.
In this study, ground waters at 50 land disposal sites which received
large quantities of industrial waste were sampled and analyzed.
The sites selected were all located East of the Mississippi River,
were representative of typical industrial land disposal facilities,
and were situated in a wide variety of geologic environments.  No
previous contamination of ground water with hazardous substances
had been reported at these facilities before sampling, and waste
disposal had been in progress for a minimum of 3 years.  At 43 of
the 50 sites migration of one or more hazardous constituents was
detected in the ground water.  Twelve potentially hazardous inorganic
constituents were detected in ground waters above background
concentrations.  The five most frequently detected were selenium,
barium, cyanide, copper, and nickel in that order.  Organic substances
that were identified in ground waters included PCBs, chlorinated
phenols, benzene and derivitives, and organic solvents.
     At 26 sites, potentially hazardous inorganic constituents in
the ground water from one or more of the monitoring wells exceeded
the EPA drinking water limits.  Of the potentially hazardous
substances, selenium most frequently exceeded drinking water limits,

followed by arsenic, chromium, and lead.
     Conclusions drawn from the study are:
     0   Ground-water contamination at industrial land disposal
         sites is a commom occurrence.
     0   Hazardous substances from industrial waste land disposal
         sites are capable of migrating into and with ground water.
     0   Few hydrogeologic environments are suitable for land
         disposal of hazardous waste without some risk of ground-
         water contamination.
     0   Continued development of programs for monitoring industrial
         waste land diposal sites is necessary to determine impact
         on ground-water quality.
     0   Many old industrial waste disposal sites, both active and
         abandoned, are located in geologic environments where
         ground water  is particularly susceptible to contamination.
     0   Many waste disposal sites are located where the underlying
         aquifer system can discharge hazardous  substances to a
         surface-water body.
  B. Actual Damage Incidents
     Numerous incidents of damage which resulted from improper
land disposal are contained within EPA files.  Some of those
documented damage cases which support the  need for  these regulations
are summarized below.
      (1) Ground Water  Contamination
0    A landfill in  Jackson  Township,  New  Jersey  was closed after
      it had contaminated  approximately 100 drinking water wells.
      Analysis of water samples showed the  presence of chloroform,

 methylene  chloride, benzene,  toluene, trichloroethylene,
 ethylbenzene  and  acetone.   Residents claim  that premature
 deaths,  kidney malfunctions,  kidney removals, recurrent
 rashes,  infections and  other  health related problems are due
 to  the contaminated water supplies.2
 An  industrial landfill  in South  Brunswick,  New Jersey has
 been  identified as the  source of contamination of a number
 of  residential wells adjacent to the facility.  Significant
 levels of  chloroform, toluene, xylene, trichloroethane and
 trichloroethylene have  been found in well water.3
 A New Hanover County, North Carolina landfill which has
 accepted municipal and  industrial wastes since 1972 has
 contaminated an underlying aquifer and several domestic
 wells to the extent that the  water is hazardous for human
 consumption and other uses.   Chemicals found in the residential
 wells at levels sufficient to adversely affect human health
 and the environment include tetrachloroethylene, benzene,
 vinyl chloride, trichloroethylene and 1,2-dichloroethane,
 all carcinogens, as well as methylene chloride and lead.   In
 addition the presence of chlorides, dichlorophenol,
 chlorobenzene, iron, manganese,  phenol and zinc, have rendered
 the water  unfit for human consumption due to extreme bad
 taste or odor.4
 A company which engages in the distillation, recovery and
disposal of industrial solvents  in  Southington,  Connecticut
 has, through its improper handling, storage and disposal  of
hazardous wastes,  contaminated the  groundwater causing  the

 closure of three of  the city's six wells.  Chemicals found
 in the wells at levels which may adversely affect human
 health include:  tetrachloroethylene, chloroform,
 trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 ,-trichloroethane, dichloroethane
 and carbon tetrachloride.   In addition, soils and crops in
 the vicinity show very high levels of lead, reportedly from
 open burning of wastes at the site.5
 Chemical wastes in barrels were buried in two Plainfield,
 Connecticut gravel pits which resulted in groundwater
 contamination.   The owner of the site was fined $25,000 and
 is paying for site cleanup, estimated at $750,000.6
 Wastes from a chemical company in  Canton,  Connecticut were
 disposed  of in  a dump between 1969  and 1972.    Solvent  type
 chemicals including carbon tetrachloride,  methyl  ethyl
 ketone,  trichloroethylene and chloroform have contaminated
 eleven Canton wells.   The  estimated costs  of  extending  water
 lines  from nearby communities range  from $145,000 to  $379,000.
 The present owner of  the dump has been ordered  to clean up
 the site.7
 Tannery waste disposed of  in the Saco, Maine  town dump
 resulted  in the contamination of private drinking water wells
 with chromium,  iron and manganese.8
 Illegal dumping of chemical  wastes in  Jtehobeth, Massachusetts
 resulted  in the contamination of private wells and has threatened
a reservior.  Among the chemicals identified were toluene,
 trichloroethylene and  ethyl  acetate.   The site was cleaned
up by the  State at a cost of $125,000.9

 Disposal of  benzene,  toluene, dichloroethylene,  and  other
 organics by  an  organic  chemcial  manufacturer in  Acton,
 Massachusetts led  to  the  loss of 45 percent  of the municipal
 water  supply.   The company has agreed  to  pay for cleanup.10
 Seventeen private  wells adjacent to a  landfill at  Exeter,
 New Hampshire were found  to be contaminated  with phenols,
 one  of which was 750  times drinking  water  standards.  The
 town has approved  a $200,000 bond  issue to supply public
 water  to the area.11
 The  Bristol, Rhode Island  landfill  has three illegal dump
 sites of chemical  wastes.   Toluene  and trichloroethylene
 have been found at the site.  The  adjacent marshland and at
 least eleven wells have been contaminated  by the site.12
 A Cumberland, Rhode Island  landfill  has been implicated in
 the  closing  of  four municipal wells  which  became contaminated
 by tetrachloroethylene and  1,1,1,-trichloroethane.13
 A Deptford Township,  New Jersey  landfill which accepted
 chemical wastes resulted in  the  contamination of well water
 with cyanides and  phenols  at levels  twice  the recommended
 drinking water standards.   In addition, fires have been
 reported at  the site  and workers have complained of skin and
 eye  irritation as  well as  nausea.14
 Local residents began complaining in 1975  about water
 contamination in the  area  of a South Brunswick, New Jersey
 landfill.   The site had accepted all types of chemical
wastes, and  significant amounts of organic chemicals were
detected in  six nearby wells.  The State ordered the site

closed; however,  damage to the aquifer is estimated  at $300,000.15
The  102nd  Street  landfill in Niagara  Falls,  New  York was
utilized  for  the  disposal of hazardous wastes from the 1940's
to  1972.   Lindane,  tetrachlorobenzene and phenol  have migrated
from the  disposal site.  The estimated cost  to clean the  site
is $16, 500, 000. 16
The  "S" area  landfill in Niagara Falls,  New  York  was utilized
for  the disposal  of hazardous wastes  between  1947 and 1975.
Tetrachloroethylene and benzene hexachloride  are  migrating  from
the  site  and  are  entering the public  drinking  water  supply.
Remedial  measures to clean this site  are estimated at $ 50, 000, 000.
A landfill  in  Lehigh County,  Pennsylvania which received
industrial  wastes contaminated a well which  supplied water
to about  50 homes.   Excessive levels  of  phenols,  ethyl acetate
and  trichloroethylene were present  in the well water.18
Rainwater and  groundwater percolating through  a landfill  in
Wilmington, Delaware produced a leachate containing  high
concentrations of iron, chlorides,  ammonia, heavy metals  and
dissolved organics.  The leachate migrated from the  site  and
into  the deeper Potomac aquifer used  extensively  in  New
Castle  County  for a water supply.  At a  cost  of over $1,000,000
the  County  has installed  wells to intercept contaminated
groundwater in order to prevent the contamination of the
public water supply wells.19
Investigation  of  a  landfill  in Hillsborough County,  Florida
showed volatile organic groundwater contamination of six
wells, three of which were for private residences and two wells

which served as community water supplies.  Pending a long
term solution, the County Health Department has instituted a
bottled-water distribution program.20
A landfill in New Hanover County, North Carolina which
received industrial wastes has been shown to have contaminated
17 private wells in the vicinity.  Approximately twenty
additional private wells are in danger of becoming contaminated.
The County is providing drinking water to residents with
affected wells and plans are proceeding to provide a permanent
outside water supply to the area.  Court action is also
proceeding against the State, County and operators of the
Leachate from a landfill accepting industrial waste near
Aurora, Illinois has contaminated nine wells.  Owners of the
wells were forced to hook-up to the city of North Aurora' s
water lines.22
An industrial landfill near Elkart, Indiana is the suspected
source of contamination of six private wells with chromium
at levels over 100 times the EPA drinking water standards.
The problem was "remedied" by digging deeper wells.  A recent
USGS study is evaluating the extent of groundwater contamination.23
In 1973, high levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) were found
in the well of a private residence near Oscoda, Michigan.
Over the following five years, seven other private residential
wells and an industrial well became contaminated.  The
suspected source is the open dumping of TCE on the site of a
nearby auto parts plant.  Public water has been supplied to

the residents at  a cost of $140,000.24
Two illegal dumpsites  in  Oakland  County, Michigan have been
named as  the source  of PCB's,  toxic  solvents and other
chemicals  found in local  wells  in  August 1979.  Approximately
2000 drums were dumped at the  sites  12 to 14 years ago.  The
cost to remove the drums  from  the  site is estimated at $500,00O.25
Extremely  high levels  of  PCB's  in  fish have resulted in an
advisory  against  consuming fish from 129 miles of the
Sheboygan, Mullet, and Onion Rivers  in the State of Wisconsin.
One suspected source of the chemical is a company which used
wastes containing 10,000  parts  per million PCB's as fill in
the Sheboygan River  floodplain.  Remedial measures have been
initiated  by the  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.26
Instead of properly  disposing of  some drums containing
unidentified residues, a  disposal  company dropped them at a
dump located in Cabazon,  California.  A heavy rain unearthed
the drums, which  gave  off poisonous  gases and contaminated
the water.27
An old gravel quarry near Spokane, Washington was used to
dispose of aluminum  processing  wastes until it was closed by
a county  order.   The shallow perched water table has been
contaminated by chlorides.  The county has issued an order
directing  remedial actions at  the  site.  The owner has agreed
to do additional  groundwater monitoring and to evaluate alternative
remedial  measures.28
Water that had been  used  to wash  RDX (a high explosive) out
of shells  leached from a  dump  in  Kitsap County, Washington

and contaminated groundwater.  The U.S. Navy spent $150,000
on a monitoring program, final costs might reach $1,000, 000. 29
Grasshopper bait, a pesticide containing arsenic trioxide,
was being buried on a farm near Perham, Minnesota between
1934 and 1936.  In 1972, 36 years later, a well was drilled
near the burial site to supply water for employees in a
newly built office facility.  Eleven of the thirteen employees
of the facility became ill from arsenic poisoning.  Two
required hospitalization and treatment.  One lost the use of
his legs for about six months due to severe neuropathy.
Analysis of the well water revealed arsenic levels of 21,000 ppb.
(The USPHS drinking water standard is 50 ppb).  The area of
disposal was located twenty feet from the well.  Estimated
costs for solving the  problem range form $2500 to.$25,000.30
A landfill near Montague, Michigan began operations in the
1950s and continued until 1970.  A variety of materials
were buried at the site including brine softening sludge,
hexachlorocyclopentadiene, asbestos, and flyash.  Approximately
400,000 cubic yards of wastes were disposed and the ground
water has been contaminated as a result of improper operations.31
A disposal site in Salt Lake City received waste tars and
acidic bitumens from the 1920s until 1957.  The volume of
waste received is at least 37,000 cubic yards.  Ground water
contamination by oil and grease has been detected both up
gradient and downgradient from the site due to ground water
mounding at the site.32
A landfill in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey, has been the

depository of large quantities of organic and inorganic
industrial wastes.  In 1973,  this landfill was ordered by
the State not to accept any more industrial wastes since
laboratory analysis of samples from nearby observation wells
established the existence of  a ground water pollution problem
involving several chemical contaminants.  Lead concentrations
in the observation wells have been analyzed up to 18 ppm.
(The U.S. Public Health Service mandatory drinking water
standard for lead is  0.05 ppm.)  A municipal water supply
well field, situated  within 0.6 miles (1 kilometer) of the
area of contamination, has not been affected; however, it is
being regularly monitored because of the obvious threat.33
A disposal site in Hardeman County, Tennessee received
pesticide wastes from 1964 to 1972.  Compounds disposed
include endrin, dieldrin, aldrin, heptachlor, and isodrin.
Evidence of water contamination was discovered as early as
1967.  Several private wells  have been abandoned.  Total
costs to clean up the area are estimated at nearly $6,000,000.34
In 1974 in Dover Township, New Jersey a total of 148 private
wells were condemned  because  they contained hazardous organic
chemicals.  Sources of the contaminants include the Township
landfill and an  illegal chemical waste dump on which hundreds
of thousands of gallons of petrochemical wastes had been
stored and dumped.3^
A creosoting company  near  Minneapolis operated a disposal
site between  1917 and 1972.   In the  1930's a tar-like taste
was detected  in municipal  and private wells which were

abandoned for deeper ground water.  In 1973, phenolic
compounds were detected in the deeper municipal wells.  At
least $20,000,000 will be required to clean up the ground water.36
A variety of drummed chemical wastes were buried in the Hyde
Park (N.Y.)  Dump between 1953 and 1975.  This site replaced
the Love Canal Dump when that site closed.  Toxic materials
have been found in monitoring wells near the site.37
A chemical manufacturing company has been dumping arsenic-
containing wastes since 1953 at the LaBounty Damp Site along
the Cedar River in South Charles City, Iowa.  This chemical
fill covers approximately 8.5 acres and contains an estimated
27,000,000 cubic feet of chemical sludge.   In addition to
various forms of arsenic, the site also contains phenols,
orthonitroalinine, and nitrobenzene.  The situation poses a
serious threat because the underlying fractured limestone aquifer
supplies 70 percent of all drinking and irrigation water used by
Iowa residents.  At one point toxic chemicals from LaBounty
were found in the drinking water at Waterloo, 50 miles downstream
on the Cedar River.   In December 1977, the  company was ordered
by the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality to close its
shop and cease dumping at LaBounty.  The estimated cost of
removal of these toxic wastes is about $20,000,000.38
(2) Surface Water Contamination
Approximately 1,000 gallons of petroleum based cleaning
fluids were dumped at a landfill in Hay wood County, North
Carolina in 1974 and  leaked into a tributary of Homing Creek.
Cattle died after drinking from the polluted water.3$

 Powdered  pesticides, including DDT, toxaphene,  lindane  and
 Alpha  and Beta Benzene Hexachloride, killed several hundred
 fish in a Southeast Austin pond.   The pesticides had been
 dumped in paper bags into an Austin, Texas landfill.
 Bulldozers constructing a baseball field unearthed  the
 chemicals, and rain washed them into the pond.   In  August,  1979
 construction  in the park ceased while officials removed  the
 contaminated  soil.40
 Until  approximately June 1970,  Beech Creek, Waynesboro,
 Tennessee,  was considered pure enough to be a source of
 drinking  water.  At that time, waste polychlorinated biphenyls
 (PCBs) from a nearby plant began  to be deposited  in the
 Waynesboro city dump site.  Dumping continued until April 1972.
 Apparently the waste,  upon being  off-loaded at  the  dump,  was
 pushed into a spring branch that  rose under the dump and
 then emptied  into  Beech Creek.   Shortly after depositing  of
 such wastes began, an oil substance appeared in the Beech
 Creek  waters.   Dead fish, crawfish,  and waterdogs were found,
other  wildlife which used the  creek were also affected  (e.g.,
 two raccoons  were  found dead).  Beech Creek had been used
 for watering  stock, fishing, drinking water, and  recreation
 for decades.   Presently,  the creek seems to be  affected for
at least  10 miles  (16  kilometers)  from its  source and the
pollution  is  moving steadily downstream to  the  Tennessee
River.  Health officials have  advised that  the  creek should
be fenced off  to prevent cattle from  drinking the water.41
A number of disposal  sites near Pickens,  S.C. have  received

PCB-contaminated equipment, capacitors, and transformers.
PCBs have been found in the waters near these sites.
Approximately $2,000,000 will be needed to clean up the area.42
(3) Ground and Surface Water Contamination
Leachate from a Morristown, Tennessee dump containing
municipal refuse, DDT, DDE, ODD and dieldrin polluted nearby
wells and odors emanated from a leachate-polluted stream.
TVA produced a final closing plan which included a two foot
final cover and plastic covering of the pesticide disposal area.43
Between 1971 and 1973 a chemical company near St. Louis,
Michigan disposed of wastes containing at least 161,400
pounds of PBB's into a Gratiot County landfill.  Significant
traces of PBB's and various levels of other contaminants are
presently being found in ground and surface water in and
around the landfill site.  A slurry wall trench system to
contain the wastes is being developed.44
A chemical company buried  tons of brine, asbestos, fly ash
and deadly pesticides on its factory site near Montague,
Michigan.  Included in this were as many as 20,000 drums
that were leaking wastes resulting from the manufacture of
the pesticide precursor C-56.  In 1979, State offices
discovered the highest levels of dioxin ever measured in
Michigan.  Chemicals from  the landfill have leached into the
groundwater, contaminating private wells and into White Lake
which flows into Lake Michigan less than a mile away.  The
chemical company has agreed to install a purge well system
to intercept contaminated  water before it reaches White

Lake.  Cleanup estimates  range  from $15,000,000 to $300, 000, 000. 45
Since 1948, a company at  Jacksonville, Arkansas manufactured
chlorophenoxy herbicides  including 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T.
Chemical wastes, such as  dioxin and chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides, are buried  at eight locations.  Traces of
dioxin were discovered in the sediment of a nearby creek and
a downstream bayou; both  of which have been quarantined by
the state health department.  Soil contamination has been
documented.  The cost to  cleanup the  site may exceed $4, 000, 000. 46
A petroleum processor in  Baton  Rouge, Louisiana has dumped
hazardous wastes into a waste disposal site.  Heavy rains
transported the chemicals to an adjacent 550 acres of farmland
which damaged vegetation  and killed 160 cattle.  Cleanup
costs are expected to be  substantial.47
The String fellow Class I  Disposal Site operated near Glen
Avon, California from 1957 to 1972.   During that time
32,000,000 gallons of waste were received containing sulfuric,
nitric, and hydrochloric  acids, zinc, lead, mercury, and
chromium.  Toxic contaminants have been transmitted to the
ground and surface waters and air pollution from the
evaporation sprayers has  been suspected.48
In May 1974, three dead cattle  were discovered on a power
company's recently acquired farm property near Byron,
Illinois, and pathological examination established that the
cattle had died of cyanide poisoning. Further investigation
revealed that the approximately 5-acre area, which is a part
of a large property set aside for a nuclear power plant, had

been for several years a repository of large quantities of toxic
industrial wastes.  The former owner of the property used it
to dispose of industrial waste his hauling company collected.
The power company hired a consultant to study the environmental
damage on the property and to recommend clean-up procedures.
The subsequent study documented extensive harm to wildlife
and vegetation.  Nearby soils and surface and ground waters
were heavily contaminated with cyanide and chromium.  It is
not yet known when farm crops can safely be harvested on the
affected property again.49
(4) Major Public Health Damages Caused By Chemicals Migrating from
    Disposal Sites
An old landfill on Neville Island, Pennsylvania which had
received municipal refuse and miscellaneous industrial wastes
was being made into a public park when site development was
indefinitely stopped in the spring of 1979 after complaints
of a high rate of health problems among workers.  A field
investigation of chemicals uncovered at the park included
benzene, phenols, cyanide, mercury, coal tar residues and
The most highly publicized contamination incident by toxic
chemicals occurred at the Love Canal industrial waste site
in Niagara Falls, New York.  Chemical wastes were disposed
of at the site for approximately 25 years, until about 1953.
Only of late have problems at the site become known to the
public.  Eighty-two chemicals, 11 of which are suspected or
known carcinogens, were found on the surface and leaking

into the basements of homes  that were constructed in the

area.  Two hundred thirty-nine  families in the immediate area

were evacuated, and  their homes were purchased by the State

government; in  February  1979, about 100 more families -- those

with pregnant women  or children under two years of age living

within a 20 square block area around the canal -- were urged

to relocate.  The report of  the New York State Health

Commissioner, which  appeared in August of 1978, cited "growing

evidence of ...subacute  and  chronic health hazards as well

as spontaneous  abortions and congenital malformations."  A

subsequent State Health  Department study, released in February

1979, showed a  higher than expected frequency of miscarriages,

birth defects,  and low birth weights.

Between $3 and  4 billion in  lawsuits have been filed by

victims seeking compensation for health and property damage.

An additional $8,000,000 from the State and EPA is being

used to contain the  wastes on-site in an effort to minimize

or eliminate additional  damage.  The site was declared a

Federal disaster area, making this the first time that Federal

disaster relief funds were made available for a man-made disaster.

(5 ) Explosions  and Fires

     As these cases  show, fires at landfills are frequently

very difficult  to extinguish, some burning or smoldering for

months even years.   Often, soaking the site with water is not

sufficient; the waste must be excavated and physically mixed

with water.  The use of  water increases the chances for ground

and surface water contamination and where excavation is needed,

increases the chances for exposure of workers to hazardous
wastes, including explosions and toxic fumes.   If future
excavation is needed at a site for remedial actions (e.g.,
for fires) , drums containing ignitable wastes pose a serious
safety problem.  Fires themselves emit toxic fumes and/or
other air pollutants, and may cause explosions resulting from
reactive or explosive wastes, or ignitable wastes in containers,
In summary, fires at landfills are generally extremely damaging
to the environment, and often injurious to human health, as
shown by the following cases:
In February 1968, a seven year old boy died in a fire at the
Kenilworth Dump, Washington, D.C.52
Some 10,000 demolished houses had been dumped to 70 feet deep
over a 40 acre area in Milwaukee, WI.  On November 16, 1968,
the dump caught fire.  By mid January 1969, some 12,000
man-hours had been expended trying to put the fire out.  Over
210 million gallons of water had been pumped onto the fire,
most of which ran off and polluted the nearby river.  Smoke
from the fire traveled over 20 miles and obscured ground
level visibility in the surrounding area to a few feet much
of the time.  On April 30, 1969, the fire was declared to be
out for all practical purposes, after the expenditure of
hundreds of thousands of dollars in manpower and equipment
over nearly a six month period.1
A number of automobile wrecks were caused on the Oakland
Nimitz Freeway because smoke from a burning dump reduced
visibility on the highway.52

A coal mine gob pile  ignited through spontaneous combustion.
The resulting  fumes  injured vegetation, animals, and the
health of a nearby resident.   Feder V. Perry Coal Co.,  279
II. App. 314(1935).52
A bulldozer operator  at a sanitary landfill site near
Cleveland, Ohio, ran  his vehicle over a large quantity of
magnesium grindings.   The bulldozer became enveloped in a
cloud of the grindings which exploded killing the operator.1
Smoke from a dump fire on the  nights of October 23-24,
1973, reduced  visibility on the New Jersey Turnpike and
caused nine separate multiple-vehicle accidents involving
66 vehicles and resulting in nine fatalities and 34 persons
being injured.53
Air traffic at the San Francisco, CA and Presque Isle, ME
airports has been interrupted  by smoke from fires at dumps
in Burlingame, CA and  Presque  Isle, ME, respectively.2
While closing  the City of Dal ton, GA dump in March 1969
with a bulldozer, a  blade struck and ruptured a 5-pound
camping-type LP gas container.  Gas in the container ignited
and flashed toward the dozer operator who apparently was
leaning out of the window of his cab.  He was burned on the
face and left  arm and  died  in  the hospital about three
weeks later.54
A 10 month old Harleysville, PA boy was killed and his
parents and brother  rendered unconscious by carbon monoxide
gas migrating  underground into their home from a nearby
underground fire at  a  landfill.55

A landfill workman died of carbon monoxide poisoning while
working in a building at the landfill.  The gas was produced
by a smoldering underground fire in the landfill which
migrated through fissures to the building.  The fire, which
apparently was started by spontaneous combustion, was finally
extinguished by excavating the smoldering material with a
Used chemical drums were dumped in a Carrollton, Kentucky
landfill and later retrieved by a man for use as garbage
cans.  When using a torch to cut the tops off the drums,
the chemicals inside exploded.  The flying debris severed
the foot of a 5 year old boy.57
In Chester, Pennsylvania, a chemical fire at an industrial
disposal site resulted in the hospitalization of firemen
overcome by toxic fumes.  Volatile organics including
methacrylic acid and a variety of aromatic hydrocarbons
were identified at the site.  In addition, a water sampling
program revealed concentrations of chromium, copper, nickel
and lead substantially in excess of drinking water standards.
The minimum cost to clean up the site is estimated at
A combination of aluminum dust, magnesium chips and
concentrated phosphorus ignited while being compacted at a
landfill near Everett, Washington in 1974.  Firemen applied
water, which worsened the situation; two firemen were
subsequently thrown from a front end loader, but escaped
injury.  Firefighters extinguished the surface fire but the

fire burned underground until it expended its fuel.59
Two sites in Gary,  Indiana operated by the same firm in the
mid-1970s accepted  general industrial hazardous waste
including plating wastes, solvents, acids and cyanide.
Both sites were scenes of explosions and fires.  The cause
of one of the fires has been established as the result of
mixing acid solvents.  The owner has abandoned both sites
and the extent of contamination of the soil and ground and
surface water has not yet been determined.  At least
$6,000,000 will be  required to clean up the two sites.60
In October 1975 an  equipment operator at a disposal site in
Cook County, Illinois, struck a drum filled with ethyl
acetate.  The man died three days later as a result of
second and third degree burns.61
A load of empty pesticide containers was delivered to a
disposal site in Fresno, 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.   In the ensuing fire
pesticide wastes were dispersed.61
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  operator  failed to cover  the waste at

the end of the day.  The acids reacted with the solvents
during the night, ignited them and started a large chemical
fire.  There was possible dispersion of beryllium dust into
the environment.  Inhalation, ingestion or contact with the
beryllium dust by personnel could have led to serious health
A disposal site in central California accepted a load of
solid dichromate salts and dumped it in a pit along with
pesticide formulations and empty pesticide containers.  For
several days thereafter, small fires erupted in the pit due
to the oxidation of the pesticide formulations by the
dichromate.  Fortunately, the site personnel were able to
extinguish these fires before they burned out of control.
There were no injuries, or property or equipment damage.61
In 1971 a drum exploded during compacting operations and
caused a fire that burned for several days.  The air around
and the landfill was polluted during the fire.  The compacting
bulldozer was destroyed.  There is no indication that any
remedial action was taken by the landfill operators, or by
the state, local, or federal government as a result of this
Two serious fires at the Merl-Milam Landfill, St. Clare
County, Illinois (August 1973 and April 1974) were attributed
to the presence of solvent wastes from plastics manufacturing.
A landfill in East Windsor, Connecticut started on fire in
August 1979 and fifteen months later the fire was still
smoldering.  Attempts were made to extinguish the fire by

pumping in over one million gallons of water and then
covering the area, with no positive results.62
The Hamdon/New Haven,  Connecticut landfill is a very deep
fill located in a clay pit.  A  fire has persisted underground
at this site for the past 7 or  8 years.  Without creating
water pollution problems, the fire is considered to be very
difficult to extinguish.63
Underground fires are  presently burning at the Mil ford and
City of Bridgeport, Connecticut landfills.63
A landfill in Waukesha, WI caught fire.  After many attempts
to put the fire out by spraying large amounts of water on
it, the owner had to excavate the waste with a bulldozer
and spray the waste to put out  the fire.  This was a messy
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-gallon drums of
unidentified chemical  wastes.   The victim died as a result
of burns, which covered about 85% of his body.65
(6 ) Toxic Fumes Resulting from  Mixing of Incompatable Wastes
In Los Angeles County, a tank truck emptied several thousand
gallons of cyanide waste onto refuse at a sanitary landfill.
Another truck subsequently deposited several thousand gallons
of acid waste at the same location.  Reaction between the
acid and the cyanide evolved large amounts of toxic hydrogen
cyanide gas.  A potential disaster was averted when a local
chlorine dealer was called to oxidize the cyanide with

chlorine solution.68
At a sanitary landfill near Dundalk, Maryland, a 2,000-gallon
liquid industrial waste load containing iron sulfide, sodium
sulfide, sodium carbonate and sodium thiosulfate, along
with smaller quantities of organic compounds, was discharged
into a depression atop a earthcovered area of the fill.
When it reached eight to ten feet below the point of discharge,
the liquid started to bubble and fume blue smoke.  The smoke
cloud quickly engulfed the truck driver and disabled him.
Several nearby workers rushed to his aid and were also
disabled.  During the clean-up operation, one of the county
firefighters also collapsed.  All six of the injured were
hospitalized and treated for hydrogen sulfide poisoning.
The generation of hydrogen sulfide was probably due to the
incompatibility of the waste with some of the landfill
materials since the pH of the waste was measured to be 13
before it left the plant.  It may also have been caused by
the instability of the waste.68
In July 1978 a truck driver died as a result of unloading
chemicals at a Louisiana disposal site.  At least 16,000,000
gallons of material contaminated with sulfur compounds,
alkyl chloride, and sulfuric acid have been accepted at the
site.  A minimum of $17,000,000 will be required to clean up
the site.6^
(7) Explosive or Hazardous Gases Migrate from Landfill
Volatilization of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) from landfilled
wastes as well as from direct emissions into the air from

industrial plants in  Darrow,  Louisiana resulted in the
settlement of HCB on  pastures.  This led to the bioaccumulation
of HCB in the tissues of grazing cattle.  Evidence of
widespread contamination resulted  in a quarantine of livestock
produced over a  100 square mile area.70
In the spring of 1975, residents near the Lees Lane landfill
in Louisville, Kentucky experienced flash fires around water
heaters and unusual gas odors in their homes.  The landfill
has received municipal and industrial wastes, including
vinyl chloride wastes, for a  number of years.  Methane gas
was being generated in explosive levels in the landfill and
migrating into nearby homes resulting in seven families
being evacuated.  Studies are now  underway to determine the
most appropriate way  to control the gas migration.  A gas
recovery system  is being considered.71
(8) Formation of Water Soluble Toxic Substances from
    Ruptured Drums
In Riverside County,  California, several drums of phosphorus
oxychloride, phosphorus thiochloride and thionyl chloride
were improperly  dropped off at a dump.  Later during a flood,
the drums were unearthed, ruptured, and washed downstream.
They released hydrogen chloride gas and contaminated the water.
(9) Wind Dispersal of Hazardous Waste
Since 1867, asbestos  product  manufacturers have accumulated
nearly 2 million cubic yards  of assorted industrial wastes
in open piles in a small Pennsylvania town.  The original
generator of the wastes went  out of business in 1962.  Since

then, two other companies have been responsible for enlarging
the spoils piles.  The atmosphere around the piles contains
asbestos fibers, as a result of wind erosion.  An air
monitoring program, conducted by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in October 1973, indicated ambient
background levels of asbestos to be 6 ng/m3.  An asbestos
level of 9.6 ng/m3 was found at a playground near the largest
waste pile.  Values obtained near active disposal piles
range from 114 to 1,745 ng/m3.  A high pH level in a nearby
stream has resulted from the piles.  The State has ordered
and gotten compliance for closing the site.  The ongoing (as
of October 1979) closure plan includes halting additions to
the piles, stablizing the piles, reducing erosion and runoff
by planting vegetation on the piles, and fencing them off.
The State is confident that the piles now present no human
health hazard.73
A similar asbestos waste pile exists at Hyde Park, Vermont.
The pile was approximately 400 feet high, approximately 2600
feet long, and approximately 1000 feet wide as of September
1973.  At that time the site contained 20 million metric
tons of tailings.  The site had been in use for 15 years at
that time.  Percentages of chrysotile asbestos in samples of
debris from the tailings pile ranged from 12.7 to 21.1.
Ambient concentrations (away from the site) ranged from 3 to
13,600 ng/m3; average concentration was about 1300 ng/m3.
Windblown emissions from the tailings pile averaged 500
ng/m3.  In this case emissions from mining, milling, and

      roadways  probably contributed  significantly to ambient
      concentrations. 73
      The  proposed regulations  for  landfills were specified in
250.45-2 of the  proposed  hazardous waste regulations published at
43 FR 58946-59028.   Interim  Status  Standards were published at 45
FR 33066-33285.   This  analysis of standards includes relevant
comments  received from both  issuances.  These proposed regulations
incorporate the general  policy of eliminating the uncontrolled and
indiscriminate release of  hazardous wastes.
1.    Applicability - 264.300
  A.  Proposed  Regulation and Rationale
  B.  Summary of Comments
  C.  Discussion
  D.  Regulatory Language
      The  regulations in  this Subpart apply to owners and operators
of facilities  that dispose of hazardous waste in landfills, except
as 264.1 provides otherwise.
2.    General Design Requirements - 264.301
ISSUE; Leachate monitoring system
  A.  Proposed  regulation and rationale
      A leachate monitoring system was required in Parts 250.43-8
and 250.45-2 of the proposed regulations (18 December 1978, FR
59005-59011).  These requirements, however, referred to a system

which was meant for a different location than the leachate monitoring
system being required in the presently proposed regulations.  The
previously proposed system is not required in the current regulatory
package for the same reasons it was not required in the Interim
Status Standards  (See 19 May 1980, 45 FR 3191-3196, Preamble to
Subpart F).  The  Agency believes that the currently proposed leachate
monitoring system is sufficiently different from the previously
proposed system that no further reference to the old system is
  B. Summary of Comments
  C. Discussion
     The need for a leachate monitoring system is created by the
structure of the current regulatory package.  The issuance of a
permit to operate a hazardous waste landfill is primarily dependent
upon a set of assessments required of the owner or operator of a
facility.  These assessments must collectively describe the rate
and extent of contact between the products of the landfill and
the environment - see 122.25(d).  One of the predictions required
is an assessment of the physical and chemical quality of all liquids
expected to leach from the facility.  A characterization of this
leachate is fundamental to most of the other predictions required
in 122.25(d).  Therefore, an inadequate characterization of the
leachate could cause error in the predicted "zone of containment"
which is an important part of the permit conditions for a facility.
By the time the error could be detected through ground-water
monitoring, the facility might already be in violation of its

permit and damage  to  the environment and/or human health may already
be irreversible or prohibitively  expensive to correct.  Therefore,
the Agency believes that by requiring a leachate monitoring system
in new landfills and  new landfill  cells, actual and predicted
leachate quality can  be compared  and immediate action can be taken
in the event of major incongruities.  For example, an owner or
operator may discover that the phenol concentration in his leachate
is much higher than expected.  He  may then decide  (1) to accept a
lower tonage of phenol-laden waste,  (2) to treat the phenol-laden
waste before landfilling or, (3)  that the higher phenol level will
not increase the predicted "zone of containment" and no action is
necessary.  Any such  actions must  be reported to the Ragional
Administrator, and may require approval.  Only new landfills and
landfill cells are covered by this requirement because the Agency
believes that severe  human health  and environmental consequences
could result during attempts to retrofit existing facilities.
  D. Regulatory language
     (a)  All new landfills and new landfill cells must have a
leachate monitoring system capable of producing representative
samples of leachate.
ISSUE; Liner systems
  A. Proposed regulation and rationale
  B. Summary of comments
  C. Discussion
     The Agency is not requiring  the use of liners at landfills.

 Hawever, any liner system present at a landfill facility, must be
 installed and used in a manner which will allow a reasonable
 prediction of its efficiency and useful life.  This is possible is
 by handling the liner according to the carefully controlled
 conditions referenced in 264.301(b) and in "Lining of Waste
 Impoundments and Disposal Facilities", EPA/870, September 1980.
 Unless the functional effect of a liner can be determined, compliance
 with the requirements in 122.25(d) would be very difficult.
  D. Regulatory language
     (b)  Any liner systems present at the facility must be constructed
     (i) of materials which have appropriate chemical properties and
 strength and of sufficient thickness to prevent failure due to
 pressure head, physical contact with the waste to which they are
 exposed, climatic conditions, the stress of installation, and the
 stress of daily operation; and
     (ii) on a foundation or base capable of providing support to
 the liner(s)  and resistance to static head above the liner(s) to
 prevent failure of the liner(s) due to settlement or compression.
 ISSUE; Leachate collection and removal systems
 A.   Proposed regulation and rationale
  B. Summary of Comments
  C. Discussion
     The Agency is not requiring the use of a leachate collection
and removal system.   However, any leachate collection and removal
system,  present at a landfill must be installed and used in a manner

which will allow a reasonable prediction of its efficiency and
useful life.  Compliance  with 264.301(c)  and with manfacturer
recommendations is one way of achieving the controlled conditions
necessary to comply with  122.25(d).   Further, the Agency believes
that any landfill owner or operator who operates a leachate collection
and removal system must,  in  the event  that groundwater contamination
has resulted in permit violations, be  able to prevent as much
further contamination as  possible.  This belief stems from the fact
that leachate collection  and removal systems are frequently associated
with landfills located below the  water table.  This location creates
a potential for extensive contamination of the saturated zone if
initial predictions regarding the static head to be maintained at
the facility are found to be invalid.
     The capacity to control the  leachate  level at one foot or
less at any point on the  base of  a landfill was required because
the Agency believes that  this level would  sufficiently reduce the
driving force and limit further contamination if the need arose.
The Agency also believes  that the one  foot leachate maintainance
level is readily achievable  at most existing landfills equipped
with leachate collection  and removal systems.
  D. Regulatory language
     (c)  Any leachate collection and  removal system present at the
facility must be constructed:
     (i)  of materials which have appropriate chemical properties
and are of sufficient strength and thickness to resist collapse or
clogging under the pressures exerted by the overlying wastes, waste
cover materials and by any equipment used  at the facility; and

     (ii)  with sufficient capacity to achieve and maintain a
leachate depth of one foot or less at any point on the base of the
3.   General Operating Requirements - 264.302
  A. Proposed regulation and rationale
     The discussion of the proposed regulation for 264.302(a) and
(b) found on pages 82-84 of the 15 December 1978 Background Document
Section 250.302(c) is on pages 56-57 of 2 May 1980 Background
Document 40 CFR Part 265, Subpart N Interim Status Standards for
  B. Summary of comments
     There were no significant comments on these requirements.
  C. Discussion
     The requirements in 264.302(a)  and (b) are related to the
control of surface water which results from precipitation at the
facility.  These requirements are that this water be controlled and
not allowed to enter the active area of the landfill.  Further, if
the water has come in contact with the waste, the run-off is
considered to be a potentially hazardous waste and must be collected
and handled as a hazardous waste unless it can be shown that this
material does not contain hazardous constituents.
     EPA does not believe this is a stringent requirement and, did
not receive substantial comment on these requirements.  The control
of water near an active facility is a common practice at almost
all construction sites including landfills.  The control of run-on
minimizes the operational problems due to mud at the site and
removes a source of water which could cause a leachate problem.

Since the run-off  from active portions of a landfill could contain
hazardous wastes there are obvious environmental benefits from
managing this material properly.
     In 264. 302(c)  EPA requires  that methods be used to control
the wind dispersal of hazardous wastes.  EPA recognizes that the
appropriate control  method will be waste specific.  In 264.45.2(b)(10)
(43 FR 59010) there  was a requirement for daily cover at hazardous
waste landfills.   The requirement for daily cover comes from the
technology for the dispersal of municipal waste.  EPA has reevaluated
the need for the daily cover requirement and by allowing the owner
or operator to specify the appropriate method to control wind
dispersal, the requirement becomes more flexible.
  D. Regulatory Language
264.302  General  operating requirements
     (a)  Run-on must be diverted away from the active portions of
a landfill.
     (b)  Run-off  from active portions of a landfill must be
     (c)  The owner  or operator of a landfill containing hazardous
waste which is subject to dispersal by wind must cover or otherwise
manage the landfill  so that wind  dispersal of the hazardous waste
is controlled.
4.   Inspections and testing - 264.306
ISSUE; Field inspection and testing - 264.306(a) and (b)
A.   Proposed regulations and rationale

B.   Summary of comments
C.   Discussion
     Landfills must be inspected each week to ensure that the
environmental protection appurtenances are functioning properly.
This inspection will consist primarily of a visual inspection of
the control devices for run-on and run-off.  The ordinary devices
used for such control are ditches, channels, and other drainage
structures which are subject to erosion.  Failures are expected to
be as a result of long-term exposure and use.  Weekly inspections
should enable problems to be identified when they are small so that
they can be repaired before a major environmental incident can
occur.  Additional inspections are required after storms.
     Since this regulation is applicable to new facilities,
requirements for inspection and testing of the containment system
during the construction period is both feasible and desirable.
Liner systems are often key elements of design to achieve containment
and improperly installed liners or liners containing imperfections
will result in either immediate discharge of hazardous waste or
premature liner failure and subsequent leakage.  The regulation,
therefore, requires that during construction or installation, liner
systems must be inspected for uniformity, damage and imperfections
(e.g., holes, thin spots, cracks, and foreign materials).  Items
such as holes, cracks, thin spots and foreign materials, can be
inspected visually during testing depending on the type of material.
This inspection is primarily to determine if the material is free
from manufacturing defects.

      Earthen  material  liner systems must be  tested for compaction
density, moisture  content and  permeability after placement.  The
proper moisture  content  is essential  to the  achievement of proper
compaction density and low permeability.  Testing of these factors
after placement  is called for  specifically in the regulation since
these are critical in  determining  how an earthen liner will perform,
D.   Regulatory  Language
264.306 Inspections and  testing
     (a)  Each landfill,  including appurtenenances to control run-
on and run-off,  must be  inspected once each  week and after storms
to detect evidence of  deterioration.
     (b)(l)   During construction or installation, liner and cover
systems must  be  inspected for  uniformity, damage, and imperfections
(e.g., holes, cracks,  thin  spots, and foreign materials).
     (2)  Earth  material  liner and cover systems must be tested for
compaction density, moisture content, and permeability after
     (3)  Manufactured liner and cover materials (e .g., membranes
sheets,  and coatings) must  be inspected to ensure tight seams and
joints and the absence of tears and blisters.
ISSUE; Leachate monitoring  - 264.306(c)
A.   Proposed regulation  and rationale
B.   Summary of  comments

C.   Discussion

     An annual assessment of leachate quality will provide the

minimum amount of information needed to test the predictions made

in compliance with 122. 25(d)(2).  This sampling interval will also

allow ample warning time for remedial action where necessary.  More

frequent leachate monitoring will allow the owner or operator to

make increasingly accurate predictions about the rate and extent

of leachate migration thus reducing the risk of expensive clean-up

operations in the future.

D.   Regulatory language

     (c)  Leachate samples must be collected and analyzed once each

year and the results compared to the predictions required under

122.25(d)(2).  These comparisons must be reported on an annual

basis along with the monitoring results required under 264.94(b)(2)

5.   Surveying and recordkeeping - 264.309

  A. Proposed Regulation and rationale

     The discussion of the proposed regulation is found on pages

62-63 in the 15 December 1978 Background Document for Section

250.45-2 - Standards for Landfills.  These requirements are also

discussed on pages 59-64 in the 2 May 1980 Background Document for

40 CFR Part 265, Subpart N Interim Status Standards for Landfills.

  B. Summary of comments

0    This standard requires recording the exact location of each

hazardous waste and the dimensions of each cell with respect to

permanently surveyed bench marks.  It appears that it would be

nearly impossible and also unnecessary to record the exact location

of each hazardous waste.  It is sufficient to know the contents of

each cell and the exact location of each cell.
0    Landfills that receive only one type of waste whose composition
does not vary significantly should be exempted from the requirement
to record where different batches are placed.
0    Include in the regulation that these requirements do not apply
retroactively to existing landfills.
0    There are other methods of operating landfills than by placing
wastes in cells.  For example, wastes may be blended with soils so
that there are not isolated "cell" sections of landfills.  These
regulations should permit such operations.
0    In order to facilitate waste material inventories for each
landfill, a cross-referencing of the landfilled materials with
appropriate manifest numbers should be required.
  C. Discussion
     After carefully considering comments on this standard, the
Agency believes that identifying the specific location of each cell
can be accomplished adequately by use of a three-dimensional grid
system.  However, recording the exact location of each waste within
a cell would be an unreasonable and unnecessary task.  Identifying
"exact locations" would be extremely time consuming and technically
difficult.  Furthermore, over time, internal subsidence and/or
shifting can be expected within a landfill, causing changes in
"exact location."  General locations will be adequate to facilitate
remedial action, in-situ treatment, and resource recovery efforts,
and to ensure that incompatible wastes do not come in contact with
one another, and should not be unduly burdensome.  For most
circumstances at multi-waste landfills, the Agency believes that

3 meter accuracy should be sufficient for use with a grid system.
However, the size of the units of the grid would generally be a
function of each waste type at the facility.
     In addition, EPA did not intend that the owner or operator of
a landfill should record and report the location of each batch of
waste disposed.  The recording and reporting of the location of
each waste type is all that is necessary.
     It would obviously be difficult or impossible, unless adequate
records exist, for existing facilities to record and report the
location of waste types disposed prior to the effective date of
these regulations, and this is not required.  The Agency suggests,
however, as a good management practice, that owners and operators
record approximate waste or cell locations when such information is
readily available.
     EPA recognizes that there are other methods of operating a
hazardous waste landfill than by placing wastes in cells as the
term is commonly perceived, i.e., "isolated cell" sections of
landfills.  For this reason and in order to write regulations on a
national scale which apply to a wide variety of operational
techniques, EPA defined "cell" to mean "the discrete volume of a
hazardous waste landfilll which uses a liner to provide isolation
of waste from adjacent cells or waste.
     An error of reference to 265.73 of the interim status
standards instead of to 264.73 of the general status standards
was made in the regulation as printed in the Federal Register.
That error has been corrected in the regulatory language below.

  D. Regulatory Language
264.309  Surveying  and  recordkeeping
     The  owner  or operator of  a  landfill  must maintain the following
items in  the operating  record  required  in 264.73:
     (a)  On a  map,  the exact  location  and dimensions, including
depth, of each  cell  with  respect to permanently surveyed benchmarks;
     (b)  The contents  of each cell and the approximate location of
each hazardous  waste type within each cell.
6.   Closure and post-closure  -  264.310
ISSUE; Final cover
  A. Proposed regulation  and rationale
     On 18  December  1978,  the  Agency proposed very specific design
requirements for final  cover at  landfills at 43 FR 59011.
     A final cover requirement was also included in the Interim
Status Standards, however, the specific design requirements were
replaced by a more flexible system in which cover systems can be
evaluated on a  case  by  case basis.  The Agency is retaining this
more flexible approach  in the  present proposal for reasons found in
the 2 May 1980  Background Document for  40 CFR Part 265, Subpart N,
Interim Status  Standards  for Landfills.
  B. Summary of Comments
  C. Discussion
     The  Agency believes  that  placement of a final cover over
closed portions of a landfill  is necessary to (1) prevent infiltration
of rainwater, (2) prevent dispersal of  wastes by human, animal or

physical interactions and (3)  minimize the need for further
maintainance at the facility during post-closure and beyond.  The
types and amounts of cover material needed to accomplish these goals,
however, are highly dependent on the location of the landfill.  In
areas of the country where evapotranspiration exceeds precipitation,
the permeability of a cover material may not be as important as the
proposed thickness.  Other site-specific variables impacting final
cover design are the acidity of rainwater and type of indigenous
vegetation.  The Agency has proposed a case-by-case system for
evaluating cover materials to avoid unnecessary burdens on facilities
located in areas which require minimal cover.
     The proposed design, construction, and maintainance of a final
cover will be evaluated in terms of the predictions submitted for
compliance with 122.25(d).  These predictions deal with rate and
extent of mass transport of waste constituents in earth materials
surrounding the facility.  Placement of a final cover will have a
substantial impact on these transport processes.  Therefore, the
owner or operator must demonstrate that the final cover will perform
and be maintained in a manner which is consistent with these
predictions.  Due to this new approach, the Agency no longer sees
the need to list all of the factors in the closure regulations
which must be considered in designing a final cover (See the Interim
Status Standards, 19 May 1980 at 45 FR 33241).  Consideration of
these factors is intrinsically required in 122.25(d).  Detailed
discussions on final cover systems may be found in "Evaluating
Cover Systems for Solid and Hazardous Waste", EPA/867, September

     The  Agency believes  that  inspection  and  testing of the final
cover are necessary  to  demonstrate  compliance with the proposed
permit requirements.  All calculations  and predictions made in
compliance with 122.25(d)  are contingent on  the constant integrity
of the final cover.   Testing of  the  final cover is performed as it
is installed to ensure  that the  design  specifications are met.
Inspections are to be performed  on  a weekly basis to ensure that
the original specifications are  maintained.
  D. Regulatory Language
     (a) As part of  the closure  and  post-closure requirements of
Subpart G of this part, the owner or operator must place a final
cover over the landfill.   The  final  cover must:
     (1)  be designed,  constructed  and  maintained in a manner which
is consistent with the  permit  issued for  the  facility; and
     (2)  be tested  and inspected during  closure and post-closure
according to the requirements  of 264.306.
ISSUE; Post-closure  care
  A. Proposed regulation  and rationale
     Detailed discussion  of the  proposed  regulation and rationale
may be found in the  15  December  1978 Background Document for Section
250.45-2, Standards  for Landfills on pages 132-137.
  B. Summary of Comments
  C. Discussion
     The post-closure care  requirements in the current regulatory
proposal are not substantially different  than those originally
proposed on 18 December 1978 at  43  PR 59011.  For example, post-

closure operation and maintainance of a leachate monitoring system
is required in both packages.  Hawever, the location and function
of the leachate monitoring system has been changed.  The presently
proposed leachate monitoring system must be operated during the
post-closure period for the same reasons that it must be operated
during the active life of a landfill.  A full discussion on the
need for this system is found in Section 2 (General Design
Requirements - 264.301) of this document.
     Other differences between the original and current post-closure
requirements are created by structural differences in the two
regulatory approaches (See the 8 October 1980 supplemental notice
of proposed rulemaking at 45 FR 66816-66823).  These structural
changes, however, have not resulted in any changes in the objectives
of the post-closure care period.
  D. Regulatory Language
     (b)  During the post-closure period, the owner or operator
     (1)  Maintain all containment structures and equipment
at the facility in a manner which is consistent with the permit
issued for facility; and
     (2)  Continue to operate the leachate monitoring system required
by 264.301(a) and 264.306(c).
7.   Special requirements for ignitable or reactive wastes - 264.312
  A. Proposed regulation and rationale
     The proposed regulation is discused on pages 73-77 of the 15
December 1978 Background Document - Section 250.45-2 Standards
for Landfills and on pages 82-88 of the 2 May 1980 Background

 Document for 40 CFR part 265, Subpart N Interim Status  Standards
 for Landfills.
   B.  Summary of Comments
      There is no practical alternative to landfilling  containers of
 ignitable or reactive wastes.  The practice  should  be  allowed.
   C.  Discussion
      Responding to the comment advocating landfilling  of  containers
 of  ignitable or reactive wastes is best answered  by referring to
 264.314.   264.314 deals with requirements  for liquid  wastes.
 Since most ignitable and reactive  wastes are generated  as liquids,
 landfilling of  containers of ignitable and reactive wastes will not
 be  allowed.   Landfilling of ignitable and reactive  wastes that are
 liquids  will only be permitted if  these wastes  are  either rendered
 non-ignitable or non-reactive.
     The options available for proper handling  of these materials
 are limited.  EPA believes that the generator and disposer should
 work together in developing handling  techniques which are safe and
 which will  protect the workers who must handle  such materials.  In
 some cases,  it  may be desirable for the generator to treat the
 waste before  shipment to the landfill such as solidifying the
 liquid wastes.   In other cases,  more  effective  treatment systems
may be available at the disposal site.
  D. Regulatory language
 264.312  Special requirements for  ignitable  or  reactive waste
     Ignitable  or reactive waste must not  be  placed in a landfill,
 unless the  waste is treated, rendered,  or mixed before or immediately
after placement in the landfill  so that:

      (a)   the resulting waste, mixture or dissolution of material
no  longer  meets the definition of ignitable or reactive waste under
261.21 or 261.23 of this Chapter, and
      ( b)   264.17 (b) is complied with.
8.    Special requirements for incompatible wastes - 264.313
  A.  Proposed regulation and rationale
      Incompatible wastes shall be disposed of in separate landfill
cells.  The wastes accepted at hazardous waste disposal facilities
are usually hazardous by themselves.  Hawever, if a waste were to
come  in contact with another waste which is incompatible with it,
the consequences often create a more acutely hazardous situation
than  that  posed by the reactants themselves.  Furthermore, wastes
can contact other incompatible materials during handling at a facility
resulting  in the same consequence.  The lack of accurate information
about the  wastes, and the often indiscriminate handling of the wastes
contribute to the high risk of contact of potentially incompatible
substances at hazardous waste landfills.
     The chemical reactions which result from such contact can
cause secondary consequences such as injury, intoxication or death
of workers, members of the public, wildlife, and domestic animals.
The can also cause property and equipment damage, and contamination
of air, water and land.
     Persons involved in the handling and disposal of hazardous
wastes should not create a situation whereby potentially incompatible
wastes can come in contact with one another and result in: (1) heat
generation, (2)  pressure generation, (3) fire, (4)  explosion or
violent reaction, (5) formation of substances which are shock

sensitive, friction sensitive, or otherwise have the potential of
reacting violently, (6) dispersal of toxic dusts and mists due to
an explosion or violent reaction, (7) formation of toxic fumes,
gases, or other toxic chemicals, (8) volatilization of flammable or
toxic chemicals due to heat generation, and (9) solubilization of
toxic substances.  These  incompatible reactions are those that are
considered most important  to be controlled through the mandatory
separation of incompatible wastes in order to protect human health
and the environment from  their occurrences.
  B. Summary of Comments
     No substantial comments were received on this provision.
  C. Discussion
     See discussion on pages 90-92 of the 2 May 1980 Background
Document for 40 CFR Part  265, Subpart N Interim Status Standards
for Landfills.
  D. Regulatory Language
264.313 Special requirements for incompatible wastes
     Incompatible wastes,  or incompatible wastes and materials,
(see Appendix V for example) must not be placed in the same landfill
cell unless 264.17(b) is  complied with.
9.   Special Requirements  for Liquid Waste - 264.314
ISSUE; Disposal of Bulk Liquids
  A. Proposed regulation  and rationale
     The proposed standard specified that the owner or operator of
a hazardous waste landfill could not directly dispose of bulk
liquids, semi-solids, or  sludges in the landfill.  Hswever, if the
owner or operator pretreated and/or stabilized such liquid wastes

before landfilling or treated and/or stabilized the liquid in the

landfill in a manner which reduced its liquid content or increased

its solids content so that it reached a non flowing consistency/  the

owner or operator could dispose of bulk liquids, semi-solids, or

sludges in a hazardous waste landfill.

     The purpose of the proposed regulation is to reduce the presence

of free liquids in a landfill.  Free liquids migrating through a

landfill may mobilize (e.g., solubilize) toxic substances.  This

leachate has the potential of migrating from the landfill and

contaminating ground water.  Free liquids also contribute to

hydraulic head (hydrostatic pressure) which in turn, contributes

to the rate of leachate to migration through a liner system.  This

phenomenon is explained by Darcy's Law which describes the movement

of liquids through porous media.  According to Darcy's Law, an

increase in the hydraulic head, will cause an increase in the

velocity of a liquid through a material.  Thus, the disposal of

bulk liquids, (or semi-solids and sludges containing free liquids)

in hazardous waste landfills would supply both the fluid for leachate

formation and increase the hydraulic head which is the driving force

to cause leachate to pass through a liner system.  This would

increase the rate of movement of hazardous contaminants from the

landfill.  Many cases of ground and surface water contamination

have been caused by the migration of wastes from landfills.  The

damage cases suggest that this is probably the most serious form

of pollution created by landfills.  EPA believes that its regulations

restricting the landfilling of bulk liquids and wastes containing

free liquids will substantially reduce this type of pollution.

   B .  Summary of Comments on Terms
      There were no definitions for "liquids",  "bulk liquids", "free
liquids",  "semi-solid",  flowable", or "non-flowable"  in  the proposed
regulations.  The Agency received a number of  comments on  this
0     The  terms bulk liquids, semi-solids and sludges  are not defined
      in these regulations for proper interpretation of this section.
      The  Agency has indicated that its concern is  to  limit the
      liquid  content of  the waste  and prevent overload of the leachate
      collection and removal system.  There are hazardous wastes
      that  could be classified as  semi-solids or sludges  which have
      minimal liquid content and can be safely  contained  in the
      landfill specified  in the regulations.  It is recommended
      that  the terms bulk liquid,  semi-solids and sludges be properly
      defined for these  regulations and this subpart be rewritten
      to allow the disposal of semi-sol ids and  sludges with minimal
      liquid  content in  a secure landfill.
0     Within  this standard, EPA is concerned with the liquid nature
      of the  waste.   This concern  does not  justify the inclusion of
      semi-solids and  sludges within this prohibition, especially
      semi-solids and  sludges which are not water soluble.
0     Finite  parameters defining what is meant  by modification and/or
      treatment  to a non-flowing consistency are needed.
  C.  Discussion
      These comments all  imply the same basic concern about this
standard, i.e.,  the need to include a degree of specificity in
order to help in the  interpretation and implementation of this

standard.  The comments recommended that this can be done by defining
the term "liquid", semi-solids" and "sludges" or defining a specific
percentage of solids which must be attained prior to landfilling.
     The agency agrees with these comments but found it extremely
difficult to provide specific definitions of these terms that are
workable and broadly applicable.  One problem is the wide variation
among waste types.  For example, a "sludge" or "semi-solid" of one
type containing 20 percent solids may have very different flow,
free liquids, and other characteristics than another sludge of the
same solids content.  Thus, to apply a limiting definition to such
waste based on percent solids would not necessarily achieve the
objective of the regulation (i.e., may be too restrictive or not
restrictive enough), and would limilt the flexibility necessary for
proper implementation of the regulation.
     The terms "non-flowing" and "non-flowing consistency" also do
not necessarily reflect the objective of the regulation.  Even very
dry materials such as dry sand or other granular materials can
"flow" and this could lead to improper interpretation of the intent
 of the regulation.  Thus, achieving a non-flowing consistency is
not the intended objective.  The objective is the elimination of
the presence of free liquids and thereby reduction of the potential
for producing leachate and increasing contaminant migration.
     "Sludge" has been defined in the Act as any solid, semi-solid,
or liquid waste resulting from pollution control facilities.
Obviously, this definition is inadequate for the purposes of this
section of the regulations.  Any attempt to redefine the term
could lead to confusion and potential conflict with the Act.

     Furthermore, bulk liquids are readily and indisputably
identifiable.  Bulk liquids are large quantities (e.g., tanker
truck loads) of liquids or fluids  substances that exist as a
continuum characterized by low resistance to flow and the tendency
to assume the shape of its container.
     The Agency believes  that the real concern here is liquids
within a waste which are  free to migrate out of the waste and into
the landfill, much as bulk liquids can.  EPA has therefore decided
to use the term "free liquids", defined as "liquids which readily
separate from the solid portion of a waste under ambient temperature
and pressure ."  This term and meaning best reflect the use to which
this term is put, which is to distinguish when a waste contains
liquids which will readily flow from the waste in a landfill to
produce leachate.  For sludges or semi-solids which are not obviously
liquids, the following test may be used to determine if they contain
"free liquids."  Place a  one to five kilogram (2.2 to 11.0 Ibs.)
sample of waste on a level or slightly sloping plate of glass or
other similarly flat and  smooth solid material for at least five
minutes.  If a liquid phase separation is observed, the waste
contains "free liquids."  The test must be performed at temperatures
above freezing.  EPA feels this test provides a practical way to
test sludges and semi-solids and helps clarify the meaning of free
liquids until a more rigorous test is devised.
     The test is intended to simulate, in a simple way, the behavior
of semi-solid wastes placed on the surface of a landfill.  If
liquids can be observed as a separate phase draining over an
impermeable substrate from the base of a small sample of the waste,

such liquids can also be expected to drain from the waste itself
when it is placed on the surface of the landfill, and will be free
to migrate into the landfill much as liquid wastes would.  The fact
that liquids cannot be observed to migrate from a small sample
after a few minutes does not, of course, assure that they will not
migrate from a larger sample, or after a longer period of time, or
when the waste is compressed by wastes placed over it.  This test
thus represents a rough minimum for the containment of free liquids.
The Agency expects to study the problem of free liquids further and
to attempt to devise tests which more accurately reflect the
conditions of waste within a landfill.
     The Agency intends that the definition and suggested test be a
working guide to identify free liquids until a more formal test is
devised.  It clearly is not rigorous, but will provide a practical
way of achieving the objective of this regulation.  The Agency
believes that the definition of free liquids adequately specifies
the extent of pretreatment necessary for waste liquids, semi-solids,
and wet sludge prior to disposal.
     EPA has selected this test after consideration of a number of
alternatives.  A major flaw in the test procedure is that it does
not account for pressures which will be encountered in a landfill,
which will tend to squeeze liquids from absorbent mass.  An anology
is liquids which readily flow from a saturated sponge when the
sponge is compressed.  The Agency is currently evaluating other
test procedures and will provide guidance if another test procedure
is determined to be a better indicator of the performance in a
landfill.  One area of investigation was current State regulations.

Information was obtained from 32  States.  This information is
presented in the 2 May  1980 Background Document - 40 CFR Part 265,
Subpart N Interim Status Standards for Landfills on pages 118-127.
  D. Summary of Other Comments
0    EPA should not prohibit disposal of bulk liquids in properly
     designed landfills which meet the high degree of security
     required by the proposed landfill standards.  Furthermore, so
     long as the overall performance standards are met, the Agency
     should not be concerned with specific internal operating
     procedures.  Also, placing bulk liquids in a landfill have
     tighter design requirements  than surface impoundments.  The
     prohibition of disposal of  bulk liquids, semi-solids and
     sludges be deleted.
0    Utilizing municipal refuse or other organic materials as a
     sorbent for liquid hazardous waste will not provide long term
     stabilization of hazardous waste.  Organic materials will
     degrade and subsequently liberate the hazardous constituents.
0    The standard should clarify  if the injection, discharge, or
     disposal of liquids into a well or pit located in a landfill
     containing municipal  refuse meets the requirements of
     eliminating the presence of  free liquids prior to final
     disposal.  It has  been our experience that the garbage acts
     as an absorbent for liquids, and the practice has the advantage
     of conserving space by filling existing voids in the landfill.
     Also, the words "prior to" should be changed to "after" or
     upon" to allow the practice  of in-situ absorption of liquids
     and municipal waste.

Where the degree of risk is low, we do not believe it should
be  EPA policy to ban all liquid disposal in landfills,
specifically if it can be demonstrated that health and
environmental protection will not be compromised.  Landfills
can benefit from compaction if liquids are applied in proper
The regulations should categorically ban all liquids from
being landfilled or liquids that are either capable of being
incinerated or are treatable.
We are afraid that through EPA's encouragement the use of
"fixation" techniques may be widely adopted, even though the
process can result in a solid waste disposal cost increase of
ten to one-hundred fold without a real need or concern regarding
the cost-benefit relationship.  Many wastes after "fixation"
are now being safely disposed of at non-hazardous waste landfill
facilities at a lower cost than the amount charges at hazardous
waste landfills.
This provision would require pretreating dried sludge prior to
landfilling.  Also this standard would preclude the use of
sludge pipelines, the most economical method of transportation
in some instances.
Within this standard, EPA is concerned with the liquid nature
of the waste.  This concern does not justify the inclusion of
semi-solids and sludges within this prohibition, especially
semi-solids and sludges which are not water soluble.  The
restriction on disposing of semi-solid wastes which are soluble
by regulation is arbitrary.

  E. Discussion
     The Agency received many comments suggesting that all liquids
be banned from landfills.   These commenters believed that liquids
should be incinerated or treated by alternative methods, not
landfilled.  EPA believes  that an across-the-board ban of any liquid
waste disposal in a landfill is not a practical alternative at the
present time.
     The suggestion that the Agency require that all liquid waste
be either incinerated or treated rather than landfilled has been
rejected.  Liquid wastes are a large portion of total hazardous
waste.  To eliminate a major disposal method for liquid waste and
to require that a large percentage of this waste be incinerated
or treated would far exceed the existing capacity of incinerators
and treatment facilities.   Some wastes, particularly sludges, may
not be amenable to  incineration or other treatment.  The environmental
impacts of incinerating liquid wastes cannot simply be assumed,
without study, to be less  than pretreatment and disposal in a
landfill.  However, the Agency believes that requiring liquids,
semi-solids  and sludges to be treated is practical.
     Further, the Agency believes  that there are conditions under
which liquids in landfills can be  beneficial.  The conditions
include the  use of  a secure liner  of low permeability, and continuous
operation of an effective  leachate collection and removal system
over a long  period  of  time. Under this scheme the leachate is
removed from the landfill  continuously to prevent build-up of a
hydraulic head, and a  low  liner permeability and low head result in
a very slow  (insignificant) rate of migration through the liner.

The leachate must be either treated and discharged under NPDES
permit, recycled back to the facility, or treated, disposed, or
stored as a hazardous waste.  Over time, leaching potential of the
waste may be reduced and the contents of the landfill may present
less of an environmental problem.  The landfill, in essence, may
become a treatment system.  In order for the Agency to approve this
type of landfill operation, the nature of the waste, the liner, and
leachate collection system would need to be carefully evaluated.
This type of approach is allowed under 264.314(a).
     Comment was received concerning the issue of municipal waste
used for absorbing liquids within the landfill.  Some comments
suggested that EPA should further clarify and encourage their use;
other comments recommended that this approach recommended that this
approach be discouraged.  The latter comments stated that mixing
with municipal waste or other organic matter will not provide long-
term stabilization.
     EPA believes that mixing liquid hazardous waste with biodegradable
municipal waste is not a desirable means of reducing free liquids
within the landfill.  Such a practice would require that municipal
wastes be placed in hazardous landfills with the result that volumes
of hazardous landfill space will be taken up by non-hazardous
municipal waste.  More importantly, as commenters stated, it is
probable that when municipal waste degrades, the hazardous waste
would be released.
     Data were supplied which indicate that municipal refuse has a
capacity to absorb "free liquids" to some extent.  This capacity is
diminished but not eliminated due to biodegradation.  The information

was supplied by  the  County  Sanitation  Districts of  los Angeles
County.  While these data are  helpful  to  those who  may wish to use
municipal solid  waste as  an  absorbent  material, it  does not alter
EPA's cautious attitude  toward the  widespread use of municipal
refuse as an absorbent material.  The  data were generated for an
arid area and are of limited value  for areas which  receive
significant rainfall.  EPA does not intend to change this requirement
to allow in-situ absorption  at this time.  Furthermore, the disposal
of bulk hazardous liquids in any municipal landfill that does not
have liners and  leachate  collection systems is not  allowed under
265.314(a)(2) unless it  is  demonstratable that all wastes containing
free liquids are solidified  so as to eliminate the  presence of
free liquids before  disposal.
     Commenters  also suggested that the practice of mixing liquid
hazardous waste  with municipal waste could take place in sanitary
landfills which  are  not designed and constructed for disposal of
hazardous wastes.  This approach is not practical under the
regulations even if  it were  assumed that  it would adequatey protect
the environment.  The  Act requires  that hazardous wastes must be
managed in permitted hazardous waste management facilities.  If
they are permitted,  they  would have to meet the criteria for a
hazardous waste  landfill.
     Comments were also received recommending the deletion of the
prohibition or restriction on  disposal of bulk liquids, semi-solids
and sludges.  One reason  that  was given was that the prohibition was
unnecessary in properly designed landfills which meet the high degree
of security required in the  proposed regulations.   EPA is in limited

agreement with this comment.  The regulations allow bulk liquids to
be placed in landfills when stabilization is enhanced and the
landfill has a liner physically and chemically resistant to the
liquid added and with a continuously operated leachate collection
and removal system with sufficient capacity to accomodate all the
leachate produced.  In landfilling bulk liquids, the owner or
operator should consider the moisture regime for the specific site.
The various sources of free liquids including precipitation,
groundwater infiltration, and the amount of bulk liquids to be
added must be balanced against the ability of the leachate collection
and removal system to remove the liquids, evapotranspiration, and
surface run-off.
     A commenter suggested that performance standards would make
operating standards such as this one unnecessary.  The enviromental
performance of a landfill is much more difficult to measure than
performance of an effluent treatment process or air pollution
control device.  Sampling a stack or an effluent discharge gives
immediate performance feedback.  Sampling of ground water provides
relatively slow feedback because of the time required for
contaminants to reach ground water.  Thus, the Agency feels that
it is necessary to specify both operating and design criteria that
will minimize the potential for waste migration.
     Comments were also received suggesting that in-situ treatment
(absorption) of liquid wastes be allowed i.e., mixing liquids with
wastes already in the landfill.  The Agency feels that it is
preferable for free liquids to be eliminated before wastes are
placed in the landfill.  This provides greater assurance that the

liquid will be  fully  absorbed.   However, the uncertainty of in-situ
absorption can  be  tolerated  when the  landfill has a functioning
liner and leachate collection and  removal system.
     Some commenters  were  concerned that this standard would
necessitate pretreating dried sludges before landfilling.  This is
a misinterpretation of the standards.   The objective of this standard
is to minimize  free liquids  in  landfills.  Wastes, such as dried
sludges, which  have no free  liquids do  not require further treatment
prior to landfilling.
     The  EPA also  sees no  reason why  this standard would preclude
the use of sludge  pipelines.  As long as liquids, semi-solids and
sludges are pretreated prior to disposal to minimize free liquids,
or the wastes are  placed in  a lined landfill with leachate collection
at on-site facilities.
ISSUE; Containerized  Liquids
  A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
     The proposed  standard required the owner or operator of a
hazardous waste landfill to  surround  each container of liquid
hazardous waste with  an amount  of  sorbent inert material capable of
absorbing all of the  liquid  contents  in the container.
     The primary purpose of  the proposed regulation was to control
the presence of free  liquids in a landfill that would result from
ruptured or leaking containers.   The  problems inherent with "free
liquids" in landfills have been discussed above.  The sorbent
material to hold the  liquid  waste  could reduce the leachate

     ttowever, the proposed option has significant drawbacks.  One
drawback is that the ability of the sorbent material to absorb the
liquids is not certain.  Thus, some liquid could escape, particularly
if the sorbent is poorly placed.  The seepage of appreciable amounts
of liquid waste or leachate may also cause a rise in the water
table and the development of a groundwater mound.  As the mound
increases in size, the unsaturated zone becomes progressively
thinner and thus opportunity for natural attenuation is reduced.
Sbrbent material would tend to retain liquid waste lost from ruptured
containers and reduce the formation of this groundwater mound and
the subsequent reduction in natural attenuation.
  B. Summary of Comments
0    This standard only allows for the external use of inert sorbert
     material surrounding a container of liquid hazardous waste.
     It is recommended the Agency provide for the placement of the
     sorbent material inside the waste container for economics of
0    Opening drummed liquids can lead to greated worker exposure,
     air pollution from volatile waste, and increased potential for
     fire or explosion.
0    Drums containing primarily solids with a small amount of free
     liquid (20%)  should be allowed in landfills.  The small amount
     of liquid would not be a significant leachate generation
     problem nor would long term settlement be great.
0    9nall containers (one gallon, 1 liter) of liquid waste should
     be allowed for disposal in landfills.  (Another commenter
     suggested a small volume variance of 1000 tons per year)

0    Drummed liquids should be allowed in landfills if containers
     are surrounded by sufficient soil or other absorbent material
     to absorb any free liquid.
  C. Discussion
     Commenters suggested  that the proposed regulation only allowed
external use of sorbent material and recommended that it be allowable
to place the sorbent in the container prior to landfilling.  This
is a misunderstanding of the regulation since the Agency has never
intended to discourage this type of disposal operation.  The liquid
waste must be mixed with sorbent material to eliminate free liquids
before the filled container can be landfilled.  There is no prohibition
against landfilling containers which do not contain free liquids.
     The Agency agrees that there are many potential problems
associated with the opening of drummed liquids.  Hawever, these
problems can be overcome with appropriate technology.  The problems
associated with the burial of containers are long-term and do not
lend themselves to simple  solutions since the time of release is
unknown and could occur after the post-closure period.  The Agency
admits that the potential  problems of worker safety are very serious
and must be considered in  facility operations.  There are facilities
which currently handle these types of materials safely.  Special
safety precautions can be  used such as providing adequate ventilation,
respirators, or using enclosed handling systems.
     There is no rationale to exclude drums which contain relatively
small quantities of "free  liquids" from this regulation.  The
concern which led to the ban of the disposal of drums containing
"free liquids" is the long term release of hazardous constituents.

There is no way to assure that these liquids would be absorbed when
the drum ultimately failed.  The method that a landfill operator
uses to detect the presence of "free liquids" in a drum is an
operational problem.  Site investigations have shown that this can
be done and that there is not excessive burden placed on the site
operator.  In some cases, the landfill operator has passed the
requirement back to the generator to solidify all liquid wastes.
     Allowing a variance for a particular size of small container
is a difficult problem.  EPA has allowed exemptions for containers
of liquid such as capacitors and batteries because these containers
serve a useful purpose other than for transportation or storage and
the container is not designed to be opened easily.  An exemption
is also given for containers which are very small in volume such as
ampules.  One gallon or one liter containers do not meet these
criteria.  In general, these containers are designed to be opened and
if only a small quantity are to be handled, there would not be an
excessive burden on the generator or disposer to empty the containers.
Conversely, a large number of small containers could contain a
large volume of liquid waste which could significantly increase the
hydraulic head in a landfill cell.  To control this potential
increase of the head in the landfill, EPA believes it is necessary
to require that these containers be emptied.
     Ob allow a limited volume of liquid waste to be placed in any
landfill is a difficult approach to administer.  Due to the wide
variety of site conditions which could be encountered, it would be
impossible to establish reasonable criteria which would be applicable
on a national basis.

      The comment requesting that containerized liquids be  allowed
 if the containers are surrounded by absorbent material was the
 basic approach proposed in December 1978.  The reasons for not
 reproposing this approach are discussed above.
   D. Regulatory language
 264.314 Special requirements for liquid waste
      (a)  Bulk or non-containerized liquid waste  or  waste  containing
 free liquids must not be placed in a landfill; unless:
      (1)  The added liquid is shown to enhance stabilization of the
 landfill,  and
      (2)  The landfill has a liner which is chemically and  physically
 resistant  to the added liquid,  and a functioning  leachate  collection
 and  removal system with a capacity sufficient to  remove all leachate
      (b)   A container holding liquid waste or waste  containing free
 liquids  must not be placed in a landfill,  unless:
      (1)   The container is designed to hold liquids  or free liquids
 for  a  use  other than storage,  such as  a  battery or capacitor; or
      (2)   The container is very small, such as an ampule.
 10.   Special requirements for containers - 264.315
   A.  Proposed regulation and  rationale
   B.  Summary of comments
     Considerable  comment was  received on  the  subject of empty
containers.   The comments were  not  directed  toward the disposal
of empty containers  but  rather  toward  how to make the determination
of when a  container  is  considered  empty.

  C. Discussion
     A technical amendment to the regulation (TAR) was issued to
clarify the intent of the regulation (45 FR 78524-29).  In summary,
the TAR defines an empty container as a container which contains one
inch or less of residue on the bottom (for containers holding gas
empty means the pressure approaches atmospheric) .
     The intent of these regulations is to eliminate all voids in
containers either empty (by interpretation of the new definition)
or partially empty.  The language makes this clear.  The regulation
also allow the containers to be filled in order to eliminate voids.
Hawever, the added material must be compatible with the wastes
already in the container.  "Full or filled container" and "partially
empty container" have been defined in the regulation.
  D. Regulatory language
264.315 Special requirements for containers
     (a)  An empty container must be crushed flat, shredded, or
similarly reduced in volume or filled with solids before it is
buried beneath the surface of a landfill.  A partially empty
container must be:
     (1)  filled with solids compatible with the wastes already in
the container or;
     (2)  crushed to eliminate void spaces; or
     (3)  emptied and the empty container crushed flat, shredded,
or similarly reduced in volume before it is buried beneath the
surface of the landfill.
     (b)  "Full or filled container" means the materials in the

     (ii)  occupy  90 percent or more of  the volume of the container,
whichever results  in the  lesser void space.
     (c)  "Partially empty  container" means a container that is
neither empty nor  full.
11.  Special requirements for classes of facilities
ISSUE;  Distance from the  historical high water table
A.   Proposed Regulation  and Rationale
     Detailed discussion  of the proposed regulation and rationale
can be  found in the 15 December 1978 Background Document for Section
250.45-2, Standards for Landfills on pages 50-53.
B.   Summary of comments
0    Several commenters stated that this requirement would prevent
     the location of secure landfills in many areas of the country,
     particularly  along waterways and coastal regions such as the
     Gulf Coast where the water table is often near the surface.
     It was suggested the separation requirement between landfill
     and water table be based on specific site conditions such as
     an hydrologic analysis indicating contamination of an aquifer
     would result.
0    This requirement would preclude the location of landfills in
     formations consisting of saturated clay or clay shale deposits.
     These deposits exhibit permeabilities less than 10~7 cm/sec.
     and can provide effective seepage control.
0    Allow exemptions for existing facilities if the permit applicant
     can meet the  Human Health and Environmental Standards.
0    Leachate monitoring  systems will not be able to be retrofitted
     for many sites.  Recommend that leachate monitoring systems

not be a requirement for existing sites with separation
distances of less than five feet.
This requirement would prohibit the design of landfills using
the "inward gradient" principle (i.e., maintaining leachate
head levels below ground water levels to contain, collect, and
remove leachate).
Hazardous waste  landfills should not be located over usable
groundwater.  The landfill must be naturally capable of
preventing movement of the leachate and gases to the ground
water.  A 30-40  foot separation distance is recommended.
The criteria should be that the water table historically has
not been high enough to cause floating of emplaced liners.  It
is the liner, not the soil that prevents migration.  Once
the liner has been penetrated, the soil between it and the
ground water would be only a minor flow barrier.
This provision rules out the use of a dewatering system between
the bottom of the landfill and the saturated zone.
Direct contact of the landfill with ground water should be
selectively permitted, where due to unique soil characteristics,
harmful contamination will not occur and there is no endangerment
of human health or the environment.
Vertical isolation according to Act 641 P.A., 1978 will require
12 feet to natural water table and 7 feet to artificially
depressed water table.
Revise the note to read "The bottom of any liner system or any
natural in-piace soil barrier may be located less than five
feet above the historical high water table or below the

     historical  high  water table  provided  the owner/operator can
     demonstrate to the Regional  Administrator  at  the  time a permit
     is  issued pursuant to Subpart  E that  the landfill  is located
     in  sediments or  other earth  materials which are sufficiently
     impermeable and  homogenous (i.e.,  saturated clay or clay
     shale deposits)  that they do not constitute an underground
     drinking water source and that  the structural stability of
     seepage control  characteristic  of any emplaced or  natural
     in-place soil liner would not be adversely affected by direct
     contact with the water table."
0    The provision should be modified to state  that the facility
     should be located so that the bottom  of the landfill does not
     come in contact  with ground  water. Hawever,  if the site
     conditions  make  this impossible, then other measures should be
     taken to ensure  the integrity of the  liner.
  C. Discussion
     The previously proposed regulations required  a minimum of 1.5
meters between the lowest level of construction for a landfill and
the historical high water table.   The reproposed regulations require
a minimum of "2  meters"  between the  lowest level of construction
for a landfill and the water table "for a  water table aquifer or the
bottom of the confining  soils for an artesian aquifer".
     The confining soils of an artesian aquifer are also included
in the new proposal.   At any given location, artesian aquifers
exhibit  historical variations in  piezometric head.  During periods
of high  piezometric head, ground  water  in  some artesian systems may
be forced above  the confining soils.  A buffer  zone, between a

landfill and an artesian confining  zone,  lowers  the  probability of
artesian water seepage into the landfill.
     The distance factor of 1.5 meters was  changed to 2  meters in
the current proposal.  The Agency made this change after recognizing
that there is limited existing data on historical high ground
water levels for most areas of the  country.  The increased  distance
factor will allow an added measure  of safety to  the  uncertainty
which will surround most designations of  the historical  high water
table.  undoubtedly, this designation will  often be  based on only
one or two years of data.  The Agency believes,  however, that any
increase of the proposed distance (to 3 meters for example)  would
unnecessarily reduce the number of  potentially acceptable landfill
  D. Regulatory language
     New landfills, regardless of class (See 264.19), must  have  a
minimum of two meters between the leachate  detection, collection,
and removal system liner, other liner, or waste, whichever  is lower,
and the historical high water table for a water  table aquifer, or
the bottom of the confining soils for an artesian aquifer.


1.   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency, The Prevalence of Sub-
     surface Migration of  Hazardous Chemical  Substances at Selected
     Industrial Waste  Land Disposal Sites, EPA/530/SW-634, Oct. 1977.

2.   Damages and  Threats Caused  by Hazardous  Material  Sites,  U.S.
     Environmental  Protection Agency,  EPA/430/9-80/004, Oil and
     Special Materials Control Division,  Washington,  D.C., January
     1980, p.  26.

3.   Ibid, p.  153

4.   Ibid, p.  29

5.   Ibid, p.  66

6.   Ibid, p.  67

7.   Ibid, p.  69

8.   Ibid, p.  116

9.   Ibid, p.  120

10.  Ibid, p.  121

11.  Ibid, p.  148

12.  Ibid, p.  227

13.  Ibid, p.  227

14.  Ibid, p.  150

15.  Ibid, p.  153

16.  Ibid, p.  181

17.  Ibid, p.  182

18.  Ibid, p.  222

19.  Ibid, p.  73

20.  Ibid, p.  76

21.  Ibid, p.  198

22.  Ibid, p.  96

23.  Ibid, p.  102

24.  Ibid, p. 130

25.  Ibid, p. 130

26.  Ibid, p. 254

27.  Ibid, p. 57

28.  Ibid, p. 251

29.  Ibid, p. 253

30.  Ibid, p. 140

31.  Ibid, p. 129

32.  Ibid, p. 242

33.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Internal  Damage  Assessment
     Files, unpublished reports.

34.  Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Material  Sites,  U.S.
     Ehvironmental Protection Agency, EPA/430/9-80/004,  Oil and
     Special Materials Control Division, Washington, D.C.,  January
     1980, p. 37.

35.  Ibid, p. 24

36.  Ibid, p. 20

37.  Ibid, p. 178-179

38.  Ibid, p. 104

39.  Ibid, p. 199

40.  Ibid, p. 243

41.  Ibid, p. 236

42.  Ibid, p. 231

43.  Ibid, p. 237-238

44.  Ibid, p. 127

45.  Ibid, p. 129

46.  Ibid, p. 51.

47.  Ibid, p. 110-111

48.  Ibid, p. 6

49.  Ibid, p. 81

50.  Ibid, p. 218

51.  Ibid, p. 180

52.  Appendix 2.   Environmental,  Health,  and Social Impacts of
     Unacceptable  Solid  Waste  Management  Practices.  9/11/72

53.  RPT  #94-1491.   House of Representative Committee on Interstate
     and  Foreign Commerce - H.R.  14496.

54.  Memo 1/11/73.   Elmer Cleveland, EPA  Region IV to Samuel Hale,
     Jr., EPA Washington,  D.C.

55.  The  Evening Bulletin, January 9,  1973.
     The  Philadelphia  Inquirer,  January  9,  1973.

56.  Springfield,  MO.   News clippings  of  1/3/73,  1/5/73,  1/6/73,
     1/7/73, and 1/14/73.

57.  Warning Toxic  Waste, a Courier-Journal Special Report, The
     Danger is  Seeping  from Under Society's Rug,  Jim Adams and Jim
     Datjen, The Courier Journal, Louisville, Kentucky,  1979.

58.  Damages and Threats Caused  by Hazardous Material Sites.
     U.S. EPA,  Oil  and  Special  Materials  Control  Division, Washington,
     D.C., February 1980,  p. 11  - 12.

59.  Damages and Threats Caused  by Hazardous Material Sites.
     U.S. EPA,  Oil  and  Special  Materials  Control  Division, Washington,
     D.C., February 1980,  p. 170.

60.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   Summary of Hazardous
     Waste Damage  Cases, Unpublished Document, 1979.

61.  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency.   Internal Damage Assessment
     Files, Unpublished  reports.

62.  Personal communication between Paul  Dion, Department of
     Environmental  Protection,  State of  Connecticut and  Kent
     Anderson,  EPA on  11/24/80.

63.  Personal communication between Tom  Regman, Department
     Environmental  Protection,  State of  Connecticut and  Kent Anderson,
     EPA on 11/24/80.

64.  Presentation  by Ron Nickel,  landfill owner - Waukesha, WI, at
     National Solid Waste Management Association  Conference.

65.  "Hazardous Waste  Disposal  Damage  Reports:, EPA/530/SW-151,
     June 1975, pp. 6-8.

66.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Internal  Damage Assessment
     Files, unpublished reports.

67.  Damages and Threats Caused by Hazardous Material  Sites,  U.S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/430/9-80/004, Oil and
     Special Materials Control Division, Washington, D.C. January
     1980, p. 110.

68.  Ibid, p. 12

69.  Ibid, p. 109

70.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Internal  Damage Assessment
     Files, Unpublished reports.

71.  Evaluation of Emission Control Criteria for Hazardous Waste
     Management Facilities, Final Report, EPA Contract No. 68-01-4645
     April 1978, pp. 464-469.