BACKGROUND DOCUMENT NO. 9
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL;
STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO OWNERS AND OPERATORS
OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL
FACILITIES; AND HAZARDOUS WASTE PEFMIT PROGRAM
(40 CFR 260, 264, and 122)
Permitting of Land Disposal Facilities;
Performance Standards for Land Disposal Facilities
This document (rns. 1941.42) provides background
information on EPA's proposed regulations for
land disposal of hazardous waste
U.S. ENVIEONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
July 1981
-------
(2)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION Page 4
I. NEED FOR REGULATION (General Facility Standards) Page 5
II. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS (General Facility Standards) Page 6
1. Location - §264.10 Page 6
2. Land disposal facilities - §264.19 Page 6
ISSUE; Types of facilities listed - §264.19(a) Page 6
ISSUE; Other types of facilities - §264.19(b) Page 10
ISSUE; Classes of land disposal facilities - §264.19(c) Page 10
3. Minimum standards applicable to a
variance from the ground-water protection
standard for ground water used for drinking - §264.20 Page 11
ISSUE; Minimum standards based on the
National Primary and National Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations - §264.20( a) (1) Page 13
ISSUE; Minimum standards based on
other reference sources - §264.20(b) Page 24
4. Performance standards and
associated demonstrations of performance - §264.21 Page 37
ISSUE; When demonstrations are required Page 37
ISSUE; Affected aquifer to be defined - §264. 21( a) (1 ) Page 39
ISSUE; Effects on surface waters - §264.21( a) (2) Page 42
ISSUE; Effects on the atmosphere - §264. 21(a) (3 ) Page 48
ISSUE; Effects on structures - §264.21( a) (4) Page 50
ISSUE; Control over ground water use - §264. 21 (b) Page 51
ISSUE; Need for a variance - §264.21(c) & (d) Page 61
III. NEED FOR REGULATION (Minimum Acceptable Treatment) Page 68
IV. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS (Minimum Acceptable Treatment) Page 70
-------
(3)
A . Proposed Regulations and Rational Page 70
B. Summary of Comments Page 70
C . Discussion Pag e 70
(1) Solubilization reactions of metal species with
inorganic acids and bases Page 71
(2) Solubilization reactions of metal species with
organic acids and bases Page 72
(3) Direct Solubilization of
metal containing compounds Page 72
(4 ) Solublization of organic compounds
by organic solvents Page 73
(5 ) Reactions of metal species
with other organics Page 74
(6 ) Reactions between pesticides and caustics Page 74
(7) Reactions between organic/inorganic
acids and bases Page 74
D. Regulatory Language Page 75
V. REFERENCES Page 76
-------
(4)
INTRODUCTION
This background document covers two subjects; proposed standards
applicable to all land disposal facilities under Subpart B - General
Facility Standards, and proposed standards applicable to land
disposal facilities handling specific wastes or waste types under
Subpart T - Minimum Acceptable Treatment of Hazardous Wastes Prior
to Disposal.
The requirements proposed in Subpart B - General Facility
Standards are amendments to the existing regulations applicable
to all treatment/ storage, and disposal facilties promulgated on
19 May 1980 and 12 January 1981. The amendments either broaden
the applicability of existing regulations to cover land disposal
facilities or add general facility standards specifically applicable
to land disposal facilities. Many of the requirements are closely
related to the ground-water protection standard covered in Background
Document ND . 7, and define the means of showing compliance with the
standard. Others embody the minimum standards which apply, the
demonstrations which are required, and the factors to be considered
in the demonstrations and in the permit issuance process when a
variance from the ground-water protection standard is required.
ASditional requirements apply to the demonstrations and factors to
be considered with respect to effects on surface waters, the
atmosphere, land areas, and structures.
The requirements proposed in Subpart T - Minimum Treatment of
Hazardous Waste Prior to Disposal represent a minimum first
generation of standards which are applicable to specific wastes or
specific waste streams. There are types of wastes for which the
-------
(5)
agency expects to be able to promulgate requirements for disposal
which will obligate the owners and operators of land disposal
facilities to process the waste in a specific way (i.e., employ a
known available technology or its equivalent in terms of performance)
prior to disposal to minimize the risk of adverse human health or
environmental effects or to avoid the undesirable or unnecessary
wasting of resources. The specific minimum requirements of the
proposed regulations are not fully representative of the future
scope of this subpart envisioned by the agency. Work toward
developing additional appropiate requirements to be proposed
within this subpart is underway by the agency. It is expected
that by considering specific wastes or waste streams individually,
the agency can in the future make major improvements in the
regulation of hazardous wastes. The concept of this subpart is
similar to a "class of hazard" system in effect, but the approach
is to deal with definable specific wastes and waste streams as
discrete units rather than attempting to broadly categorize all
listed wastes into subgroups.
I. NEED FOR REGULATION (General Facility Standards)
The need for the regulations proposed in this subpart is
related primarily to the need to provide definitive means of
demonstrating and judging the acceptability of existing and proposed
land disposal facilities. The regulations cover the demonstations
required to establish that the ground-water protection standard
in §264.2 will be met; and the demonstrations, minimum standards,
and performance requirements which apply when the ground-water
protection standard cannot be met and a variance from the standard
-------
(6)
is required. It also covers the demonstration requirements and
and performance standards related to other than ground water
(i.e., surface waters, the atmosphere, land areas, and structures).
II. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS (General Facility Standards)
1. Location - §264.10
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
See the background document "General Facility Standards for
Location of Facilities" dated 30 December 1980.
B. Summary of Comments
See 30 December 1980 Background Document
C. Discussion
This amendment simply establishes the applicability of the
location requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities promulgated in §264.18 on 12 January 1981 to
land disposal facilities.
D. Regulatory Language
In §264.10, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
§264.10 Applicability.
(b) Section 264.18(b) is applicable only to facilities
subject to regulation under Part 264, Subparts I, J, K, L, M, N, 0,
R, S, and T.
2. Land disposal facilities - §264.19
ISSUE; Types of facilities listed - §264.19(a)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
tl/A
B. Summary of Comments
N/A
-------
(7)
C. Discussion
See the Preamble at 46 FR 11136-38 for a comprehensive
discussion of the issues related to the listing of facilities
which are considered land disposal facilities and therefore subject
to the generic requirements of the reproposed regulations. The
following supplements that discussion with respect to surface
impoundments and waste piles.
In the preamble discussion, it was pointed out the when surface
impoundments and waste piles are designed to preclude discharge,
they are considered to be used "solely for storage or storage and
treatment" and therefore they are not considered land disposal
facilities. As noted above, facilities which are not considered
and listed as land disposal facilities are not subject to the
generic requirements of these proposed regulations. The generic
land disposal regulations also include Subpart F - Ground-water
and Air Bnission Monitoring.
It is clear by reference to the amendments to Subpart K -
Surface Impoundments in §§264.220, 264.221, and 264.228 and the
amendments to Subpart L -Waste Piles in §§264.250, 264.251,
264.252, 264.254, and 264.258 (See Background Documents No. 1 & 2)
that the only surface impoundments and waste piles which are used
"solely for storage or storage and treatment" are those which
comply with the requirements of Subparts K & L promulgated as
interim final rules on 12 January 1981. Those regulations mandate
certain specific design and operating requirements which are
optional for surface impoundments and waste piles which are
considered land disposal facilities.
-------
(8)
With respect to surface impoundments, the regulations require
that a facility which is "used solely for storage or storage and
treatment" be designed and constructed with a double liner and a
leachate detection, collection, and removal system; and furthur
that wastes and waste residues be removed at closure. Similar
facility integrity is to be provided for waste piles "used solely
for storage or storage and treatment" by either a leachate
detection, collection and removal system or by an impermeable base
which is frequently cleaned to expose the base for inspection.
Therefore, an owner or operator who seeks a permit for a
surface impoundment or waste pile which, although it is designed
and constructed with the objective of preventing any leakage into
the land, does not comply with the requirements of the interim
final regulations promulgated on 12 January 1981 (e.g., a surface
impoundment designed and constructed with a single liner and without
a leachate detection, collection, and removal system or a waste
pile designed and constructed with a base which cannot be frequently
inspected or without a leachate detection, collection, and removal
system) is considered a land disposal facility.
The owner or operator of such a facility must monitor the
ground water, and comply with all of the requirements of the generic
land disposal regulations. If preventing any discharge into the
land is a stated design objective which is reflected as a permit
condition, any leakage would be a permit violation requiring
corrective action on the part of the owner or operator of the
facility. In order to show that corrective action would be
effective, the migratory route that any leakage would follow would
-------
(9)
have to be determined or predicted. If corrective action could
not be expected to result in the recovery of all waste or waste
residue which leaked from the facility, the owner or operator must
seek authorization for the leakage that might occur and show that
such leakage will not interfere with the subsequent use of the
ground water, surface waters, land, or structures that would be
affected by such a discharge. Of course, the practicality of
making a sucessful showing that corrective action would be fully
effective would depend on the depth of the uppermost aquifer.
D. Regulatory Language
Section 264.19 is added to read as follows:
§264.19 Land disposal facilities.
(a) Several types of facilities at which hazardous waste is
intentionally placed, discharged, deposited, or injected into or
on the land; at which waste may remain after closure; and from
which leachate may discharge into or on any land are defined in
§260.10. These facilities include the following types;
(1) Surface impoundments other than those used solely for
storage or storage and treatment,
(2) Waste piles other than those used solely for storage
or storage and treatment,
(3) Land treatment facilities,
(4) Landfills,
(5) Underground injection facilities,
(6) Seepage facilities; including seepage lagoons, drying
beds, seepage pits, seepage beds, and injection wells that are not
cased to prevent discharge into the surficial aquifer.
-------
(10)
ISSUE; Other types of facilities - §264.19(b)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
N/A
C. Discussion
See the Preamble at 46 FR 11136 and 46 FR 11150-51
D. Regulatory Language
(b) No disposal of hazardous wastes into or on the land will
be authorized by permit except in a facility listed in subsection
(a) of this section unless the specific type of land disposal
facility is approved by rulemaking petition in accordance with
§§260. 20 and 260. 23.
ISSUE; Classes of land disposal facilities - §264,19(c)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
N/A
C. Discussion
See the Preamble at 46 FR 11138
D. Regulatory Language
(c) For the purpose facilitating descriptions of the
varying amounts of information required to pursue a permit under
§§264.2(a)(1) or (2) and to establish compliance with performance
standards, monitoring and modeling requirements, and technical
standards; and to facilitate descriptions of varying performance
standards, monitoring and modeling requirements, and technical
-------
(11)
standards in these regulations; the following classes of land
disposal facilities are established:
(1) Class A; a land disposal facility which does or will
discharge into an aquifer which, in its entirety, is not and will
not in the future be a source of water supply for any use.
(2) Class B; a land disposal facility which does or will
discharge into a portion of an aquifer which is not and will not
in the future be a source of water supply for any use although
other portions of the same aquifer is or may in the future be a
source of water supply for some use.
(3) Class C; a land disposal facility which does or will
discharge into a portion of an aquifer which is or may in the
future be a source of water supply for uses other than as drinking
water.
(4) Class D; a land disposal facility which does or will
discharge into a portion of an aquifer which is or may in the
future be a source of public drinking water supply.
(5) Class E; a land disposal facility which does or will
discharge into a portion of an aquifer which is or may in the
future be a source of private drinking water supply.
3. Minimum standards applicable to a
variance from the ground-water protection
standard for ground water used for drinking - §264.20
The numerical limits proposed in §264.20 are minimum
requirements for permitting land disposal facilities which require
a variance because they do or would discharge to ground water that
is now or may in the future be used as a source of drinking water.
-------
(12)
The standards should ensure that ground water affected by discharge
will be acceptable for subsequent drinking water use, at least with
respect to the listed contaminants.
The numerical standards in §264.20(a) are based on the National
Drinking Water Regulations. The National Drinking Water Regulations,
both interim primary and secondary, establish limits as maximum
concentration levels of metals and inorganics indigenous to ground
water, several pesticides, and bacteria; above which ground water is
not considered properly usable as drinking water. The proposed
standards in §264.20(a) are usually expressed as percentages of the
limits established in the drinking water regulations.
Also of significance are the contaminants, not listed in the
National Drinking Water Regulations, which are likely to be found
in discharges of liquid hazardous wastes and leachate. Many of
these contaminants (especially hazardous constituents) if present
in a discharge, would make the ground water unusable for drinking.
Some of these potential contaminants are listed in §264.20(b).
The contaminants listed in §264.20(b), which includes the
pesticides listed in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations,
cannot be safely discharged to drinking water. They are generally
known or suspected carcinogens, highly toxic, or are produced and
marketed as systemic poisons. Use and spillage account for the
primary human and environmental exposure. The requirements, which
are minimum standards, do not preclude discharge of these substances
to the ground water, but do restrict the intentional disposal of
such substances to ground water used or not precluded from use as
human drinking water.
-------
(13)
ISSUE: Minimum standards based on the National Primary and
National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations - §264.20(a)
A. Proposed Regulations and Rationale
The "Human health and environmental standard (Ground-water
endangerment standard)" proposed on 18 December 1978 included
numerical standards, based on the National Interim Primary Drinking
Water Regulation, for ground water affected by discharges from
hazardous waste land disposal facilities. In addition, the Agency
indicated its intention to rely on "Specific ambient health and
environmental performance standards" in the 8 October 1980
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Both of these proposals
are discussed under "issue headings" in Background Document No. 7.
B. Summary of Comments
Sec Background Document No. 7
C . Discussion
The reproposed regulations for hazardous waste land disposal
facilities include some specific ambient health and environmental
performance standards in §264.20(a). The specific standards proposed
are based, in part, on the numerical standards adopted by the
Agency as National Interim Primary and National Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations. The standards proposed are applicable only to
owners and operators of Class D and E land disposal facilities as
defined in §264.19(c), i.e., land disposal facilities which do or
will discharge into a portion of an aquifer which is or will in the
future be a source of public or private drinking water supply.
The National [Interim] Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NIPDWR or NPDWR) , published on 24 December 1975 at 40 FR 59566,
-------
(14)
establish maximum contaminant levels (MCL's) for certain contaminants
that are commonly found in drinking water which are of direct
significance to health of consumers of the water. Anendments to
the NPDWR were proposed on 19 July 1979 at 44 FR 42246. The National
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (NSDWR) were proposed on 31
March 1977 at 42 FR 17143 and promulgated on 19 July 1979 at 44 FR
42196. In contrast to the enforceable character of the NPDWR, the
NSDWR recommend maximum contaminant levels for certain comtaminants
commonly found in drinking water that are associated primarily
with the asthetic qualities of drinking water.
The regulations proposed for §26 4.20 (a) are based primarily
on background work done in support of the NPDWR and the NSDWR
rather than on the regulations themselves. The exception to this
is the 80% factor suggested as a factor to be applied to the
numerical criteria adopted in the NPDWR for selected contaminants
in §264. 20 (a) (1 ) . Comment on the application of this factor was
invited in the preamble to the reproposed regulations at 46 FR 11138.
The 80% factor was described in the preamble as a "margin for error"
to avoid "brinkmanship" in the permitting process. Comment was
specifically requested on the reasonableness of using such a factor
rather than the standard itself. The NPDWR requires (in §141.32),
for a community system, that the supplier of water notify persons
served by the system of failure to comply with the numerical limits
of the NPDWR. Such notice must be included with the water bills,
made by newspaper notice, and made by making a copy of the notice
of failure available to radio and television stations in the area
served by the system. The cost and trauma which could be associated
-------
(15)
with such notices could be significant, especially if the failure
were associated with the permitted discharge of those contaminants
from a hazardous waste land disposal facility. Therefore the 80%
factor is intended as a possible means to avoid the potential of
such an occurance. The inorganic chemical sampling and analytical
requirements of the NPDWR in §141.23 require ground water sources
used by community systems to be sampled and analyzed once every
three years. If a NPDWR standard is exceeded, the requlation
requires that the sampling and analysis be repeated three additional
times within one month (except for nitrate which is more stringent).
Then, if the excursion of the contaminant concentration beyond the
specified limit is confirmed by an average of the results, the
notifications noted above are required.
The numerical standards in §264.20(a) apply at any point of
actual or potential collection or withdrawal of ground water for
use as drinking water, and only apply directly when the concentration
of contaminants which is or which will exceed the standards is
caused by a discharge. Therefore, the numerical standards will
not apply directly to a discharge except in the circumstance when
the background quality of the ground water (natural or caused by
other discharges or land use) already exceeds the standards and
the dilution effects of the indigenous ground water are not
available. In such cases, if the background quality was natural,
the discharge could not cause the standard to be exceeded even if
the discharge concentration exceeded the standard by an amount
equal to the background concentration. If, however, the
concentration was caused by other discharges or due to land use,
-------
(16)
such flexibility might not be available unless the causal factors
were not subject to practical corrective action.
Some examples may ensure that the above is clearly understood .
Using barium, suppose that the natural background concentration
in the ground water was 0.5 mg/1. Barium solubilized by leachate
which raised the concentration of barium in the ground water to
0.7 mg/1 would be considered an acceptable effect. However, if the
concentration in the ground water were raised to 0.9 mg/1, the
effect could only be acceptable if it were reduced by to 0.8mg/l
(the standard for barium) or below before it reached a point of
withdrawal for use. Such a reduction might be demonstrated to
occur due to dilution, or due to attenuation provided it could be
furthur shown that the capacity for barium attenuation would not
be exceeded and that the subsequent release of barium due to the
potential reverseability of the reaction which resulted in the
attenuation would not result in concentrations of barium above
0.8 mg/1 at a later time. Now consider a background concentration
of barium of 1.2 mg/1 in the ground water. Ignoring potential
attenuation, any discharge with a barium concentration of greater
than 1.2 mg/1 would cause the concentration of barium in the ground
water to increase. However, discharges with concentrations of
barium at or below 1.2 mg/1 would not cause the concentration in
the ground water to increase and would be acceptable. If the barium
concentration of 1.2 mg/1 represented background but resulted from
another discharge, a special case would exist, and the elevated
background would have to be ignored. In such a case, no discharge
with a barium concentration greater than natural background (or the
-------
(17)
0.8 mg/1 standard, whichever is greater) could be permitted unless
the elevated concentration could not be reduced through control.
Itot all of the contaminants that are listed in the NPDWR are
listed in §264.20(a)(1). Of the inorganic contaminants indigenous
to ground water, only six of the ten contaminants covered by the
NPDWR are listed. Mercury was omitted in error, and is added to
the listing in the regulatory language. Arsenic was intentionally
omitted since it is covered in §264.20(b); and silver and floride
were omitted since the rationale behind the inclusion of concentation
limits for those elements in the NPDWR are related to the addition
of those contaminants in water supply treatment systems.
The rationale for the concentration of barium proposed is based
on the Statement of Basis and Purpose used to support the standard
in the NPDWR (1). The proposed standard is 1.0 mg/1; and it would
be applied at 80% of that value or 0.8 mg/1. As explained above,
the 80% factor is an administrative proposal that a factor be
applied to the standards established in the NPDWR. In the following
discussions and statements concerning limits proposed in
§264.20(a) (1) based on limits established in the NPDWR the
application of that factor will be ignored.
The proposed standard for cadmium is 0.010 mg/1 (2).
The proposed standard for total chromium is 0.05 mg/1 (3).
The proposed standard for lead is 0.05 mg/1 (4).
The proposed standard for mercury is 0.002 mg/1 (5). The
proposed standard for mercury was omitted in the printed regulation.
The proposed standard for nitrate (as N) is 10 mg.l (6).
The proposed standard for selenium is 0.01 mg/1 (7).
-------
(18)
Hie organic chemicals for which standards are established in
the NPDWR are covered in §264.20(b) rather than in §264.20(a); and
no standards are proposed to cover microbiological contaminants or
radioactivity for which standards are established in the NPDWR.
Maximum levels are proposed in §264. 20( a) (2) , (3) , (4) , and (5)
for all but two of the contaminants which are covered in the NSDWR.
The two which are excluded are corrisivity and pH. A maximum
contaminant level is proposed for sodium in §264. 20 (a) (6 ). The
proposed standards are applicable to points of actual or potential
use when the contaminants are caused by a discharge in the same
manner as described for contaminants listed in §264.20(a)(1).
The maximum levels proposed in §264. 20(a) (2 ) ,( 3 ) ,( 4 ), and (5)
are based on the data presented in the Statement of Basis and
Purpose (8) used to support the proposed NSDWR promulgated on 31
March 1977 at 42 FR 17143. The Statement of Basis and Purpose
included an Introduction which explained the document. That
Introduction is reproduced below as follows:
"The regulations have been predicated on the best and latest
information available at the time of their promulgation. The
concepts and rationale included in this Statement of Basis and
Purpose were used in arriving at specific recommendations and should
enable those whose responsibility it is to interpret or apply the
regulations to do so with understanding, judgement, and discretion.
The maximum contaminant levels should not be exceeded when more
suitable supplies can be made available. The limits are based on
factors that render a supply less desirable for use. These
considerations relate to materials that impart objectionable taste
-------
(19)
or odor to water, or render it economically or esthetically inferior.
Experience has shown that under such circumstances, many people turn
to alternative non-public supplies which may be less safe.
For each contaminant, wherever possible, the discussion includes
an optimum quality level and the considerations of levels higher than
the maximum recommended. The optimum quality level should be viewed
as a goal in providing esthetically pleasing drinking water."
The above discussion is central to the standards proposed in
the land disposal regulations since, as noted in the preamble, the
levels proposed are established as percentages of the standards
established in the NSDWR and are intended to maintain "optimum"
water quality for drinking (where that quality exists) rather than
allowing degradation to the maximum acceptable contaminant levels
for use as represented by the NSDWR. It should be understood that
the maximum levels adopted in the drinking water regulations are
standards intended for use in rejecting a supply as unsuitable.
The standards do not represent good water quality, but rather water
quality that is not sufficently bad to warrant rejection of the
supply. The standards therefore represent the upper limit of a
range of water quality which is considered acceptable for use as
drinking water. The upper limit, i.e., the adopted NSDWR levels,
are the worst quality water within the range which is considered
usable. The difference between "optimum" water quality, i.e., the
best water quality within the range, and the NSDWR limit is real and
noticable and would represent a significant deterioration in the
quality of the water if water which met the "optimum" levels were
allowed to be degraded to the NSDWR limits.
-------
(20)
The permitting of discharges which will affect drinking water
should not result in an "adverse effect"; and allowing a discharge
to affect a water supply which meets the quality defined as "optimum1
to the extent that it would barely meet the levels established in
the NSDWR would be an adverse effect. One commenter on the
18 December 1978 proposal seemed to take note of this characteristic
of the drinking water regulations by commenting that allowing
degradation of ground water up to the NIPDWR levels is contrary to
environmental protection policy; although the point is not as
applicable to the NIPDWR as it is to the NSDWR.
The proposed standard for chloride is 100 mg/1; i.e., 40% of
the NSDWR limit of 250 mg/1 (9).
The proposed standard for foaming agents is 0.2 mg/1; i.e.,
40% of the NSDWR limit of 0.5 mg/1 (10).
The proposed standard for sulfate is 100 mg/1; i.e., 40% of
the NSDWR limit of 250 mg/1 (11).
The proposed standard for total dissolved solids (TDS) is
200 mg/1; i.e., 40% of the NSDWR limit of 500 mg/1 (12).
The proposed standard for copper is 0.2 mg/1; i.e., 20% of
the NSDWR limit of 1.0 mg/1 (13).
The proposed standard for iron is 0.06 mg/1; i.e., 20% of
the NSDWR limit of 0.3 mg/1. The optimum level listed in the
reference is 0.05 mg/1 which would represent 16.7% of the NSDWR
limit (14). The level of 0.06 mg/1 was chosen for simplicity in
stating the proposed standard as a percentage of the NSDWR limit
and since the measurable difference between 0.06 mg/1 and 0.05
mg/1 is not significant.
-------
(21)
The proposed standard for manganese is 0.01 mg/1; i.e., 20% of
the NSCWR limit of 0.05 mg/1 (15).
The proposed standard for zinc is 1.0 mg/1; i.e., 20% of the
NSDWR limit of 5.0 mg/1 (16). The value of 0.2 mg/1 shown in the
proposed regulation as printed is an error of transcription.
The proposed standard for color is 3 color units which is 20%
of the NSCWR limit of 15 color units (17).
The proposed standard for odor is a threshold odor number (TON)
of 1. The NSCWR limit is a threshold odor number (TON) of 3 (18).
The proposed standard for sodium is 20 mg/1. Although no limit
was set in either the NPDWR or the NSDWR, the validity of a standard
of 20 mg/1 for sodium is widely recognized as an appropiate standard
for persons subject to a restricted sodium diet (19). The National
Academy of Sciences has reported data that indicate 15 to 20% of
the Caucasian adult population (and a higher percentage of blacks)
is at risk of developing hypertension due to sodium intake, and that
about 3% of the population is on restricted sodium diets (20). On
19 July 1979, the Agency proposed amendments to the NPDWR which
would require suppliers of water for community water systems to
analyze water samples for sodium content annually and report the
results to consummers and local public health officials. Therefore
the Agency considers it appropiate to ensure that discharges from
land disposal facilities that will affect drinking water sources be
controlled to the 20 mg/1 goal for sodium in drinking water which
is recommended by the Agency (See 44 PR 42250) for public drinking
water systems.
-------
(22)
It is recognized that many of the contaminants listed in
§264.20(a) can be controlled by treatment, especially in public
water supply systems. However, the addition of treatment is a cost
which, in the view of the Agency, should not be caused by the
permitted discharges from land disposal facilities. In some cases,
the treatment provided to control one contaminant can introduce
other contaminants into the system (19, 20).
It is also recognized that the contaminants for which standards
are proposed in §26 4.20 (a) are not very representative of the
types of contaminants which can be expected to discharge from
hazardous land disposal facilities. One commenter on the 18 December
1978 proposed regulations made this point in criticizing the "ground-
water endangerment standard". The Agency agrees with the commenter1s
point, and proposes the minimum requirements of §264. 20(a) not as
sufficient standards, but as a minimum standards.
A major factor in the proposal to adopt minimum standards
within the hazardous waste land disposal regulations for sources of
drinking water sources is the applicability of the standards. The
standards are not restricted to application to the water supplied
to a consumer on public drinking water systems as are most of the
standards which are promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
As proposed the standards are applicable to sources of ground
water which may be withdrawn for use as either public or private
drinking water. Little or no treatment is normally applied to
ground water withdrawn for private drinking water use; and often
the quality of the source water is not monitored after the source
is initially developed. Private sources of drinking water are
-------
(23)
therefore much more susceptible to the adverse effects which could
result from discharges originating in hazardous waste land disposal
facilities, and it is likely that those effects could continue
unnoticed unless they imparted a taste or odor to the water. The
proposed regulations require that all ground water which is or may
be used as a source of drinking water, public or private, be
protected.
D. Regulatory Language
Section 264.20 is added to read as follows:
§264.20 Minimum standards applicable to a variance from the
ground-water protection standard for ground water
used for drinking.
Owners and operators of Class D and E land disposal facilities
shall not;
(a) discharge contaminants which will cause the concentration
of contaminants at any point of actual or potential collection or
withdrawal of ground water for use as drinking water to exceed:
(1) 80% of the following maximum contaminant levels specified
in the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Rsgulations:
Barium 1. mg/1
Cadmium 0.01 mg/1
Chromium 0.05 mg/1
Lead 0.05 mg/1
Mercury 0.002 mg/1
Nitrate (as N) 10. mg/1
Selenium 0.01 mg/1
-------
(24)
(2) 40% of the following maximum contaminant levels specified
in the National Secondary Drinking Water tegulations:
Chloride 250. mg/1
Foaming agents 0.5 mg/1
Sulfate 250. mg/1
•Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500. mg/1
(3) 20% of the following maximum contamination levels
specified in the National Secondary Drinking Water Rsgulations:
Copper 1. mg/1
Iron 0.3 mg/1
Manganese 0.05 mg/1
Zinc 5.0 mg/1
(4) A color of greater than 3 color units.
(5) An odor greater than 1 threshold odor number.
(6) A sodium concentration greater than 20 mg/1.
ISSUE; Minimum standards based on other reference sources - §264.20(b)
A. Proposed Regulations and Rational
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
Commenters on 18 December 1978 proposed regulations suggested
that the Agency add numerical standards to the ground-water
endangerment standard based on drinking water Water Quality Criteria
published under §304 of the Clean Water Act, and that the coverage
of standards should include chemicals listed in both the Water
Quality Criteria publications and the chemicals listed with respect
to Hazardous Substance Discharge (Notification) Limits under §311 of
the Clean Water Act. One commenter suggested that EPA should include
-------
(25)
a listing of known carcinogens, mutagens, and teratogens as part of
the standard. Finally one commenter suggested that EPA abandon the
"endangerment" approach, and adopt non-degradation as a basic program
concept.
C. Discussion
As noted in Background Document Ma. 7, the Agency has concluded
that it is not able, at this time, to exclusively use an approach
based on "Specific (numerical) ambient health and environmental
perforance standards" to assure adequate health and environmental
protection. The requirements proposed in §264.20(b) are an exception
to that conclusion but are limited to those contaminants for which
the Agency concludes that a minimum requirement of "zero" is
appropiate for application to owners and operators of Class D and
E land disposal facilities as defined in §264.19(c), i.e., land
disposal facilities which do or will discharge into a portion of
an aquifer which is or will in the future be a source of public or
private drinking water supply. This is the same as §264.20(a),
however, the standards do apply apply directly to the discharge.
Since the standard is "none" or "zero", dilution is not at issue.
The standards reflect the intention of the agency that the listed
contaminants not be discharged as a waste to ground waters that are
used or may be used as drinking water. The standards should not be
interpreted to infer that the contaminants should not be used due
to the associated risk to human health or the environment. However,
it is felt that the risk associated with intentional disposal in
locations which may contaminate drinking water is an unnecessary
risk that can be avoided with proper waste management.
-------
(26)
The contaminants listed in §264.20(b) are all listed as
hazardous wastes or as hazardous constituents (Appendix VIII) in
Part 261. Many are also among the "129 Priority Pollutants" which
the Agency has studied in conjunction with the "65 Toxic Pollutants"
discussed in Background Document NO. 7. Therefore, many of the
contaminants were studied and reported on in the most recently
amendment to the criteria for water quality published in accordance
with §304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Pet on 28 November 1980 at
45 FR 79318-370.
Acrylonitrile is listed in the proposed performance standard
based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through
ingestion of contaminated drinking water (21).
Arsenic is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through injestion
of contaminated drinking water (22).
Benzene is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (23).
Benzidine is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (24).
Beryllium is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (25).
Carbamate Insecticides are listed in the proposed perforance
standard based on the high toxicity of Methomyl and 2-Methyl-2-
(methylthio)propionaldehyde-O-(methylcarbonyl) oxime (Aldicarb).
-------
(27)
These pesticides, which act as cholinesterase inhibitors, are
listed in both the proposed standard and in Part 261. The National
Academy of Sciences has reported on the health effects of the
listed carbamate insecticides (26) and on the more moderate health
effects of Carbaryl (27), an unlisted carbamate insecticide.
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides are listed in the proposed
performance standard as a group based on the health effects of the
chemical pesticides listed in the group. The health effects of the
individual chemicals are discussed below.
Aldrin is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (28).
Chlordane is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (29).
DDT (Total - DDT,DDD,& DDE) is listed in the proposed
performance standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due
to exposure through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (30).
Dieldrin is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (28).
Endrin and metabolites are listed in the proposed performance
standard based on its high toxicity (31).
Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide (all isomers) is listed in
the proposed performance standard based on potential carcinogenic
effects due to exposure through ingestion of contaminated drinking
water (32).
-------
(28)
Kepone is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (33).
Lindane is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (34).
Methoxychlor is listed in the proposed performance standard
based on its high toxicity (35).
Toxaphene is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (36).
Chloroethene is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (37).
Chloroform is listed in the proposed performance standard based
on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion
of contaminated drinking water (38).
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides are listed in the proposed performance
standard as a group based on the health effects of the chemical
pesticides listed in the group. The health effects of the individual
chemicals vary significantly. The toxicity of 2 ,4-Dichlorophenoxy-
acetic acid (2,4-D) and 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxypropionic acid is
considered moderate. The toxicity of 2 ,3 ,1,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin is extremely high; and "dioxin" is often present in
commercial grades of 2 f4 ,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and
2,4 ,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2,4,5-TP) as a contaminant
introduced in the manufacturing process. The specific health effects
-------
(29)
of this group of chemicals has been reported on by the National
Academy of Sciences (39). Criteria for Water Quality proposed for
2,3 ,1 ,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin on 15 March 1979 at 44 FR 15965
have not yet been published in final form.
Hexavalent Chromium was listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water reported in the
proposed Water Quality Criteria published on 1 October 1979 at 44
FR 56647. The Agency modified that proposal in the final criteria
and now recommends a limit of 50 ug/1 consistant with the existing
Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulation limit for total chromium
(40). This change in the Criteria for Water Quality was not noticed
before the reproposed hazardous waste land disposal regulations
were published. As a result of the change in the criteria, the
listing of hexavalent chromium has been deleted from the
regulatory language of §264.21(b).
3,3'-Dichlorbenzidine is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (41).
1,2-Dichloroethane is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (42).
Dichloroethylenes have been listed in the proposed performance
standard as a group based on potential carcinogenic effects due to
exposure through ingestion of contaminated drinking water.
1,1-Dichloroethylene has been shown to be carcinogenic. There is
-------
(30)
insufficient data to draw positive conclusions on
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene however there does seem to be a
presumptive basis for concern (43).
2,4-Dimethylphenol is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential, but not conclusively demonstrated,
carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion of
contaminated drinking water (44).
Dinitrotoluenes have been listed in the proposed performance
standard as a group based on potential carcinogenic effects due to
exposure through ingestion of contaminated drinking water.
2,4-Dinitrotoluene has been shown to be carcinogenic. There is
insufficient data to draw conclusions concerning 2,6-Dinitrotoluene,
but the chemicals often exist together in commercial grade products.
The chemical, 2, 3-Dinitrotoluene (which is not a listed hazardous
waste) is more toxic than 2,4-Dinitrotoluene (45).
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (46).
Haloethers and Chloroalkyl Ethers have also been listed in
the proposed performance standard as a group based on potential
carcinogenic effects due to exposure through ingestion of
contaminated drinking water. Some of the chemicals identified as
being in these groups [Bis( chloromethyl) ether and
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether] have been shown to be, or are suspected
[B is( 2-chloroisopropyl) ether] of being, carcinogenic. However,
there is insufficient data to draw positive conclusions on many of
the chemicals in an aqueous environment. Some of this lack of
-------
(31)
data can be associated with the the very rapid physio-chemical
reactions which some of the chemicals undergo (47,48,49).
Hexachlorobenzene is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (50).
Hexachlorobutadiene is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (51).
Hexachloroethane is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (42).
Hydrogen sulfide was listed in the proposed performance
standard due to an error in interpretation of notes wherein "none"
(i.e., no standard) was read to mean "zero". It has been deleted
from the regulatory language.
Nitrosamines have been listed in the proposed performance
standard as a group based on potential carcinogenic effects due to
exposure through ingestion of contaminated drinking water. Many
of the chemicals identified in this group have been shown to be
carcinogenic (52).
Polychlorinated biphenyls are listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (53).
Organophosphate Insecticides are listed in the proposed
standard based on the high toxicity of the listed chemicals. These
pesticides, which act as cholinesterase inhibitors, are listed in
both the proposed standard and in Part 261. The National Academy
-------
(32)
of Sciences has reported on the health effects of the listed
insecticides and on the more moderate health effects of Guthion,
Diazinon, and Malathion; unlisted insecticides in this group (54).
Pentachloronitrobenzene is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (55).
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons are listed in the proposed
performance standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due
to exposure through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (56).
Two of the listed chemicals, Naphthalene (57) and Fluoranthene
(58); and one of the chemicals which is not listed, Acenaphthene
(59) have been studied to develop Criteria for Water Quality.
Those chemicals and four others [ Acenaphthylene, Fluorene,
Anthracene, and Phenanthrene] , which are not listed are among the
"129 priority pollutants" studied by the Agency (50). All of the
above mentioned chemicals have less than four aromatic rings. No
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons with less than four rings has
been shown to be carcinogenic. However, they are seldom
differentiated and, therefore, they are treated as a group.
Benz(a)anthracene and Benzo(c)phenanthrene have four rings and are
known to be carcinogenic, whereas Crysene with four rings has not
been shown to be carcinogenic. The other listed chemicals have
greater than four rings. Those with five or six rings known to be
the most potent include Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Benzo(j)fluoranthene,
Benzo(a)pyrene , Dibenz[a,h] anthracene , Dibenzo[ a,e] pyrene ,
Dibenzo[a,h]pyrene, and Dibenzo[a ,i]pyrene (56).
-------
(33)
Ifl ,2 y2-Tetrachloroethane is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (42).
Tetrachloroethene is listed in the proposed performance standard
based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through
ingestion of contaminated drinking water (60).
Tetrachloromethane is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (61).
1,1,2-Trichloroethane is listed in the proposed performance
standard based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure
through ingestion of contaminated drinking water (42).
Trichloroethene is listed in the proposed performance standard
based on potential carcinogenic effects due to exposure through
ingestion of contaminated drinking water (62).
D. Regulatory Language
(b) discharge any of the following contaminants or groups
of contaminants to ground waters which are or which could in the
future be collected or withdrawn for use as drinking water.
Acrylonitrile
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzidine
Beryllium
Carbamate Insecticides, including but not limited to;
Methorn yl
-------
(34)
2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde-
O-(methylcarbamyl) oxime
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides, including but not
limited to;
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT (Total - DDT, ODD,& DDE)
Dieldrin
Endrin and metabolites
Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide (all isomers)
Kepone
Lindane as
gamma-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Hexachlorocyclohexane and
Hexachlorocyclohexane (all isomers)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6-Hexachlorocyclohexane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Chloroethene
Chloroform
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides, including but not limited to;
2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D)
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxypropionic acid
2, 3, 7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
2, 4, 5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic acid
2, 4,5-Trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2, 4,5-TP)
3,3'-Dichlorbenzidine
-------
(35)
1,2-Dichloroethane
Dichloroethylenes, including but not limited to ;
1,1-Dichloroethylene
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Dinitrotoluenes, including but not limited to;
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
1,2-Diphenylhydrazine
Haloethers and Chloroalkyl Ethers, including but not
limited to;
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
Bis(2-chlorotheoxy) methane
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
Bi s(2-chloroisopropyl)ether
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether
2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether
Chloromethyl methyl ether
Hexachlorobenzene
He xachlorobutad iene
Hexachloroethane
Nitrosamines, including but not limited to;
N-Nitrosod i-N-butylamine
N-nitrosodiethanolamine
N-Nitrosodiethylamine
N-Nitrosod imethylamine
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine
-------
(36)
N-Nitrosodi-N-propylamine
N-Ni trosomethylethylamine
N-Nitrosomethylvinylamine
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Organophosphate Insecticides, including but not limited to;
0,0-Diethyl S- [2-(ethylthio)ethyl] phosphorodithioate
(Disulfoton)
Methyl parathion
Parathion
Phorate
Pentachloronitrobenzene
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons, including but not
limited to;
Benz( c) acridine
Ben z(a)anthracene
Benzo( b) fluoranthene
Benzo(j)fluoranthene
Benzo( a)pyrene
Crysene
Dibenz[a,h] acridine
Dibenz[a , j] acridine
Dibenz[a ,h]anthracene
7H-Dibenzo[a ,g] carbazole
Dibenzo[a,e] pyrene
Dibenzo [a, h] pyrene
Di ben zo[a,i]pyrene
Fluoranthene
-------
(37)
Indeno [1,2,3-cd] pyrene
Naphthalene
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Te trachloroethene
Tetrachloromethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethene
4. Performance standards and
associated demonstrations of performance - §264.21
ISSUE; When demonstrations are required
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
One comment, unrelated to the above issue heading, received
on the 18 December 1978 proposed regulations (See Background Document
No. 7) can be referenced and responded to here primarily since it
is convenient. The commenter objected to the inference of authority
delegated to the "permit writer" instead of the Regional Administrator
by the use of that phrase in the preamble to the proposed regulations.
Another commenter on those proposed regulations suggested that
"permit writers" be required to justify the use of the HHES override
and that an appeal provision be included to avoid arbitrary use.
Commenters on the 8 October 1980 notice expressed similar
concerns suggesting that limits must be placed on the permit writer1 s
ability to demand additional data and analysis, and questioning
how the Ajency will keep its approach from ballooning into a never-
ending quest for zero-risk data.
-------
(38)
C . Discussion
Some form of demonstration to show that a land disposal facility
will protect human health and the environment is required of all
permit applicants. The complexity of the demonstrations required
vary markedly with the specific circumstances of location, waste,
and waste handling or treatment applicable to each case.
The most simple demonstrations will apply when an existing
facility with a fully developed leachate plume can meet the ground-
water protection standard, and the facility complies with State
programs under Title III of the Clean Water Pet.
The more complex demonstrations are required when a variance
from the ground-water protection standard is needed, and when the
means to evaluate the risks associated with leachate discharge to
surface waters have not been established within State programs
under Title III of the Clean Water Act (i.e., State-Federal Water
Quality Standards do not provide a basis to judge the acceptability
of the contaminants in the leachate discharge to surface waters).
The procedural requirements of Part 124 referenced in the
first paragraph of §264.21 specifically require the "Director"
(i.e., the Regional A3ministrator) to set forth the "reasons why
any requested variances or alternatives to required standards do
or do not appear justified". Since the more complex (and uncertain)
demonstration requirements are associated with variances, and
since the Regional ASministrator (the "permit issuing authority")
is required, in accordance with existing final regulations, to
spell out the reasons why a requested variance does or does not
appear justified; a tendency towards arbitrariness will be subject
-------
(39)
public and peer review. The provisions for administrative relief
(e.g., appeal) are also promulgated as final regulations in Part 124.
The Agency staff tends to use the term "permit writer" to
describe the individual who will incur the obligation, by virtue
of his employment and assignment, of considering all of the factors
relevant to a permit application. The use of the term has been
avoided in the preamble discussion of the reproposed hazardous
waste land disposal regulations. The term used is "permit issuing
authority" which does not infer any delegation of authority to the
"permit writer".
D. Regulatory Language
Section 264.21 is added to read as follows:
§264.21 Performance standards and associated demonstrations
of performance.
The demonstrations of performance required in paragraphs (a),
(b), (c), and (d) of this section shall be considered in preparing
the draft permit required by §124.6 and in preparing the statement
of basis required by §124.7, and summarized in accordance with
§§124.8(b)(4) and (5) in the fact sheet required by §124.8.
ISSUE; Affected aquifer to be described - §264.21(a)(1)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
Few of the comments received on the 8 October 1980 notice can
be correlated directly with this provision. Commenters did refer
to the cost of hydrologic and geologic investigation, but primarily
with reference to the lack of assurance that a permit would be issued
-------
(40)
after the expense had been incurred or with reference to situations
where the discharge would result in only trace or insignificant
contamination entering an aquifer.
C. Discussion
Certainly the cost of geologic and hydrologic investigation is
a significant cost associated with the regulations and that cost is
in part due to the need to know where contaminants discharged from
a land disposal facility will migrate. Such cost will be highly
variable depending on the site specific geology and hydrology, and
could become very high in some locations with naturally complex
geology. However, the agency feels there is an absolute need to
know where effects resulting from hazardous waste land disposal
facilities can be expected to occur. At least for new facilities,
a permit applicant has some measure of choice with respect to
facility location, and can choose (hopefully with some knowledge
or professional assistance) to locate where the natural geologic
system is homogenous and relatively simple to define. If an
applicant chooses a site location with complex geology, that choice
will also be a choice to expend greater resources.
The Agency does not expect the regulations to be interpreted to
require investigations beyond the point of reasonable concern. The
real issue raised by the comment concerning trace or insignificant
amounts is - what is a trace or insignificant amount? Since the
regulations do not establish numerical standards for all contaminants
that might be present in ground water due to discharges from land
disposal facilities, that is a question that the regulations do not
address quantitatively except with respect to wastes containing
-------
(41)
particular constituents listed in §264.20 when the discharge will
migrate to actual or potential sources of drinking water. Therefore
the issue will have to be considered on a case by case basis in
the permit issuance process.
The obligation to define aquifers which will be affected by
discharge may be simplified by reference to available public sources
of information. See Background Document Na . 6 with respect to
site investigation reguirements.
As discussed elsewhere, the ground-water protection standard is
primarily a locational standard in that compliance with the standard
is based on a showing that ground water affected by discharges from
hazardous waste land disposal facilties is not and will not in the
future be collected or withdrawn for any use. The performance
standard established in §264.21(a)(1) is a simple statement to the
effect that discharge into or within aquifers not described by the
permit applicant as receiving discharge will not be authorized by a
permit. Therefore, the minimum level of knowledge required to pursue
a permit for a land disposal facility under Part 264 is that knowledge
needed to define, within some outside bounds, where a discharge will
migrate within the land. The land and ground water within these
outside limits are defined as the "zone of containment" and are to
be established for each discharge through the filing of information
in compliance with paragraphs (3)(v) and (4)(iv) of §122. 25(d) -
See Background Document Na. 6.
D. Regulatory Language
(a) The owner or operator of a land disposal facility
shall not initiate or continue;
-------
(42)
(1) Any discharge that will result in the migration of
contaminants into any aquifer not described in the permit application
as recieving discharge; or
ISSUE; Effects on surface waters - §264. 21(a) (2)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
Commenters on the 18 December 1978 proposed regulations
specifically criticized the Agency for not integrating the ground
water and surface water protection requirements.
A number of the comments on the 8 October 1980 notice expressing
concern with respect to the demonstrations required when a variance
is needed can be interpreted to apply to §264.21(a)(2). However,
consideration of those comments will be deferred to the discussion
under the issue heading "Need for a variance" since the regulatory
language of §§264.21(c) and (d) covered under that issue heading
are almost an exact parallel to paragraphs (vi) and (v) of
§264. 21(a) (2). The only real differences are the need to consider
certain factors which are specifically surface water concerns
included in paragraphs (v)(B) and (D) of §264. 21 (a) (2 ).
C. Discussion
The provisions of § 264.21(a)(2) establish the demonstrations
required to show compliance with paragraph (b) of the ground-water
protection standard set forth in §264.2.
Once a discharge has exited a land disposal facility, it can
be expected to migrate ultimately to surface waters. The time over
which this migration will occur can vary markedly from zero time
-------
(43)
for a facility constructed within a wetland or watercourse, to days
weeks or months for a facility constructed in or over highly
permeable soils adjacent to a water course, to tens or hundreds of
years for a facility constructed in very tight soils (e.g. fine
grained low permeability soil) distant from a surface water body,
to thousands of years for a facility constructed in an arid climate
in an area where there are no surface waters which are supported
by ground water discharge and the ground water flows tbrought very
deep formations toward very distant surface waters. Regardless of
the length of time required for the migration of a leachate plume
to surface waters, the basis for review of effects on surface
waters resulting from the discharge of a migrating leachate plume
are equivalent to the basis for review of discharge effects
established under the Clean Water Act.
Paragraph (i) references applicable State-Federal Water Quality
Standards; and the criteria that apply under §302 of the Clean Water
Act when it has been determined, for a particular surface water body,
that effluent limitations under §301 will not attain or maintain
acceptable water quality. A permit applicant would be required to
show that the discharge of leachate mixed with ground water would
not violate Water Quality Standards or, when §302 had been exercised
with respect to point source discharges to the surface water body,
that the discharge would not interfere with the attainment or
maintence of water quality.
Paragraph (ii) provides that the facility must be consistant
with applicable Areawide or Statewide Waste Treatment Management
Plans. These Clean Water Act planning documents often address
-------
(44)
issues such as leachate discharge and ground-water protection.
Paragraph (iii) establishes those circumstances when a variance
is required with respect to surface water effects. A variance is
required only when criteria for water quality have not been published
by the Agency with respect to the contamininants of concern ; and
then only when those contaminants will reach a point of actual or
potential withdrawal for use. It should be noticed that this
paragraph merely establishes the circumstances when a variance is
required. It does not presume how the the contaminants of concern
would be considered within the framework of the applicable State/
Federal Water Quality Standards. Some States have adopted numerical
limits for contaminants which have not been considered of sufficient
national importance to cause the Agency to undertake study and
publish specific criteria. States may also have adopted narrative
standards which are the basis for considering certain types of
contaminants for which numerical limits have not been established.
This situation could also exist with respect to contaminants for
which the Agency has published criteria for water quality or the
limits established may even not be consistant with the published
criteria. In any event, since State/Federal Water Quality Standard
are approved by the Administrator, such standards may establish
the means of consideration by both the State and the EPA. Therefore,
it may well be that provisions exist within approved State/Federal
Water Quality Standards to control the contaminants of concern
even in the absence of published criteria; or the situation may
exist where the Standards are mute in the absence of published
criteria. In either case, the the provisions of paragraphs (vi)
-------
(45)
and (v) would apply, although it would seem reasonable to assume
that when State/Federal Water Quality Standards did apply,
the Regional Administrator might make the finding required by
paragraph (iii)(B) with a limited showing by the owner or operator
under paragraphs (iv) and (v).
In developing Criteria for Water Quality, the Agency has in the
past considered and published criteria based primarily on data of
observed acute lethal effects using multipliers to establish criteria
applicable to chronic effects of exposure, or to exposure resulting
from bioaccumulative properties of the contaminant or from other
significant long-term effect characteristics. The criteria were
established with the intention of providing protection to aquatic
life living in the contaminated water, and to humans and to animal
species that ingested the contaminated water. A limited amount of
data has been published on phytotoxic effects to other than aquatic
plants; most prior to the publication of the "red book" in 1976.
In the 28 November 1980 publication of criteria, the Agency reported
on the review of data on both acute and chronic effects, and on
the risks associated with both the ingestion of contaminated water
and the ingestion of aquatic organisms exposed to the contaminated
water. Much of the data can be applied directly to ground water.
This application of published criteria for water quality will be
discussed under the issue heading "Need of a variance" which follows
in this document.
As noted in the "Summary of Comments", paragraphs (vi) and (v)
of §264.21(a)(2) are almost an exact parallel to the regulatory
language of §264.21(c) and (d). The issues requiring discussion
-------
(46)
with respect to this regulatory language will be covered under the
issue heading "Need for a variance". Paragraph (v)(B) does not
have a parallel in §264.21(d), but the factors to be considered
are the equivalent of factors considered in paragraph (v)(A) except
that the factors are with reference to surface water bodies rather
than ground water. Paragraph (v)(D) is an exact parallel to the
language of §264.21(d)(3) except that the additional factor of
eutrophic effects must be considered.
D. Regulatory Language
(a) The owner or operator of a land disposal facility
shall not initiate or continue;
(2) Any discharge that will enter any aquifer(s) described in
the permit application as recieving discharge and result in migration
of contaminants from the containment zone into surface waters; and
(i) Result in a violation of applicable Water Quality Standards
approved or established by the Administrator or interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of water quality in any portion of the
navigable waters for which the Administrator has established or
caused to be established water quality related effluent limitations;
or
( ii) Be inconsistent with any Areawide or Statewide Waste
Treatment Management Plans prepared in accordance with §§303e or
208 of the Clean Water Act and approved by the Administrator, or
(iii) Result in contaminants for which the Administrator has
not developed and published criteria for water quality in accordance
with §304(a) of the Clean Water Act:
-------
(47)
(A) Reaching any present or potential source of water withdrawal
from surface waters for domestic, agricultural, industrial, commercial
or other uses; unless
(B) A variance is authorized in accordance with the procedures
of Subpart A of Part 124 based on a showing by the owner or
operator as required paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v) of this section
and a finding by the Regional Administrator that any surface water
which is being or may in the future be withdrawn for domestic,
agricultural, industrial, commercial or other uses, will not be
adversely affected for such uses and that public health and the
environment will not be adversly affected.
(iv) The owner or operator of a land disposal facility requiring
a variance in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this
section must demonstrate that there is a social and economic
need for the facility, and that there are no practical options
for waste reduction including resource recovery, treatment prior
to disposal, and waste segregation which could reduce or eliminate
the need to dispose of the waste into or on the land.
(v) The owner or operator of a land disposal facility requiring
a variance in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(iii)(B) of this
section must further demonstrate that the effects to be caused by
discharge(s) will not adversely effect public health and the
environment by detailed predictions of the generation, transport,
and fate of individual contaminants in the leachate discharging
to surface waters, and by detailed assessments of the risk of
exposure to such individual contaminants taking into account;
-------
(48)
(A) transport, dispersion, and fate of individual contaminants
in ground water with respect to; solubility in ground water, exchange
with the soil or rock, attenuation by the soil or rock, degradation
of the contaminants, dilution by ground water, persistance of the
contaminants, accumulation of the contaminants in soil or rock,
miscibility in ground water, volatility from ground water, and the
viscosity, specific gravity, and surface tension of the contaminants
or contaminant solutions.
(B) transport, dispersion, and fate of individual contaminants
in surface waters with respect to; solubility in surface waters,
degradation of the contaminants, dilution by surface waters,
persistance of the contaminants, accumulation of the contaminants
in detritus and benthic deposits, and volatility from surface
waters.
(C) the exposure level to individual contaminants with
respect to; concentration, duration, and variability.
(D) the effects of exposure to individual contaminants on
humans, animals, and plants based on reputable scientific studies
which have been subject to challenging scientific review with
respect to; cronic or acute toxicity, bioaccemulation, carcinogenesis,
mutagenesis, teratogenesis, and eutrophication.
ISSUE; Effects on the atmosphere - §264.21( a) (3)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
N/A
-------
(49)
C. Discussion
The provisions of § 264.21(a)(3) establish a basis for the
review of a facility with reference to air impact. The basis for
conclusions are broad, i.e., emissions must not adversely effect
public health or the environment. The basis for analysis in
paragraphs ( i) and (ii) however narrow the concerns by limiting
the required demonstrations with respect to ambient air quality
issues to areas outside of the facility and by dealing specifically
with the location of gaseous emissions as a means of regulatory
control. If, based on the informational requirements of §122.25(d),
the locations of gaseous emissions have been defined and and will be
limited by the permit, the performance requirement is satisfied
except with respect to downwind ambient air impact. As a function
an issued permit, the air emission monitoring and evaluation
requirements discussed in Background Document Na. 8 require air
emissions and downwind ambient air quality to be monitored and
verified to be within the limits established in the permit.
D. Regulatory Language
(a) The owner or operator of a land disposal facility
shall not initiate or continue;
(3) To place in the facility any volatile wastes that will
migrate and be emitted into the air unless it can be demonstrated
that volatile contaminants will not adversely effect public health
or the environment:
(i) Because the emissions will not cause substantial present
or potential hazard to public health and the environment outside
of the facility or migrate into structures occupied by persons; and
-------
(50)
(ii) Because access to the land area where gases will escape
will be controlled during the active life of the facility, during
the closure and the post-closure care periods, and following the
post-closure care period if gaseous escape will continue to occur.
ISSUE; Effects on structures - §264.21( a) (4)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
N/A
C. Discussion
The provisions of § 264.21(a)(4) establish the performance
requirements with respect to leachate effects on structures. The
issues of concern in this paragraph are adverse physical effects
to the structures themselves. Gaseous effects on the occupants of
structures are covered by §264.21(a)(3). Where leachate contacts
a structure, either directly because the structure is constructed
below the water table or indirectly due to the capillarity of the
waste in contact with the soil which may cause the waste to contact
structures above the water table, a number of potential problems
must be considered. Acid conditions may tend to breakdown the
physical integrity of concrete structures or metals, and solvent
type waste materials may damage waterproofing applied to protect
structures. The issues of concern will have to be considered on a
case by case basis and will depend on the chemical characteristics
of the particular discharge or leachate. The performance standard,
in effect, also allows a simple showing of no expected adverse
effects if the structures which exist or may be constructed will
-------
(51)
not be contacted by discharge or leachate. Avoidance of contact
between leachate or discharge and structures not associated with the
waste management systems would be a normal design objective for
land disposal facilities.
D. Regulatory Language
(a) The owner or operator of a land disposal facility
shall not initiate or continue;
(4) Any discharge to ground water that will adversely effect
any structures which exist or may be constructed in or above any
aquifer described as receiving discharge.
ISSUE; Control over ground water use - §264.21(b)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
See Background Document Ito . 7 - Ground-Water Protection Standard
C. Discussion
Many commenters on the 18 December 1978 proposed regualtions
focused on the desirablity of applying regulatory standards for
hazardous waste land disposal facilities with specific regard for the
uses of the ground water which would be affected by discharges from
the facilities; and in the 8 October 1980 Supplemental Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, the Agency announced its intention to consider
the use of the affected ground waters as a major factor in the
development of the regulations. Commenters on the 8 October 1980
notice did express a variety of opinions on the adoption of standards
which took into account the use of the affected ground water. Most
of the commenters, however, focused on the potentially difficult
-------
(52)
task of showing that a discharge would not cause an adverse effect
when the discharge would migrate to points of use. That subject
is not at issue in this section. This section of the background
document is focused on that part of the reproposed regulations
that is intended to ensure that a discharge which will not migrate
to a point of active ground water use will not in the future violate
the ground-water protection standard.
A number of commenters did focus on the means by which use,
especially future use, would be controlled. Their comments are
summarized among those under the heading "Non-Degradation" and the
sub-heading "General Non-degradation Strategy" under the issue
heading "Nonnumerical health and environmental standard (Ground-water
protection standard)" in Background Document No. 7. A number of the
commenters discussed the intended approach with respect to the
Agency's effort to establish a "Ground Water Protection Strategy".
This effort is discussed under a separate issue heading in Background
Document No. 7.
As discussed in Background Document No. 7, the Agency does
expect that, if the proposed Strategy were to be followed, and
State classifications of ground-water uses are established, such
State use designations might be recognized in the permitting process.
The process by which it is proposed that the Strategy be implemented
is a phased approach in which full implementation is not anticipated
for about a decade. Clearly the implementation of the hazardous
waste land disposal permitiing program cannot await implementation
of the Strategy.
-------
(53)
The definition and designation of ground water aquifers with
respect to use is a resource intensive task when viewed with either
a nationwide or statewide perspective. There are, however, many
locations where adequate information exists now due to existing
uses for water supply, positive knowledge about the lack of uses,
and even locations where the opportunity to designate the future
uses of ground water have been foreclosed by the actual uses being
made of the ground water or the land which affect ground water
quality and limit the possible uses to which the ground water can
be put. This latter situation is especially true with respect to
surficial (uppermost) aquifers.
Urban uses of land greatly increase the potential of adverse
effects to ground water due to fuel, oil, and chemical storage,
transportation, and use. Spillage and disposal is almost an inherent
result of such land use, especially in industrialized areas. Similar
effects occur in areas that are mined to extract raw materials to
support our urban society, or are subject to intensive agricultural
uses to produce food products. The disposal of "solid wastes",
which include liquid wastes by RCRA definition, in land disposal
facilities has affected ground water quality not only in urban
industrial areas but also in many remote areas, removed from areas
of intensive land use, to which such activity was relegated by the
"out of sight - out of mind" process of site selection.
In many of these areas where land use and waste disposal have
resulted in adversely affected ground water, the effects cannot
practically be reversed, and the ground water is not presently
available for uses which require high quality water. This fact may
-------
(54)
or may not be recognized depending on whether or not attempts have
been made to measure such effects or to withdraw and use the ground
water. The monitoring of ground water in the vicinity of active
hazardous waste disposal sites operating under interim status will
reveal this situation in a very direct way, and decisions will have
to be made on allowing such facilities to continue to operate or to
cause them to close down. Unless the impared quality of the ground
water can in fact be reversed, causing them to close will serve no
usefull purpose in protecting human health. The only rational
means of protecting human health from the adverse effects which could
result from the use of irreversibly contaminated ground water, is to
restrict those uses which would be adversly effected.
This needed control over the use of affected ground water is a
reality that must be faced in the administration of the RCRA programs
for both non-hazardous and hazardous waste land disposal. It is also
a reality that must be faced in any scheme of ground water use
classification that may ultimately evolve from the implementation of
a national ground-water protection strategy. Furthur, it must be
recognized that future land use and waste disposal decisions witl
also result in the contamination of ground water for some uses. With
respect to hazardous waste land disposal, decisions which recognize
that some ground waters will be adversely affected for some uses by
the locating of new hazardous waste land disposal facilities must be
made consciously. The objective established by paragraph (a) of the
ground-water protection standard in §264.2 of the reproposed
regulations is the relagate hazardous waste land disposal to locations
where the affected ground water is not and will not be used.
-------
(55)
The available locations for hazardous waste land disposal
facilities which will comply with paragraph (a) of the ground-water
protection standard are those locations where the discharge or
leachate from the facility will not migrate to points of ground
water use. Therefore, the means by which it can be established that
affected ground water is not and will not be used is a very important
element of the regulatory scheme. Since it is considered a practical
reality that hazardous waste land disposal will result in discharge
that can be expected the reach and affect ground water (except in
very unique locations); the primary means available is to show that
use will not occur.
Before ground water may be collected or withdrawn for use, the
party who desires to collect or withdraw it for use must have the
legal right to do so. If that right is controlled or withheld so
that the legal right to collect or withdraw ground water is not
available, use cannot occur. Paragraphs (1) and (2) of §264.21(b)
establishes that the control of ground water rights can be recognized
in the permit issuance process. Therefore, if an applicant, once
he has shown where his discharge or the leachate from his facility
is migrating or will migrate by filing the information required in
§122.25(d), can show that the ground water which will be affected
cannot legally be collected or withdrawn for use; he will have
demonstrated compliance with paragraph (a) of the ground-water
protection standard in §264.2. This may be achieved by showing that
the control over the collection or withdrawal which has been
exercised by a duly authorized government entity, or by any private
party who controls those rights will preclude access and use.
-------
(56)
The means by which decisions to preclude the future collection
or withdrawal of ground water for use are made would not be at issue
in the permit issuance process. The ground water control issues
relevant to the permit issuance process will therefore be limited to
issues of fact. The Agency could otherwise be involved in those
decisions through a variety of mechanisms such as the financing,
review, and approval of State Solid Waste Management Plans under
§4007(a) of the RCRA, Statewide Waste Treatment Management Plans
under §303(e) of the Clean Water Act, or Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Plans under §208 of the Clean Water Act. In some cases,
of course, the Federal Government will have to be involved in such
decisions since it will be the government entity (e .g., the owner
of the rights) with the authority to control ground water collection
or withdrawal.
In many, if not most, cases it is expected that these decisions
to control future ground water collection or withdrawal will be
actions which only confirm that the ground water which could be
collected or withdrawn is not usable. As noted previously, this is
the physical situation due to contamination in the vicinity of
many existing municipal and private land disposal facilities, at
many industrial site locations, and may be a situation which exists
in other areas which have developed as urban areas or which have
been used to mine raw materials from the earth. Government entities
which have the authority should have an interest in protecting the
public from using ground water which might adversely affect human
health; and private parties, expecially those who may have caused
or otherwise be aware of and may be held liable for the contamination
-------
(57)
or resulting damages, should have the same interest. There is a
competing interest however since restrictions on ground water
collection or withdrawal would be an encumbrance on the land and
affect its value. This could reduce property tax income based on
value for government entities, and reduce the income which could
be realized by the sale of the land by private parties.
Of greater potential future worth would be those land use and
ground water use decisions which resulted from a recognition that
land disposal facilities are a social need and that there are
specific types of locations with favorable geological and hydrologic
characteristics that are superior locations for such facilties. The
identification of such locations is presently the subject of a great
deal of professional attention by those in government and in the
professional consulting fields of geology and hydrology. However,
it is still a fact that the socio-political considerations remain a
dominant force in the process of site selection and that the process
has not matured sufficiently to realize the trust of the public.
Although the regulations stress control over ground-water
collection or withdrawal for use as the appropiate means of achieving
compliance with paragraph (a) of the ground water protection standard
of §264.2; an owner or operator may otherwise document that the
ground-water affected by discharge cannot be used as provided in
paragraph (3) of §264.2Kb). The means of demonstration are not
defined in the regulatory language. This provision should allow
some flexibility in the decision process which would allow the
Agency to recognize demonstrations of a type it has not considered
in the regulations.
-------
(58)
Among the types of demonstrations which have been considered
are those which would show that the natural quality of the ground
water preclude some uses, including drinking water use. There are
also cases where the depth of the ground-water table makes it
economically or technically impractical to withdraw the ground water
The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program recognizes these
types of circumstances as a basis for determining an aquifer to be
an "exempted aquifer", i.e., not to be protected as a source of
drinking water in accordance with §146.04 (erronously identified as
§146.03 in the regulations and corrected in the regulatory language
below). Priority uses of aquifers (from which ground water could
be withdrawn for drinking water use) to obtain raw materials, fuel,
or energy are also recognized [in §146.04(b)(1)] , as are certain
techniques of raw material extraction [in §146.04(b)(4)], which can
result in the contamination of ground water. Finally, ground-water
aquifers which have become contaminated and which cannot be
practically recovered for drinking water use may also be exempted
under the UIC program.
As noted in paragraph (4) of §264.21(b), aquifers which are
determined to be "exempted aquifers" solely on the basis that they
are used for some purpose other than as a source of drinking water
will not be considered a valid basis to permit the injection of
hazardous wastes. This is due to the fact that hazardous waste
injection could interfere with the priority uses which makes the
ground water unusable as a drinking water source.
Paragraph (4) of §264.21(b) also provides that "well injection"
of hazardous waste directly into ground water which meets the
-------
(59)
definition of an "underground source of drinking water" in §146.03
will not be authorized by permit unless the injection is into an
"exempted aquifer". The purpose of this provision in the regulation,
as noted in the preamble at 46 FR 11139, is to parallel the ban on
the direct injection of hazardous waste into an "underground source
of drinking water" established in the UIC program as a final
regulation in Part 146. See Background Document Kb. 5 under the
issue heading "Permits by rule" for additional discussion concerning
this ban on direct injection.
Two problems were noted with respect to the manner in which
paragraph (4) was written into the regulation after it was printed.
The first is that the definition of an "underground source of
drinking water" in §146.03 excludes "exempted aquifers" from the
definition. The meaning of the regulation has been made clear by
the substitution of the word "criteria" for the word "definition"
and the addition of the phrase "paragraph (1) of the definition in"
ahead of the reference to "§146.03" in the regulatory language below.
The second is that the UIC ban on direct injection is not applicable
only to Class A and B land disposal facilities since the defintion
of an "underground source of drinking water" is not dependent of
actual use. Therefore paragraph (4) has been recodified in the
regulatory language below as paragraph (c) , and paragraphs ( c) and
(d) recodified as paragraphs (d) and (e) respectively.
All of the amendments to the regulatory language discussed in
the background documents have been submitted for publication in the
Federal Itegister as corrections to the reproposed regulations.
-------
(60)
D. Regulatory Language
(b) Owners and operators of Class A and B land disposal
facilities shall not discharge to or otherwise affect ground water
unless such ground water is not now and will not in the future be
used as a source of water supply. The owner or operator shall
document:
(1) That the authority to control ground water collection and
withdrawal for use is vested with a duly authorized government
entity which has exercised its authority to control ground water
collection and withdrawal and use in favor of the type of use the
owner or operator carries on or intends; or
(2 ) That privately held vested rights to control the collection
and withdrawal and use of ground water from within the containment
zone and any withdrawal and use of ground water which would cause
the zone to expand have been exercised, or will be exercised prior
to the initiation of discharge, to preclude continuing or future
collection and withdrawal and use of ground water affected or to
be affected by the discharge ; or
(3) The owner or operator shall otherwise document that the
ground water can not now and will not in the future be used.
(c) "Well injection" of hazardous waste directly into ground
water which meets the criteria of an "underground source of
drinking water" in paragraph (1) of the definition in §146.03 will
not be authorized by permit unless the injection is into an "exempted
aquifer". An aquifer or a portion thereof exempted solely due to
the criteria of paragraphs (b)(l) or (b)(4) of §146.04 shall not
be considered exempt for the purpose of hazardous waste injection.
-------
(61)
ISSUE; Need for a variance - §264.21(c) & (d)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
See the discussion under the issue heading " Itonnumerical
human health and environmental standard (Ground-water protection
standard)" in Background Document No. 7.
B. Summary of Comments
See Background Document No. 7.
C. Discussion
As noted in the preceding discussion, paragraphs (c) and (d)
have been recodified as paragraphs (d) and (e) respectively. As
noted in the discussion under the issue heading "Effects on surface
waters", this discussion also covers the parallel provisions of
paragraphs (iv) and (v) of § 264.21(a)(2).
Under the reproposed regulations, when a variance is needed, the
required demonstrations to show that the facility will comply with
the standard of the Act, i.e., will not adversely effect human health
or the environment, are more complex. This is due to the fact that
the Agency has been unable to prescribe specific numerical standards
by which the acceptability of discharges may be judged either as
Criteria for Water Quality under §304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act,
or as water quality limits within the reproposed hazardous waste
land disposal regulations.
Paragraph (c) - now (d) - of §264.21 and paragraph (iv) of
§264.21(a)(2) both establish that when a variance is required, the
permit applicant "must demonstrate that there is a social and
economic need for the facility, and that there are no practical
options for waste reduction including resource recovery, treatment
-------
(62)
prior to disposal, and waste segregation which could reduce or
eliminate the need to dispose of the waste into or on the land."
As noted in the preamble at 46 FR 11138, the Agency believes
that these issues are implicit in the permitting process and that
they will be of particular relevance in the public participation
aspects of that process. This requirement ensures that these
issues will be addressed by owners and operators in a manner that
allows adequate scrutiny by the public and the permit issuing
authority.
The Agency furthur believes that the award of a permit is the
award of a priviledge and that when the Agency has not been able to
specify in the regulations precise criteria for the permitting
decisions it must make, a broader range of issues are properly
subject to consideration in the permit issuance process. It is not
intended that these paragraphs of the regulation be read to infer
that a decision to issue a permit will place the public whose water
supply may be affected at risk, but only that the basis for the
risk assessment has not been prescribed, except to the extent that
the limited minimum requirements of §264.20 apply, and risk must be
considered on a case by case basis.
The practical implications of these paragraphs are quite
different for new versus existing facilities. Under almost all
circumstances, the loss of an existing facility from the market
place would represent a social and economic cost, and it is
unlikely that even major alterations in the means by which waste
was processed as a function of or prior to disposal would, in the
near term, materially alter the effect of facility discharges via
-------
(63)
the ground water on downgradient or downstream water use. However,
for a new facility with the option of alternate site locations, only
the absence of unused or unusable aquifers in the area where the
need for the facility exists could, in most cases, be considered
a sufficient reason for choosing to located where discharge will
migrate to points of present or future ground water use.
Paragraph (d) - now (e) - of §264.21 and paragraph (v) of
§264.21(a)(2) establish the substance of the risk assessment required
when no Criteria for Water Quality for the contaminants of concern
have been published under §304(a)(l) of the dean Water Act or when
no water quality limits for such contaminants have been promulgated
within the hazardous waste land disposal regulations. The published
Criteria for Water Quality have not been cited in conjunction with
the need for a variance from paragraph (a) of the ground-water
protection standard in §264.2 since the standard itself does not
depend on numerical limits, however, the criteria are applicable to
ground water quality decisions on a facility or area specific basis.
The section of the Clean Water Act which requires the Agency
to periodically review and publish criteria for water quality also
requires that the criteria accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge:
(A) on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on
health and welfare including, but not limited to, plankton, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics,
and recreation which may be expected from the presence of pollutants
in any body of water, including ground water,
-------
(64)
(B) on the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, or their
byproducts, through biological, physical, and chemical processes, and
(C) on the effects of pollutants on biological community
diversity, productivity, and stability, including information on the
factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates of organic and
inorganic sedimentation for varying types of receiving waters.
This is a massive charge to the Agency, and the degree to
which the task will be achieved with time is obvously dependent on
both the availability of fiscal and personnel resources and on the
availablity of valid "scientific knowledge".
As noted previously in this document, much of the data published
by the Agency as Criteria for Water Quality can be applied directly
to ground water, however one must consider whether it is appropiate
at any given location to apply the data for exposure through
ingestion of the contaminated water alone, or whether the exposure
through aquatic organisms should be taken into account. Such
exposure through aquatic organisms may be significant either because
the leachate will effect such organisms upon discharge to surface
waters, or because the exposure of aquatic organisms occurs due to
direct surface discharges from the facility or from other sources.
Exposure through aquatic organisms may even occur because they are
a common food product imported into the area in which the exposure
through ingestion of ground water is of real concern. Indeed, it
may be appropiate to adjust the criteria applicable to any given
geographic area due to exposure to contaminants of concern through
natural background or through a variety of other exposure routes
other than exposure through ingestion of affected drinking water.
-------
(65)
Such factors as other routes of exposure, which are especially
important to contaminants which cause cumulative effects, may or
may not have been be consided in deriving the published criteria.
Such factors are taken into account as part of the process of
establishing surface water quality standards for specific reaches
of streams or rivers, which in the case of facility specific ground
water quality decisions, must be paralleled in the permit issuance
process.
The narrative description of the analysis process on the fate
and transport of individual contaminants parallels the scope of
the informational requirements of §122.25(d) which are discussed
in Background Document Na. 6. The objective is to predict the
maximum exposure levels to individual contaminants which would be
authorized by an issued permit and be subject to monitoring (and if
necessary modeling) verification and reprediction on a triannual
basis. The degree of precision required in the predictions is
specified in §122.25(e), is also discussed in Background Document
ND. 6.
Therefore, the unique requirements of these paragraphs covering
risk assessment are with respect to the factors to be considered in
judging "the effects of exposure to the individual contaminants on
humans, animals, and plants based on reputable scientific studies
which have been subject to challenging scientific review with
respect to; cronic or acute toxicity, bioaccumulation, carcinogenesis,
mutagenesis, and teratogenesis" in the absence of Agency published
Criteria for Water Quality.
-------
(66)
The means by which the Agency has considered available reference
data to establish Criteria for Water Quality are described in the
preamble to the 28 November 1980 publication of specific Water
Quality Criteria at 45 FR 79319. Appendicies B and C to that Water
Quality Criteria document are guidelines used by the Agency in the
derivation of the criteria. The application of these guidelines to
available valid scientific data on contaminants for which the
Agency has not yet published criteria will allow the the derivation
of comparable criteria for such contaminants. These guidelines may
also be used to derive alternative criteria for application to
specific locations for which the data used by the Agency to derive
the published criteria is not the most appropiate data for that
specific location; or to modify published criteria based on the
availability of scientific data considered more valid than that used
by the Agency to derive the published criteria.
Therefore, the essential task assigned to owners and operators
of hazardous waste land disposal facilities by this portion of the
regulations is equivalent to the task which must be undertaken by the
Agency to derive and publish Criteria for Water Quality which may be
applied to ground water. The means available to accomplish this
task have been defined in conjunction with the Agency's publication
of Criteria for Water Quality on 28 November 1980. It closely
parallels the obligations assigned by the Congress through the Toxic
Substances Act to those who manufacture, distribute in commerce,
process, use, or dispose of chemical substances or mixtures.
An error in the printed regulation referencing §164.2 instead
of §264.2 has been corrected in paragraph (c) - now (d) - below.
-------
(67)
D. Regulatory Language
(d) Owners and operators of Class C,D, and E land disposal
facilities (i.e., those requiring a variance under §264.2) must
demonstrate that there is a social and economic need for the
facility, and that there are no practical options for waste reduction
including resource recovery, treatment prior to disposal, and
waste segregation which could reduce or eliminate the need to
dispose of the waste into or on the land.
(e) Owners and operators of Class C,D, and E land disposal
facilities must further demonstrate that the effects to be caused
by discharge(s) will not adversely affect public health and the
environment by detailed predictions of the generation, transport,
and fate of individual contaminants in the leachate and by detailed
assessments of the risk of exposure to such individual contaminants
taking into account;
(1) transport, dispersion, and fate of individual contaminants
in ground water with respect to; solubility in ground water, exchange
with the soil or rock, attenuation by the soil or rock, degradation
of the contaminants, dilution by ground water, persistance of the
contaminants, accumulation of the contaminants in soil or rock,
miscibility in ground water, volatility from ground water, and the
viscosity, specific gravity, and surface tension of the contaminants
or contaminant solutions.
(2) the exposure level to individual contaminants with
respect to; concentration, duration, and variability.
(3) the effects of exposure to individual contaminants on
humans, animals, and plants based on reputable scientific studies
-------
(68)
which have been subject to challenging scientific review with
respect to; cronic or acute toxicity, bioaccumulation, carcinogenesis,
mutagenesis, and teratogenesis.
III. NEED FOR REGULATION (Minimum Acceptable Treatment)
As noted in the introduction, the requirements proposed in
Subpart T - Minimum Treatment of Hazardous Waste Prior to Disposal
represent a minimum first generation of standards which are
applicable to specific wastes or specific waste streams. The need
for the regulation, or at least the concept which the subpart
represents, has been demonstrated in large part by comments on the
regulations proposed on 18 December 1978 and 8 October 1980 notice.
Although the general tone of the comments can be expressed as a
request for flexibilty, many commenters suggested particular types
of requirements (often applicable primarily to a particular waste
stream or a particular type of facility) which they felt would be
appropiate or acceptable. Most of such requirements cannot be
applied generically across the board to all land disposal facilities
in general, or even to all land diposal facilities of a particular
type, but may have particular application. It is the fullfillment
of this need (or opportunity) for specificity to which this subpart
is addressed.
There are types of wastes for which the agency expects to be
able to promulgate requirements for disposal which will obligate
the owners and operators of land disposal facilities to process
the waste in a specific way (i.e., employ a known available
technology or its equivalent in terms of performance) prior to
disposal to minimize the risk of adverse human health or
-------
(69)
environmental effects or to avoid the undesirable'or unnecessary
wasting of resources. It is expected that the particular standards
which may ultimately be incorporated in this subpart will often be
suggested by members of the regulated community based on their
specialized experience and knowledge concerning the particular
waste streams that they must deal with. A mechanism has even been
provided within the regulations to allow such knowledge to be
brought before the Agency for formal consideration on a site specific
basis (See §260.23 and the preamble discussion of that section at
46 FR 11150-51).
It is with respect to the perceived need, reflected by the
vast number of comments the Agency has received suggesting a "class
of hazard system", to regulate on a waste specific basis that this
subpart may in the future respond most specicically. The agency
has not been able to subcategorize all hazardous wastes with respect
to the degree of hazard they represent as many would have the Agency
attempt to do. In part this is due to the fact that the same waste
(or chemical) may represent varying levels of hazard depending on
specific circumstances, and therefore the hazard representd by the
waste (or chemical) is not independent of the means by which it is
handled, or for that matter, the location at which handling occurs.
Subpart T provides a location, within the regulation, where certian
minimum requirements appropiate to the handling of a specific types
of waste steams or chemicals prior to land disposal may be set
forth. Therefore, the concept of this subpart is similar to a
"class of hazard" system in effect, but the approach is to deal
with definable specific wastes and waste streams as discrete units
-------
(70)
rather than attempting to broadly categorize all listed wastes
into subgroups.
The specific minimum requirements of the proposed regulations
are, therefore, not fully representative of the future scope of
this subpart envisioned by the agency. The minimum requirements
which have been proposed are based on the need to regulate specific
types of chemical wastes in landfills since the particular types
of wastes are known to be highly mobil and/or capable of generating
toxic gases. This mobility and the toxic gas generating properties
represents a particularly high risk that adverse human health and
environmental effects will result when they are landfilled; and
the means to control those risks are known and available. Therefore
the requlation identifies certain wastes which are known to exhibit
high mobility or which can be expected to generate toxic gases in
a landfill situation, and reguires that known available technology
be applied to treat those specific wastes prior to disposal in a
landfill.
IV. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS (Minimum Acceptable Treatment)
A. Proposed Regulation and Rationale
N/A
B. Summary of Comments
N/A
C. Discussion
Under this subpart, requirements are established for the
minimum acceptable treatment of hazardous waste prior to disposal
in a land treatment facility. The purpose of these requirements
is to reduce the potential adverse effects of hazardous waste
-------
(71)
disposal by reducing the mobility of wastes, or their abiilty to
cause other wastes to become mobile, or generate toxic gases.
Owners and operators of hazardous waste landfills are required
under this subpart, by using available conventional technology, to
convert soluble metals as salts to less soluble forms (i.e., oxides,
hydrous oxides or sulfides) and to precipitate metals that are in
solution. Wastes that are highly acidic or alkaline must be
neutralized and wastes that are or contain surfactants or organic
solvents must be disposed of separately from other wastes.
Specifically, wastes that contain cyanide must be treated so that
the cyanide is destroyed, thus reducing the risk that toxic hydrogen
cyanide gas will be formed.
The requirements under this subpart, relating to mobility of
wastes, address three general groups of mechanisms that may result
in the enhancement of waste migration in soils. The first mechanism
is one in which waste constituents are solubilized by other waste
constituents and thereby increasing their potential for migration.
Examples of this mechanism include the following:
0 Solubilization reactions of metal species with inorganic
acids and bases. In this reaction, a metal or insoluble
metal species are converted to a more soluble form, usually a
salt. The hazard potential of a toxic metal can therefore be
increased due to solublilization via this mechanism. General
categories of incompatible pairs under this mechanism include:
(Hatayama, et. al. 1980)
a) metals - mineral acid
example: lead phosphate/hydrochloric acid
-------
(72)
b) metals - oxidizing mineral acids
example: lead phosphate/nitric acid
c) metals - caustic
example: zinc cyanide/sodium hydroxide
0 Solubilization reactions of metal species with organic acids
and bases.
Organic acids and bases may also react with metals or insoluble
metal species to form soluble products. General categories
of incompatible pairs under this mechanism include:
a) metals - organic acids
example: lead phosphate/formic acid
b) metals - nitriles
example: lead phosphate/ethylene cyanohydrin
c) metals - amines
d) metals - amides
0 Direct solubilization of metal containing compounds.
Some inorganics and organic-metallies may possess solubility
characteristics that contribute to nonapparent mobilization.
Some metal-containing compounds are insoluble or moderately
soluble in water and highly soluble in organics, such as
benzene.
Examples of incompatible metal-solvent pairs that may fall into
this category are show below:
phenylmercury acetate/benzene
tetraethyl lead/benzene
osmium tetraoxide/benzene
zinc phosphide/benzene
nickel carbonyl/benzene
selenium sulfide/benzene
-------
(73)
Solubilization of organic compounds by organic solvents.
The solubilization of organic compounds can be divided into
two categories. The first category (Group A) includes organic
chemicals which on the basis of structure and experimental
results, show solubility in both organic solvents (alcohol,
ether, benzene) and water. The other category (Group B)
consists of those organic chemicals that are not soluble in
water, but are soluble in solvents (acetone) which themselves
are soluble in water. These groups are listed in Table 1.
For each category, the organic solvent serves as the carrier
of the material to the saturated zone, and the solubility of
either the organic compound or the "carrier" organic solvent
in water, will tend to facilitate transfer of the organic
compound to the ground water.
TABLE 1
Group A
1,1 dimethyl hydrazine acrolein
Dimethylnitrosoamine aminoethylene
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylene oxide
Hydrazine
2-Naphthylamine
2-Picoline
Pyridine
1,3 Propylsultone
Tetrahydrofuran
Acetonitrile
Cyclohexanone
Cyanogen
Potassium cyanide
Barium cyanide
Allyl Alcohol
Group B
Parathion
Endosulfan
1,2 benzisothiazolin
Benz( a) anthracene
Di bromochloromethane
Cyclohexane
Chloroethane
Chlorobenzilate
1,2 Dibromethane
1,2 Dichlorobenzene
Diepoxybutane
Acetophenone
Toluene
1,2 Dichloroethane
o-Toluidine Hydrochloride
Malonitrile
Dimethylsulfate
-------
(74)
The second mechanism is the disolution of metal salts by
percolating water, while the third mechanism involves the chemical
reactions among waste constituents which results in the generation
of products which may be more mobile than the initial reactants.
Examples of the third mechanism include the following:
0 Reactions of metal species with other inorganics. An insoluble,
or slightly soluble, metal salt may react with another inorganic
to form a more soluble metal compound. Incompatible pairs
may be exemplified by the reaction of lead oxide (slightly
soluble) with potassium arsenate to form the more soluble
plumabates or the formation of a soluble complex form the
reaction of sodium chloride and lead oxide (Stone, et. al.
1975). These sets of reactions are very specific and may
occur under a variety of conditions.
0 Reactions between pesticides and caustics. Some pesticides
have been known to form soluble salts with alkaline caustics.
Examples of specific incompatible pairs in this group include:
(Smith, et. al. 1975)
a) Guthion/sodium hydroxide
b) 2, 4-D/sodium hydroxide
c) Demeton/sodium hydroxide
0 Reactions between organic/inorganic acids and bases.
Slightly soluble organic acids may react with inorganic/organic
acids and bases to form more soluble components. An example
of general incompatible pairs in this category would be:
(Morrison & Bo yd, 1973)
phenols/NaOH
aniline/HCl
N, N dimethylaniline/acetic acid
-------
(75)
D. Regulatory Language
Subpart T - Minimum Acceptable Treatment of Hazardous Waste
Prior to Disposal
§264.490 Applicability.
The regulations of this subpart apply to owners or operators
of facilities used for the land disposal of hazardous wastes, except
as §264.1 provides otherwise.
§264.491 General requirements.
Except as otherwise provided in this section or in Part 266,
owners or operators of facilities shall, at a minimum, use available
technology to reduce the potential adverse effects of hazardous
waste disposal by:
(a) Treating wastes prior to landfilling to reduce their
mobility or their ability to cause other waste to become mobile, or
ability to release toxic gas.
(1) Soluble metals as salts or salt solutions shall be
converted to an oxide, hydrous oxide or sulfide.
(2) Using available technology to precipitate metals from
from solutions in which they are solubilized due to complex
formations or chelation.
(3) Wastes that are highly acidic or alkaline shall be
neutralized.
(4) Wastes that are or contain surfactants, organic solvents
or chelating agents shall be disposed separately from other wastes.
(5) Wastes containing cyanide salts or salt solutions shall
be treated so that the cyanide is oxidized.
-------
(76)
V. REFERENCES
Minimum Standards for Drinking Water - §264.20
(1) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Primary Drinking
Water Regualtions (Report); EPA-570/9-76-003; pages 58-59;
September 1979.
(2) Ibid; pages 59-62.
(3) Ibid; pages 63-64.
(4) Ibid; pages 69-75.
(5) Ibid; pages 76-80.
(6) Ibid; pages 81-83.
(7) Ibid; pages 113-117.
(8) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Statement of Basis and
Purpose for the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations;
March 1977.
(9 ) Ibid; pages 3-7.
(10) Ibid; pages 15-19.
(11) Ibid; pages 42-47.
(12) Ibid; pages 48-50.
(13 ) Ibid; pages 11-13.
(14) Ibid; pages 25-28.
(15) Ibid; pages 29-33.
(16) Ibid; pages 51-53.
(17) Ibid; pages 8-10
(18) Ibid; pages 34-38.
(19) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; National Primary Drinking
Water Regualtions (Report); EPA-570/9-76-003; pages 120-125;
September 1979.
(20) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health;
Chapter V; pages 218-230; 1977.
(21) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Acrylonitrile; EPA-440/5-80-017; October 1980.
-------
(77)
(22) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Arsenic; EPA-440/5-80-021; October 1980.
(23) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Benzene; EPA-440/5-80-018; October 1980.
(24) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Benzidine; EPA-440/5-80-023; October 1980.
(25) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Beryllium; EPA-440/5-80-024; October 1980.
(26) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health-
Chapter VI; pages 165-172; 1977.
(27) Ibid; Chapter VI; pages 173-179.
(28) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Aldrin/Dieldrin; EPA-440/5-80-019; October 1980.
(29) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chlordane; EPA-440/5-80-027; October 1980.
(30) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for DDT; EPA-440/5-80-038; October 1980.
(31) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Endrin; EPA-440/5-80-047; October 1980.
(32) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Heptachlor; EPA-440/5-80-052; October 1980.
(33) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health-
Chapter VI; pages 120-125; 1977.
(34) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Hexachlorocyclohexane; EPA-440/5-80-054; October
1980.
(35) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health-
Chapter VI; pages 106-110; 1977.
(36) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Toxaphene; EPA-440/5-80-076; October 1980.
(37) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Vinyl Chloride; EPA-440/5-80-078; October 1980.
(38) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chloroform; EPA-440/5-80-033; October 1980.
(39) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health-
Chapter VI; pages 8-33; 1977.
-------
(78)
(40) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chromium; EPA-440/5-80-035; October 1980.
(41) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dichlorobenzidine; EPA-440/5-80-040; October
1980.
(42) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chlorinated Ethanes; EPA-440/5-80-029; October
1980.
(43) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dichloroethylenes; EPA-440/5-80-041; October
1980.
(44) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for 2,4-dimethylphenol; EPA-440/5-80-044; October
1980.
(45) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dinitrotoluene; EPA-440/5-80-045; October 1980.
(46) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Diphenylhydrizine; EPA-440/5-80-062; October
1980.
(47) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Haloethers; EPA-440/5-80-050; October 1980.
(48) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chloroalkyl Ethers; EPA-440/5-80-030; October
1980.
(49) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Water-Related
Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants;
EPA-440/4-79-029; Chapters 64-70; December 1979.
(50) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Chlorinated Benzenes; EPA-440/5-80-028; October
1980.
(51) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Hexachlorobutadiene; EPA-440/5-80-053; October
1980.
(52) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Nitrosoamines; EPA-440/5-80-064; October 1980.
(53) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Polychlorinated Biphenyls; EPA-440/5-80-068;
October 1980.
-------
(79)
(54) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health;
Chapter VI; pages 131-164; 1977.
(55) National Academy of Sciences; Drinking Water and Health;
Chapter VI; pages 206-213; 1977.
(56) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons;
EPA-440/5-80-069; October 1980.
(57) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Naththalene; EPA-440/5-80-059; October 1980.
(58) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Fluoranthene; EPA-440/5-80-049; October 1980.
(59) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Acenaphthene; EPA-440/5-80-015; October 1980.
(60) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Tetrachloroethylene; EPA-440/5-80-073; October
1980.
(61) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Carbon Tetrachloride; EPA-440/5-80-026; October
1980.
(62) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Trichloroethylene; EPA-440/5-80-077; October
1980.
Minimum Acceptable Treatment
Hatayama, H.K. , Chen, J. J. , deVera, E.R., Stephens, R. D. and
Storm, D. L. 1980. A Method for Determining the Compatibility
of Hazardous Wastes. EPA Municipal Environment Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/2-80-076.
Morrison, R.T., and Boyd , R.N. 1973. Organic Chemistry.
Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
Stone, R.B., Aanodt, P. L. , Ehgler, M.R. and Madden, P. 1975.
Evaluation of Hazardous Wastes Emplacement in Mine
Openings. EPA Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio. EPA-600/2-75-040.
------- |