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.

-------