United States	Office of	Superfund Publication
Environmental Protection	Solid Waste and	9347 3-06FS
Agency	Emergency Response	September 1990
-8-EPA	Superfund LDR Guide #6A (2nd Edition)
Obtaining a Soil and Debris
Treatability Variance for
Remedial Actions
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site control Division	Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) issued a series of Superfund LDR Guides
in July and December of 1989. This series included: Overview of RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
(Superfund LDR Guide #1); Complying with the California List Restrictions (Superfund LDR Guide #2);
Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements Under the LDRs (Superfund LDR Guide #3);
Complying with the Hammer Restrictions Under the LDRs (Superfund LDR Guide #4); Determining When the
LDRs are Applicable to CERCLA Responses (Superfund LDR Guide #5); Obtaining a Soil and Debns
Treatability Variance for Remedial (Superfund LDR Guide #6A) and Removal (Superfund LDR Guide #6B)
Actions; and Determining When the LDRs are Relevant and Appropriate to CERCLA Responses (Superfund LDR
Guide #7). Since the issuance of these guides, the Environmental Protection Agency, with cooperation from
outside parties (e.g., environmental groups, industry representatives), has conducted an analysis of the potential
impacts associated with applying the LDR treatment standards to Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action
cleanups. As a result of these analyses, it was decided that the Agency will promulgate a third set of treatment
standards (in addition to the wastewater and nonwastewater categories currently in effect) specifically for soil
and debris wastes. In the interim, there is the presumption that CERCLA response actions involving the
placement of soil and debris contaminated with RCRA restricted wastes will utilize a Treatability Variance
to comply with the LDRs and that, under these variances, the treatment levels outlined in Superfund LDR
Guide #6A will serve as alternative 'treatment standards." This guide (a revision to the original Superfund
LDR Guide #6A) has been prepared to outline the process for obtaining and complying with a Treatability
Variance for soil and debris that are contaminated with RCRA hazardous wastes until such time that the
Agency promulgates treatment standards for soil and debris.
BASIS FOR A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
When promulgating the LDR treatment
standards, the Agency recognized that treatment of
wastes to the LDR treatment standards would not
always be possible or appropriate. In addition, the
Agency recognized the importance of ensuring that
the LDRs do not unnecessarily restrict the
development and use of alternative and innovative
treatment technologies for remediating hazardous
waste sites. Therefore, a Treatability Variance
process (40 CFR §268.44) is available to comply
with the LDRs when a Superfund waste differs
significantly from the waste used to set the LDR
treatment standard such that:
¦	The LDR standard cannot be met; or
¦	The best demonstrated available technology
(BDAT) used to set the standard is
inappropriate for the waste.
Superfund site managers (OSCs, RPMs)
should seek a Treatability Variance to comply with
the LDRs when managing restricted soil and debris
Highlight 1: SOIL AND DEBRIS
Soil. Soil is defined as materials that are
primarily of geologic origin such as sand,
silt, loam, or clay, that are indigenous to
the natural geologic environment at or
near the CERCLA site. (In many cases,
soil is mixed with liquids, sludges, and/or
debris.)
Debris. Debris is defined as materials
that are primarily non-geologic in origin,
such as grass, trees, stumps, and man-
made materials such as concrete, clothing,
partially buried whole or empty drums,
capacitors, and other synthetic manufac-
tured materials, such as liners. (It does
not include synthetic organic chemicals,
but may include materials contaminated
with these chemicals).
Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
wastes (see HighlIght 1) because the LDR
treatment standards are based on treating less
complex matrices of industrial process wastes
(except for the dioxin standards, which are based
on treating contaminated soil). A Treatability
Variance does not remove the requirement to treat
restricted soil and debris wastes. Rather, under a
Treatability Variance, alternate treatment levels
based on data from actual treatment of soil, or
best management practices for debris, become the
treatment standar& that must be met.
COMPLYING WITH A TREATABILITY
VARIANCE FOR SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Soil Wastes
Once site managers have identified the RCRA
waste codes present at the site, the next step is to
identify the BDAT constituents of those RCRA
waste codes and to divide these constituents into
one of the structural/functional groups shown in
column 1 of Highlight 2. After dividing the BDAT
constituents into their respective
structuralJfunctional groups, the next step is to
compare the concentration of each constituent
with the threshold concentration (see column 3 of
Highlight 2) and to select the appropriate
concentration level or percent reduction range. If
the concentration of the restricted constituent is
less than the threshold concentration, the waste
should be treated to within the concentration
range. If the waste concentration is above the
threshold, the waste should be treated to reduce
the concentration of the waste to within the
specified percent reduction range. Once the
appropriate treatment range is selected, the third
step is to identify and select a specific technology
HIghlight 2: ALTERNATE TREATABILITY VARIANCE LEVELS AND
TECRNOLOGThS FOR STRUCTURAIIFUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Structural
Functional
Groups
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
Threshold
Concentration
(ppm)
Percent
Reduction
Range
Technologies that achieved
recommended effluent
concentration guidance
ORGANICS

Total Waste.
‘Anayslsi’. .. ..,
Total Waste
ArlatyslsI*
Halogeriated
Non-Polar
Arorriatics
05 - 10
100
go - go g
Biological Treatment Low Temp Stripping.
Soil Washing. Thermal Destruction
Dioxins
0 00001 -005
05
90-999
Dechioflnaton. Soil Washing. Thermal Destruction
PCBs
0 1 - 10
100
-
Biological Treatment. Dechlonnaton, Soil Washing,
Thermal Destruction
HerbIcides
0002-002
02
90-999
Thermal Destruction
1-taiogenated
Phenols
05 - 40
400
90- 99
Biological Treatment, Low Temp Stripping.
Soil Washing. Thermal Destruction
Halogenated
Aliphatics
05 -2
40
95- 999
Biological Treatment t.ow Temp Stripping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
Haiogenated
05-20
200
90-999
Thermal Destruction
Cyclics
Nitrated
Aromatics
25-10
10,000
999-9999
Biological Treatment Soil Washing
Thermal Destruction
Heterocycllcs
05 - 20
200
90- 999
Biological Treatment, Low Temp Stripping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
Polynuclear
Aromatics
05 - 20
400
95— 99
Biological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
Other Polar
Organics
05 - 10
100
90- 99
Biological Treatment Low Temp Stripping. Soil Washing.
Thermal Destruction
INQRGANLC$
TCLP
TCLP
Antimony
0’l - 02
2
90 - 99
immobilization
Arsenic
030 - 1
10
90 - 999
immobilization. Soil Washing
BarIum
01 -40
400
90-99
Immobilization
Chromium
05 -6
120
95 - 999
ImmobilIzation. Soil Washing
Nickel
0 5 - 1
20
95 - 999
immobIlization. Soil Washing
Selenium
0005
005
90 - 99
Immobilization
Vanadium
02-20
200
90 - 99
Immobilization
Cadmium
02 - 2
40
95 - 999
Immobilization. Soil Washing
Lead
0 1 - 3
300
99 - 999
Immobilization. Soil Washing
Mercury
00002-0008
005
90-99
Immobilization
• TCLP also may be used when evaluating waste with relatively low levels of organs Cs that have been treated lhsvi# an immobilitation
process
Other techno(o ies may be used if treatabilay studies or other infomiaflon utdscates that they can achieve the necessary concentration or
perceni-reductzon ranre

-------
that can achieve the necessary concentration or
percent reduction. Column 5 of HIghlight 2 lists
technologies that (based on existing performance
data) can attain the alternative Treatabfflty
Variance leveLs.
During the implementation of the selected
treatment technology, periodic analysis using the
appropriate testing procedure (i.e., total waste
analysis for organics and TCLP for inorganics) will
be required to ensure the alternate treatment
levels for the BDAT constituents requiring control
are being attained and thus can be land disposed
without further treatment.
Because of the variable and uncertain
characteristics associated with unexcavated wastes,
from which only sampling data are available,
treatment systems generally should be designed to
achieve the more stnngent end of the treatment
range (e.g., 0.5 for chromium, see column 2 of
HighlIght 2) to ensure that the treatment residuals
from the most contantinated portions of the waste
fall below the “no exceedance” levels (e.g., 6.0 ppm
for chromium). Should data indicate that the
treatment levels set through the Treatability
Variance are not being attained (i.e., treatment
residuals are greater than the “no exceedance”
level), site managers should consult with EPA
Headquarters.
Debris Wastes
Site managers should use the same process for
obtaining a Treatability Variance described above
for types of debris that are able to be treated lo
the alternate treatment levels (e.g., paper, plastic).
However, for most types of debris (e.g., concrete,
steel pipes), which generally cannot be treated, site
managers should use best management practices.
Depending on the specific characteristics of the
debris, these practices may Include
decontamination (e.g., triple rinsing) or
destruction.
OBTAINING A TREATABIL1TY VARIANCE FOR
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Once it is deternuned that a CERCLA waste is
a soil or debris, and that compliance with the
LDRs will be required (i.e., the wastes contain
restricted RCRA waste(s) and placement will
occur), site managers should initiate the process of
obtaining a Variance. For remedial actions this
will involve: (1) documenting the intent to comply
with the LDRs through a Treatability Variance in
the FS Report ; (2) announcing the intent to
comply through a Treatability Variance in the
Proposed Plan ; and (3) granting of the Treatability
Variance by the Regional Administrator or the
Highlight 3 - INFORMATION TO BE INCLUDED IN AN RI/FS TO DOCUMENT THE INTENT TO COMPLY WITH
THE LDRs THROUGH A TREATABILITY VARIANCE FOR ON-SITE AND OFF.SITE CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIONS
INVOLVING THE PLACEMENT OF SOIL AND DEBRIS CONTAMINATED WITh RESTRICTED RCRA WASTES
ON.S [ TE
• Description of the soil or debris waste and the source of the contamination;
• Description of the Proposed Action (e.g., “excavation, treatment, and off-site disposal”);
• Intent to comply with the LDRs through a Treatability Variance; and
• For each alternative using a Treatability Variance to comply, the specific treatment level range to be achieved (see
Hi hll ht 2 to determine these treatment levels).
OFF-SITE
For off-site Treatability Variances, the information above should be extracted from the RJJFS report and combined with the
following information in a separate document”
• Petitioner’s name and address and identification of an authorized contact person (if different); and
• Statement of petitioner’s interest in obtaining a Treatability Variance.
• This document may be prepared alter the ROD is signed (and Treatability Variance granted) but will need to be compiled
prior to the first shipment of wastes (or treatment residuals) to the receiving treatment or disposal facility.

-------
LDRs as an ARAR and indicate that a Treatabiity
Variance is being used to comply.
Under some circumstances, the need to obtain
a Treatabillty Variance may not be evident until
after a ROD is signed. For example, previously
undiscovered evidence may be obtained during a
remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) that the
CERCLA waste contains a RCRA resthcted waste
and the LDRs are then determined to be
applicable. In such situations, a site manager
would need to prepare an explanation of
significant differences (ESD) from the ROD and
make it available to the public to explain the need
for a Treatability Variance. In addition, unlike
other ESDs that do not require public comment
under CERCLA section 117(c), if the ESD
involves granting a Treatability Variance, an
opportunity for public comment would be required
to fulfill the public notice and comment
requirements for a Treatability Variance under 40
CFR §268.44.
LDRs IN SUPERFUND ACTIONS
Because of the important role the LDRs may
play in Superfund cleanups, site managers need to
incorporate early in the RIiPS the necessary
investigative and analytical procedures to
determine if the LDRs are applicable for remedial
alternatives that involve the “pl&cement’ of wastes.
When the LDRs are applicable, site managers
should determine if the treatment processes
associated with the alternatives can attain either
the LDR treatment standards or the alternate
levels that would be established under a
Treatability Variance.
Site managers must first evaluate whether
restricted RCRA waste codes are present at the
site, identify the BDAT constituents requiring
control, and compare the BDAT constituents with
the Superfund primary constituents of concern
from the baseline risk assessment. This process
identifies all of the constituents for which
remediation may be required. Once the viable
alternatives are identified in the FS, site managers
should evaluate those involving the treatment and
placement of restricted RCRA hazardous wastes to
ensure their respective technology process(es) will
attain the appropriate treatment levels (i.e., either
LDR treatment standard or Treatability Variance
alternate treatment levels for soil and debris
containing restricted RCRA hazardous wastes)
and, in accordance with Superfund goals,
reductions of 90 percent or greater for Superfund
primary contaminants of concern. The results of
these evaluations are documented in the Proposed
Plan and ROD. An illustration of the integration
of LDR5 and Superfund is shown in HIghlight 6.
An example of the process for complying with a
Treatability Variance for contaminated soil and
debris is presented in Highlight 7.
HIghlight 6: LORs IN ThE RI1FS PROCESS
RVFS
________ “
EvSsaS ldsr*Ity Deislop was - % EvskaS SSrnavssc desunins i t I Sslsct
n s a aid pSnsry nwisgsmsr* they will restS Mt signIficeat j remedy
mans sits wflstlnsnts slls.nedvss r- Ws of stofty, mobility, or ‘l In ROD
oos nlnaton c i ounosin the sits ‘ & volume of primsy oonrlnsms I _ _ _ _ _ _ _

‘ ‘
- -
Ccncwnm ? <#
- ‘
r ‘rrr ‘ -. -
Dssrenftw which I ecuipeis Supsrfund I I £vskfl Idsndfy sltsrnslve Trestsblllty
rs.ukisJ RCRA I ocesminaits of IS I , diedW rems esUuad lsvsls ¶ - Variance
hazardous . oo.,,..,, . with BOAT —ó dial sihirnadve list mustS met grsnwd when
w iSe ire oonsdtisna rsguStng ’ I Involves wider TreasbilIly - ROD Is signed
. .smui piscammt vari ance _____

-------
Administrator/OS WER when the
Assistant
ROD is signed.
FS Report
The FS Report should contain the necessary
information (see HIghlight 3) to document the
intent to comply with the LDRs for soil and debris
through a Treatability Variance. In the Detailed
Analysis of Alternatives chapter of the ES Report,
the discussion should specify the treatment level
range(s) that the treatment technology would
attain for each waste constituent restricted under
the LDRs, as well as the Superfunci primaty
contaminants of concern identified during the
baseline nsk assessment. In addition, under the
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives section, when
discussing the “Compliance with ARARs Criteria,”
site managers should indicate which alternatives
will comply with the LDRs through the use of a
Treatabiity Variance.
Proposed Plan
The intent to comply with the LDRs through a
Treatability Variance for a particular alternative
should be clearly stated in the Description of
Alternatives section of the Proposed Plan.
Because the Proposed Plan solicits public comment
on all of the alternatives and not just the preferred
option, the intent to obtain a Treatability Variance
should be identified for every alternative for which
a Variance would be used. This opportunity for
public comment on the Proposed Plan fulfills the
requirements for public notice and comment (off.
site actions only) on the Treatability Variance as
required in RCRA §268.44. Sample language for
the Proposed Plan is provided in Highlight 4.
Record of Decision
A Treatabiity Variance is granted and becomes
effective when the Record of Decision (ROD) is
signed by the Regional Administrator or Assistant
AdministratorlOSWER. In the Description of
Alternatives section, as part of the discussion of
major applicable requirements associated with each
remedial option, site managers should include a
statement (as was done in the FS report) that a
Treatability Variance will be used to comply with
the LDR.s, and list the treatment level range(s)
that the selected technology will attain for each
constituent. Sample language for the ROD is
provided in HighlIght 5.
In the Comparative Analysis section, under
“Compliance with ARARS, site managers should
indicate which of the alternatives will comply with
the LDRs through a Treatability Variance. Under
the Statutori Determination section (Compliance
with ARAR.s), site managers should identify the
HIghlight 5: SAMPLE lANGUAGE
FOR A RECORD OF DECISION
Description of Alternatives section:
This alternative will comply with the
LDRc tiuvugh a Treatabihty Variance
for the contaminated soil and debris.
The treatment level range established
through a Treawbility Variance that
(Enter technology] will attain for each
constituent as determined by the
indicated analyses are [ Erample shown
below]:
Barium 0.1 .40 ppm (TCLP)
Mercury 0.0002-0.008 ppm (TCLP)
Vanadium 0.2- 20 ppm (TCLP)
TCE 95-99.9% reduction (TWA)
CresoLc 90.99% reduction (TWA)
Highlight 4 • SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR
THE PROPOSED PLAN
Description of Alternatives section
This alternative will comply with the LDRs
through a Treatabilily Variance under 40 CFR
268.44. This Variance will result in the use of
[ specify technology] to attain the Agency’s
intenln “treatment levels/ranges” for the
contaminated soil at the site (see Detailed
Analysis of Alternatives Chapter of the FS
Report for the specific treatment levels for each
constituent).
Evaluation of Alternatives section, under
“Compliance with ARARs”
The LDP t s are ARARs for [ Enter number] of
[ Enter total number of alternatives] remedial
alternatives being consideretL [ Enter number] of
the [ Enter total number of alternatives]
alternatives would comply with the LDRS
through a Treatability Variance.

-------
HighlIght 7: IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT LEVEIS FOR A TREATABILITY VARIANCE
As part of the RI, it has been determined that soils in one location at a site contain F006 wastes and cresola (which site records indicate were an
F004 waste). Arsenic also was found in soils at a separate location. The baseline risk assessment Identified cadmium, chromium, lead, and arsenic
as primary contaminants of concern. The concentration range of all of the constituents found at the site included:
Constituent
Total Concentration
(ma/kg)
TCLP
(mgJl)
Constituent
Total Concentration
(mg/ks)
TCLP
(ma il)
Cadmium
2,270 - 16,200
120.146
NIckel
100 - 140
1 . 6.5
Chromium
3,160 - 4,390
30- 56
Silver
1- 3
--
Cyanides
80- 150
1 - 16
Cresols
50-600
.25 .4
Lead
500 - 625
2. 12.5
Arsenic
800 - 1,900
3 - 9
Four remedial alternatives are being considered: (1) Low temperature thermal stripping of soil contaminated with cresols followed by
immobilization of the ash; (2) Immobilization of the soil in a mobile unit; (3) In-situ immobilization; and (4) Capping of wastes. Each of these
alternatives must be evaluated to determine If they will result in significant reduction of the temcity, mobility, or volume of the waste whether
‘placement” occurs; and, if ‘placement’ occurs, whether the treatment will attain the alternative treatment levels established through a Treatability
Variatice for the BDAT constituents requiring control.
STEP 1; IDENTIFY THE RESFRICFED CONSTITUENTS
• Because F006 and F004 wastes have been identified in soils at the site, the Superfund site manager must meet alternate treatment levels
established through a Treatabthty Variance for the BDAT constituents. These constituents are: Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Nickel, Silver,
and Cyanide for F006 and Cresols for F004.
AND DIVIDE THE CONSTITUENTS INTO THEIR STRuCrURAIJFUNCTIONAL GROUPS (see Highlight 2):
• All of the F006 constituents are in the Inorganics stnictural/iuncuonal group.
• Cresols are in the Other Polar Organic Compounds structural/functional group.
• In accordance with program goals, the preferred remedy also should result in the effective reduction (i e, at least 90 percent) of all pnmaiy
constituents of concern (i.e., Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, and Arsenic).
STEP 2 COMPARE THE CONCENTRATION THRESHOLD FOUND IN HIGHLIGHT 2 TO THE CONCENTRATIONS FOUND AT THE SITE
AND CHOOSE erreini THE CONCENTRATION LEVEL RANGE OR PERCENT REDUCTION RANGE FOR EACH RESTRICTED
CONSTITUENT.
Site
Constituent Concentration
Threshold
Concentration
Appropriate Range Range to be achieved
Concentration Percent Reduction (compliance analysis)
Cadmium
120 - 146 ppm
>
40 ppm
X
95-999 Percent Reductton (TCLP)
Chromium
30- 56 ppm
<
120 ppm
X
05.6 ppm (TCLP)
Lead
2 - 12.5 ppm
<
300 ppm
X
01 - 3 ppm (TCLP)
Nickel
1- 65 ppm
<
20 ppm
X
0.5 - 1 ppm (TCLP)
Cresols (Total)
50 - 600 ppm
>
100 ppm
X
90-99 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
Cresols (TCLP)
25 - 4 ppm
X
Arsenic
3 - 9 ppm
<
10 ppm
X
0.27 -1 ppm (TCLP)
STEP 3: IDENTIFY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT MEFI’ THE TREATMENT RANGES
• HIghlight 2 lists the technologies that achieved the alternate treatment levels for each structural/functional group.
• Because cresols are present in relatively low concentrations (assumed for the purposes of this mple), a TCLP may be used to determine if
immobilization results in a suffl&nt reduction of mobility of this restricted RCRA hazardous waste. (Measures to address any volatilization of
organica during immobilization processes will be ne saty)
• Based on the results of trealability tests conducted at the site, immobilization also will result in the effective reduction in leachability (i.e., at least
90 percent) of arsenic, a Superfund primary contaminant of concern.
Alternative of Tozi
E ccthe Reduction
city. Mobility. Volume?
Meet
“Placement? Al
TreatabWty Variance
innate Levels?
1. Low temperature stnpping/
Immobilization
Yes
Yes
Yes
2. Immobilization in mobile unit
Yes
Yes
Yes
3. In-situ immobilization
Yes (Mobility)
No (LDRs not ARARs)
—
4. Capping in Place
No
No (LDRs not ARARs)
—
STEP 4: PREPARE PROPOSED PLAN, OBTAIN COMMENTS
• HIghlight 4 provides sample language for the Proposed Plan that announces the intent to comply with the LDRs through a Treatability Variance.
STEP 5: PREPARE ROD
• Highlight $ provides sample language for a ROD signed for a site that will comply with the LDR through a Treatability Variance.

-------