United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Superfund Publication:
9347.3-06FS
September 1990
vvEPA
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 ofRCRA 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 Debris 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
potentialimpacts 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 (BOAT)
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
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
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
manufactured materials, such as liners. (It
does not include synthetic organic chemicals,
but may include materials contaminated with
these chemicals).
-------
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 standard" 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 structural/functional 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
TECHNOLOGIES FOR STRUCTURAL/FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
Structural
Functional
Groups
ORGANICS
Halogenated
Non-Polar
Aromatics
Dioxins
PCBs
Herbicides
Halogenated Phenols
Halogenated
Aliphatics
Halogenated Cyclics
Nitrated Aromatics
Heterocyclics
Polynuclear
Aromatics
Other Polar Organics
INORGANICS
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Chromium
Nickel
Selenium
Vanadium
Cadmium
Lead
Mercury
Concentration
Range
(ppm)
Total Waste
Analysis/*
0.5-10
0.00001 - 0.05
0.1 -10
0.002 - 0.02
0.5 - 40
0.5-2
0.5 - 20
2.5-10
0.5 - 20
0.5 - 20
0.5-10
TCLP
0.1 -0.2
0.30 - 1
0.1 -40
0.5-6
0.5-1
0.005
0.2 - 20
0.2-2
0.1 -3
0.0002 - 0.0008
Threshold
Concentration
(ppm)
Total Waste
Analysis/*
100
0.5
100
0.2
400
40
200
10,000
200
400
100
TCLP
2
10
400
120
20
0.05
200
40
300
0.08
Percent
Reduation
Range
90 - 99.9
90 - 99.9
90 - 99.9
90 - 99.9
90-99
95 - 99.9
90 - 99.9
99.9 - 99.99
90 - 99.9
95-99
90-99
90-99
90 - 99.9
90-99
95 - 99.9
95 - 99.9
90-99
90-99
95 - 99.9
99 - 99.9
90-99
Technologies that achieved
recommended effluent
concentration guidance**
Biological Treatment, Low Temp. Stripping, Soil
Washing, Thermal Destruction
Dechlorination, Soil Washing, Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Dechlorination, Soil Washing,
Thermal Destruction
Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Low Temp. Stripping, Soil
Washing, Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Low Temp. Stripping, Soil
Washing, Thermal Destruction
Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Soil Washing
Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Low Temp. Stripping, Soil
Washing, Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Low Temp. Stripping, Soil
Washing, Thermal Destruction
Biological Treatment, Low Temp. Stripping, Soil
Washing, Thermal Destruction
Immobilization
Immobilization, Soil Washing
Immobilization
Immobilization, Soil Washing
Immobilization, Soil Washing
Immobilization
Immobilization
Immobilization, Soil Washing
Immobilization, Soil Washing
Immobilization
* TCLP also may be used when evaluating waste with relatively low levels oforganics that have been treated through an immobilization
process.
** Other technologies maybe used if treatability studies or other information indicates that they can achieve the necessary concentration
or percent-reduction range.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
that can achieve the necessary concentration or percent
reduction. Column 5 of Highlight! lists technologies that
(based on existing performance data) can attain the
alternative Treatability 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 stringent 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 contaminated 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 to the alternate
treatment levels (e.g., paper, plastic). However, for most
types of debris (eg., 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 (eg., triple rinsing) or destruction.
OBTAINING A TREATABILITY VARIANCE FOR
SOIL AND DEBRIS WASTES
Once it is determined 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 Plaa 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-SITE
# 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 Highlight 2 to
determine these treatment levels).
OFF-SITE
For off-site Treatability Variances, the information above should be extracted from the RI/FS 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 after 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.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
Assistant Administrator/OSWER when the
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 FS 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
Superfund primary contaminants of concern identified
during the baseline risk 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 Treatability 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
Highlight 4 - SAMPLE LANGUAGE FOR
THE PROPOSED PLAN
Description of Alternatives section
This alternative will comply with the LDRs through
a Treatability Variance under 40 CFR 268.44.
This Variance will result in the use of [specify
technology] to attain the Agency's interim
"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 LDRs are ARARs for [Enter number] of [Enter
total number of alternatives] remedial alternatives
being considered [Enter number] of the [Enter total
number of alternatives] alternatives would comply
with the LDRs through a Treatability Variance.
Highlight 5: SAMPLE LANGUAGE
FOR A RECORD OF DECISION
Description of Alternatives section:
This alternative will comply with the LDRs
through a Treatability Variance for the
contaminated soil and debris. The treatment
level range established through a
Treatability Variance that [Enter
technology] will attain for each constituent
as determined by the indicated analyses are
[Example shown below]:
Barium
Mercury
Vanadium
TCE
Cresols
0.1 -40ppm(TCLP)
0.0002-0.008 ppm(TCLP)
0. 2 - 20 ppm (TCLP)
95-99.9% reduction (TWA)
90-99% reduction (TWA)
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 Treatability Variance is granted and becomes
effective when the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed by
the Regional Administrator or Assistant
Administrator/OSWER. 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 LDRs, 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 Statutory Determination section (Compliance
with ARARs), site managers should identify the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy
-------
LDRs as an ARAR and indicate that a Treatability
Variance is being used to comply.
Under some circumstances, the need to obtain a
Treatability 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
restricted 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 (BSD)
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 BSD 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 RI/FS the necessary investigative and
analytical procedures to determine if the LDRs are
applicable for remedial alternatives that involve the
"placement" 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
BOAT constituents requiring control, and compare the
BOAT 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 LDRs 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: LDRs IN THE RI/FS PROCESS
y V * V/rf^S-T- Evalyate I ,'£1 Identify "* Dtvefopwas
^,HWS / " -'* nature and 111 primary ^ management
i$'"H8W|llp(§* ""•""""• extent of site |*i contaminants alternative to
^&iS"^J***i*i£v contamlnatton 1 ,,|of concern - the site
ffiv**.* »i>«fc;s 't
*">jvt' ' j »?i2(s.4**^««»siW2?^^*^P^^5^yT^^^^
^SwanWlT**^ Determine which " » Compare Superfund ' E
"****-** restricted RCRA ^ contaminants of ,; w
SHMtnn* ' ' ' ' hazardous "^ concern with BOAT ~*» d
W^j?wZ'S5g5**} wastes are constituents requiring ^ 11
te ** Evaluate alternatives, determine if Select
(--^ they will result m significant J^, remedy
t ^ reductions of toxictty, mobility, or . <" RO°
*t* . volume of primary contaminants . -
,-»*Si*,sA".*;i*~;,*fe4-''*r<»- « ' *>! ix .iVt- s'tXV/ ',*„».•• #vt
*8iwyrfww!* """^s^^^^^s^^r*
vafyate ; Identify alternative , « Treatatelrty
rfiether reme- • * treatment levels - "- Variance
»al alternative* «-*» that must be met "** granted when
wolves : -j« yrtcter Treatability ^» ROD is s»gned -,
placement" • 4fg Variance ^
' ™* iSSSlIBS^^ *-'~- ^*»i*"V - -• -
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
-------
Highlight 7: IDENTIFICATION OF TREATMENT LEVELS 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 cresols (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:
Total Concentration TCLP Total Concentration TCLP
Constituent (mg/kg) (mg/1) Constituent (mg/kg) (mg/1)
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 toxicity, 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 Variance for the BDAT constituents requiring control.
STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE RESTRICTED 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 Treatability Variance for the BDAT constituents. These constituents are: Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Nickel, Silver, and Cyanide forF006 and
Cresols for F004.
AND DIVIDE THE CONSTITUENTS INTO THEIR STRUCTURAL/FUNCTIONAL GROUPS (see Highlight 2):
# All of the F006 constituents are in the Inorganics structural/functional 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 primary 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 EITHER THE CONCENTRATION LEVEL RANGE OR PERCENT REDUCTION RANGE FOR EACH RESTRICTED
CONSTITUENT.
Site Threshold Appropriate Range Range to be achieved
Constituent Concentration Concentration Concentration Percent Reduction (compliance analysis)
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Nickel
Cresols (Total)
Cresols (TCLP)
Arsenic
120 - 146 ppm
30-56 ppm
2 - 12.5 ppm
1 - 6.5 ppm
50 - 600 ppm
.25 - 4ppm
3-9 ppm
> 40 ppm
< 120 ppm
< 300 ppm
< 20 ppm
> 100 ppm
< 10 ppm
X
X
X
X
X
X 95-99.9 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
0.5 - 6 ppm (TCLP)
0.1 - 3 ppm (TCLP)
0.5 - 1 ppm (TCLP)
90-99 Percent Reduction (TCLP)
X
0.27- 1 ppm (TCLP)
STEP 3: IDENTIFY TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT MEET 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 etample), a TCLP may be used to determine if immobilization
results in a sufficient reduction of mobility of this restricted RCRA hazardous waste. (Measures to address any volatilization of organics during
immobilization processes will be necessary.)
# Based on the results of treatability 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.
Effective Reduction Meet Treatability Variance
Alternative of Toxicity, Mobility, Volume? "Placement?" Alternate Levels?
1. Low temperature stripping/
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.
STEPS: PREPARE ROD
# Highlight 5 provides sample language for a ROD signed for a site that will comply with the LDRs through a Treatability Variance
Word-searchable version — Not a true copy
------- |