Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed ...

Federal -Register / Vol. 51, No. 60 / Friday, March 28,'1986 / Proposed- Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Parts 144, 260, 264, 265, and.270

I FRL-2860-9 1

Hazardous Waste ManagementSystem; Proposed Codification ofStatutory Provisions

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposal is a companionrule to ]PA's Final.rule that codifies inregulations those requirements spe~ifiedby the Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments of 1984 (HSWA), whichtook effect immediately or shortly afterenactment (see 50 FR 28702): The final

'rule amends EPA's hazardous wasteregulations to incorporate the statutorylanguage of the- HSWA into EPA's-existing regulatory framework. This ruleproposes changes to the existingregulations to assist in theimplementation of the new statutoryprovisions. The proposal. includesprovisions to implement the statutoryrequirement for double liners andcorrective action beyond the facilityproperty boundary. A public hearingwill be held to receive public comment-on the proposed rule as well as onissues raised in the preamble.DATES: Written comments should besubmitted on or before May 27, 1086.

A public hearing will be heldbeginning at 9:30 a.m. ,on May 7, 1986 atthe U.S. EPA, Washington, DCADDRESSES: Comments should bedirected to Docket Clerk, Office of SolidWaste [WH-5621, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency. Communicationsshould be identified by regulatorydocket reference code "CODR-2."

The public docket for this proposedrulemaking is located in Room S-212,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460 and is available for viewing from9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday throughFriday, excluding legal holidays.

The public hearing on this proposedrule will be held in North ConferenceArea, Room #3, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, DC 2046(1 (entrance on.ground floor near Safeway).

The hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.with registration at 9:00 a.m. and willrun until 4:30 p.m. unless concludedearlier. Anyone wishing to make astatement at this hearing should notifyin writing Ms. Geraldine Wyer, Office ofSolid Waste (WH-562), Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,Washington, DC 20460. Persons wishingto make oral presentations must restrictthem to 15 minutes and are encouragedto provide written copies of theircomplete comments for inclusion in theofficial record.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

General Information: RCRA Hotline(800) 424-9346 toll free, (202) 382-3000in Washington, DC,

or,David Fagan, (202) 382-4692, Mail Code

WH-563, Office of Solid Waste, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. 401M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.Technical Information:

Land Disposal Restrictions-Art Day,Office of Solid Waste, Mail CodeWH-565,.(202) 382-4680.

Minimum Technology Standards-Robert Tonetti, Office of Solid Waste,Mail Code WH-565, (202) 382-4654.

Corrective Action-Darsi Foss, Office ofSolid Waste, Mail Code WH-563,(202) 382-4534.

Permit Modifications/ Post-closurePermits-George Faison, Office ofSolid Waste, Mail Code WH-563,(202) 382-4422.

RCRA Permit-by-Rule for Class IUnderground Injection Wells (UIC)-Nandan Kenkeremath, Ofice ofGeneral Counsel; Mail Code LE-132W, (202) 382-7636..

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline1. Authority11. Background11. Section-by-Section AnalysisA. Land Disposal Restrictions1. Nonhazardous liquids in landfills2. Hazardous wastes in salt domes, salr

beds, and underground mines and cavesB. Minimum Technology Requirements1. Double-liner system2. Variance from double-liner system3. Variance from ground-water monitoringC. Corrective Action Requirements1. Permit application requirements2. Cleanup beyond the facility boundary3. Injection wells with permits-by-ruleD. Permits1. Permit modifications/application2. Permit as a shield provision3. Permit conditions as necessary to protect

human health and the environment4. Post-closure permitsIV. Regulatory AnalysisA. Regulatory Impact Analysis1. Double-liner system I2. Cleanup beyond the facility boundary3. Financial responsibility for cleanup

beyond the facility boundaryB. Regulatory Flexibility ActC. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Authority

These regulations are issued under

authority of sections 2002, 3004, 3005,3006, and-3015 of the Solid WasteDisposal Act, as amended by theResource Conservation and RecoveryAct, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6912, 6924.6925, 6926, and 6935.

II. Background

The preamble to the final codification

rule promulgated on July 15, 1985 (50 FR28702) provides substantial detail on thebackground and purpose of today'sefforts 'to incorporate into the existingSubtitle C regulations an additional setof requirements from the 1984Hazardous and Solid WasteAmendments (HSWA or theAmendments). The preamble to the finalrule should be read first to understandthe context of this proposed rule. Briefly,the final rule simply adds the statutorylanguage to the existing Subtitle Cregulations, with a preamble thatprovides our legal interpretations of thatlanguage. This rule, by contrast,proposes changes to the Subtitle Cregulations that are more than meretranspositions of the statutoryprovisions, Which take effectimmediately or shortly after enactment.The proposal and accompanyingpreamble dealwith issues that are-logical outgrowths of the newamendments rather than. requirementsimposed directly by the statute. Otherregulatory proposals will be forthcoming.on various issues which are alsooutgrowths of the new amendments,such as regulations on financialassurance for corrective action.

III. Section-by-Section Analysis

This section discusses the changes weare proposing to make to the Subtitle Cregulations. It also raises for publiccomment numerous issues on how weshould implement the new amendments.Each statutory provision is discussed asfollows: first, the preamble summarizesthe provision and explains how we havecodified it in the final rule. Then itdescribes how we propose to eitherchange the final rule or create a newregulation to facilitate implementationof the new provision. Finally, thepreamble identifies major related issues.In some instances, we do not proposespecific regulatory language, but rather,propose issues for comment. Based onpublic comments, EPA may decide toresolve issues through final regulatorychanges or through guidance onimplementation of existing regulatoryprovisions.

10706

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 10706 1986

This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register I Vol. 51, No.. 60' / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules

A. Land Disposal Restrictions

1. Nonhazardous Liquids in, Landfills-Final' Codification Rule

The HSWA amended section 3004. ofthe Resource Conservation and&Recovery Act (RCRA) by imposing aban on the placement of nonhazardous,liquids in permitted or interim statuslandfills after November 8, 1985.. Thestatute provides an exemption from thisprohibition if the owner or operator ofsuch a landfill demonstrates to EPA'ssatisfaction that: (1), The onlyreasonably available disposalalternative for these nonhazardousliquids is a landfill. or unlined surfaceimpoundment (including units notoperating pursuant to a permit or interimstatus) which already contains, or mayreasonably be anticipated to. contain,hazardous waste, and (2) the disposal ofthe nonhazardous liquids in the owner'sor operator's landfill will not present arisk of contamination to anyunderground source of drinking water.To implement this provision, the finalcodification rule adds paragraph (e) to§264.314 and parag aph (Q to § 265.314,which essentially repeats the statutoryprohibition and exemption.

Proposed rule. We are proposing toamend the permit applicationrequirement pertaining to landfillsreceiving liquids (§270.21(h)) to requirean owner or operator invoking theexemption from the ban to demonstratehow he or she qualifies for theexemption. As with all the proposedpermit application requirements in thisrule,, we: believe that suchdemonstrations are necessary in orderfor EPA to implement and enforce thestatutory provision..

Issues. In deciding whether anexemption from the ban on placement ofnonhazardous liquids is warranted, twokey tests must be met. First the, Agencymust determine whether a disposalalternative can be deemed to be."reasonably available." Second, EPAmust decide whether the disposal ofnonhazardous liquids in the. owner's oroperatoes landfill will present a "risk ofcontamination" to an undergroundsource of drinking water., We solicit thepublic's view on the proper constructionto be given to these terms. Specifically,we' are interested in public comment onthe factors to be. considered in,determining whether a disposalalternative is "reasonably available."Should cost be a consideration? Whatabout location (i.e., distance to thedisposal alternative)?

Similarly, Li deciding, whetherplacement of nonhazardous liquid in alandfill will pose a "risk ofcontamination' to any: underground

source of drinking water, what standardshould be: used? Should such placementautomatically be; deemed to pose a: riskof contamination if there is anyevidence of leakage from, the landfill.? Orshould EPA only be. concerned withleakage of contaminants iu levels thatexceed the. ground-water protectionstandard contained in. § 264.92?

2. Hazardous' Wastes in Salt Domes',Salt Beds, and Underground Mines' andCaves-Final Codification Rule

Under new section 3004(b), theCongress has placed controls, effectiveNovember 8, 1984, on the placement of'hazardous wastes in salt-domeformations, salt-bed formations, under-ground mines, and caves. The applicablerequirements depend onwhether ahazardous waste falls into one of twocategories.

For noncontainerized (or bulk) liquidhazardous waste, the placement ofwaste in the four settings identifiedabove is prohibited until: (11 EPAdetermines, after-notice and opportunityfor hearings on the record in the affectedareas, that such placement is protectiveof human health and the environment;(21 EPA promulgates- performance andpermitting standards for such facilitiesunder Subtitle C; and (3) a permit isissued for the facility. The placement ofall other hazardous waste in the fourenumerated settings is prohibited until apermit is issued for the. facility.

Issues. This. provision raises severalissues. that we would like to highlight forpublic comment. First,, it is unclear' towhat extent our current regulations willcover waste management activities thatmay occur in these formations' EPAcurrently regulates specific wastemanagement units (e.g., container'storage areas, tanks,, piles, landfills,injection wells, etc..) Depending on howan owner or operator intends tol managewastes in one of the. settings describedabove, our' existing. standards forspecific units may b fully applicableand fully appropriate. We are seekingcomment from parties' contemplating. theuse of such locations for hazardouswaste management describing: how theyplan. to. manage such wastes. Further, weask that such commenters address the'appropriateness, of EPA's existingstandards,, including the Underground,Injection Control (UIC} regulationsicodified in 40 CFR Parts 124 and 144 to,147 for those operations..

Second,, the statute. enumerates three!steps EPA must take before it lifts; the:ban on placing noncontainerized liquidhazardous waste in the, enumerated-locations,. It is unclear, whether ourexisting program requirements; can, be:used to satisfy these. steps. Can our

permit program,. which, provides, forextensive notice and opportunity forpublic- comment, satisfy the requirementfor a hearing in. section 3004(b)(1)(A)?Can EPA's standards for Parts 124, 264,265, and! 270: or;. in the case of injectionwells;, Parts 144, 146, and 147 satisfy therequirement in section 3004(b)(1)(B) for"performance, and permitting" standardsfor facilities'located, in the enumeratedsettingsT

B. Minimum Technology Requirements

1. Double-Liner System-FinalCodification Rule

Pursuant to the requirements ofsections 3004(o)(1) and 3015(b), the finalcodification rule requires that certainlandfills and surface impoundmentshave two or more liners and a leachatecollection system above (in the case oflandfills) and between. the liners. Theserequirements, have been codified in§ §, 264.221(c) and 264.301(c) forpermitted units and § § 265.221(a) and265.301(a) for interim statu's units. Thesesections require that the double linerand leachate collection systems be.protective of human health and theenvironment. In addition, the interimdouble-liner standard of section3004(o)(5}iB) has been codified in- thesesections. The preamble to the finalcodification rule discusses in detail the.relationship of the requirements of§ § 264.221(c), 264.301(c), 265.221(a), and265.301(a). to the statutory provisions ofHSWA.

It should be noted that the. HSWAcontain retrofitting requirements forexisting. surface impoundments thatwere not included, in the final,codification rule: because thecodification rule included only thosenew provisions of RCRA that becameeffective in the short term. Although therequirements of section 3005j). have. notbeen codified in EPA's regulations, the,provisions, of this section will becomeeffective as; a matterof statute.. Section3005(j) requires, any surfaceimpoundment that was in, existence andoperating under interim. status onNovember 8, 1984, to, comply withsection. 3004(o)(1)A), unless the.impoundment qualifies. for one of four,exemptions set out in section 3005W;,.The: owner or operator of art existing:surface: impoundment who, wishes taapply for an. exemptiont must submit anapplication. by November 8, 198M

Proposed rule: The purpose of this;proposed rule. isi to. amend the doublk-liner require.ments codified in.§ § 264.221(c)},, 264.301[c)} 265.221()t and265301(a)i by issuing! the. rules, requiredby section 3004(o,.(5J(.1.,. That section of

10707



Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules

RCRA requires that EPA issueregulations or guidance implementingthe double-liner system requirements ofsection 3004(o)(1) by November 8, 1986.Until the effective date of EPA rulesissued under section 3004(o)(5)(A),,Congress provided that the interimdouble-liner standard' of section3004(o)(5)(B) could be used to meet thesection 3004(o)(1) double-liner systemrequirement. However, we believe thatthe bottom-liner design allowed bysection 3004(o)(5)(B) is not fullyprotective of human health and theenvironment in most cases. Therefore,we are today proposing to amend thefinal codification rule and supersede theprovisions of section 3004(o)(5)(B) byissuing the rules required by section3004(o)(5)(A).

In a separate action, we plan to makeavailable for comment a technicalguidance document that providesguidance on the double-liner standardswe are proposing today. We intend toreview the comments we receive on theguidance document before we finalizetoday's proposal. To the extent thatcomments on the guidance are relevantto today's proposal, we will take theminto consideration in developing ourfinal rule on double-liner standards.

As in the past, we believe that inorder to protect human health and theenvironment, the fundamental goal ofthe regulations is to minimize, to theextent that can be achieved, themigration into the environment of thehazardous components of waste placedin-land disposal facilities. One elementin EPA's strategy for achieving this goalis a liquids management strategy forland °disposal facilities that is intendedto minimize leachate generation in thewaste management unit and to removeleachate from the waste managementunit before it migrates into thesubsurface environment. There are twoaspects of the liquids managementstrategy. First, the generation ofleachate should be minimized throughthe use of design controls andoperational practices such as a run-oncontrol system capable of preventingflow onto the active portion of the unit,not placing liquid waste or wastecontaining liquids in landfills, andreducing precipitation infiltration intothe active portion of the unit. Currenttechnology cannot completely prevent -

leachate generation during the activelife and post-closure care period.Therefore, the second part is the use oftechnology to maximize the removal ofliquids from the unit before the liquidscan migrate into the environment.

The Agency assumes that these unitswill contain hazardous constituents that

will be capable of migrating out of theunits. The goal of the liners and leachatecollection systems is to preventmigration by collecting and removingleachate before it can migrate during theunit's active life and post-closure careperiod. The secondary leachatecollection system (i.e., the collectionsystem between the top and bottomliners) also acts as a leak detectionsystem for the top liner. This standard,together with the requirements that thefinal cover provide long-termminimization of the movement of liquidinto the closed unit, represents the bestway to achieve the overall goal ofminimizing the rate and volume ofleachate migration in the long term (i.e.,beyond the 30-year post-closure careperiod) through efficient removal ofleachate and minimization ofinfiltration.

The period of performance for linersand leachate collection systems is beingextended to the end of the post-closurecare period. The July 26, 1982,regulations required a single liner thatwas designed to prevent migrationduring the active life of the unit. At thetime those regulations were developed,the Agency did not include a specificrequirement for the liner to function forthe long term. EPA's position was, andstill is, that absolute prevention ofmigration forever, or for the long term, isbeyond the current technical state of theart. Thus, at. some time, some migrationthrough the liner will probably occur.

We believe that, based on currentavailable information from field studies,evaluation of existing liner installations(both hazardous and nonhazardoususes), and polymer science andtechnology, flexible membrane liners(FML's) can, in thicker gauges, beexpected to function as containmentbarriers for liquids through the post-closure care period. Field experience todate has revealed that FML's havewithstood a minimum of 27 years ofexposure to severe environmentalconditions (tropical exposure). Thesematerials are still functional today, and,n imany cases, exhibit physicalproperties that are at least 70 percent ofthe original values. Similar data on 20years of exposure in a northern climatehave shown negligible changes-instrength. These data generally representthinner materials that were available 20to 25 years ago and have largely beenreplaced by improved formulations.These upgraded materials weredeveloped to have a longer service life-along with improved physical durabilityand chemical resistance. Improvementsin materials and the use of thickergauges of materials should extend the

expected life of FML's beyond that ofearly materials that are still functioningtoday. The current Part 264 standardsrequire that the primary leachatecollection system (i.e., the leachatecollection system above the top liner forlandfills) must continue to be operatedto collect and remove leachate duringthe post-closure care period untilleachate is no longer detected. Webelieve that it is important to removeleachate during the post-closure careperiod because leachate will continue tobe generated even after the final coveris installed. Leachate can be generatedduring the post-closure care period fromprecipitation infiltration through thefinal cover, lateral infiltration of groundwater if sited in a saturated location, ordrainage of liquids that entered thewaste while the unit was open.Therefore, the liners must continue tofunction as originally designed to allowleachate collection and removal. Theserequirements for liners and leachatecollection systems, in conjunction withthe final cover, will provide maximumlong-term minimization of migration outof the unit. We also believe thatoperation of the bottom liner andleachate collection system is importantso that infiltration of precipitationthrough the final cover can be detected.This provides a means for EPA to verifywhether or not the integrity andeffectiveness of the final cover has beenaffected.

In place of the interim double-linerstandard of section 3004(o)(5)(B), we areproposing two designs that we believemeet the double-liner systemrequirement of section 3004(o)(1) andare protective of human health and theenvironment. The regulations providethat these are minimum requirements.The following is a discussion of each ofthese two designs.

The first double-liner system designthat we believe is protective of humanhealth and the environment is quitesimilar to the interim double-linersystem described in section3004(o)(5)(B); however, it also has animportant difference, as will bediscussed. The terms "operating period"and "postclosure monitoring period," asused in section 3004(o){5)(B), have beenreplaced with the terms "active life" and"postclosure care period", respectively,in order to be consistent with theregulatory terms used to describe thedifferent time periods in the life of aunit. The proposed regulations include atop liner designed, operated, andconstructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner du'ing the active life ofthe facility and the post-closure care

10708



Federal Register / Vol. 5,1, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed, Rules

period, and a bottom liner designed,.operated and constructed to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentthrough the liner during this period.. Tomeet the. standard, the top. liner must be.an FML, while the bottom. liner must be.a compacted soil material. For designpurposes, the post-closure care periodcan, nominally be assumed ta be 3Gyears.

We believe this desfgn is effective inprotecting human health and theenvironment. If there fs leakage throughthe top liner, the bottom liner isdesigned to contain any waste orleachate not collected and removed bythe. leachate collection and removalsystem by not allowing the waste orleachate to migrate out of'the linerduring the active life and post-closurecare period. One disadvantage of thecompacted soil liner design,. however, is-that the leachate that migrates into theliner during the active life and post-closure care period will remain in thesoit lIner after the post-closure careperiod, and may migrate into theenvironment after the end of the post-closure care period. The ability of a unitusing a compacted soil' bottom liner to.meet the long-term goal of minimizingmigration out of the unit will depend. onthe compacted soil: liner characteristfcs,the, availability ofleachate above' the,soil liner;, and other site-specific factors.During and after the. post-closure careperiod' the final cover over the unit isrequired by existing regulations taminimize infiltration into. the closed unit

We do' not believe that the- interimbottom-finer' design of section.3a041o)(5)(B),. i.e., 3:. feet of compactedsoil material with a hydraulicconductivity of not greater than lxO:- 7

centimeters per second (cm/sec;. will', inmost cases, meet the bottom-linerperformance standard or preventing the'migration of any hazardous' constituentthrough, it during the active life and post-closure care period.

Thus,, rather that the language ofsection, 3004(o}{5)(BI, which states that a,3-foot-thick layer of ixia- 7 cm/sec'compacted soil material is degmed to,meet the bottom-liner performance:standard in all cases,, we are proposingthe 3-foot layer of 1x10-7 cm/seccompacted soil material as minimumicharacteristics of the. bottom liner.

The proposed 3-foot minimumthickness for the bottom liner is,approximately the minimum thicknessrequired for construction of astructurally stable liner' with uniformhydraulic. properties. The minimum,thickness of 3 feet provides greaterassurance of uniformity in the overallhydraulic conductivity if a constructedliner than do thinner compacted soil

liners,. Discontinuous areas in a lift candominate the effective field. hydraulic.conductivity of a soil liner. A thickerliner with. more lifts and goodscarification between lifts is not aslikely to, form a continuus, conduitthrough the entire. thickness of a soilrliner.

Low permeability compacted soilmaterials can provide a barrier tosignificant leachate, leakage if properlydesigned, constructed, and maintainedAll low permeability compacted soilliners have a finite hydraulicconductivity.. As a physical. barrier,, lowpermeability soils have been usedsuccessfully in pond' liners, dams,, anddikes for many years.. Past usesgenerally did not require. as stringent -

control of migration as is needed todayfor hazardous waste. disposa units.However,. technical knowledge exists, onhow to design, and constructliners thatwill not fail' due to subsurfacesubsidence, material loading,desiccation cracking, and other physical'problfems

Most compacted soil liners are onlypartially saturated, at the time of'placement and become saturated, due. to.the flow ofleachate through, them. Thus,,unsteady-stale, unsaturated~flowequations would be appropriate to'describe reachate movement during theinfial wetting up of the liher. Suctionforces induced by capillary tension in.unsaturated' soil may, dominate overgravitational forces. During early stages.of wetting of'a compacted! soil liner;capillary attraction forces, will!predominate over gravitational forces.As: the soil becomes; wetter;,. the capillaryforces; decrease; in importance. Whenthe liner is. saturated,. capillary forcesare negligible in relation to gravitationalforces-

The Agency is' currently in.. the process.of developing a set ofassumptions: thatwill result, in. calculations ofbreak-through time& for compacted soilliners that will protect human health..and the environment.. We? haveestimated necessary clay liner thicknessusing assumptions that represent a caseof upper- liner and leachate collectionsystem failure. Using a computer model'(SOILINER 1985]; that is currently beingdeveloped. and has, not yet been fieldtested, we have calculated thebreakthrough, time: for the interimstatutory design. (i.e., a 3-foot-thick.compacted, clay liner with a, saturatedhydraulic conductivity of 1x1077 cm/sec). Assuming a constant 1-foot headabove the. lower liner, breakthrough, timepredicted by this, model, isapproximately 8' years. Assuming liquid,above the lower liner for the: entireactive life and, post-closure. care. period,,

such that flow from, the overlyinglandfill or surface impoundment is'sufficient to maintain contirousunsaturated, impoundment, Lcapillary}flow through the soil, liner during thatperiod, a compacted, soil liner wouldneed to, be: at least several. time thickerto prevent breakthrough. during, the. 40;years or more most landfills and surfaceimpoundments will be operated.including the post-closure care. period.

We believe that even, small leaks, inthe top liner could allow a steady supplyof leachate to. a portion of thecompacted soil liner, resulting Inbreakthrough in about 11 years. On theother hand., there. may be. somecircumstances, such as, location in anarid climate; in, which a bottom liner of'3feet ofxl10. 7 cmfsec compacted soilwould be all, that is necessary to meetthe bottom-liner performance standard.

EPA has, published, the SOILINERcomputer model, ["Pt'ocedures for'Modeling Flow Through Clay, Liners toDetermine Required Liner Thickness,"SWL84-001,. April' 1984]. We areupdating this' model and plan to further'evaluate its appropriateness- for-estimating, the thickness requirement or-breakthrougl time for- compacted, soilliners The updated version, is- scheduledto be' notfced! forpublic comment Frearly 1986.

Breakthrough time may be defined ihtwo, ways: (1), On. the basis of themovement ofmoisture in, the, liner, or (2Jion, the basis, of the movement of'

constituents in, the, liner: One methodivestigated by-EPA as a means ofindicating breakthrough involvesdefining "breakthrough" based onchange in. the, moisture content at thelinerbase. However,, problemsassociated with. this approach limit tsapplicability.. Therefore,, methods, thatrequire a lesser amount of site-specificinformation; are being reviewed by EPIA

Because: we are'. concerned about thereliability and accuracy of calculationsfor unsaturated flow through, acompacted soil liner,, we believe thatconservative assumptions should, beused in estimating necessary compactedsoil-liner thickness. However., we' are:not yet able to specify whatassumptions should be. made because:we do: not have sufficient field data andtechnical information to: determine whatfailure rate should be associated. withthe components. of the. liner system.,Therefore,, we are requesting: commentson what assumptions are appropriate.,

For example,, what assumptions,should he made about top-liner, failure?,How do, the' primary and secondaryleachate collection and removal systemsaffect the impingement rate of leachate.

10709



Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed -Rules

to the soil liner? What assumptionsshould be made about liquidimpingement into the unit during thepost-closure care period? Whatallowance, if any, should be made forattenuation of waste constituents by thesoil liner? There is some doubt as towhether soil liners can be routinely andconsistently constructed to meet amaximum hydraulic conductivity of 1 X10-1 cm/sec. What assumptions shouldbe made as to construction capabilities?

The Agency has questions aboutwhether the performance standard forthe bottom liner described above (i.e.,preventing the migration of anyhazardous constituent through the linerduring the active life and post-closurecare period) is the appropriate standardto achieve the regulatory goal ofminimizing the migration rate andvolume of hazardous constituents overthe long term. We are today proposingto allow compacted soil bottom linersbased on a calculation of breakthroughtime. We are also considering whetherto allow very thick compacted soilbottom liners based .on rate of migrationcalculations. A rate of'migrationapproach would require that weestablish an acceptable rate of migrationof liquids or hazardous constituentsthrough compacted soil materials. Thisapproach considers the magnitude andvolume of leachate migration that mayoccur over the long term. The Agency isconcerned about the lack of precision ofbreakthrough time estimates and solicitscomments on other, approaches to assessor predict movement of liquids throughcompacted soil bottom liners.

The second design that we areproposing today includes a top liner anda composite bottom liner. The proposedregulations provide that the top linermust be designed, operated, and..constructed of~materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentsinto such liner during the active life andpost-cipsure care period of the unit. Thebottom liner consists of two componentsthat are intended to function as onesystem, hence, the term "composite"liner. Like the top liner, the uppercomponent of the bottom liner must bedesigned, operated, and constructed toprevent the migration of any hazardousconstituent into this component duringthe active life and post-closure careperiod. The lower component of thebottom liner must be designed, operated,and constructed to minimize themigration of any hazardous constituentthrough the upper component if a breachin the upper component were to occurprior to the'end of the post-closure careperiod.

As stated above, for design purposes,the post-closure care period can'nominally be assumed to be 30 years. Inorder to meet this standard, the top linerwill have to be a FML, while the bottomliner should consist of a FML uppercomponent and a compacted soil lowercomponent. The FML and compactedsoil layer interface in the bottom linershould be designed to provide contactbetween the two layers resulting fromthe overburden load. The compactedsoil layer should be a least 90 cm (3 feet)thick. The maximum in-place saturatedhydraulic conductivity should be notmore than 1 X 10- 7 cm/sec.

We believe that this design iseffective in protecting human health andthe environment because thecombination of thetwo components inthe bottom-liner system provides forvirtually complete removal of waste orleachate by the leachate collectionsystem if a leak were to occur in the topliner.

Like the first design, the compositedesign relies on a number ofassumptions, including assumptions onhow the FML and soil materials willfunction. Because the characteristics ofFMLmaterials can be estimated morereliably than the characteristics of acompacted soil liner, the performance ofthe composite design can be predictedwith more certainty.

The composite design relies on theFML component of the bottom liner tomaximize the efficiency of the leachatecollection system between the twoliners. FML's typically achieve virtuallycomplete rejection of fluids and are thusmore effective than compacted soilliners in providing for leachatecollection, detection, and removal.Because of this increased efficiency,EPA believes that the compacted soillayer need not be designed to be ofsufficient thickness to contain- leachatethat is not removed (in contrast to thecompacted soil bottom liner in the firstdesign]. As with the first design, thefinal cover required by existingregulations will minimize liquidinfiltration into the closed unit, thusminimizing long-term migration ofconstituents out of the bottom liner.

The composite design assumes thatcurrent state-of-the-art constructiontechniques will allow for theconstruction of a virtually leak-freeFML, and that the secondary leachatecollection system protects the FMLcomponent of the bottom liner frommechanical types of damage that couldcause leaks in the top liner. Based onthis assumption, liquid should infiltrateinto the liner at a much lower rate thanif ihere were no FML component.

We believe that the compacted soilcomponet will serve as a backup in theevent a breach does develop in the FMLcomponent of the composite liner. Werealize that there is potential for damage(i.e., punctures) to and improperinstallation (e.g., open seams) ofFML's-not uncommon events in thepast. However, compacted soil (clay)layers are not subject to the same typesof installation and operational problemsas FML's. A problem that causes a holein the FML component probably will notcause the same effect in the compactedsoil layer. Hence, if there is a breach inthe FML component of the compositeliner, this design assumes that the lowhydraulic conductivity in the compactedsoil layer would reduce the flow throughany beaches in the FML (compared tothe flow rate through a beach in an FMLthat is not backed by a low permeabilitysoil layer), thus increasing theeffectiveness of the leachate collection,detection, and removal system betweenthe two liners. The compacted soil layerwill be effective in this regard onlywhen in direct contact with theoverlying FML component.

We believe that hydraulicconductivity is the major factor indetermining the leachate rejectionefficiency of a soil layer, and the thethickness of the soil layer in most casesis not as important. However, weconsider that a minimum thickness isnecessary to retain structural stability(prevent cracking, etc.). As noted earlierin the discussion regarding the firstproposed design, we consider 3 feet tobe a minimum thickness for stability ofcompacted soil liners. Thecharacteristics of compacted soil linersvary and certain types may requiregreater thickness to provide the neededstability.

The Agency realizes that, dependingupon the assumptions that are madeabout failure of the liner systemcomponents (see the barlier discussionregarding assumptions for compactedsoil-liner thickness), breakthough mayoccur before the end of the pos t-closurecare period. However, liquid infiltrationinto the composite liner should beminimal because, in contrast to acompacted soil bottom liner, liquidshould flow into the soil layer of thecomposite liner only through the smallareas where the FML component hasbeen breached. Hence, although theremay be some migration out of the linerunder certain failure conditions, webelieve that the design will minimizemigration.

In order to meet either of the twoproposed designs, the proposedregulations require that both the top and

10710



Federal Register t Vol. 51, N.. 60 k Fiffday,, March 28, 1986 f Pltuoised Rae]s7

bottom liners be chemically resistant tothe waste and leachate managed at theunit and be constructed of materials thathave appropriate chemical properties,and sufficient strength and thickness, to,prevent failure through the: post-closurecare pertod, due to factors includingpressure gradients, climatic, conditions,and the: stresses of construction, and,operation. The liners must be placedupon materials capable of supporting:the combined load of the liner, waste,,and cover. Both liners. must be installedto cover all surrounding earth likely tobe in contact with the waste of leachate.These proposed liner construction andinstallation requirements are. identical tothose: already required for single-linersystems.

Under either of the two, proposeddesigns, the. leachate collectioni systembetween the liners must be designed,constructed, maintained, and operatedto detect, collect, and remove liquidsthat may leak through any area of thetop liner during the active life and post-closure care period. In order toaccomplish this objective; the leachatedetection,, collection,, and removalsystem between the liners must coverthe sidewalls as well. as the bottom ofthe unit.

For landfills; the proposed rulerequires that the primary leachatecollection system immediately above: thetop liner be designed, constructed,maintained, and operated to collect and.remove reachate from the landfill' during-the. active life and post-closure care,period. The leachate collection systems;above (for landfillsl and between (for-both: landfills and surface:impoundments} must be constructed ofmaterials that can withstand thechemical attack from wastes' orleachates and the stresses anddisturbances from overlying wastes andoperating practices. The. proposed' rule,also- requires that leachate collectionsystems be designed and; operated. tofunction without clogging through theactive life and post-closure care periodThe proposed leachate collection' system,construction. requirements are- similartothose already required for the leachateCollection system above the. liner forsingle lined landfills under§ 264.301(a)(2). In contrast to theexisting §. 264.301(a)(2),. however,, the.proposed standards require that theleachate collection, systems, be operated,through, the-end of the post-closure care.period.

In addition to the proposed changes to,Parts 264. and 265,, we are also, proposing,to amend, Part 27-0 by addingrequirements. for submission ofinformation in: the Part B permit

application on the liners and leachatecollection systems; for- surface.impoundments' and landfills subject tothe requirements' of §:§ 264.221(c): and'264.30{1(c). The proposed. amendments to.the Part. 270: information. requirementsfor surface impoundments are: contained,in' §' 270117(b)( ], and. for landfills; in.§ 270,21[b]{1)..

The- Agency, has. performed' riskanalyses in an effort to, determine theeffectiveness of various double-liner and,leachate collection system' designs.Although some of the general findings, ofthese analyses, are mentioned, below,detailed documentation can be found, inthe regulatory, support documents. for'this rule-- As noted, earlier,; in the:discussions of the ability of the twoproposed double-liner designs to:minimize the migration of hazardousconstituents out of the bottom, liner,.numerous assumptions must be made inany, quantified analysis of the.performance of various liner and,leachate collection system, designs..

Under certain. assumptions,, such as: anianalysis using:' ('1) Low, failure rates for'top, liners; (2) the actual number, ofpeople using ground water as; & drinkingwater source downgradient from,existing hazardous' waste landfills. andsurface impoundments (as best we canidetermine this], and (3! the: actualdistances: downgradient from existingfacilities to drinking water wells (again,.as best we can determine), th. absoluterisk reduction of any liner and. leachate.collection system design, and. therelative differences in risk reductionbetween various designs, arelboth verysmai L-Therefore, the use'of suchassumptions. results; in a conclusion thatrequiring, double-liner' systems thal. aremore stringent than the' interim statutorydouble-liner design of section.3004(o)(5)(B) (i.e., a design that includesta bottom, liner of 3 feet of clay having ahydraulic: conductivity of no more, thaniXi - 7

. cm/sec)'may, not result.. insignificant human health.benefits.

On the other hand,, using other'assumptions, such, as: ([1) Moderate to.high. failure rates for top liners; (2) an,increase in the.population using drinkingwater' from wells downgradient offacilities, and (3); the placement.of well'scloser to the facilities,, results insignificant absolute risk reduction formany liner systems!- and in, largerrelative differences; in risk reductionbetweenliner designs: Hence, replacing:the interim statutory design, which.inrfudes; a bottom liner' of 3 feet ofcompacted clay,, with other double-linersysteml design. such' as the proposeddesign that includes a composite bottom

liner; could, resulF ih significant. humanhealth benefits.,

Based; on presently availableinformation the, Agency does not view'liner systems' as, the primary. means, of.'controlling the! migratiorr of'hazard'ousconstituents. in, the' longterm. The,Agency continues, to, believet that linersare best usedi to. facilitate the collectionrand removal' of.leachate (47 FR 32284,]lly' 26 1:982)1. Since the. function of linersystems; then,, is relatively' short-term, in,nature;,. as opposed to providingprotection for many decades, or everhundreds of years, the effectiveness- of'liners is, overshadowed' by' other factorsiin an analysis. of longerm' riskreduction. These. other factors. include:,(1) The nature of the' location of'the unitwith respect to. climate, hydrogeology.and population,. (2)1 the nature of the,whste int the: unit, and: (3)1 the long-termperformance. of the. final coverthat isplaced' over the: unit, at closure.

The Agency' is developing regulatoryprograms in each of these three areas.At the time that weprorulgate rules i'nthese additional' areas; -we may re-examine, the need, for liner designs thatare. more stringent than the interimistatutory double4iner design of section3004(o)(5(B}. For' example; in the'development of location standards, wemight find that it is appropriate in, 'certain locations- to allow the use of theinterim, statutory design rather-than;require, a design having a thick claybottom liner or a composite bottom,liner. In addition, in, the development of'restrictions; on waste types that may beland disposed we: may. find that the useof the, interim. statutory double-linersystem is, adequate. for'wastes: that, arenot banned, from land disposal. We arealso looking at what, variations: in.double-liner design might be appropriatewhent alternative finalLcover designs. areutilized.

The Agency is interested in commentson the interrelationship of engineering,locationi- andl waste-related factors indetermining the risk presented, byhazardous; waste. landfills and surfaceimpoundments:. Should the. Agency beconsidering tradeoffs in facility designbased uponi site-specific factors?'Specifically,, under what final, cover,location and waste-type conditions' maythe. interimi statutory' design, of sectiono3004( o)(5)(B); be appropriate? Tb what.extent can such "tailoring" of'requirements be achieved on, thenational and local! level's? Howimplementable. is such, a "tailoring?"approach to! the permitting of landfilrsand surface. impoundments?

lssues;. One issue that we would. liketo raise for-comment concerns the

1071.1



Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed 'Rules

provision in section 3015(b)(2) of thenew statute, which calls for the owner o!operator of an interim-status landfill orsurface impoundment unit subject to theminimum technological requirements ofsection 3015(b)(1) to notify theAdministrator "at least" 60 days prior toreceiving waste at the unit. Section3015(b)(1) applies to units that firstreceive waste after November 8, 1984.Owners or operators of these units mustcomply with the notice requirement.

We are concerned that notice 60 daysprior to receipt of waste may not allowsufficient time to review, verify, andinspect (if necessary), a facility'scompliance with the minimumtechnological requirements. We areconsidering 'additional noticerequirements to increase our ability tooversee installation of liners andleachate collection systems at interim-'status facilities. One option is to extendthe notification to 120 days prior toreceiving waste in order to allow morereview time. Another possibility is torevise the notice provision to requirenotice 60 days (or-some otherreasonable time) prior to construction.

A second issue involves the use of acomposite liner in place of an FML asthe top liner. EPA is aware of a numberof new landfill unit designs that includea top composite liner (FML/compactedlow permeability soil liner). We realizethat a compacted low permeability soilcomponent below the FML top liner canincrease the collection and removalefficiency of the primary, leachatecollection system if leaks develop.However, we are interested incomments on whether all types andthicknesses of composite top liners areprotective of human health and the .environment. What 'are the advantagesand disadvantages of having a lowersoil component below the FML? We areinterested in comments assessing theeffect of a composite top liner on thefunction of the other components of the

'system and on the ability of the linersystem as a whole the achieve theregulatory goal of minimizing migration.

The secondary leachate collectionsystem will detect liquids that migratethrough the composite top liner but willnot detect liquids migrating into thecomposite liner. This means that abreach in the top synthetic componentwill not be detected until liquids havemigrated through the low permeabilitysoil component and appear in thesecondary leachate collection system.Increasing the thickness of the soilcomponent increases the time necessaryto determine the rate of migrationthrough a top composite liner. Thereforewe are considering limiting the

thickness of the lower soil component inF a top composite liner to that necessary

to provide structural stability anduniform hydraulic properties (e.g.,approximately 3 feet) and constructiontechniques. We are also consideringwhether the use of a top composite linernecessitates the use of a bottom liner ofthe same design. We solicit comment onwhether the bottom liner should havehydraulic properties as or morerestrictive than those of the top liner inorder for the secondary leachatedetection, collection, and removalsystem to function adequately.

A third major issue raised by the newtechnological requirements concerns theconsequences of finding leachate in thesecondary leachate collection systembetween the liners and thedetermination of what is anunacceptable amount of leachate orhazardous constituents containedtherein. The HSWA requiri~a leachatecollection system between the liners forboth surface impoundments andlandfills, but the statute does not answerthe question of what action, if any,should be taken if liquid appears in theleachate collection system between theliners at any time during the active lifeor the post-closure care period. Ifunacceptable amounts of leachate orhazardous constitutents are detected,one option is to promulgate a rulerequiring the owner or operator to eitherrepair or retrofit the liner, or to close theunit if the unit was notzalready in thepost-closure care period. This optionwould likely have significantly greaterimpact on owners and operators oflandfills than those owning or operatingsurface impoundments. Another opti6nwould be to require the owners oroperators to simply remove the liquid oraccelerate the frequency of ground-water monitoring.

A fourth major issue relates to therequirements under the good faithprovision of section 3015(b)(3) of theHWSA. The provision states that the theowner or operator of a surfaceimpoundment or landfill who installsliners and a leachate collection systempursuant to the requirements of section3015, and in good faith compliance withEPA regulations and guidancedocuments governing liners andleachate collection systems, shall not berequired to install a different liner orleachate collection system at the timethat the facility receives its first permit,except that the Administrator mayrequire installation of a new liner at thetime of permit issuance if he has reasonto believe that the liner installed duringinterim status is leaking.

The statute does not define the term"leaking" for purposes of section3015(b)(3). EPA believes that this is asignificant issue and intends to discussoptions for defining the term "leaking"in an upcoming proposed regulation onleak detection systems under section3004(o)(4). This regulation is scheduledfor proposal in the Federal Register laterthis year.

A fifth issue concerns the definition ofthe term "compacted soil material." EPAhas a significant amount of informationon the characteristics, chemicalcompatibility, design, construction, andoperational performance of clay liners.along with some information onbentonite admixtures. Other amendedsoil materials containing man-madeproducts or natural materials, such assoil cement, lime/soil mixtures, soilasphalt, or fly ash/soil mixtures, haveben proposed as liner materials athazardous waste land disposal facilities.However, EPA has little information asto the performance of these othermaterials when used as liners athazardous waste facilities. We areinterested in comments on whatmaterials should be included within theterm "compacted soil material" for useas a bottom liner (or a portion of abottom liner) in our regulationsimplementing the minimumtechnological requirements.

2. Variance From Double-LinerSystem-Final Codification Rule.

Section 3004(o)(2) of the HSWA allowthe owner or operator of a landfill orsurface impoundment to obtain anexemption from the requirements forliners and leachate collection systemsset out in section 3004(o)(1)(A). Theowner or operator must demonstratethat alternative design and operatingpractices, together with locationcharacteristics, will prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto ground water or. surface water atleast as effectively as the proposedliners and leachate collection system.Section 3004(o)(3) exempts certainmonofills from the double-linerreguirement.

The final codification rule addsparagraphs (d) and (e) to § 264.221incorporating these variances into thesurface impoundment standards.Similarly, § 264.301(d) and (e) are'addedto incorporate the statutory varianceinto the design standards for landfills.

Proposed rule. We are todayproposing to amend § 270.17(b)(1) byadding general language requiringsurface impoundment applicants whoapply for the varience in § 264.221(d) or(e) to submt appropriate information.

10712




Similarly, § 270.21(b)(1) is proposed tobe amended by adding the same generallanguage for landfills. We are interestedin comments on what performancecriteria the Agency should use toevaluate applications for variances fromthe double-liner requirements and whattype of information should be submittedby.applicants.

Issues. We have construed the statuteto allow interim status facilities to applyfor the variance from the double-linerrequirement. (See the discussion in thepreamble to the final codification rule.)This raises several issues. The first iswhether the variance should be self-implementing during interim status orwhether there should be a procedure forthe Regional Administrator to grant thevariance on a case-by-case basis. Thelegislative history accompanying thevariance suggests that some form ofdemonstration is required, because thevariances were not intended to be self-implementing (S. Rdp. No. 284, 98thCong., 1st Sess. 26 (1983)).

A second issue is what proceduresshould be used if the RegionalAdministrator reviews the variances.Should we follow a procedure analogousto those used for permitting (Part 124), orshould a procedure similar to that usedfor closure plans during interim status(§ 265.112) be used? Until we developspecific requirements on this point,owners or operators seeking thevariance should seek approval on acase-by-case basis from the RegionalAdministrator. We believe thisapproach is consistent with thestatutory language in sections 3004(o)(2)and (3), which refers to "findings" or"waivers" made by the Administrator toallow the variances.

3. Variance From Ground-WaterMonitoring-Final Codification Rule

The HSWA introduce a new variancefrom ground-water monitoringrequirements for engineered structuresthat meet certain requirements.Specifically, the variance applies to anengineered structure that: (1) Does notreceive or contain liquid waste (orwaste containing free liquids), (2) isdesigned and operated to exclude liquidfrom precipitation or other runoff, (3)has multiple leak detection systemswithin the outer layer of containmentthat are operated throughout the life ofthe unit, including the closure and post-closure care periods and (4) preventsthe migration of hazardous constituentsbeyond the outer layer of containmentprior to the end of the post-closure careperiod. Section 264.90(b) of the existingregulations has been amended toincorporate this new ground-water

monitoring waiver. This requirement iscodified at § 264.90(b)(2)(v).

Issue. The legislative history providesthat leachate collection systems must bebuilt into each internal containmentlayer. The statutory language, on theother hand, refers only to leak detectionsystems. We are considering developinga regulation that would require theinstallation of leachate collectionsystems at each internal containmentlayer and seek public comment on theadvisability of this approach.

C. Corrective Action Requirements

1. Permit Application Requirements-'Final Codification Rule

The HSWA amend section 3004 of theRCRA by adding paragraph (u)

- governing releases at permittedfacilities. The new subsection providesthat any permit issued after November8, 1984, must require corrective actionfor releases of hazardous waste orconstituents from any solid wastemanagement unit, regardless of whenwaste was placed at such unit. Theprovision, which is codified in § § 264.90and 204.101, applies to any solid wastemanagement unit, including an inactiveunit, at any treatment, storage, ordisposal facility seeking a permit underSubtitle C of the RCRA.

The preamble to the final codificationrule identifies the types of units andfacilities potentially subject to thecorrective action requirement anddefines the basic terms and conceptsthat establish the jurisdiction of theprovision, including the definitions of"facility," "release," and "solid wastemanagement unit." It also explains thatthe concept of protection of humanhealth and the environment will beapplied as the benchmark for requiringcorrective action.

Proposed rule. We are proposing toamend the existing Part B permitapplication requirements of § 270.14 byadding a separate provision (paragraph(d)) concerning solid waste managementunits at facilities seeking a RCRApermit. The new provision requiresowners and operators of such units toprovide two types of information. Firstit requires descriptive information onthe unit itself (e.g., location, dimensions,type of unit, etc.). Second, it calls for thesubmission of all available informationpertaining to any release from the unit.Some of the information required under§ 270.14(d) for solid waste managementunits is also required to be submitted forhazardous waste units under othersections of Part 270 (e.g.,; § 270.14(b)(19)requires the owner or operator to.identify on a topographic map thelocation of hazardous waste). It is

unnecessary to submit-informationunder § 270.14(d) if the sameinformation has been submitted underanother provision of Part 270. Note,however, that some information underproposed § 270.14(d) is not required ofhazardous waste management unitsunder the existing regulations, and thusmust be submitted for these units aswell as for solid waste managementunits.

Issues. In order to implementcorrective action requirements theAgency must first make a determinationas to the existence or likelihood thatthere is or has been a release. Thisdetermination evolves from anassessment of available informationabout the facility and from a subsequentpreliminary investigation of the site. ThePreliminary Assessment/SiteInvestigation (PA/SI) approach toidentifying existing and potentialreleases at RCRA facilities is similar tothat conducted by Superfund. The PA/SIwill be utilized to determine if there is orhas been (or it is likely that there is orhas been) a release to the environment,as well as to determine what subsequentinvestigations may be necessary tofurther identify and characterize therelease. Subsequent investigations maybe various levels of remedialinvestigations at one or more units.These investigations will be conductedby the owner/operator under apermitted schedule of compliance, orunder enforcement authorities, such assection 3008(h) or secfion 3013 orders.

The RCRA PA/SI process will differfrom the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and LiabilityAct (CERCLA) process in severalrespects. For example, the burden ofresponsibility upon a facility owner oroperator is greater under RCRA. Owner/operators will, under-this proposed rule,be required to perform the sampling andanalysis parts of the PA/SI under thedirection of EPA.

2. Cleanup Beyond the FacilityBoundary-Proposed Rule

Section 3004(v) of the HSWA requireEPA to amend its regulations to imposeupon owners and operators ofhazardous waste treatment, storage, anddisposal facilities the obligation to cleanup any contamination that has.migratedbeyond the facility boundary.Specifically, this provision requires thatthe owner or operator institutecorrective action beyond the facilityboundary where necessary to protecthuman health and the environment,unless the owner or operatordemonstrates to EPA that, despite theowner's or operator's best efforts, he is

10713



Federal 'RegiSter'/ Vol. 51, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules

unable to obtain thenecessary .,permission to undertakesuch action.This proVision applies to all facilities,including facilities containing landfills,surface impoundments, 'and waste pilesthat are embraced by the ,new -definitionof "regulated unit" '(iCe., units receivingwaste.after July 26, 1982).

The existing 'corrective -actionregulations for "regulated units" andsolid waste management units includethe requirement for financial assuranceto complete ithe corrective :action. Thisrule ,will clarify that 'this requirementalso extends to corrective action .beyondthe facility boundary.

We are proposing to add §,§§ 264.100(e)and 264.101(c) to the current regulationsto reflect this new requirement.'The twoprovisions essenfially repeat thestatutory language in.section :3004(v).Section 264.1001(e,) applies 'therequirement to regulated units;§ 264.101(c) ,applies it to solid wastemanagement units.

Issues. We are soliciting comment onthe appropriate construction to be givento the requirement ithat the owners oroperators exercise their "best efforts" toobtain permission.from ,adjacentlandowners to conduct :corrective actionmeasures on adjoining land.Specifically, how.are "best efforts" to bedefined? What kind of documentation, ifany, should we require as evidence ofthis effort? What kind of cbrrectiveaction measures should :be taken on-siteif permission to extend corrective actionmeasures .is ,denied?,Should we imposeon-site corrective action measures thatseek, through modification of'thehydraulic gradient, to cause off-sitecontamination 'to migrate back .on-sit?Is such hydraulic modification feasiblein all cases?'Some cases? Alternatively.,should the owner or operator'who isdenied permission -to clean up off-site,and who cannot'reverse the process ofcontamination through any other means,be required to purchase -the water Tightsin areas where the ground water hasbeen degraded bycontamination fromhis site? What kind of off-site correctivemeasures are appropriate for releases toair, surface water, or'soils?

3. Injection Wells With Permits-by-Rule-Final Codification Rule

'The final codification ruleclarifiedthat a UiC permit issued to a Class Ihazardous-waste injection well after

- November'8, 1984, 'no longer is a RCRApermit-by-rule 'until corrective actionrequirements are imposed consistentwith 40 CFR '264.101 (50 FR '28752[amending 40 CFR '270.60(b)]). Therefore.in order for. such.a well Withouta RCRApermitby-rule to,'be authorized underRCRA, it must retain its interimstatus

(see'50FR'38946,'September 25,.1985,regarding Class.l wellinterim statusrequirements). Once a Class I wellinjecting 'hazardous ,waste receives andcomplies with a UIC permit, complieswith § 144.14i andvcomplies with thecorrective action 'requirements in§ 264.101, the well's Class I permitbecomes a RCRA permit-by-rule. We areproposing the following amendment.

Proposed rule-InformationRequirements-§ 144.31(g). The Agencyproposes to addcertain 'informationrequirements to the permit applicationregulation for Class I hazardous wasteinjection wells. This amendment wouldrequire the applicant to provideinformation on the dates the well 'wasoperated, and to provide all availableinformation on all wastes that havebeen injected into the well. In addition,the applicant must submit all .availableinformation on any known or likelyrelease from any active hazardouswaste injection well at the facility. Theapplicant may be required to submitsuch information for other solid wastemanagement units if it is determinedthat the information is needed to protecthuman health and .the environment.Finally, the applicant must conductinvestigations at the facility asnecessary to determine whether arelease of hazardous waste from anactive injection well is occurring, hasoccurrqd, or is likely 'to have occurred.

Corrective Action- 144.56. TheAgency also proposes to impose thecorrective action requirements forreleases of hazardous waste orconstituents from active 'injection wellsthrough the UIC permit. Correctiveaction for such releases which gobeyond the facility property 'boundarywill also be required, unless specifiedconditions are met. Completion orcorrective action for releases from otherunits at the facility generally Will beaddressed through the facility's finalRCRApermit, or may be addressedthrough corrective action orders issuedunder section '3008. 'Until the entirefacility has been addressed pursuant tosection 3004(u), the injection well mustmaintain its interim status, even if it hasobtained a UIC permit '(see § 270.60(b)as amended July 15, 1985). Thecorrective action .requirements 'for thewell itself'may'be imposed pursuant'to40 CFR §§ 144.52(a)(9)., 144.56, andHSWA, and are more stringent interimstatus requirements until incorporatedinto a RCRA permit or permit-by-rule(see § 144.1(a) UIC requirements forhazardous 'waste injection promulgatedpursuant to RCRA :as 'well as the SafeDrinking Water Act (SDWA).

Interim Status-§144.1(h). TheAgency also proposes an amendment to

the UIC regulations to clarify intfVimstatus requirements for Class I injectionwells that inject hazardous waste. AClass I well injecting 'hazardous wAstethat had interim status before theHSWA were enacted does not lose itsinterim status under EPA rules simplybecause it was issued aUIC-permit, Asindicated above under EPA rules, a UICpermit issued after November :8,1984, isnot a RCRA permit-by-rule untilcorrective action requirements areimposed for all units at the facility (see§ 270:60(M -as amended July 15, 1985).Thus, 'under EPA rules, a well's interimstatus terminates upon issuance 'of aRCRA 'permit or a RCRA permit-by-rule,not 'simply upon issuance of a UICpermit alone (see § 270.73). Until a wellreceives. its 'RCRA permit or RCRApermit-by-:rule, it must comply with theapplicable interim status requirementsimposed 'by §§'265.1(c)(2) and 265.430,and Parts 144,146, and 147 (and by theUIC permit). See §1144.1(a) (UIC rules.adopted, insofar as 'they relate tohazardous waste, pursuant to RCRA).

Issues. The injection well provisionsproposed -here raise issues similar:tothose raised by thepaTallel informationrequirement and corrective actionstandards and requirements proposedfor disposal units other than injectionwells. We solicit, therefore, commentson those requiremeits insofar as theyrelate to injection wells. Specifically, theAgency is considering amending theRCRA permit~by-rule regulations '(40CFR 270.60) to include a requirementthat the same information on solidwaste management units 'that isproposed under §.270.14(4d) for RCRApermits also 'be required to be submittedby owners/operators of UIC facilities inorder to obtain :a permit-by-rule. TheAgency also solicits comment on whatcorrective action, if any, is necessary orfeasible if a release from an injectionwell were to contaminate an aquiferunderlying the surficial aquifer, or avery deep aquifer that still meets thedefinition of "underground source ofdrinking watef" in § 144.3.

D. Permits

1. Penit Modifications/Application-Proposed Rule.

The recent statutory amendments tosection 3005(c) provide 'the Agency withbroad authority'to.modify RCRA -permits. However, the -currentregulations concerning permitmodifications only allow 'permits to 'bemodified during their terms for specifiedcauses, as set forth in '§'§ 270.41 and270.42. Currently, permits may bemodified because of'new amendments

10714




only if the permittee requests suchmodification (§ 270.41(a)(3)).

On February 8, 1983, we proposed toamend this provision to allow EPA aswell as the permittee to initiate a permitmodification when the standards orregulations on which the permit is basedhave been changed (48 FR 5872). Thisproposal accompanied a proposedamendment to the permit durationregulation that would allow lifetimepermits. In the preamble, the Agencynoted that the purpose of the proposedpermit modification amendment was tocreate a mechanism to bring facilitiesinto compliance with regulationspromulgated after issuance of thelifetime permit.

As stated in the final codification rule,the Agency is unable to promulgate thelifetime permit provision because it isinconsistent with the amendment tosection 3005, which provides amaximum 10-year life for RCRA permits.

However, we consider the February 8,1983, proposed permit modificationrevision to be consistent withcongressional intent to grant theAdministrator broad authority to modifyRCRA permits. Many regulatoryamendments will be necessitated by thenew statutory amendments. Theseregulatory amendments will in manyinstances affect the standards on whichthe permit was based. In order to reflectthese amendments in the permit we aretoday proposing a new amendment to§ 270.41(a)(3) allowing the Agency toinitiate modifications to a permit,without first receiving a request from thepermittee, if statutory changes or new oramended standards affect the basis ofthe permit. In addition, EPA has theauthority to issue a permit addressingthe HSWA requirements, which will becombined with a post-HSWA, State-issued permit. Such issuance may benecessary to address provisions of theHSWA, e.g., corrective action, whichwere not needed at the time of the initialpermit issuance.

2. Permit as a Shield Provision-Proposed Rule.

The HSWA, in several instances,provide that certain requirements applyto facilities that may have RCRApermits, e.g., land disposal ban on bulk"or noncontainerized liquids. Theseprovisions are self-implementing, whichmeans that permitted facilities arerequired to comply with theserequirements regardless of their currentpermit provisions. However, § 270.4currently provides that compliance witha RCFA permit constitutes compliance,for purposes of enforcement, withSubtitle C of RCRA. The § 270.4 "permitas a shield" provisions are inconsistent

with the requirement in HSWA thatpermitted facilities meet certainstatutory requirements. Accordingly, theAgency is today proposing to amend§ 270.4(a). The amendment limits thescope of the permit as a shield provisionto the extent that the facility is not incompliance with the following: (1)Requirements that go into effect bystatute, or (2) regulations promulgatedunder Part 268 restricting the placementof hazardous Wastes in or on the land.The shield would apply to those permitswhich have incorporated theserequirements.

Examples of requirements going intoeffect by statute include bans ondisposal of bulk liquids in salt-domeformations, bans on land disposal ofsolvents and dioxins, and bans on landdisposal and storage of wastes forwhich the Administrator has failed tomake a determination in accordancewith section 3004(g). Regulationspromulgated under Part 268 include theregulations implementing restrictions onland disposal and storage of hazardouswastes in accordance with sections3004(d-g) and (j), and treatmentstandards for wastes being restrictedfrom land disposal in accordance withsection 3004(m).3. Permit Conditions as Necessary ToProtect Human Health and theEnvironment-Final Codification Rule

In. enacting the HSWA, Congressamended section 3005(c) to provide thateach RCRA permit contain such termsas the Administrator (or the State)determines necessary to protect humanhealth and the environment. TheAgencycodified this new requirement in§ 270.32(b).

Proposed rule. We are todayproposing to amend § 270.10, whichspecifies the application requirementsfor hazardous waste managementfacilities, by adding a new paragraph(k). Section 270.10(k) provides that whenit is or may be necessary to issuepermits containing conditions necessaryto protect human health and theenvironment, the Administrator hastheauthority to require informationconcerning such conditions from thepermit applicant or permittee. Webelieve that such information-gatheringauthority is necessary to enable EPA todraft these conditions.

The language is § 270.32(b) gives theAgency a new tool to ensure thatpermits issued to hazardous wastemanagement facilities can be tailored tomeet the environmental circumstancesunique to that facility. The provisionwill enable EPA to address specificenvironmental problems that are notadequately covered in our regulations.

We recognize, however, that this toolmust be wielded carefully..We plan toissue guidance on this provision of thenew law and solicit comments on theconsiderations that should be addressedby this guidance.

4. Post-Closure Permits-FinalCodification Rule

Section 3005(i) provides that ground-water monitoring and corrective actionrequirements applicable to permittedland disposal units (the requirements ofSubpart F of Part 264) apply to anylandfill, surface impoundment, wastepile, or land treatment unit that receivedhazardous waste after July 26, 1982. Thelegislative' history shows that Congressclearly intended this provision tooverride an existing regulation thatsubjected such units to theserequirements only if they received wasteafter January 26, 1983. Consequently, inthe final codification rule, EPA amendedthis regulation by inserting the earlierdate. Section 264.90(a) now appliesmonitoring and corrective actionrequirements to permitted landfills,surface impoundments, waste piles, andland treatment units that received wasteafter July 26, 1982.

Proposed rule. EPA has no means ofimplementing the Part 264 Subpart Fstandards for certain units that receivedwastes after July 26, 1982. This problemis caused by two gaps in the permitrequirements codified at 40 CFR 270.1(c).EPA is proposing today to amend thisprovision to eliminate these gaps.

Section 270.1(c) requires permits forall operating hazardous wastemanagement units. It also requires"post-closure" permits for non-operatingunits, but limits this requirement to units-that closed after January 26, 1983.Because of this effective date, a unit thatclosed between July 26, 1982 andJanuary 26, 1983, might be subject to theSubpart F standards, but would not berequired to obtain an RCRA permit toimplement these standards. As EPAexplained in the preamble to thepermitting regulations, and as-Congressrecognized in the legislative history ofsection 3008(h), EPA designed theSdbpart F requirements for the extensiveinteraction between owners/operatorsand EPA that the permit processprovides (see 47 FR 32336, July 26, 1982;Conference Report, H. Rep. 98-1133, 98thCong., 2d Sess. at 110-111, 1984). Itwould be extremely difficult to applySubpart F without a permit-typemechanism. In fact, EPA chose January26, 1983, as the starting point for thepost-closure permit requirement toparallel the starting date for the SubpartF requirements (47 FR 32336, July 26,

1071510715



Federal Register 1 V61. 51, No. 60 / Friday, Mancdh 28, 11986 / PrQposed Rules

1982). 'EPA :is 'today proposing to -revise.§ 270.1,(c) to incorporate ,the earlierstarting date recently .added to§ 264.90(a). andfills,. surfaceimpoundments, waste piles, and landtreatment units that receive waste afterJuly 26, 1982, willbe'subject to post-closure permits.

This change will once again establishparallel effective dates for'the Subpart Fand permitting irequkrements.

This change to the :earlier date,however, will not completelyaclose theimplementation gap. Section 2701a(c) canbe read.to exclude ifrom post-closurepermit requirements certain units :thatmeet requirements for closure byremoval under the Part 265 interimstatus regulations. Forexample,§ 265,2'28Cb)exempts a surfaceimpoundment from post-closurerequirements f:it can demonstrate thatnone of the materials iremaining (e~g.,standing Liquids, waste and wasteresidues, the liner :[if anyJ, andunderlying and surroundingcontaminated .soil.)are "hazardous,wastes." Amaterialithat'no longermets .the regulatory definition of"hazardous -waste" imay, however, stillcontain hazardous.constituents listed inAppendix VIIIof Par't'261.Consequently, a unit that closes byremoval tundar Part,265 might still'havecontamination'that 'woutld subject it tothe Part .64:Subpart F standards 'forground-water monitoring or correctiveaction if it were issued 'a ,permit. Theowner/operator.of such a unit, however,mightassert that the '§ 270(c)requirement.for,a post-closure permit -

would not ,apply as currenfly written,arguingeither that § 270A,(c) ,can ,beinterpreted as requiring post-closurepermits only for units with formal post-closure care tresponsibilities., (or that§ 270.1{(c)simply does ,nat,apply to a unitthatno longer imanages '.'hazardouswaste."

AS-explained above in the discussionof the first 'regulatory.gap,implementation of Part.264 Subpart Fstandards is extraordinarily difficult atunits not subjectto permit requirements.EPA believes that this potenitial gap inthe applicability of thepermitrequiremerts in ,§ 270.1 c) .is inconsistentwith the plain -language of section3005(i), which requires "any" landfill,surface impoundment, waste pile, orland treatmentunit that 'accepts 'wasteafter July.26, 19B2, 'to meet applicablePart 264 Subpart 'F requirements. It isalso inconsistent with the purpose ofsection 3005(i4 which is -to preventfuture Superfundsites '(H. Rep. '98-198,98th 'Cong.. 1st Sess. at 45, 1983). EPAbelieves that Congress ,intended,'ll

landfills, surface -impoundments, wastepiles, and land treatment units 'thataccepted-wastes 'after July 26, 1982, to-meet .the applicable 'Part 264 'Subpart 'Frequirements, regardless of whetherthey satisfy interim status closure orpost-closure requirements. Accordingly,EPA is proposing to;amend §.270.1(c) toclarify that, for regiflated units, closure

•under interim status :does not -provideany exemption from the requirement to.obtain a permit implementing applicablePart 264'Subpart 'F ground-watermonitoring and :corrective 'actionstandards.

EPA, however, recognizes that not allpermitted units are stibject to'therequirements of Part 264 Subpart F after,completing closure. Specifically, surfaceimpoundments and 'waste 'piles areexempt 'from all post-closurereqirements under §'§ 264.228 'and264.258if the owner-or operator closesby removing or decontaminating allwaste residues, contam'inatedcontainment system ,components (liners,etc.), contaminated subsoils, structures,and equipment contaminated withwaste and leachate. 'Likewise, 'landtreatment units are exempt from Part'264Subpart F'if the owner/operatordemonstrates that no hazardousconstituents have migrated beyond thetreatment zone during the unit's activelife and that there are no hazardousconstituents in the treatment zone abovebackground at the time of closure under§ 264.280(e).

Since section,3005(j) subjects interimstatus-regulated.tuits only to thoseSubpart F standards "'which areapplicable" to new permitted units, and,since Part 264 Subpart F requirementsare not applicable to new permittedunits thatclose under '§§.264.228,264.258, or 264.280(e),:section.3005(i)imposes SubpartF7requirements onlyupon interim-status units that ,fail tosatisfy the requirements of closure byremoval or decontamiliation in§§ 264.228, 264.258, ,or 264.280(e). Byproposing to amend § 270.1(c), EPA willrequire post-closure permits for all suchregulated units as 'the most satisfactorymeans of implementing applicable Part264 standards, including the Subpart Fground-water monitoring and correctiveaction standards at units that closebefore they obtain operating permits (45FR,33198, May 19,1980; 47 FR 32336, July26, 1982).

EPA is currently considering twooptions for determining'whether aninterim status unit has satisfied the Part264 closure by removal standards or,alternatively, will require z post-closurepermit 'implementing 'Part 264 Subpart Fand 'other post-closure requirements.

Under the first, EPA would -requireowners/operators to apply for post-closure permits for all regulated un'its. Inthe permit application, the owners/operators could-present soil and ground-water data. demonstrating 'that they havealready met the applicable closure byremoval standardand are thus exemptfrom the Part 264 ground-watermonitoring and'corrective actionstandards. IThe owner/operator mayhave met the standard when closingunder Part 265 or as a result of anenforcement action; e.g., pursuant tosection 3008(h).]'The RegionalAdministrator would then have thediscretion to-dedline to issue a permit.The other option would consist ofdeveloping a process for submitting and,evaluating information -outside df thepermit process. The owner/operatorwould then 'be able 'to choose 'betweenapplying for.a post-closure permit orsubmitting an ".equivalency"demonstration. EPA is not proposingspecific regulatory language at this timebut solicitscomment on the.general"equivalency" concept and the two:options for implementation.

IV. Regiflatory Analysis

A. Regulatory lmpact Analysis

Executive Orderl2291 requires eachFederal agency to determine if aregulationis a "'major" rle as definedby the order and "to the extentpermitted by law:' to prepare andconsider a Regulatory Impact Analysis.(RIA) 'in connection with every majorrule.'The order further requires tha apreliminary RIA be 'transmitted to theOffice of Management and Budget(OMB) at least 60 days beforepublication of a notice of proposedrulemaking. We have determined thatthis proposal is a major rule. Howeverwe have not prepared a preliminary RIAbecause OMB has agreed to waive therequirement for the proposed rifle. Wewill address the cost impacts andeffectiveness of this rifle when we issueit as a final rule.

Although we did not prepare apreliminary RIA, we have developedsome preliminary estimates for therange of costs that the proposed rulemay impose on hazardous and solidwaste management units of'variouskinds and sizes, and for the total costsof the regulations. We estimatedlowerbound, upperbound, and mostlikely estimates for the provisions in theproposed rifle that impose significantcosts. The costs of the individualprovisions were -then -aggregated todevelop total 'cost testimates. Ourgeneral -approach for estimating the

I11}716 ,



Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 60'/ Friday, March 28; 1986 / Proposed' Rules

costs-is described in the preamble to the.final codification rule. Presented belowis preliminary costs information for theprovisions of the proposed rule thatimpose significant incremental costaover the-final codification rule.

1. Double-Liner System.The proposed rule replaces the

statutory interim design standard in thefinal rule with two performance-based,double-liner systems. The costs reportedhere reflect only one of the options, i.e.,a double-liner system with a syntheticliner on the top and a compositesynthetic/clay liner on the bottom. Thus,the cost of the proposed rule is theincremental cost of installing a"composite" double-liner system ratherthan the statutory interim design. Seethepreamble to the final rule for adescription of the number of facilitessubject to the double-liner requirement.

Landfills. The first-year unit costranges from $12,300 for the smallestlandfills to $396,000 for the largest. On aper-ton basis, the incremental first-yearcost is $19/Mt for the smallest landfillsand just over $2/Mt for the largestlandfills. These cost estimates assumethat the clay for the liner is available on-site. If this were not the case, the costs,would be larger, ranging from 12 to 53percent more than those calculated,depending on facility size.

The first-year cost for all 199 landfills.is $13.7 million; the estimate is the samefor the lower and upper bounds. Theannualized costs are $14.3 million.

Surface Impoundments. Theannualized costs of complying with theproposed liner system instead of theinterim statutory liner vary-from $2,500for the smallest impoundments to justunder $40,000 for the largest. Theannualized incremental cost per ton isless than $1 for all unit sizes.

The total annualized cost of thesurface impoundment provision is $1.5million and is the same for the lowerand upper bounds.

Total Costs. The first-year costs areall from landfills and equal $13.7 millionin both the lowerbound and upperboundestimates. The annualized cost of theprovision is $15.9 million.2. Cleanup Beyond the Facility Boundary

The proposed rule expands therequirement to take corrective actionfrom releases occurring within, toreleases extending beyond the facilityproperty boundary. The costs presentedin this section reflect the incrementalcosts to actually conduct the correctiveaction beyond that required in the finalcodification rule. The costs of meeting afinancial responsibility test for theincremental expenditures that result

from cleaning up larger plumes arepresented in the next section.

We developed estimates of theincremental corrective action costs fortwo populations of waste managementunits: f1 Hazardous waste land disposalunits, and-(2) solid waste managementunits at Subtitle C facilities. The unitcosts of corrective action for bothpopulations are based oncounterpumpingand treatingcontaminated ground water. Weassumed that the mean length of theplumes that are cleaned up is 2000 feetand that the mean distance from thewaste management units to the facilityboundary is 500 feet. Thus, theincremental cost of the proposed rule isbased on cleaning up the additional 1500feet of plume beyond the facilityboundary for the population of facilitiesaffected by the rule.

Hazardous Waste Land-DisposalUnits.. The size of the affectedpopula"tion will depend on the number-ofland disposal units that are leaking. Toaccount for this uncertainty, wedeveloped low, most likely, and highpopulation estimates of the number ofleaking land disposal units at a facility.The lowerbound estimate assumes thatall facilities with land disposal-unitsmust take corrective action beyond theboundary, but that corrective action willnot be required until the end of theoperating life of the units, i.e., in 20years. We further assumed there are noreleases from facilities in arid climatesand that facilities granted AlternativeConcentration Limits (ACL's) under§ 204.94 are exempt from therequirements. We assumed that 10percent of the land disposal facilities arein arid 6limates and that ACL's will begranted to an additional 10 percent ofthe land disposal facilities.

The upperbound estimate assumesthat releases are detected immediatelyat all land disposal units, and correctiveaction beyond the boundary must beginimmediately. The most likely populationestimate is an average of the upper andlower bounds: 90 percent of the facilitieshave releases from land disposal units,which are detected over the next 20years.

The "first"-year lowerbound costs forland disposal units occur in year 20 andhave a present value of $70,000 per unit.The annualized present value of thecosts starting in year 20 is $30,000 perunit. If corrective action beginsimmediately as it does in the upperbounds, the rule imposes a first-yearcost of $127,000 per unit and anannualized cost of $55,000.

Solid Waste Management Units. Theassumptions we used to estimate thenumber of leaking solid waste-

management units for purposes ofdeveloping low, high, and-most likelyestimates of the number of facilities thatmust' take.corrective action aredescribed -in the.preamble to the finalcodification rule. We used the same .assumptions to estimate the cost of theproposed requirement to clean upreleases beyond the facility boundary.

Unlike the unit costs for hazardouswaste land disposal units, the unit costsfor the low, high, and most likelyestimates for solid waste managementunits are the same because under allthree scenarios we assumed correctiveaction must be taken immediately. Thefirst-year cost is $127,000 per uniLt theannualized cost is $55,000.

Total Costs. The incremental first-year costs of cleaning up plumes beyondthe facility boundary for both types ofunits (i.e., hazardous waste disposal andsolid waste management units) rangefrom $155 million to $645 million. Themost likely estimate is $232 million. Thelowerbound'annualized cost is $67million, the upperbound is $280 million,and the most likely is $101 million.

3. Financial Responsibility for CleanupBeyond the Facility Boundary.

The final rule requires facilities toprovide financial assurance forcorrective action for releases within theproperty boundary. The proposed ruleextends the financial assurancerequirement to address the cost ofcleaning up releases that extend beyondthe facility boundary. We used the sameestimates of the numbers of facilitiesaffected by the above corrective actionprovision to derive high, low, and mostlikely estimates of the number of .facilities affected by this requirement.

We assumed firms will use one (or acombination) of three mechanisms todemonstrate financial assurance: A trustfund, letter of credit, or the RCRAfinancial test. The cost of trust fundsand letters of credit are a percentage ofthe amount of financial assurancerequired, plus a fixed fee; a fixed fee isthe only cost of the financial test. Thefixed-fee portion of the cost of financialassurance has been accounted foralready in the cost estimates forfinancial assurance in the final rule,therefore, we are concerned with onlythat portion of the cost of financialassurance that depends upon theamount of assurance required toconduct corrective action beyond thefacility boundary. Te expected cost ofa letter of credit is 0.7 percent of theamount in which the letter is issued. Thecost of a trust fund is expected to be 0.5percent of the trust fund balance, withan upperbound estimate of 1 percent

.10717




and a lowerbound estimate of 0.1percent.

The financial assurancedemonstration required by this proposedrule covers only the additional cost ofextending cleanup beyond the facilityboundary. This cost reflects the cost ofcleaning up an additional 1500 feet ofplume, estimated at $127,000 during thefirst year, plus $28,000 per year over theaverage length of time that pumping isrequired (48 years). The total cost is$1.47 million per unit. The amount offinancial assurance required is theestimate of the cost of corrective actionnot yet performed. Thus, the amount offinancial assurance required is initially$1.47 million; the amount requireddeclines to zero by the end of year 48, atwhich time there is no corrective actionleft to be performed and, thus, nofinancial assurance is required.

Firms that use the trust fund will notnecessarily have a trust fund balanceequal to the required amount offinancial assurance. It is probable thatfirms will have a period ofseveral yearsto pay into the trust fund, at the end ofwhich the trust fund balance must beequal to the cost estimate of correctivehction not yet performed. The mostlikely pay-in period (PIP) is 10 years.The lowerbound trust fund cost estimateis based on a PIP of 20 years; the ,upperbound estimate assumes a Piof 0years (i.e., immediate full funding of thetrust fund).-

The Iowerbound estimate of the costof financial assurance for correctiveaction is based on the assumption that70 percent of the affected firms cansatisfy the financial responsibilityrequirement with a financial test orguarantee, 10 percent with a letter ofcredit, and 20 percent with a trust fund.The per-facility incremental cost of aletter of credit is $147,420, thelowerbound per-facility cost of a trustfuOd is $9,948, and the lowerboundestimate of the number of affectedfacilities is 754. The lowerboundestimate of the incremental cost for allfirms is $6.7 million (discounted at 3%);the annualized cost is $267,000 per year(annualized over 48 years, which is theexpected duration of the correctiveaction).

For the upper bound, we assumed that50 percent use a financial test, 20percent a letter of credit, and 30 percentuse a trust fund. The upperbound per-facility cost of a trust fund is $210,000,and the upperbound estimate of affectedfacilities is 4031. This results in.a totalincremental cost of $368 million(discounted at 3%), and an annualizedcost of $14.6 million (annualized over 48years).

The most likely cost estimate assumesthat 60 percent of the affected firms usea financial test, 15 percent use a letter ofcredit, and 25 percent use a trust fund.The most likely per-facility cost of atrust fund is $74,878, and the most likelynumber of affected firms is 1073. Themost likely estimate of the incrementalcost of financial assurance is $36.9million (discounted at 3%), and theannaulized cost is $1.4 million(annualized over 48 years).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5U.S.C. 601 et seq., at the time an agencypublishes any proposed or final rule inthe Federal Register, it must prepare aRegulatory Flexibility Analysis whichdescribes the impact of the rule on smallbusinesses and organizations, unless theAgency's Administrator certifies that therule will not have a significant economicimpact on a substantial number of small.entities.

The Agency has examined theproposed rule's potential impacts onsmall business and has concluded thatthis regulation will not have asignificant impact on a substantialnumber of small entities.

In a cost analysis of today's proposal,EPA compared costs to its 1982 .implemenation criteria for a RegulatoryFlexibility Analysis. Under the moststringent regulatory scenario, neithercosts nor impacts of the proposed rulemet the criteria for significant impact.

Accordingly, I hereby certify that thisproposed rule will not have a significantimpact on a substantial number of smallentities. Therefore, this proposed ruledoes not require a Regulatory FlexibilityAnalysis.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collectionrequirements in this proposed rule havebeen submitted for approval to OMBunder the Paperwork Reduction Act of1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Comments onthese requirements should be submittedto the Office of Information andRegulatory Affairs; OMB; 726 JacksonPlace, NW.,.Washington, DC 20503marked "Attention: Desk Officer forEPA." The final rule will respond to any.OMB or public comments on theinformation collection requirements.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 144

Administrative practice and procedure,Confidential business information,Hazardous waste, Indian Lands,

Reporting and recordkeepingrequirements, Surety bonds, Watersupply.

40 CFR Part 260

Administrative practice and procedure,Confidential business information,Hazardous waste.

40 CFR Part 264

Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packagingand containers, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Securitymeasures, Surety bonds.

40 CFR Part 265

Hazardous waste, Insurance, Packagingand containers, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements, Securitymeasures, Surety bonds, Watersupply.

40 CFR Part 270

'Administrative practice and procedure,Confidential business information,Hazardous materials transportation,Hazardous waste, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Waterpollution control, Water supply.Dated: March 14, 1985.

Lee M. Thomas,Administrator.

Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFRChapter I be amended as follows:

PART 144-REQUIREMENTS FOR THEUNDERGROUND INJECTIONCONTROL PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for Part 144 isrevised to read as follows:

Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act, asamended (42 U.S.C. 3001f) et seq.); and SolidWaste Disposal Act, as amended by theResource Conservation and Recovery Act of1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.).

2. In § 144.1'by adding the followingnew paragraph (h) to read as follows:

§ 144.1 Purpose and scope of Part 144.

(h) Interim Status Under RCRA forClass I Hazardous Waste InjectionWells. The minimum national standardswhich define acceptable injection ofhazardous waste during the period ofinterim status under RCRA are set out inthe applicable provisions of this Part,Parts 146 and 147, and § 265.430 of this.chapter. The issuance of a UIC permitdoes not automatically terminate RCRAinterim status (although it doesterminate the applicability of Part 265 ofthis chapter to the well; see § 265.1(c)(2)of this chapter). A Class I well's interimstatus does, however, automaticallyterminate upon issuance to that well of aRCRA permit, or upon the well'sreceiving a RCRA permit by rule under§ 270.60(b) of this chapter. Thus, until aClass I well injecting hazardous wastereceives a RCRA permit or RCRA

10718




permit-by-rule, the well's interim statusrequirements are the applicablerequirements imposed -pursuant to thisPart and Parts 146, 147, and 265 of thischapter, including any requirementsimposed in the UIC permit.

3. In § 144.31 by adding a newparagraph (g) to read as follows:.

§ 144.31 Application for a permit;authorization by permit.* . * *t *

(g) Information Requirements forClass I Hazardous Waste InjectionWells Permits. (1) The followinginformation is required for each activeClass I hazardous waste injection wellat a facility seeking a permit:

(i) Dates well was operated.(ii) Specification of all wastes which

have been injected in the well, ifavailable.

(2) The owner or operator of anyfacility containing one or more activehazardous waste injection wells mustsubmit all available informationpertaining to any release of hazardouswaste or constituents from any activehazardous waste injection well at thefacility.

(3) The owner or operator of anyfacility containing one or more activeClass I hazardous waste injection wellsmust conduct such preliminary siteinvestigations as are necessary todetermine whether a release isoccurring, has occurred, or is likely tohave occurred.

4. By adding a new § 144.56 to read asfollows:

§ 144.56 Corrective action for class Ihazardous waste Injection wells.

(a) The owner or operator of a facilityseeking a permit for the injection ofhazardous waste must institutecorrective action as necessary to protecthuman health and the en'vironment forall releases of hazardous waste orconstituents from any active Class Iinjection well at the facility, regardlessof the time at which waste was placedin such well.

(b] Corrective action will be specifiedin the permit. The permit will containschedules of compliance for suchcorrective action, where such correctiveaction cannot be completed prior toissuance of the permit, and assurancesof financial responsibility for completingsuch corrective action.

(c) The owner or operator mustimplement corrective measures beyondthe facility property boundary wherenecessary to protect human health andthe environment, unless the owner oroperator demonstrates to thesatisfaction of the Regional

Administrator that, despite the owner'soroperator's best'efforts, the owner oroperator was unable to obtain thenecessary permission to undertake suchmeasures.

PART 260--AZARDOUS-WASTEMANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL

5. The authority citation for Part 260 isrevised to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006. 2002(a). 3001 through3007. 3010, 3014, 3015. 3017, 3018, 3019, and7004, Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amendedby the Resource Conservation and RecoveryAct of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6921 through 6927, 6930, 6934, 6935,6937, 6938, 6939, and 6974).

PART 264-STANDARDS FOROWNERS AND OPERATORS OFHAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT,STORAGE, AND DISPOSALFACILITIES

6. The authority citation for Part 264continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004. and3005 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905.6912(a), 6924. and 6925).

7. In § 264.100 by redesignatingparagraph (e)[1) and (2) as (e)(3) and (4).by adding new paragraph (e)(1) and (2).and by revising the introductory text ofparagraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 264.100 Corrective action program.

(e) In addition to the otherrequirements of this section, the owneror operator must conduct a correctiveaction program to remove or treat inplace any hazardous constituents under§ 264.93 that exceed concentration limitsunder § 264.94 in ground water

(1) Between the compliance pointunder § 264.95 and the downgradientproperty boundary; and

(2) Beyond the facility boundary,where necessary to protect humanhealth and the environment, unless theowner or operator demonstrates to thesatisfaction of the RegionalAdministrator that, despite the owner'sor operator's best efforts, the owner oroperatory was unable to obtain thenecessary permission to undertake suchaction.

8. In § 264.101 by adding paragraph (c)to read as follows:

§ 264.101 Corrective action for solidwaste management units.'

(c) The owner or operator mustimplement corrective actions beyond thefacility property boundary, where

necessary to protect human health andthe environment, unless the owner oroperator demonstrates to thesatisfaction of the RegionalAdminisfrator that despite the owner'sor-operator's best efforts, the owner oroperator was unable to obtain thehecessary permission to undertake suchactions. Assurances of financialresponsibility for such corrective actionmust be provided.

9. In § 264.221 by revising paragraph(c) to read as follows:

§ 264.221 Design and operatingrequirements.

(c) The owner or operator of each newsurface impoundment, each new surfaceimpoundment unit at an existing facility,each replacement of an existing surfaceimpoundment unit, and each lateralexpansion of a surface impoundmentunit must install two or more liners anda leachate collection system betweensuch liners. The requirements of thisparagraph apply with respect to allwaste received after the issuance of thepermit. The liners and leachatecollection system must protect humanhealth and the environment. At aminimum, the liners and leachatecollection system must meet thefollowing requirements:

(1) The liner system must include:(i) A top liner designed, operated. and

constructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner designed, operated. andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany constituent through ,such linerduring such period. The bottom linermust be constructed of at least a 3-foot-thick layer of compacted clayor othercompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than IX 10 - 7 cm/sec; or

(ii) A top liner designed, operated, andconstructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner consisting of two components. Theupper component of the bottom linermust be designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany hazardous constituent into thiscomponent during the active life andpost-closure care period. The lowercomponent -of the bottom liner must bedesigned, operated, and constructed tominimize the migration of anyhazardous copstituent through the uppercomponent if a breach in the uppercomponent were to occur prior to theend of the post-closure care period. The

10719




lower component must be constructed ofcompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than 1X 10-7 cm/sec.

(2) The liners must be:(i) Constructed of materials that have

appropriate chemical properties andsufficient strength and thickness toprevent failure due to pressure gradients(including static head and externalhydrogeologic forces), physical contactwith the waste or leachate to which theyare exposed, climatic conditions, thes'tress of installation, and the stress ofdaily operation;

(ii) Placed upon materials capable ofproviding support to the liners andresistance to pressure gradients aboveand below the liners to prevent failureof the liners due to settlement,compression, or uplift; and

(iii) Installed to cover all surroundingearth likely to be in contact with thewaste or leachate.

(3] The leachate collection systembetween the liners must be designed,constructed, maintained, and operatedto detect, collect, and remove liquidsthat leak through any area of the topliner during the active life and post-closure care period. The leachatecollection system must be:

(i) Constructed of materials that arechemically resistant to the wastemanaged in the surface impoundmentand the leachate expected to begenerated and of sufficient strength andthickness to prevent collapse under thepressures exerted by overlying wastes,waste cover materials, and by any,equipment used at the surfaceimpoundment; and

(ii) Designed and operated to functionwithout clogging during the active lifeand post-closure care period.

10. In § 264.301 by revising paragraph(c) to read as follows:

§ 264.301 Design and operatingrequirements.

(c) The owner or operator of each newlandfill, each newilandfill unit at anexisting facility, each replacement of anexisting landfill unit, and each lateralexpansion of a landfill unit must installtwo or more liners and a leachatecollection system above and betweensuch liners. The requirements of thisparagraph apply with respect to all.waste received after the issuance of thepermit. The liners and leachatecollection system must protect humanhealth and the environment. At aminimum, the liners and leachatecollection systems must meet thefollowing requirements:

(1) The'liners'must include:

(i) A top liner designed, operated, andconstructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany constituent through such linerduring such period. The bottom linermust be constructed of at least a 3-foot-thick layer of compacted clay or othercompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x 107 cm/sec; or

(ii) A top liner designed, operated, andconstructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner consisting of two components. Theupper component of the bottom linermust be designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany hazardous constituent into thiscomponent during the active life andpost-closure care period. The lowercomponent of the bottom liner must bedesigned, operated, and constructed tominimize the migration of anyhazardous constituent through the uppercomponent if a branch in the uppercomponent were to occur prior to theend of the post-closure care period. Thelower component must be consturcted ofcompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than 1x 107 cm/sec.


appropriate chemical properties andsufficient strength and thickness toprevent failure due to pressure gradients(including static head and externalhydrogeologic forces), physical contactwith the waste or leachate to which theyare exposed, climatic conditions, thestress of installation, and the stress ofdaily operation;

(ii) Placed upon materials capable ofproviding support to the liners andresistance to pressure gradients aboveand below the liners to prevent failureof the liners due to settlement,compression, or uplift; and


(3) The leachate collection systemimmediately above the top liner-must bedesigned, constructed, maintained, andoperated to collect and remove leachatefrom the landfill during the active lifeand post-closure care period. TheRegional Administrator will specifydesign and operating conditions in thepermit to ensure that the leachate depthover the top liner does not exceed 30 cm(1 foot).

(4) The leachate collection systembetween the liners must be designed,constructed maintained, and operatedto detect; collect, and remove liquidsthat may leak through any area of thetop liner during the active life and post-,closure care period.

(5) The leachate collection systemsmust be:(i} ConstrucIted'of materials that are

chemically resistant to the wastemanaged in the landfill and the leachateexpected to be generated and ofsufficient strength and thickness toprevent:collapse under the. pressuresexerted by overlying wastes, wastecover materials, and by any equipmentused at the landfill; and


PART 265-INTERIM STATUSSTANDARDS FOR OWNERS ANDOPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTETREATMENT, STORAGE, ANDDISPOSAL FACILITIES

11. The authority citation for Part 265continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sacs. 1006, 2002(a), 3004, 3005,and 3015, Solid Waste Disposal Act, asamended by the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905,6912(a), 6924, 6925, and 6935).

12. In § 265.221 by revising paragraph(a] to read as follows:

§ 265.221 Design requirements.(a) The owner or operator of each new

surface impoundment, each new surfaceimpoundment unit at an existing facility,each replacement of an existing surfaceimpoundment unit, and each lateralexpansion of a surface impoundmentunit that is within the area identified inthe Part A permit application under§ 270.13 of this chapter must install twoor more liners and a leachate collectionsystem between such liners. Therequirements of this paragraph applywith respect to all waste receivedbeginning May 8, 1985. The liners andleachate collection system must protecthuman health and the environment. At aminimum, the liners and leachatecollection system must meet thefollowing requirements:

(1) The liner system must include:(i) A top liner designed, operated, and

constructed of materials to prevent the:migration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner designed, operated,.andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany constituent through such liner

10720



Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules7

during such period. The bottom linermust be constructed of at least a 3-foot-thick layer of compacted clay or othercompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than1X10- 7 cm/sec: or

(ii) A top liner designed, operated, andconstructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner consisting of two components. Theupper component of the bottom linermust be designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany hazardous constituent into thiscomponent during the active life andpost-closure care period. The lowercomponent of the bottom liner must bedesigned, operated, and constructed tominimize the migration of anyhazardous constituent through the uppercomponent if a breach in the uppercomponent were to occur prior to theend of the post-closure care period. Thelower component must be constructed ofcompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than1 X10-7 cm/sec.

(2) The liners must be:fi) Constructed of materials that have

appropriate chemical properties andsufficient strength and thickness toprevent failure due to pressure gradients(including static head and externalhydrogeologic forces), physical contactwith the waste or leachate to which theyare exposed, climatic conditions, thestress of installation, and the stress ofdaily operation;

(ii) Placed upon materials capable ofproviding support to the liners andresistance to'pressure gradients aboveand below the liners to prevent failureof the liners due to settlement.compression, or uplift; and

(iii) Installed to cover' all surroundingearth likely to be in contact with thewaste or leachate.

(3) The leachate collection systembetween the liners must be designed,constructed, maintained, and operatedto detect, collect, and remove liquidsthat may leak through any area of thetop liner during the active life and post-closure care period. The leachatecollection system must be:

(i) Constructed of materials that arechemically resistant to the wastemanaged in the surface impoundmentand the leachate expected to begenerated and of sufficient strength andthickness to prevent collapse under thepressure exerted by overlying wastes,waste cover materials, and by anyequipment used at the surfaceimpoundment: and

(ii) Designed and operated to functionwithout clogging during the active life

'and post-closure care period.

13. In § 265.301 by revising paragraph(a) to read as follows:

§ 265.301 Design requirements.(a) The owner or operator of each new

landfill, each new landfill unit at anexisting facility, each replacement of anexisting landfill unit, and each lateralexpansion of a landfill unit that is withinthe area identified in the Part A permitapplication must install two or moreliners and a leachate collection systemabove and between such liners. Therequirements of this paragraph applywith respect to waste receivedbeginning May 8, 1985. The liners andleachate collection systems must protecthuman health and the environment. At aminimum, the liners and leachatecollection systems must meet thefollowing requirements:

(1) The liners must include:(i) A top liner designed, operated, and

constructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany constituent through such linerduring such period. The bottom linermust be constructed of at least a 3-foot-thick layer of compacted clay or othercompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than1X10 - 7 cm/sec.; or

(ii) A top liner designed, operated, andconstructed of materials to prevent themigration of any hazardous constituentinto such liner during the active life andpost-closure care period, and a bottomliner consisting of two components. Theupper component of the bottom linermust be designed, operated, andconstructed to prevent the migration ofany hazardous constituent into thiscomponent during the active life andpost-closure care period. The lowercomponent of the bottom liner must bedesigned, operated, and constructed to'minimize the migration of anyhazardous constituent through the uppercomponent if a breach in the uppercomponent were to occur prior to theend of the post-closure care period. Thelower component must be constructed ofcompacted soil material with ahydraulic conductivity of no more than1 10- cm/sec.-


appropriate chemical properties andsufficient strength and thickness toprevent failure due to pressure gradients(including static head and external

hydrogeologic forces), physical contactwith the waste or leachate to which theyare exposed, climatic conditions, thestress of installation, and the stress ofdaily operation;

(ii) Placed upon materials capable ofproviding support to the liners andresistance to pressure gradients aboveand below the liners to prevent failureof the liners due to settlement.compression, or uplift; and


(3) The leachate collection systemimmediately above the top liner must bedesigned, constructed, maintained, andoperated to collect and remove leachatefrom the landfill during the active lifeand post-closure care period. The designand operation of the system must ensurethat the leachate depth over the top linerdoes not exceed 30 cm (1 foot).

(4) The leachate collection systembetween the liners must be designed,constructed, maintained, and operatedto detect, collect, and remove liquidsthat leak through any area of the topliner during the active.life and post-closure care period.

(5) The leachate collection systemsmust be:

(i) Constructed of materials that arechemically resistant to the wastemanaged in the landfill and the leachateexpected to be generated and ofsufficient strength and thickness toprevent collapse under the pressuresexerted by overlying wastes, wastecover materials, and by any equipmentused at the landfill; and


PART 270-EPA-ADMINISTEREDPERMIT PROGRAMS: THEHAZARDOUS WASTE PERMITPROGRAM

14. The authority citation for Part 270is revised to read as follows:

Authority: Sections 1006, 2002, 3004, 3005.3007, 3019, and 7004, Solid Waste DisposalAct, as amended by the ResourceConservation and Recovery Act of 1976, asamended (42 U.S.C' 6905, 6912. 6924, 6925,6927. 6939. and 6974).

15. In § 270.1 by revising theintroductory text of paragraph (c)follows:

§ 270.1 Purpose and scope of theseregulations.

(c) Scope of the RCRA-PermitRequirement. RCRA'requires'a permit

10721



Federal Register / Vol. 5.1, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules

for the "treatment" "storage," or"disposal" of any "hazardous waste" as,defined in, § 270.2.. Owners andoperators of hazardous wastemanagement units must have permitsdu ing the acting, life (including theclosure period) of the unit. Owners oroperators of surface. impoundments,landfills, land treatment units, andwaste pile units that received wastesafter July 26, 1982, must have post-closure permits, as necessary toimplement applicable Part 264-Ground-Water Monitoring, Unsaturated ZoneMonitoring, Corrective Action, and Post-closure Care Requirements of thi'schapter.

16. In § 270.4,, paragraph (a], is revisedto read as follows:

§ 270.4 Effect of a permit.(a) Compliance with a RCRA permit

during its term constitutes compliance,for purpose of enforcement, withSubtitle C of RCRA except for thoserequirements not included in the permitwhich become effective by statute, orthose regulations promulgated underPart 268 of this chdpter restricting theplacement of hazardous wastes in, or onthe land.* * * * *

17. In § 270.10 by adding a newparagraph (k) to read as follows:

§ 270.10 Generatapplicationrequirements.

(k) The Director may require, apermittee or an applicant to submitinformation in order to establish permitconditions under § § 270L32(b){2) and270.50(d) of this chapter.

1.8. In § 270.14, the introductory text ofparagraph (c) is revised and paragraph(d) is added to read, as, follows:

§ 270.14 Contents of Part B:Generalirequirements.* * * * *

(c) Additional informationrequirements. The following additionalinformation regarding protection ofground water is required from owners oroperators of hazardous waste facilitiescontaining a regulated unit except as'provided in § 264.90(b) of this chapter:.

(d) Information requirements for solidwaste management units.

(1) The following information isrequired for each solid wastemanagement unit at a facility seeking apermit:

(i) The location of the unit on thetopographic map required underparagraph (b)[19) of this sectiom

Ci) Designation of type of unit.(iii) General dimensions of the unit..(iv) When the unit was operated..(v) Specification of all wastes that

have been managed at the unit, ifavailable.

(2) The owner or operator of anyfacility containing one or more solidwaste management units must submit allavailable information, pertaining to anyrelease of hazardous wastes orconstituents from such. unit or units..

(3) The owner/operator must conductsampling and analysis of ground water,land surface, and subsurface strata,surface water, or air, which may includethe installation of wells, where theDirector ascertains it is necessary tocomplete a preliminary site investigationthat will determine if a more completeihvestigation is necessary.

19. In § 270.17, paragraph (b)(1), isrevised to read as follows::

§ 270.17 Specific Part B informationrequirements for surface impoundments.* * * * *

(b) ....(1)(i) The liner system (except for an

existing portion of a surfaceimpoundment), if the surfaceimpoundment must meet therequirements of §- 264.221(a) of thischapter. If an exemption from therequirement for a liner is sought asprovided by § 264.221(b) of this chapter,submit detailed plans and engineeringand hydrogeological reports, asappropriate, describing alternate designand operating practices that will, in,conjunction with. location aspects,prevent the migration of any hazardousconstituents into, the ground water orsurface water at any future time;. or

(ii) The liners and leachate collectionsystem, if the surface impoundmentmust meet the requirements of§ 264.221(c) of this chapter. If anexemption from the requirements forliners and, a leachate collection systemis sought as provided by §, 264.221(d) ofthis chapter or § 264.221(e) of thischapter, submit appropriate information.

20. In § 270.21, paragraphs.(b)(1) and(h)! are revised to read as follows:

§ 270.21 Specific Part B Informationrequirements for landfills.(,b), * * *

(1)(i) The liner system and leachatecollection and removal system (exceptfor an existing portion of a landfill), ifthe landfill must meet the requirementsof §, 264.301(a); of this chapter. If anexemption from, the requirements, for aliner and leachate collection andremoval system is sought as provided by§ 264.301kb) of this chapter,, submit

'detailed plans and engineering andhydrogeologic reports,. as appropriate,des cribing alternate design andoperating practices that will, inconjunction with location aspects,revent the migration of hazardous

constituents into the ground water orsurface water at any future time or

(ii) The liners and leachate collectionsystems, if the landfill must meet therequirements of §, 264.301(c) of thischapter. If an exemption from therequirements, for liners and leachatecollection systems is sought as providedby § 264.301(d) of this chapter or§ 264.301(e) of this chapter, submitappropriate information.

(h)(11 If bulk or norcontainerizedliquid waste or waste containing freeliquids is to be. landfilled prior to May 8.1985, an application of how therequirements of § 264.314(a): of thischapter will be met.

(2) If nonhazardous liquid waste is to,be landfilled after November 8, 1985, anexplanation of hoW the requirements. of§ 264.314(e) (1)' and (2) of this chapterwill be met.

21.. In § 270A1, paragraph (aJ(3), i'srevised to read asfollows:

§ 270.41 Major modification or revocationand reissuance of permits.* * * * *

(a) * * *

(3) New statutory requirements orregulations. The standards orregulations on which the permit. wasbased have been changed by statute,through promulgation. of new oramended standards or regulations, or byjudicial decision, after the permit wasissued. Permits may be modified duringtheir terms for this cause as follows:

(i) Director may modify the permitwhen the standards or regulations onwhich the perinit was based have beenchanged by'statute or amendedstandards or regulations.

(ii) Permittee may requestmodification when:

(A) The permit condition to bemodified was based on a promulgatedregulation under Parts 124 of thischapter, 260-268 of this chapter, or 270of this chapter, and

(B) EPA has revised, withdrawn, ormodified that portion of the regulationon which the permit condition. wasbased; or

[C)- A permittee requests modificationin accordance with §r 124.5 of thischapter withir 90 days after FederalRegister notice of the action on whichthe request is based.

10722



Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 60 I Friday, March 28, 1986 / Proposed Rules 10723

(iii) For judicial decisions, a court ofcompetent jurisdiction has remandedand stayed EPA promulgatedregulations if the remand and stayconcern that portion of the regulationson which the permit condition wasbased or if a request is filed by thepermittee in accordance with § 124.5 ofthis chapter within 90 days of judicialremand.

IFR Doc. 86-6753 Filed 3-27--86; 8:45 amlBILLING CODE 6560-50-M



Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed ...

Documents

Transcript of Hazardous Waste Management System; Proposed ...