High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
Contained-In Policy
MondayNovember 30, 1998
Part III
EnvironmentalProtection Agency
40 CFR Part 280, et al.Hazardous Remediation WasteManagement Requirements .(HWIR-Media);Final Rule
Federal RegisterjVol. 63, No. 229/Monday, November 30, 1998/Rules and Regulations 65877conditions. In contrast, prevention-orlented hazardous waste regulationsare generally Implementedindependently by facility owner/operators through complying withnational regulatory requirements.2. LDRs. MTRs. and Permitting RaiseProblems When Applied to Remediation
Wastes
In the HWIR-media proposed rule,EPA identified the application of threeRCRA requirements to remediationwastes as the biggest problems toaddress; Land Disposal Restrictions(LDRs), Minimum TechnologicalRe+uirements (MTRs, and permitting.he LDRs (which appear in 40 CFRpart 268) generally prohibit landdisposal (or “placement” in land-basedunits) of hazardous wastes until thewastes have met the applicabletreatment standards. Often thisplacement is appropriate and desirablewhen managing remediation wastes toexcavate them from their
current
locations. and temporarily store thewastes before on-site treatment. or toexcavate the wastes and accumulateenough volume to ship off-site costeffectively. By not allowing temporarystorage and accumulation in land-basedunits. the LDRs can be a strongdisincentive to excavating
and
managing remediation waste. Thestaging pile provisions of today’s finalrule address this issue
by
allowingtemporary storage and accumulation ofremediation wastes in a staging pilewithout being sub ect to LDR.Another examp/ e of the problemswith LDRs in the cleanup scenario isthat contaminated media are oftenphysically quite different from as-generated process wastes. Contaminatedsoils often contain complex mixtures ofmultiple contaminants and are highlyvariable in their composition, handling,and treatability characteristics. For thisreason. treating contaminated soils can
be
particularly complex. involving oneor sometimes a series of custoin-designed treatment systems. It can bevery difficult to treat contaminated soilsto the LDR treatment levels, The partsof the HWlR-media proposal thataddressed this issue have been finalizedin the LDR Phase IV rule (63 FR 28556(May 26. 1998)).corrective action programs for potentialThe MTR requirements were designedas preventative standards for wastesgenerated through industrial processes.They were not designed for the remedialcontext. For example, under 40 CFRSubpart F. surface impoundments,waste plies. and land treatment units orlandfills must have specific detection,compliance monitoring programs, andgroundwater contamination from theunit. These are appropriate preventativerequirements for units managing processwastes. However, many cleanup actionsinvolve short-term placement ofremediation wastes into a waste pile,and all of these requirements may not benecessary. The staging piles provisionsof today’s rule address this issue byallowing the Director to determlneappropriate design criteria for thestaging pile
based
on the she-specificcircumstances such as the concentrationof the wastes to be placed In the unitand the length of time the unit willoperate. EPA also explained in thepreamble to the CAMU rule additionalreasons why LDR and MTRrequirements can
be
counterproductivewhen managing remediation waste asopposed to as-generated process wastes.To read about these additional reasons,see 58 FR 8658 (865%8661)(February16, 1993).Finally. another area creatingroadblocks Is permitting. The time-consuming process for obtaining aRCRA permit can delay cleanups,therebv delavina the environmental andpublic-health b&efits of cleaning
up a
contaminated site. For example, thetraditional RCRA permitting processdiconditions must be sufficient to ensurerequires the facility owner/operator tosubmit a great deal of information onactivities at the facility to EPA or theState. and the permit must includeterms and conditions to protect againstany improper waste managementpractices over the long-term active lifeof an operating facility. Because of thelarge volume of information submitted.these permits are huge documents andapproval often takes several years.However. in the remedial scenario,cleanup activities are generally a one-time proJect: once the cleanup Iscompleted and the remediation waste isproperly treated and disposed. then theactivities are completed. Also, theseactivities are limited to addressing thecontamination at the site. and thereforeare often more limlted In scope than theoperating practices of a facility that isengaged in on-golng waste treatment,storage and disposal. To overcome thelimitations discussed above fromtraditional RCRA permits, the newRemedial Action Plans (RAPS)requirements in today’s rule streamlinethe process for receiving a permit fortreating. storing and disposing ofremediation wastes. and require thefacility owner/operator to submitsignificantly less Information than for atraditional RCRA pennit. However, theinformation submitted for a RAPapplication and RAP terms andproper waste management of theremediation wastes Involved during thelife of the cleanup acdvlties.Furthermore. a facility seeking atraditional RCRA permit to manageremediation wastes on-site mustinvestigate and cleanup their entirefacility (facility-wide corrective action).This requirement can deter potentialcleanups from happening at all. Forinstance, facility owners and operatorsmay wish to clean up a small portion oftheir facility for any number of reasons,such as to avoid future liability, to freethe property for sale or other uses, orbecause they simply wish to restore theenvironmental health of their propertyHowever, they may not
be
willing totake on the burden of investigating andcleaning up their entire facility, when itIs only a small portion they wish tovoluntarily clean up,
and they may be
reluctant to conduct the cleanup underthe RCRA corrective action program.Therefore. to encourage cleanups, undertoday’s final rule, facilities that need aRCRA permit only to treat. store, or
dispose
of remediation wastes(remediation-only facilities) are notsubiect to the facility-wide correctiveaction requirement.-B. How Has EPA Tried to Solve TheseProblems in the Past?EPA has tried to solve these problemsIn the past through a series ofregulations and policies: for example:. The “Area of Contamination”(AOC) policy:
l
The “contained-in” policy; and
l
The regulations for CorrectiveAction Management Units (CAMUs).and temporary unitsIAll of these regulations and policieshelp alleviate some of the problemsfacing cleanups. but none havecompletely solved these problems. (Seethe October 1997 report by the UnitedStates General Accounting Office,“Remediation Waste Requirements CanIncrease the Time and Cost ofCleanups.” 2)The AOC policy allows importantflexibility for activities done within acontiguous contaminated area. Forexample, hazardous remediation wastesmay
be
consolidated or treated in situ
Add a Comment