New rules ban land-based disposal loo0 kg per month of the restricted wastes.
.
Richard M. Dowd
In the Nov. 7, 1986, Federal Register. EPA published the first in a series of regulations implementing restrictions on disposal to land of hazardous wastes. These restrictions were mandated by Congress in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The amendments indicated that unless EPA had promulgated rules by Nov. 8, 1986, a total automatic ban on land disposal of solvent- and dioxincontaining wastes would take effect. Although additional regulations will be promulgated over the next several years for other groups of chemicals, this first set is particularly critical because it defines EPA policies and establishes a Framework for future rule making Land disposal is defined in HSWA to include the placement of wastes in landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, injection wells, land treatment facilities, salt domes or bed formations, underground mines or caves, and concrete vaults or bunkers. Wastes stored or disposed of on land before Nov. 8, 1986, are not covered unless or until they are removed. At press time, the restricted wastes included those containing more than I % solvents. ’hoyear national variances from treatment requirements are provided for all dioxin-containing wastes and for solvent-containing wastes of concentration below 1% . The rules apply to all generators of more than 100 kg per month of hazardous wastes and to RCRA interim-status and permitted hazardous-disposal facilities. A two-year variance also has been granted for those who generate 100-
Technology requirement The new regulations are based solely on technological ability to treat dioxins, solvents, and other affected wastes. After evaluating risk vs. technology a p proaches, EPA has interpreted the statute as mandating treatment of all hazardous wastes to best demonstrated available technology (BDAT) levels before they can be disposed of on land. In effect, the rules represent an agency determination that such methods as incineration, steam stripping, and biological treatment will generally be suficiently “protective of human health and the environment” to satisfy congressional intent. At the heart of the treatability decision-making process is EPA’s new toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). EPA requires the TCLP to be performed on each regulated waste to determine whether treatment is required. The rule establishes maximum allowable concentrations for 36 chemicals that may be contained in extracts. If test results meet TCLP standards, the waste involved is no longer restricted and may be disposed of to RCRA-permitted facilities. If TCLP results exceed standards, the waste must be treated by technology specified in the rule-or by equivalent methodsand the residue must again be subjected to TCLP Some alternatives Some wastes, however, contain higher concentrations of hazardous constituents, and some are in a matrix so complex that it is difficult to treat them. If concentration standards are not met after BDAT treatment, generators can submit variance petitions to EPA. The agency can then issue alternative standards that take effect immediately, or it can grant a national capacity variance, depending on the availability of appropriate treatment technology. During the variance period, these exempted wastes can be placed in RCRA-permitted land disposal facilities.
M)15936W861W210023$01.5~~00 1986 American Chemical Society
Case-by-case time extensions can be granted by EPA for up to two one-year periods if the generator shows, after good faith efforts, that no treatment capacity is reasonably available. The generator also must demonstrate a binding commitment to construct or use effective treatment technology by the end of the extension period. If an extension is granted, the petitioner is allowed to dispose of the waste in an RCRA-permitted facililty. Generators also can attempt to demonstrate by petition that there is “no migration” from any continued land disposal of a restricted waste. This will be a difficult task at best. No formal procedures have been established, and EPA has not yet produced guidelines for such a procedure. The agency is, however, offering preapplication meetings to assist generators in preparing nwnigration petitions. This final rule changes many of the original Jan. 14, 1986, proposals. It establishes treatment requirements that are based solely on technology rather than on risk. It removes the 90-day limit on waste storage, and it eliminates guidelines for petitions, requiring instead direct submission of requests to the EPA administrator. It removes some minimum technology standards, for example, the requirement for double liners in impoundments for existing disposal facilities that accept banned wastes during variance or extension periods. Challenges are already looming in response to some of these changes, although the law specifies that effective dates of contested provisions cannot be delayed. More controversy is on the horizon: Land ban rules for the socalled California List of metal-containing wastes must be promulgated by July 8, 1987. More will appear on this subject in a Future column.
Richard M. Dowd, Ph.D., is president of R. M. Dowd & Company, scientific and environmentalpolicy consulrants in WashinRton, D. C. Environ. Sci. Technol.. Val. 21. NO.1. 1987 73
