“California List” land distmsal rules
i?; Richard M. Dowd
In December 1986 EPA published the second in a series of proposed regulations banning land-based disposal of untreated hazardous wastes, as mandated by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the 1976 Resource Recoverv and Conservation Act (RCRA). This nrooosal covers liauid hazardous wastes on the California List; so called because it was originally developed by the California Department of Health Services to regulate liquid hazardous wastes disposed of in that state. The list includes liquid wastes that contain polychlorinated biphenyls, cyanides, or any of eight elemental metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel, selenium, and thallium) above certain concentrations, or those that have a pH of less than 2. It also covers a new category: liquid and solid hazardous wastes that contain halogenated organic compounds (HOCs) above certain concentrations. This includes more than 300 compounds already listed as hazardous by RCRA’s Appendix VIII. Much of this proposed rule will have little immediate effect because a previous RCRA-mandated regulation has banned routine land disposal of liquid hazardous wastes. But several important policies are clarified, including the connections among the identification of best demonstrated available technology (BDAT), national variances, and statutory deadlines. The proposal would require that the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP), which EPA uses to decide whether wastes are hazardous, be
..
M)13936W871W210141~1.5010
applied to the entire waste-not just to the liquid portion-to determine whether the waste meets concentration limits in the prohibition. The primary effect is to establish the newly regulated HOC class of liquid and solid wastes for which BDATs will be required prior to disposal. lncineration is proposed for two subclasses of HOC wastes: those liquid or solid wastes with total HOC concentrations greater than 1 % (IO,oo0 ppm) and solid wastes that contain more than loo0 ppm HOC but less than I % total organic carbon. The agency already determined that existing incineration capacity is inadequate. The shortfall came to light when it promulgated solvent disposal rules, which also prescribe incineration as a BDAT As a result, EPA proposes that imposition of the land disposal prohibition for affected HOC wastes be delayed for the maximum allowable twoyear period, until July 1989. No BDAT has been established for a third subclass of HOC-containing wastes-liquids that contain more than loo0 ppm HOC but less than IO,oo0 ppm of total organic carbon. This class of compounds is more difficult to incinerate. Without designating such technology, EPA is accordingly unable to identify the existence or unavailability of BDAT capacity. Therefore, EPA cannot certify that a variance is needed and cannot forestall the Statutory prohibition deadline; the ban on land disposal of these wastes will become effective in July 1987. Public comment requested The agency also has not established BDATs for the California List metaland cyanide-containing wastes, and their disposal on land also is banned as of July. The proposal discusses and requests comment on EPA’s capacity assessments of alternative treatment and available non-BDAT methods for handling these wastes in anticipation of specifying BDATs later. The proposal requests public comment on tightening current restriction levels (that is, banned concentration
1986AmeriCan Chemical Sociehl
levels) for certain metals to the E P (extraction procedure) toxicity levelsconcentration levels above which waste is classified as hazardous. EPA currently relies on the California List levels incorporated in the law. To plug one possible loophole the proposal clearly establishes that reducing hazardous concentrations by dilution is not a means of circumventing Statutory prohibition dates. EPA also is considering whether to prohibit evaporation as a specific treatment for wastes covered by the surface impoundment exemption, although evaporation would not be barred when it is a normal adjunct to treatment. As is already mandated for solvents and dioxins, this proposal prohibits storage of California List wastes except for the purpose of accumulating quantities sufficient for proper recovery, treatment, or disposal. However. EPA has established what it calls a rebuttable presumption, which allows owners and operators of disposal facilities to store banned wastes for longer than one year unless EPA can demonstrate that accumulation is not necessary for disposal. The agency also proposes expansion of exemptions for treatment in surface impoundments-already promulgated for solvents-to include California List wastes. Hazardous residues of compounds would still have to be removed from such impoundments, as would residues of compounds that have not been delisted or exempted through petition granted by the EPA administrator. But liquid residues of compounds that do not exceed the California List levels could qualify for the surface impoundment exemption. The technological and political ramifications of these proposals-already evident, in terms of capacity and sirirg, for incineration-may require a new look at some of the basic assumptions that underline the current land ban framework.
Richard M. Dowd, Ph.D., is president of R. M. Dowd & Company, scientijc and environmentalpolicy consultants in Washington,D. C. Environ. Sci. Technal..Vol. 21. NO. 2.1987
141
