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

46824 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION details about the OSW docket see the Waste in Landfills AGENCY "OSW Docket" section in 3. Minimizing the Presence of Free "SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION." Liquids in Containers Holding 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 271 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Hazardous Waste [FRL-3075-9] For general information and for a copy 4. Biodegradable Absorbents of today's proposed text, contact the 5. Structurally Stable Absorbents Hazardous Waste Management RCRA Hazardous Waste Hotline, Office 6. Development of Liquids Release System; Standards for Owners and of Solid Waste (WH-563), U.S. Test (LRT) Operators of Hazardous Waste Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M 7.Additional Test Results Obtained Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Street SW., Washington, DC 20460, During the Development of the Facilities telephone 800/424-9346 (382-3000 in Liquids Release Test (LRT) Washington, DC). For specific 8. Evaluation of the Liquid Release AGENCY: Environmental Protection information on this amendment, contact Test Agency. Paul Cassidy, Office of Solid Waste 9. Selection of Appropriate Pressure ACTION: Proposed rule. (WH-565), U.S. Environmental for the Liquids Release Test Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., SUMMARY: Under authority of the 10. Relationship of the Paint Filter Washington, DC 20460, (202) 382-4654. Hazardous and Solid Waste Liquids Test to Today's Proposed Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Liquids Release Test Resource Conservation and Recovery OSW Docket 11. Conforming Changes Act (RCRA), EPA is proposing rules to II. State Authority minimize the presence of free liquids in The OSW Docket is located at: EPA 1. Applicability of Rules in Authorized RCRA Docket (Sub-basement), containers holding hazardous waste that 401 M States are disposed in hazardous waste Street SW., Washington, DC 20460. 2. Effect on State Authorizations landfills. The Agency is proposing to The docket is open from 9:30 to 3:30 III. Compliance with Executive Order prohibit the disposal of containers Monday through Friday, except for 12291 holding liquid hazardous wastes and Federal holidays. The public must make IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act free liquids while continuing to exempt an appointment to review docket V. Paperwork Reduction Act certain containers that are specifically materials. Call Mia Zmud at 475-9327 or VI. References Kate Blow at 382-4675 for appointments. designed to hold small quantities of VII. List of Subjects liquid hazardous wastes. Today's The public may copy a maximum of 50 proposed rule would require that if pages of material from any one I. Background hazardous liquids or free liquids in regulatory docket at no cost. Additional 1. PreviousRegulations containers are solidified by the use of an copies cost $.20/page. absorbent, the absorbent material must Copies of the following documents are On May 19, 1980, EPA promulgated not be biodegradable and the available for viewing only in the OSW regulations that established most of the absorbent/waste mixture must not docket room: basic elements of the hazardous waste release liquids when compressed under 1. "Sorbent Pressure Test management program required by pressures experienced in landfills. EPA Development", Report prepared by Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation is also proposing a test protocol in order Research Triangle Institute. and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, to determine whether 2. "Liquid Release Test for Liquid 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq. See 45 FR 33066 et a waste seq. (May 19, 1980). Part 265 of those containing hazardous liquids or free Loaded Sorbents-Single Laboratory liquids when solidified by the use of a Evaluation of Test Equipment", regulations sets forth interim status non-biodegradable absorbent, would Research Triangle Institute, April 1986. standards that apply to owners and release the free liquids under pressures 3. "Structurally Stable Absorbents", operators of existing hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal experienced in landfills. These rules do Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason, Co., not apply to owners and operators of August 1986. facilities pending their receipt of a landfills in which only polychlorinated 4. "Development of Criteria to permit that establishes more detailed biphenyl (PCB) chemical waste Distinguish Acceptable Absorbents for requirements under the standards of regulated under 40 CFR Part 761 are Containerized Hazardous Liquids", K.W. Part 264. With certain limited disposed. However, PCBs mixed with a Brown, March 1986. exceptions, § 265.314(b), as originally RCRA hazardous waste must comply 5. "List of Commonly Available promulgated, would have forbidden the with all requirements under both RCRA Absorbents", GCA Corporation, May placement in a landfill of a container and the Toxic Substances Control Act 1985. holding liquid hazardous wastes or free 6. liquids after November 19, 1981. (TSCA) (40 CFR Part 761). In cases Letter and Report to Paul Cassidy where applicable requirements of the from Chemical Waste Management, On February 25, 1982, EPA proposed two statutes differ, the most stringent February 1986. (1) alternative methods of restricting requirements apply. 7. "A Review of Biodegradability containerized liquid wastes in landfills, Testing of Absorbents", SCS Engineers, and (2) a paint filter test that was DATES: Comment date: Comments on January 1986. intended to be used to determine the these proposed amendments will be 8. Letter to Paul Cassidy from Janic F. presence of free liquids in containers. accepted until February 23, 1987. Artiola, K.W. Brown & Associates, See 47 FR 8307 et seq. (February 25, ADDRESS: The public must send an November 12, 1985. 1982). One method of restricting wastes, original and two copies of its comments the so-called 25 percent by volume to: EPA RCRA Docket (S-212) (WH- Preamble Outline method, would have restricted the 562), 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC I. Background allowable volumetric fraction of the 20460.2 1. Previous Regulations total volume of the landfill that could Place the docket #F-86-CLIP FFFFF 2. Minimizing the Disposal of have been used for disposal of on your comments. For additional Containerized Liquid Hazardous containers holding free liquids In the

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46824 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 /.Proposed Rules 46825

other method, EPA proposed that each 2. Al'iniinizing The Disposal Of pressure. See 40 CFR 260.10. "Free- container be limited to a prescribed ContainerizedLiquid Hazardous Waste standing liquids" are those that form a maximum percentage of liquid In Landfills distinct layer above the solid layer in hazardous waste. The Agency also The recent Amendments to RCRA the container, usually during extended the date by 90 days for (HSWA) require that the Administrator transportation. Free-standing liquids are compliance with § 265.314(b) to allow of EPA promulgate final regulations that a subset of free liquids. time for consideration of this new minimize the disposal of containerized In today's rule, the Agency is approach. liquid hazardous wastes in landfills. The proposing to eliminate the exemption On March 11, 1982, in response to two legislative history to section 3004(c)(2) regarding free-standing liquids in petitions for reconsideration of this shows that when Congress developed § 264.314(d)(1) and § 265.314(c)(1) in extension, EPA held a public hearing to this amendment, they gave serious order to minimize the disposal of consider whether some interim control consideration to prohibiting outright the containerized liquid hazardous waste. might be advisable pending full disposal of all containers of liquid (See Section 3 of this preamble for resolution of the issues concerning hazardous wastes into any landfill. further details.) Thus, today's proposal containerized liquids. On March 22, However, the legislative history suggests will prohibit the landfilling of certain 1982, EPA imposed interim restrictions that Congress intended to allow EPA to free liquids that have been disposed in on the disposal of containerized liquid provide an exemption from the ban for landfills in the past. The Agency will wastes in landfills pending full the disposal of very small quantities of allow containerized liquids to be treated rulemaking on the issue. See 47 FR 12316 liquid wastes, particularly for the (i.e., converted to a solid) by the use of disposal et seq. (March 22, 1982). Under these of lab packs specifically non-biodegradable absorbents under desinged for very small quantities of interim rules (§ 265.314(b)) (redesignated specific conditions. The Agency will laboratory wastes. The use of the term regulate the disposal of liquids to ensure as § 265.314(c) in the current "minimize" in section 3004(c)(2)(A) regulations), no container that they are treated in such a manner holding free- reflects this intent. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. standing liquids could be placed in a as to prevent the future release of the 284, 98th Congress, 19t Session 22 (1983); liquids due to landfill pressures. landfill. 129 Cong. Rec. H8141 (daily ed. Oct. 6, On July 26, 1982, EPA issued Part 264 In today's proposal, the Agency will 1983) (statement of Rep. Breaux). continue to allow exemptions for only standards for use in issuing final permits The Agency construes the provision to the containers discussed below: Lab for facilities that treat, store, or dispose mean that free liquids will be prohibited packs, ampules, batteries, and of hazardous wastes. See 47 FR 32274 et from being placed in a landfill, except if capacitors. These exemptions are seq. (July 26, 1982). These standards are the free liquids meet certain exemptions currently codified in § 264.314(d)(2), (3), applicable to owners and operators of or are properly treated (solidified). It is and (4), and § 265.314(c)(2), (31, and (41. new and evident that the amendment language existing hazardous waste land In restricting the exemptions to only allows hazardous liquids to be absorbed treatment, storage, and disposal these containers, the Agency is indeed under specific conditions in a container facilities. EPA also amended minimizing the disposal of containerized and then placed in a landfill. The § 264.314(b) (redesignated as liquid hazardous wastes in landfills language states that the disposal of § 264.314(d) in the current regulations) since most hazardous liquids are containerized by restricting the disposal of liquid hazardous waste in disposed of in 55-gallon drums rather landfills is to be minimized. One way to containerized liquids in a manner than in these containers. minimize the disposal of containers identical to the interim status standards Congress mandated that the Agency promulgated on March 22, 1982. holding hazardous liquids or free liquids is to effectively minimize rather than eliminate disposal On April 30, 1985, EPA issued a final treat the hazardous liquids (i.e., convert them to solids). of containerized liquids; therefore, the rule requiring that the Paint Filter Once converted to solids, the Agency is not prohibiting all liquids Liquids Test be used to determine the amendment does not permit the disposal from being placed in a landfill. presence of free liquids in either a bulk of the nonliquid waste in a landfill. Containers that are specifically or a containerized waste. The Currently §§ 264.314(d) and designed to hold small quantities of requirement was added in § § 264.314(c) § 265.314(c) prohibit the placement of liquid hazardous waste (i.e., lab packs, and 265.314(d). See 50 FR 18370 (April containers holding free liquids in a ampules, batteries, and capacitors) will 30, 1985). landfill unless certain exemptions are continue to be allowed as the only On November 8, 1984, the Hazardous met. The current regulations allow exemptions to the prohibition of landfill and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) exemptions to the above liquids disposal of containers holding liquid to RCRA were signed into law. Section requirements as follows: (1) All free- hazardous wastes. The intent behind 3004(c)(2) of the HSWA requires the standing liquid has been removed by these exemptions is not only to uphold Agency to "promulgate final regulations decanting or other methods, has been the general restriction on the disposal in which minimize the disposal of mixed with an absorbent or solidified so landfills of containers holding liquid containerized liquid hazardous waste in that free-standing liquid is no longer hazardous wastes, but also to allow the landfills, and minimize the presence of observed, or has been otherwise disposal of specific containers, such as lab packs that are carefully designed free liquids in containerized hazardous eliminated; (2) the container is very, waste to be disposed of in landfills." small, such as an ampule; (3) the and prepared for relatively safe The statute also directs EPA to ensure container is designed to hold free liquids management of such liquids, and for use other than storage, ampules, batteries, and capacitors that that these regulations specifically such as a contain a small quantity of free liquids. prohibit the disposal in landfills of battery or capacitor: or (4) the container is a lab pack and is disposed of These types of containers, owing to their liquids that have been absorbed in accordingly. size and their packaging requirements, materials that biodegrade or that release "Free liquids" are liquids that readily will not contain large amounts of liquids liquids when compressed as might occur separate from the solid portion of a and thus can be landfilled without during routine landfill operations. waste under ambient temperature and needing to eliminate the liquids.

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46825 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

46826 Federal Register / Vol. 51,'No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules

Lab packs (discussed in §§ 264.316 The prohibition on landfilling The intent of Congress in requiring the and 265.316) are most commonly used containerized liquid hazardous waste Agency to minimize the presence of free by laboratories that produce small applies to 55-gallon drums and other liquids in containers is to reduce the risk amounts of many:different wastes. similar containers, but does not apply to of cover subsidence and groundwater These wastes are commonly collected in devices that function as containers for contamination due to the collapse of small containers that range in size from hazardous materials during their useful metal drums from decay and subsequent an ampule to 5-gallon pails. The small lives, such as batteries or capacitors, or release of liquids. If the drums collapse containers must be a design and to very small containers, such as or leak after the post-closure period, constructed of a material that will not ampules. These types of containers are significant, uncontrolled releases and react dangerously with, be decomposed not likely to contribute substantial subsidence of the cover could occur at a by, or be ignited by the waste contained volumes of liquid to most landfills, and time when the leachate collection and the'rein. (See §§ 264.316(a) and the difficulty of opening and emptying removal system (if present) is no longer 265.316(a).) The small containers are them appears to outweigh the small operated, the ground water may no usually placed within a 55-gallon drum benefit gained by such action. longer be routinely monitored, and the (the regulations require the outer For the reasons discussed above, the final cover is no longer maintained. The container to be no more than 110-gallon Agency believes that the continued presence of liquids can dramatically capacity) and surrounded by a sufficient exemption for lab packs, ampules, affect the integrity of the landfill as well amount of compatible absorbent batteries, and capacitors results in a as increae the mobility of wastes material before the drum is placed in a minimization of the disposal of leaving the landfill. Furthermore, landfill. Containers holding containerized liquid hazardous wastes hazardous liquids can cause liner failure in landfills. Based on this relief, the incompatible wastes are prohibited from by contributing hydraulic pressure on Agency is continuing to allow an placement in the same drum (lab the liner as well as weakening the liner pack) exemption for these of types of containers. through chemical'interactions. After a in case possible ruptures. The Agency is requesting comments Furthermore, reactive wastes other than liner is breachdd the liquid hazardous on two issues concerning the disposal of wastes can present a serious threat to cyanide- or sulfide-bearing wastes are batteries and lab packs. The Agency is prohibited from disposal inlab packs' groundwater resources below the aware that lead acid batteries can be landfill because they react with other unless the waste is rendered non- disposed of in hazardous waste reactive prior to packaging. See wastes iti:the landfill and enhance the landfills; however, a large percentage of mobility'of hazardous wastes leaving §§ 264.316 and 265.316. The American lead acid batteries are being reclaimed. Chemical Society reported that the the landfill. Congress was very clear The Agency is concerned that disposal both in its desire to minimize the average lab pack contains 3 gallons of of lead acid batteries, without proper hazardous liquid with a maximum of 15 presence of free liquids in containerized drainage, could cause problems in the wastes and in its rationale for its gallons. Approximately 100,000 lab landfill environment, namely, the concern regarding such disposal. packs are used each year in the U.S. release of the lead into the environment. The current regulations (§§ 264.314(d) with a cost to the user of $200 to $350 The Agency has not in today's proposal and 265.314(c)), promulgated prior to the per pack to dispose. required that batteries be drained prior HSWA and in effect until today's The disposal of lab packs in landfills to landfill disposal because we feel that proposal becomes final, allow will therefore continue to be allowed batteries only contain small quantities containers holding free liquid to be because the Agency believes that such of hazardous wastes. The Agency, placed in a landfill if all "free-standing disposal is safe because of the small however, specifically seeks comments liquid" is removed, mixed with an quantities of waste involved. However, on whether the current regulations absorbent, or solidified so that free- the final Land Disposal Restrictions rule should require the proper drainage of standing liquid is no longer observed or published on November 7, 1986, does not batteries prior to landfill disposal or is otherwise eliminated. exclude from the land disposal remain unchanged (i.e., not require Prior to the HSWA, the Agency was restrictions lab packs if they contain drainage.). between the solvents designated as F001-F005 or The second issue concerns the aware of an inconsistency disposal requirements for containerized other restricted wastes. See 51FR 40584 disposal of lab packs. The Agency has liquids and for bulk liquids. The March (November 7, 1986). not proposed any rule changes to the lab 22, 1982, interim control measure for The concept of lab packs was pack requirements today. However, today's container created an inconsistency in "developed for the disposal of small proposal prohibits use of biodegradable the Agency's regulations that carried containers of laboratory wastes. The, absorbents for all other non-exempt over into the July 26, 1982, regulations. disposal of a lab pack is a costly containers. The Agency is requesting comments on whether or not The inconsistency was that for bulk (or alternative for a generator that has a the elimination of biodegradable non-containerized) liquids, the disposal large quantity of liquid wastes to be absorbents should apply to lab packs of "free liquids" in a landfill was disposed. Since the cost of lab pack also, or whether biodegradable prohibited (with certain exemptions), disposal is high, it is not economical for absorbents should still be allowed to be whereas for containerized liquids, the large volumes of liquid wastes to be lab used in lab packs, since lab packs disposal of "free-standing liquids" was packed. Lab packs are generally used contain an average of only three gallons prohibited. This inconsistency allowed for small amounts of wastes generated of hazardous liquids. owners or operators who landfilled by chemistry or hospital laboratories or containers to treat the liquids in the other small quantity generators, who 3. Minimizing The Presence Of Free containers to an endpoint (i.e., removing wish to employ environmentally safe Liquids In Containers Holding "free-standing liquids" rather than free disposal methods. Incineration costs for Hazardous Waste liquids) that was less stringent than that bulk liquids range from $0.30 to $4.20 per Section 3004(c)(2)(B) requires that the for bulk liquids. gallon whereas the average cost of lab Agency minimize the presence of free Because of Congress' concern over pack disposal ranges from $67 to $117 liquids in containerized hazardous free liquids in landfills, the Agency is per gallon. wastes to be disposed of in landfills. proposing new requirements that would

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46826 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. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules 46827 regulate the disposal of "free liquids" as counterproductive because the effects of Any biologically synthesized carbon- opposed to "free-standing liquids." gravity or of flushing actions within the based (organic) sorbents such as wood Today's proposal will require that (with landfill would eventually transport fiber, corn cobs, and cellulose are the exception of ampules; batteries, constituents that have been released by considered biodegradable. Man-made capacitors, and lab packs) all the biodegraded absorbent. See, e.g., 130 organic sorbents are considered containerized free liquids be solidified Cong. Rec. S9177 (July 25, 1984) (section- biodegradable given sufficient time. On by a non-biodegradable absorbent prior by-section analysis, of Chafee the other hand, sorbents derived from to being placed in a landfill. The waste/ amendment). secondary minerals, such clays and absorbent mixture must not release The current regulations for the zeolites, of which most common liquids as determined by the Liquids disposal of containerized liquids do not aggregate sorbents are composed, have Release Test (LRT) (Method 9096). The prohibit the use of biodegradable silicon-aluminum structures with no Agency believes that the proposed absorbents. Agency policy, however, carbon present, and would therefore be change regulating free liquids will has been to promote the use of non- considered inorganic and thus non- accommodate Congress' concern about biodegradable absorbents as a good biodegradable. the disposal of free liquids. management practice for the reasons In order to calculate the organic Today's proposal does not impose any stated above. carbon present in an absorbent, the requirements on the number of The Agency is today proposing to Agency recommends that the regulated containers that must be opened and allow containerized liquids to be community use the modified Mebius tested for the presence of free liquids. solidified by only non-biodegradable procedure (Page. A.L., ed., 1982. Curently, containers are being inspected absorbents. Under today's proposal, a Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2. for the presence of "free-standing material is defined as biodegradable if Chemical and Microbial Properties, liquids" in accordance with a facility's its total organic carbon content is Second edition. Number 9 (Part 2). written waste analysis plan (see greater than one (1) percent. A-material American Society of Agronomy, Inc., § §264.13(b) and 265.13(bf)) Those that has a total organic carbon content Madison). This procedure is a standard containers that were previously greater than one percent will be soil test using an acid dichromate inspected for free-standing liquids will prohibited from being used as a digestion of the sorbent material now be tested for the presence of free solidification material liquids. The number of containers that for containerized followed by a titration to determine the must be opened and inspected for the hazardous liquids. amount of organic carbon oxidized. presence of free liquids will depend At present, the Agency is proposing Owners/operators should obtain the upon the specific language in the the use of total organic carbon as a absorbent they plan to use from the facility's general waste analysis plan. criteria to distinguish between manufacturer and perform the test to see In order to check for the presence or biodegradable versus non- if the particular absorbent is non- absence of free liquids (in cases that do biodegradable materials. Carbon is an biodegradable, i.e., contains less than not require the use of LRT), the Paint element that forms organic compounds one percent total organic carbon. In lieu Filter Liquids Test (Method 9095), as in combination with hydrogen and of performing this test, the owner/ promulgated on April 30, 1985, must be oxygen. If an absorbent material has operator can obtain the necessary used (see Section 10]. The Paint Filter carbon present in its elemental testing data directly from the Liquids Test is the appropriate test to composition, it will then be susceptible manufacturer. Testing for organic use in meeting the Congressional intent to breakdown or biodegradation. The carbon need be done only once. A new to minimize the presence of free liquids Agency proposes using a limit of one test will be required only if there is a because that test was specifically percent (1%) or more total organic change in the manufacturing process promulgated in order to determine the carbon content as the criteria to that will affect carbon content. EPA presence or absence of free liquids in determine whether a material is specifically requests comments on the either a containerized or a bulk biodegradable. If the total organic total organic carbon approach, and on- hazardous liquid waste. carbon content is less than one percent, the appropriate test for total organic the Agency considers the absorbent to carbon. EPA also requests comments on 4. BiodegradableAbsorbents be inorganic and thus non- the procedure for obtaining proof that Section 3004(c)(2) of RCRA provides biodegradable. the absorbent is non-biodegradable (i.e.. that the final regulations concerning The threshold of one percent total whether the owner/operator or containerized hazardous liquids shall organic carbon was based upon the best manufacturer provides the testing data) prohibit the disposal in landfills of scientific judgment of several experts in and whether it matters who supplies the liquids that have been absorbed in the field of soil chemistry. Obviously, a testing data. materials that biodegrade. material containing no organic carbon The Agency is also requesting Congress has prohibited the disposal would be considered inorganic and comments on how organic polymers and of liquids that have been absorbed in therefore nonbiodegradable. The pozzolanic materials should be treated materials that biodegrade because when allowance for up to one percent of total in regard to the criteria for they biodegrade, they collapse and organic carbon allows for the realities of biodegradation. The Agency's proposed release free liquids, creating the very commercial production of absorbents. It criteria for biodegradation would situation that Congress is attempting to is likely that small amounts of organic eliminate from use as absorbents any avoid. Congress mandated that the contamination may occur in the • organic polymers or pozzolanic material Agency promulgate regulations,. production of absorbents. Likewise, that are now used or are under minimizing the presence of liquids in some manufacturers may purposely add consideration for use if their TOC is landfills in order to reduce the potential very small quantities of organic greater than one percent. Polymers migration and leaching of hazardous materials as additives in order that their would be eliminated due to their high constituents and the potential for products may be packed or otherwise total organic carbon content. However, subsidence. The use of biodegradable handled more easily. These additives some polymers may not release the absorbents in the attempt to minimize or are not related to the materials' absorbed liquid waste even under eliminate liquids before landfillingis absorbent properties. pressure. Pozzolanic materials such as

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46827 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

46828 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules fly. ash may have a TOC greater than biodegrade. EPA construes this language known as the Liquids Release Test one percent. The amount of carbon to mean that Congress was concerned (LRT), which EPA is proposing for use in remaining in the ash is likely a function with materials that biodegrade in a the evaluation of liquid/sorbent of the efficiency of the combustion hazardous waste landfill environment. mixtures for potential liquid release. process. Therefore, the Agency is willing Unfortunately, the concept of This test is set forth in Appendix A to to accept comments on how organic biodegradability is complex when this regulation. EPA is also proposing polymers and pozzolanic materials related to the disposal of containerized incorporation of this test into its Solid should be included in the Agency's liquids that have been solidified by the Waste Testing Manual (SW -846) as approach (i.e., using TOC as an use of an absorbent material. No Method 9096. The text of the test is indicator of biodegradation). If standard test exists for determining available from EPA through the RCRA commenters believe that organic whether an absorbent material is Hotline at 800/424-9346, (382-3000 in polymers and pozzolanic materials biodegradable. The number of absorbent Washington, DC). should be allowed to be used, even if the materials that are used, and those that The LRT has been evaluated in a TOC is greater than one percent, can the are being developed, to solidify liquid single laboratory evaluation of Agency be certain that these materials wastes is large, and determining rates of ruggedness and precision, and is will not release liquids under pressure? biodegradation for these absorbents currently being evaluated in a multi- Should today's proposed Liquids would be extremely complex since there laboratory collaborative study. A Release Test be used? Should the is no standard test. Another issue discussion regarding the LRT's Agency allow materials (organic affecting biodegradation rates is the development and evaluation appears polymers and pozzolanic materials) with environment in which an absorbent below. a TOC greater than one percent to be material is tested. The rate of used without evaluating the material's biodegradation under anaerobic 6. Development of Liquids Release Test resistance to biodegradation? If the conditions may be different from the (LR T) Agency were to evaluate a materials rate under aerobic conditions. EPA began its development of the LRT resistance to biodegradation, what test Therefore, the Agency believes that a with a number of general objectives. It method and what period of time (years) uniform rate of biodegradation would be was determined that the test should be should be used? difficult to set. The Agency, however, qualitative (pass or fail), sensitive to Another issue that the Agency is specifically solicits comments on liquid release, easily adapted to requesting comments on is the use of whether the Agency should use a indicating release of liquids over a range -absorbent pillows. The Agency is biodegradation rate as a method of of pressures, reproducible, easily interested in gaining knowledge determining when an absorbent should conducted in the field, and relatively concerning when and how often be considered biodegradable. quick and easy to run. absorbent pillows are used. The Agency In order to meet these objectives, EPA also specifically requests comments on 5. StructurallyStable Absorbents how absorbent pillows can be tested Section 3004(c)(2) further states that began investigating two different types using the Liquid Release Test. Can a the final regulations shall prohibit the of tests that could be used to detect representative sample be obtained from disposal in landfills of liquids that have liquid release under pressure (Ref. 1). an absorbent pillow, or does another been absorbed in materials that release These were a centrifugation test and a pressure test need to be specified in liquids when compressed as might occur confined compression test. The order to test absorbent pillows? Would during routine landfill operations. centrifugation test uses centrifugal absorbent pillows (i.e., their contents) In order to implement this provision, action to apply compressive forces on be considered biodegradable by today's EPA is today proposing that the waste samples of the liquid/sorbent mixture. proposal? Are absorbent pillows used absorbent mixture must not release Specially designed centrifugation tubes only to clean up spills that must be liquids as determined by the Liquid were used to physically separate the absorbed quickly? Release Test. The Agency had sample from any liquids that may be A biodegradable material is a considered another option when forced out of the sample due to the material that is capable of being implementing the section 3004(c)(2) applied compressive forces. This was decomposed by microorganisms (i.e., mandate. That option was to develop a necessary, as using common natural biological processes). The rate of test to determine whether certain centrifugation tubes would allow re- biodegradation (i.e., over what time absorbents alone (i.e., as a pure product) absorption of any released liquid phase should a material be evaluated in order were to be considered "structurally back into the sorbent (Ref. 1). to determine whether it is non- stable." For the liquids in landfills issue, Centrifugation was initially biodegradable or biodegradable) is not a structurally stable material is one that investigated as a quick prescreen to taken into account for the reasons does not release liquids when perhaps a more elaborate test. Such a discussed below. compressed. Since most materials test could be conducted in minutes, was Virtually all organic materials will be (absorbents) are in a dry state before fairly simple, could accommodate a degraded sooner or later by the action of they are used, testing a dry material wide range in pressures, and had the biological environment, since (1) before it has been used in the field does several other distinct advantages. For organic materials contain one or more not necessarily provide information example, almost all facilities that have components that can be utilized as a about whether these materials will laboratories also have a centrifuge. food source by organisms, (2) organic release liquids in a hazardous waste However, centrifugation also suffers materials will be affected by the landfill when compressed. from a number of overwhelming chemical actions of organisms, and (3) EPA therefore developed a test disadvantages. most earth environments are mild procedure that could be used in For example, centrifugation is enough to support some biological determining if liquids could be released severely limited by the relatively small activity. from liquid/sorbent mixtures when sample size that can be accommodated The statutory language requires that subjected to compressive forces as in most readily available (and EPA prohibit the disposal of liquids that experienced in landfills. This effort has reasonably affordable) centrifuges. This have been absorbed in materials that resulted in the development of a test, can. contribute to variability, primarily

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46828 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December' 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules 4 829 because of the difficulty in obtaining be expected to just begin to release was modified slightly for use in 'the LRT representative samples.1 Variability can liquid. This was necessary asit is likely.;' and appears in Figure 1. also be cauged by the great variety in' that most of the testing conducted in -- The top and bottom of the unii were centrifuges that are commercially" : • response to today's proposed regulation constructed of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) available. In addition,.centrifugation would be at or near. this. critical point. - while 'the cylinder and piston were suffers other problems. For example, Generators and owner/operators of TSD made of transpa rent cast acrylic. A 'when evaluating dark liquids such as facilities, for obvious economic reasons, ceramic filter stone was used to ,oils, it may not always be possible to would wish to load sorbent materials distribute pressure evenly over'the see a distinct liquid phase in the with the maximum amount of liquid, and surface of the sample. While EPA centrifuge tube. Finally; field application the majority of their testing would likely recognized that the final equipment used of centrifugation would be difficult. be focused on determining the maximum for'the LRT mustbe chemically These factors led EPA to reject, allowable loading. resistant, this device served as an centrifugation and to develop a confined The majority of the initial testing was inexpensive means of investigating and compression type test. After a review of conducted at a pressure of 15 to 45 psi c6nsolidometer-type apparatus. available equipment and test (Ref. 1). Because of resource constraints, The apparatus employs two methodologies for potential application, evaluation of the test (i.e., single perforated TEFLONV disks to physically itwas detei'mined that fabrication of laboratory precision and ruggedness) separate the samplefrom absorptive test equipment'would be required,(Ref. was conducted-at a pressure of 45.psi filter papers, which areused to detect (Ref. 2). The value of 45 .psi was chosen liquid release. The TEFLON ® disks serve Laboratory testing; including both - because EPA believes it to be typical of to prevent the filter paper from' development and subsequent evaluation most landfill pressures. The pressure to collecting liquid by capillary suction. of the test, focused.on IWO typical which landfilled sorbent materials may Pressu're is applied. to the sample from a sorbent-materials, Fuller's Earth and be subjected depends on a number of Floor Dry, and two liquids, 0.01,N factors, including the depth of the vertical load piston, which is driven by a hydraulic press. aqueous calcium sulfate and a 5 percent facility, the nature and depth of the acetone/water'solution. The sorbent cover material, and the type of Consolidation of the sample is materials were selected to.provide a equipment used during landfilling measured at 15-second intervals for the range in sorbent characteristics used operations. The Liquid Release Test was first minute of the test, and at one commercially. The calciumsulfate designed to be applied over a range of minute intervals thereafter. The pressure solution was selected because it is pressures. In other words, the test was is continued until equilibrium conditions Widely relied on by researchers and developed independent from the manner are achieved. Equilibrium was defined practitioners as a standard liquid for in which the standard test pressure was as a consolidation rate of less than 0.001 investigation of landfill liner determined, and would be appropriate cm per minute. This equilibrium was permeability. When mixed with sorbent for any reasonable pressure chosen for achieved for all samples within 10 materials, this solution can serve as a the test. minutes from initial application Of the benchmark against which other liquids The concept of a confined pressure. Selected long-term (i.e., > 10 can be compared. The acetone solution compression test involves subjecting minutes) tests were also run to confirm was selected as a representative solvent' materials in a confined (rigid wall)- that consolidation had reached a steady solution found at hazardous waste ' apparatus; to a compressive force and value within ten minutes. Following landfills (Ref. 1). Additional sorbents examining various effects on the termination of the pressure, the test and liquids (including oils) were also material. Several types of equipment, units are dismantled and the filter. investigated (Ref. 2).... EXT. 023 (PART involving the same general design, but papers. are examined.for the presence of 2, PROPOSED RULES)...A24DE2 different means of pressure application liquid (Ref. 1). 62640, Mealey 12-22-86 J. 94- were examined. The first device Typical results, in terms of the liquid 999 F. 1079-1082 -A24DE2.023 examined, known as a conisolidometer, loading (weight to weight percent)- Testing of these sorbent/liquid was designed and used at Duke which produces liquid on the filter paper combinations centered around the liquid University for measuring the at two pressures are indicated in Table' loading (weight/weight percent liquid), permeability of soils under various I (Ref. 1). at which a liquid-loaded sorbent might degrees of consolidation. This device BILLING CODE 6560-60-M

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46829 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

46830 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24. 1986 / Proposed Rules

Figure 1: modified Consolidometer

VERTICAL LOAD PISTON

THREADED RD & PVC-TOP WING NUT

:"...... ______1.

TRANSPARENT ACRYLIC TUBE CERAMIC FILTER STONE I FILTER I| • ' -.: .....:.. .. .;...... , i me 'PAPER 3° %PERFORATED TEFLON DISK PERFORATED SAMPLE (100 gms) TEFLON DISK FILTER PAPER ...... -. ° ......

CERAMIC ..- FILTER STONEr

PVC BASEP/

BILLING COOF 6560-50-C

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46830 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 A O t / Proposed Rules 1AU00.11. .*uu',A TABLE 1.-LIQUID RELEASE USING MODIFIED CONSOLIDOMETER AT VARIOUS PRESSURES expensive (i.e.; $1200 to $1500), many (WEIGHT/WEIGHT PERCENT LIQUID) laboratories already have the device for use in conducting the TCLP. In addition, since the device is powered by gas pressure, the only additional equipment needed to run the test in the field would be a pressure regulator, a balance, tedlar bags or syringes, and a gas cylinder, hand pump, or compressor. The LRT is presented in Appendix A, and the parameters of concern in running the The consolidometer (see Figure 1) was Disposal Restrictions Rule test are discussed in Section 8 of this. then modified in and on June an attempt to extend its 13,1986 (51 FR 21648) for use in preamble. capabilities. Provision was made to expanding the Extraction Procedure Note that EPA also considered permit the liquid to drain (EP) into a Toxicity Characteristic (40 CFR 261.24). application of air pressure directly to collection vessel, which the would permit The ZHE uses gas pressure to force sample (i.e., no piston). This the test to be applied a approach, in a quantitative piston against a sample to, in however, was not pursued sense (i.e., effect, because air measuring the amount of squeeze any releasable liquid would tend to liquid from the channel through and released). In addition, material, and lends itself to application around the modifications spaces in the material, and were also made to permit in the Liquid Release Test. In addition, would not result in the use of standard application of the weights, in lieu of a the perforated TEFLON® disk and required pressure hydraulic to the sample. system for application of absorptive filter paper set up can be pressure. In addition, to increase the data base It was determined that while easily accommodated within the ZHE, the hydraulic for the method, four additional sorbent system worked well, its as depicted in Appendix A-Figure 1. potential materials, in combination with three field application was limited. Note that although the TCLP and the In addition, liquids, have been evaluated to most hydraulic systems LRT use the same device, the two tests determine would be the range in which the unable to maintain a steady are unrelated. various pressure on the sample without sorbents/liquid combinations constant EPA is proposing use of the ZHE for can release liquid. The results adjustment (Ref. 1). are the LRT. Although the device is fairly provided in Table 2 (Ref. 2): While limited testing with the device modified as'described above compared TABLE 2: SORBENT LOADING AT WHICH LIQUID WAS RELEASED well to testing done with the previous USING ZERO-HEADSPACE EXTRACTOR AT 45 PSI (WEIGHT/WEIGHT % LIQ'UID) design, there is a real drawback to the use of weights that caused EPA to Sorbent Diesel fuel Tnchloroethylene Xylene examine yet another approach. Specifically, due to the need to Fly ash (Bituminous Coal) ...... <10 ...... >42 ...... <10 address S-N-D (Silica Based) pressures like 45 psi, and ...... >40...... >78 ...... >45 the limitations Floorco (Silica Based) ...... >65 ...... >115...... Floor >65 in the size of the test cell (i.e., it must be Dry (Silica Based) ...... >80...... > 140...... >80 large enough, to accommodate a reasonable sample size-100 grams), the weights required are excessive (in the The Liquid Release Test protocol the Agency use' to increase the neighborhood of 250 to 500 lbs) (Ref. 1 requires that samples of absorbent/ probabili.ty and of detecting liquids in 2). liquid mixtures be tested only once for samples that may~initially The third (and final) approach pass the to the detection of liquids being released Liquids Release pressure application examined Test (i.e., show no was the under pressure. As discussed in section use of pneumatic evidence of liquids) without imposing or gas pressure. This 8 of the preamble, the Agency is design would easily additional time delays for testing? accommodate a concerned that a test duration beyond reasonable sample size (i.e., 100 grams), 30 minutes might result in a significant 7. Additional Test Results Obtained and allow use of the same general type disruption of offsite commercial landfill During the Development of the Liquids of devices, with the perforated operations. This disruption might have Release Test (LRT) TEFLON® disks and absoiptive filter the counter-productive effect of The Agency conducted papers, as shown in Figure 1. The only two additional encouraging operators to sample fewer laboratory real difference is in the mode testing programs of liquid- of pressure barrels of waste for the presence of free application, which absorbent mixtures that also helped in entails use of a liquids, in order to maintain a certain piston driven by compressed the development of:the Liquids Release gases (e.g., rate of waste processing activities. air or The. Test. The first involved a cylindrical nitrogen). Agency is concerned that requiring It was about this time that EPA chamber with a plunger that had was in additional quality assurance procedures the development stages of a device, weights mounted on it. A glass capillary (i.e., testing waste/absorbent mixtures a known as the Zero-Headspace Extractor tube wasfitted to the conical bottom of second or third time) to confirm an the chamber in an attempt to measure (ZHE), which was intended for use in initial no-release evaluating finding would increase the volume of liquid compressed out of the leaching characteristics this disruption. Such of volatile additional testing the sorbent. A description of this testing compounds from wastes might result in a total analytical under conditions of zero program is discussed in reference 3. headspace. processing time for an individual sample This device was being developed -Disadvantages of the first testing in of 60 to 90 minutes, depending upon the conjunction with the new Toxicity program included the manner in which number of times that the test needed to the initial Characteristic Leaching Procedure and.final liquid be repeated. The Agency is interested in concentrations (TCLP), which was proposed on January .were obtained (i.e., the comments concerning quality assurance modified-ASTM 14, 1986 (51 FR 1602) for use in the Land ash test). Small sample procedures. What other procedures.can sizes were used in the ash test which

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46831 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

46832 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules leads to unreproducible results. The The proposed procedure (LRT) has today's preamble. As stated previously, glass capillary, although capable of been applied to the evaluation of Liquid- the LRT was developed independent determining whether liquids have been loaded sorbents and has been from the manner in which the compressed out of the sorbent, did not determined to provide results similar to appropriate standard test pressure was function in its intended manner. The those obtained with the previous developed. The LRT would be. surface tension of organic liquids tested devices (i.e., those involving weights) appropriate for any reasonable pressure was not adequate to have a strong investigated. The test duration of 30 chosen for the test. meniscus form. Finally, the use of minutes for the LRT was selected to The sample size used in the weights was a problem as discussed overcome the frictional forces of the evaluation was selected because it is a above. piston 0-rings against the side-walls of commonly used representative sample The second laboratory testing the container (Ref. 2). Also, since the size among the regulated community. program that contributed to the ZHE apparatus has been selected as the The effect of sample storage development of the LRT is discussed in device in which liquid/absorbent (Parameter 2) was evaluated in this reference 4. The use of different designs mixtures are to be tested, 30 minutes is to determine the effects, if and additional liquid/sorbent needed to provide results similar to effort in order any, of long sample storage times. This combinations was accomplished during those obtained with the previous was necessary since samples were this work. The sorbents that were used devices investigated (i.e., those stored for as long as 15 days before this testing program and throughout involving weights), due to the time that in testing during the test's development testing are appears to be needed to overcome the the other laboratory phase, and because samples may likely characterized as to their mineralogical friction between the internal teflon disks of time during the content in this report. and the walls of the cylinder be stored for periods Although the Agency has selected 30 conduction of the ongoing collaborative 8. Evaluationof Liquid Release Test minutes as the proposed length of the evaluation. As a result of this evaluation, the Agency found that The proposed LRT was evaluated in a test, the Agency is concerned with the sample storage time did not alter the single laboratory for ruggedness and length of the test. The results of the ruggedness evaluation (Ref. 2) indicated results of the test; however, sample precision, and is presently undergoing testing should be done within 48 hours. evaluation in a multilaboratory that none of the parameters investigated collaborative study. The design and showed a significant difference at the 5 As indicated previously, most of the results of the collaborative study will be percent level. The test method may LRT testing was done on sorbent/liquid announced in the Federal Register when therefore be considered to be rugged samples that were loaded such that they completed. The design and results of the with respect to the test conditions would be right around the critical range single laboratory evaluation are investigated. Note, however, that the where liquid release might be expected summarized below (Ref. 2). effect of test duration was significant at to be observed on the filter paper. This Ruggedness testing was done the 10 percent level and very nearly so was necessary as, for economic reasons, principally to determine the procedure's at the 5 percent level. The significance the majority of testing would be sensitivity to minor variations in the of this observation is that while the test designed to provide the maximum liquid rugged different test conditions. This testing is is considered to be adequately loading for liquid/sorbent combinations. necessary to determine which with respect to test duration, a longer The third parameter, liquid loading, was parameters in the test are subject to test duration may provide different designed to provide results within the significant variations and thus need to results in a small percentage of test range for which one to two positive tests be controlled or defined more carefully. runs. would be expected for every three tests Single laboratory precision is also However, a 30-minute time limit may run. This was necessary to make the determined from the ruggedness data. prove disruptive to offsite commercial data analyzable and the results - Table 3 provides the parameters in the landfills which process large numbers of interpretable, in terms of being able to test that were evaluated for ruggedness. containers. A long time period will have describe quantitatively the ruggedness A discussion of these parameters and some impact on the sampling of and precision of the test. containers (i.e., the number of the results follow. All testing was done Note that the range of liquid loading containers inspected and processed will on the floor dry sorbent and with the 5% investigated (i.e., 95.5 to 96.5 weight/ be reduced, as compared to a shorter acetone solution. Floor Dry/5% Acetone, test duration). The Agency does not weight %) for the the range of liquid want a time limit that may cause is different for TABLE 3: LRT PARAMETERS EVALUATED FOR release determined initially for the same problems, such as backlogs of RUGGEDNESS material, as shown in Table 1. This was containers or inadequate sampling to fact that a different lot of the eliminate these backlogs. Therefore, the due to the ParameterParaeter SpecificationRLT Difference tested was used in preparing Agency is willing to accept comments sorbent material for the ruggedness testing on the test duration of the LRT. If upon the samples (1) Test Duration . 30 minutes . 30 and 35 minutes than was used in the earlier (2) Sample Holding 48 hours ...... 24 and 360 hours evaluating these comments, the Agency development work. It is apparent that Time. finds a significant impediment to using a (3) Liquid Loading -...... 95.5% and 96.6% different lots of the same material can (weight/weight %). test duration, the Agency may 30-minute have different sorptive properties. (4) Test Pressure.. 45 psi ...... 45 and 50 psi instead choose a ten-minute duration in (5) Rate of Pressure within 90 within 10 seconds Application. seconds, and within 90 order to assure that the thoroughness of The fifth parameter, rate of pressure seconds drum sampling is not compromised. application, was examined because (6) Device piston moving right side up and had Orientation. upwards. upside down In summary, the value of 45 psi that work on the ZHE with the TCLP (7) Sample size ...... 100 ±+0.1 100 and 105 grams was used in the evaluation of the LRT indicated that instantaneous application grams. was selected because it is of high pressures could cause the filter representative of pressures found in to rupture. Hence, the LRT was These parameters are all discussed landfills. The test pressure parameter is examined under conditions of fast and below. discussed at length in Section 9 of slow pressure build-up.

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46832 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 1 Proposed Rules 46833

The sixth parameter examined, device loaded sorbents are not expected to be disposed in a landfill without further orientation, was examined in an attempt in this range. The Agency assumes that testing. If the waste passes the Paint to determine if it made a difference as to liquid loaded sorbents will have a bulk Filter Liquids Test, it is considered a which direction the piston travelled (i.e., density of approximately 60-70 lbs/ft 3; solid and is therefore not prohibited upwards or downwards). Although the therefore at the maximum depth of 100 from being placed in a landfill under ruggedness test showed no significant feet, this would correspond to a pressure section 3004(c)(2). effects with device orientation, both of approximately 50 psi. This option Under proposed §§ 264.13(c)(3) and devices tested are oriented so that the would result in a safety factor being 265.13(c)(3), the owner or operator will piston travels up for the LRT. This incorporated into the test for shallower be required to determine if the generator orientation was selected to avoid the landfills (i.e., less than 100 ft). has added an absorbent to a necessity of flipping the device over Another option would be to provide containerized liquid hazardous waste after loading, which was shown to flexibility in the selection of the (see Section 11 of today's preamble). As disturb the sample. appropriate pressure value. In this noted above, today's proposal requires The ruggedness test was designed option, the Agency could allow the the use of the proposed liquids release based on the need to have a high landfill owner/operator and the permit test when a non-biodegradable probability (i.e., 0.9) of finding a writer to determine on a case-by-case absorbent has been added to solidify the difference as great as 0.33 (i.e., at least basis the appropriate pressure value containerized liquids. Owners or one positive in three tests) in a one tail based on the conditions at the landfill in operators who know that a non- statistical evaluation test at the 5 question. The Agency believes that, in biodegradable absorbent has been percent significance level. In order to either option, the pressure should be added to solidity the containerized give statistically significant answers, the calculated at the deepest point in the liquids and who employ the Paint Filtei ruggedness test was conducted at a landfill. The Agency solicits comments Liquids Test rather than the liquids liquid loading for which the expected on the two alternative approaches. The release test will not be in compliance proportion of releases was Agency specifically requests comments with today's proposal. If the owner or approximately 0.5. Accordingly, if one of on whether a maximum value should be operator adds a non-biodegradable the parameters (Table 4] were to change used in all cases (i.e., 50 psi) or whether absorbent to the waste or if they the test results by 0.33 or greater, this flexibility should be allowed in determine that the generator added a would indicate that controlling the determining the correct value of non-biodegradable absorbent, then the parameter may be critical to obtaining pressure for which the test should be liquids release test is required initially. reproducible results. conducted. Is 50 psi the correct value for Re-testing to pass the Paint Filter As far as precision is concerned, the a maximum pressure? Is the Agency's Liquids Test is unnecessary because the observed standard deviation of a single assumption concerning the bulk density test series (i.e., 3 test runs) indicated the 3 Agency believes that the liquid release range (60-70 lbs/ft l of liquid loaded test is more stringent than the Paint test to be of adequate precision (Ref. 2). sorbents correct? Based on the average for the entire .Filter Liquids Test. The Agency believes set that a liquid/absorbent mixture tested of data generated during the ruggedness 10. RelationshipOf The PaintFilter tests, the standard deviation for a set of Liquids Test To Todays Proposed under pressure for 30. minutes, during three tests is approximately 0.29. Lquids Release Test which time no wetness on the filter The Agency is proposing use of the There is an interrelationship between paper appears, would indeed pass the 5 LRT in response to the HSWA the Paint Filter Liquids Test and the minutes, no pressure, Paint Filter Liquids requirement to prohibit the disposal in LRT. In some situations, a facility may Test. landfills of liquids that have been be required to conduct both tests. For A facility's waste analysis plan absorbed in materials that release example, containerized wastes without requires that either all containers or liquids when compressed, as might any absorbents must be tested for the some percentage of containers be tested, occur during routine landfill operations. presence or absence of free liquids using depending on site-specific the Paint Filter Liquids Test. See circumstances, so that a detailed 9. Selection of AppropriatePressure for chemical and physical analysis of the the Liquids Release Test §§ 264.314(c) and 265.314(d). If a containerized waste material fails the waste is obtained. The Agency does not In regard to the appropriate pressure Paint Filter Liquids Test (i.e., contains expect that waste analysis plans will for today's proposed test, the Agency is free liquids), and is treated (solidified) change a great deal based on today's proposing that the owner/operator use a by the addition of a non-biodegradable proposal; therefore, the frequency of value of 50 psi or a value equivalent to absorbent, then today's proposed liquid testing using the LRT for conttainerized the pressure at the landfill in question. release test must also be used to wastes will be determined based on the The LRT evaluation was conducted at 45 determine whether the wastelabsorbent facility's current waste analysis plan. psi; however, it is important to mixture will release further liquids The previous discussion centered on remember that the LRT was developed under pressure. If liquids are detected in when to use the Paint Filter Liquids Test independent from the manner in which the form of wetness on the filter paper, or the Liquids Release Test. The Agency the standard test pressure (50 psi), was then additional non-biodegradable will accept comments on whether or not selected. The value of 50 psi was absorbent material must be added in the LRT should be used for only selected assuming a bulk density of 70 order to pass the liquid release test, continerized wastes, or whether it lbs/ft 3 and a depth of 100 ft. Once the waste/absorbent mixture should also be used for all wastes that A quick survey of landfill depths passes the liquids release test, it does are to be disposed in landfills, which conducted prior to the development of not need to be retested to pass the Paint would include bulk wastes. Very limited the release test indicated that most Filter Liquids Test. data developed during the refinery landfill depths were below 60 feet. The If, on the other hand, the listing program indicate that some maximum depth was 100 feet. Pressure containerized waste without any wastes may pass the Paint Filter Liquids is a function of depth and bulk density. absorbents passes the Paint Filter Test but not the filter step in the TCLP Soil bulk densities of 110 to 120 lbs/ft 3 Liquids Test (i.e., is a solid), then this which is similar to the LRT. Subjecting are not unusual for soil; however, liquid containerized waste is allowed to be all wastes (whether liquids, solids,

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46833 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

46834 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules containerized, or bulk) that are tobe they are less than or equal to one Part 271 for the standards and disposed in a landfill to a pressure test percent total organic carbon. The requirements for authorization.) would remove additional liquids from owner/operator must put the results of Following authorization, EPA retains the landfill. Using one test for any analysis or the information received enforcement authority under sections containerized wastes would eliminate from the generator in the operating 3008, 7003, and 3013 of RCRA, although room for error (i.e., the question of records under § § 264.73(b)(3) or authorized States have primary whether an absorbent had been added 265.73(b)(3) along with the results of the enforcement responsibility. to a container). All containers must bear LRT. If the owner/operator determines Prior to the Hazardous and Solid up to the same stresses; therefore, all that absorbents were added, the Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a wastes should meet the same standards containerized waste may be landfilled State with final authorization prior to disposal regardless of whether only if it meets the requirements administered its hazardous waste absorbents have been added or not. In proposed in §§ 264.314(d)(2) or program entirely in lieu of EPA light of HSWA and the concerns on the 265.314(d)(2). administering the Federal program in placement of liquids in landfills, the The Agency considered other options that State. The Federal requirements no Agency is specifically requesting in developing the above approach. One longer applied in the authorized State, comments on whether the LRT should option was to change the instructions of and EPA could not issue permits for any replace the Paint Filter Liquids Test as the uniform manifest (Subpart B of Part facilities in the State that the State was the test for determining if a waste 262) to require the generator to identify authorized to permit. When new, more contains free liquids. any absorbent material added to the stringent Federal requirements were 11. Conforming Changes containerized waste. EPA rejected this promulgated or enacted, the State was option because allowing the owner/ obliged to enact equivalent authority As a result of adding the requirement operator to determine the procedures to for the liquid release to' §§ 264.314 and within specified time frames. New be used to obtain the information gives Federal requirerhents did-not take effect 265.314, several minor conforming the owner/operator the flexibility to changes are being proposed. These in an authorized State until the State make appropriate arrangements with the adopted the requirements as State law. conforming changes will add references generator while avoiding unnecessary to existing reference list in Subparts B In contrast, under newly enacted paperwork. section 3006(g) of RCRA. 42 U.S.C. and E of Part 264 and in'Subparts B, E, 'Another approach was to and N of Part 265. Specifically, technical create a 6926(g), new requirements and presumption that absorbent materials prohibitions imposed by the HSWA take conforming changes are being madto ' were added to § § 264.13 (General Wasie Analysis), the containerized waste. effect in authorized States at the same 264.73 (Operating Record), 265.13 This approach would require an owner/ time that they take effect in (General Waste Analysis), 265.73 operator who was subject to an nonauthorized States. EPA is directed to (Operating Record), 265.302 (General enforcement action for violations of carry out those requirements and Operating Requirements). § § 264.314(d)[2) or 265.314(d)(2) to bear prohibitions in authorized States, . In order to comply with the the burden of proof in demonstrating including the issuance of permits, until requirements of today's proposal that absorbents were not added. EPA the State is granted authorization to do relating to containerized hazardous decided that a presumption was not so. While States must still adopt wastes, the owner/operator of an off- warranted since it would be HSWA-related provisions as State law site landfill receiving containerized burdensome to require the owner/ to retain final authorization, HSWA wasies must determine whether an operator to perform the tests or refute applies in authoirzed States in the absorbent material has been added to the presumption for all shipments of interim. the containerized waste. Thus, in containerized wastes. The presumption Today's rule will be promulgated addition to amending §§ 264.13(b)(6) and would be reasonable in cases where a pursuant to section 3004(c)(2) of RCRA, 265.13(b)(6) to require the owner/ substantial part of the containerized a provision added by HSWA. Therefore, operator-to specify in the waste analysis wastes would be expected to have it would be added to Table I in § 271.1(j) plan the method to be used to (1) absorbents added to them; however, the which identifies the Federal program determine if the absorbent/waste Agency did not have information requirements that are promulgated mixture will release further liquids indicating that this was the case. pursuant to HSWA and take effect in all under pressure, and (2) determine the By adopting the approach proposed in States, regardless of their authorization the rule, EPA believes total organic carbon content, today's that it is codifying status. States may apply for either existing industry practice. proposal would also require the owner/ EPA believes interim or final authorization for the operator of a off-site landfill to specify that the off-site landfills already require HSWA provisions identified in Table 1 the procedures to be used to determine extensive waste analysis information as discussed in the following section of whether the generator has added from the generator before they accept this preamble. absorbents to the containerized waste. the generator's waste for disposal. By The generator may supply the requiring that this information be placed 2. Effect on State Authorizations information in writing to the owner/ in the operating record, EPA is enabling As noted above, EPA will implement operator that identifies any absorbent the owner/operator to demonstrate the standards in today's rule (when added to the waste. The information compliance with §§ 264.314(d)(2) or finalized) in authorized States until they' must be sufficiently detailed to allow 265.314(d)(2). modify their programs to adopt these the owner/operator to determine II. State Authority rules and the inodification 'is approved whether the absorbent is less than or by EPA. Because the rule will be equal-to one percent (1%) total organic I. Applicability of Rules in Authorized promulgated pursuant to HSWA,' a State States carbon. If the owner/operator does not submitting a program modification may receive this information in writing from Under Section 3006 of RCRA, EPA apply to receive either interim or final the generator, the owner/operator must may authorize qualified States to- authorization under section 3006(g)(2) or perform an analysis to find out whether administer and enforce the RCRA 3006(b), respectively, on the basis of absorbents were added and whether program within the State. (See 40 CFR requirements that are substantively

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46834 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules 46835 equivalent or equivalent to EPA's. The productivity, innovation, or Test Equipment," Report prepared by procedures and schedule for State international trade. Research Triangle Institute, April 1986. program modifications under section EPA's analysis indicates that the rule 3. "Structurally Stable Absorbents," Report 3006(b) are described in 40 CFR 271.21. prepared by Mason and Hanger-Silas Mason, prohibiting disposal of containers Co., August 1985. The same procedures should be holding liquids and free liquids does not 4. "Development of Criteria to Distinguish followed for section 3006(g)(2). consti.tpte a "major" rule. Acceptable Sorbents for Containerized 40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires that Hazardous Liquids," Report prepared by States that have final authorization must IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act K.W. Brown, March 1986. modify their programs to reflect Federal The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 List of Subjects program changes, and must U.S.C. 601 et seq) requires a Federal subsequently submit the modifications Agency to prepare a Regulatory 40 CFR Part260 to EPA for approval. The deadlines for Flexibility Analysis (RFA) for all the State to modify its program for this regulations that have "a significant Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous proposed regulation will be determined economic impact on a substantial materials, Waste by the date of promulgation of the final number of small entities," where: treatment and disposal. rule in accordance with § 271.21(e). * "Substantial number" means more 40 CFR Part264 These deadline can be extended in than 20 percent of the affected small Hazardous materials, Packaging and exceptional cases (40 CFR 271.21(e)(3)). entities; Once EPA approves the modification, * "Small" is determined by the SBA containers, Reporting requirements, the State requirements become Subtitle loan eligibility criteria, unless an Security measures, Surety bonds, Waste C RCRA requirements. alternative definition is proposed and treatment and disposal. States with authorized RCRA justified; and 40 CFR Part265 programs may already have * "Significant economic impact" requirements similar to those in today's occurs if: Hazardous materials, Packaging and proposed rule. These State regulations * Annual compliance costs containers, Reporting and recordkeeping have not been assessed against Federal (annualized capital, operating, reporting, requirements, Security measures, Surety regulations being proposed today to etc.) increase total production costs for bonds, Waste Treatment and disposal, determine whether they meet the tests relevant products or processes by more Water supply. for authorization. Thus, a State is not' than 5 percent, or 40 CFR Part271 authorized to carry out these e Compliance costs as a percent of requirements in lieu of EPA until the sales for small entities is 10 percent or Administrative practice and State program modification is approved. more as a percent of sales than for large procedure, Confidential business Of course, States with existing entities, or information, Hazardous materials standards may continue to administer * Capital costs for compliance are a transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian and enforce their standards as a matter significant portion of capital available lands, Intergovernmental relations, of State law. In implementing the (considering internal cash flow and Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping Federal program, EPA will work with external financing opportunities), or requirements, Water pollution control, States under cooperative agreements to * Closures of small entities are likely Water supply. minimize duplication of efforts. In many to result. Dated: December 8, 1986. cases, EPA will be able to defer to the EPA certifies that this proposed Lee M. Thomas, States in their efforts to implement their regulation will not have a significant Administrator. programs, rather than take separate economic impact on a substantial actions under Federal authority. number of small entities; therefore, no For the reasons set forth in the States that submit official applications Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is preamble, 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265 and for final authorization less than 12 needed. 271 are proposed to be amended as set months after promulgation of EPA's forth below. regulations may be approved without V. Paperwork Reduction Act PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE inlcuding standards equivalent to those The information collection promulgated. However, once authorized, requirements in this proposed rule have MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL a State must modify its program to been submitted to the Office of include standards substantially 1. The authority citation for Part 260 Management and Budget (OMB) for continues to read as follows: equivalent or equivalent to EPA's within approval under the Paperwork the time periods discussed above. Authority: Secs. 1006, 2002(a), 3001 through Reduction Act of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501- 3007, 3010, and 7004 of the Solid Waste III. Compliance with Executive Order 3502. The public should submit Disposal Act, as amended by the Resource 12291 comments on these requirements to the Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 as Office of Information and Regulatory Executive Order 12291 (Section 3(b)) amended, [42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921 Affairs, OMB, 730 Jackson Place, NW., through 6927, 6930 and 69741. requires that all regulatory agencies Washington, DC, marked: "Attention: 2. Section 260.11 is amended by prepare a Regulatory Impact Analysis Desk Officer for EPA." The final rule revising the fourth reference in for all "major" rules. Section 1(b) will respond to any OMB, or public defines "major" rules as those that are paragraph (a) to read as follows: comments on the information collection likely to result in: 1. An annual effect on the economy of requirements. § 260.11 References $100 million or more, VI.References (a) * * * "Test 2. A major increase in costs or prices 1. "Sorbent Pressure Test Development," Methods for Evaluating Solid for consumers or individual industries, Report prepared by Research Triangle Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods," or- Institute, EPA Publication SW-846 [Second 3. Significant adverse effects on 2. "Liquid Release Test for Liquid Loaded Edition, 1982 as amended by Update I competition, employment, investment, Sobents-Single Laboratory Evaluation of (April, 1964), Update II (April, 1985), and

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46835 1986 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

46836 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 247 / Wednesday, December 24, 1986 / Proposed Rules

Update III [Insert month and year of in accordance with § 264.316; or [Comment: As required by § 265.13, the waste final publication in FR]]. The second (2) The containerized liquids or free analysis plan must include analyses needed edition of SW-846 and updates I, II, are liquids have been solidified by the use to comply with § § 265.312, 265.313, and available from the Superintendent of of an absorbent material and, if 265.314 (c) and (d). As required by § 265.73, Documents, U.S. Government Printing . solidified, (i) the total organic carbon the owner or operator must place the results Office, Washington, DC 20401, (202) 783- content of the absorbent material is less of these analyses in the operating record of 3228, on a subscription basis. than or equal to 1.0 percent, and (ii) the the facility.] waste/absorbent mixture does not 11. Section 265.314 is amended by Part 264-Standards For Owners and release liquids as determined by Method revising paragraph (c) to read as Operators of Hazardous Waste 9096 (Liquids Release Test) as described follows Treatment, Storage, And Disposal in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Facilities Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods." § 265.314 Special requirements for bulk and containerized liquids. 3. The authority citation for Part 264 [EPA Publication No. SW-846]. * • • • * continues to read as follows: PART 265-INTERIM STATUS (c)(1) Containers holding free liquids Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a). 3004, 3005 STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND must not be placed in a landfill unless: of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE by the Resource Conservation and Recovery (i) The container is very small, such as Act of 1976 as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND an ampule: or 6912(a), 6924, and 6925). DISPOSAL FACILITIES (ii) The container is designed to hold 4. Section 264.13 is amended by 7. The authority citation for Part 265 free liquids for use other than storage, revising paragraph (b)(6) and by adding continues to read as follows: such as a battery or capacitor; or (iii) The container is a lab pack as paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a), 3004, is disposed of § 264.13 General Waste Analysis 3005, and 3015, Solid Waste Disposal Act, as defined in § 265.316 and • * * * • amended by the Resource Conservation and in accordance with § 265.316; or Recovery Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, (2) The containerized liquids or free (b) " * * 6912(a), 6924, 6925, and 6935). (6) Where applicable, the methods liquids have been solidified by the use that will be used to meet the additional 8. Section 265.13 is amended by of an absorbent material and, if waste analysis requirements for specific revising paragraph (b)(6) and by adding solidified, (i) the total organic carbon waste management methods as paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows: content of the absorbent material is less than or equal to 1,0 percent, and (ii) the specified in § § 264.17. 264.314 (c) and § 265.13 General waste analysis. (d), and 264.341. waste/absorbent mixture does not release liquids as determined by Method 9096 (Liquids Release Test) as described .* (b)* * * (c) * in "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid (3) The procedures that the owner or (6) Where applicable, the methods Wastes, Physical/Chemical Methods." operator of an off-site landfill receiving that will be used to meet the additional containerized hazardous waste will use waste analysis requirements for specific [EPA Publication No. SW-846]. to determine whether a hazardous waste waste management methods as • * * * * specified generator has added a biodegradable in § § 265.193, 265.225, 265.252, PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FOR 265.273, absorbent material to the waste in the 265.314 (c) and (d), 265.345, AUTHORIZATION OF STATE 265.375, and 265.402. container. • • • • * HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS 5. Section 264.73 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as (c) * * * 12. The authority citation for Part 271 follows: (3) The procedures that the owner or continues to read as follows: operator of an off-shore landfill § 264.73 Operating Record. Authority: Sections 1006, 2002(a), and 3006 receiving containerized hazardous of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended • • waste will use to determine whether a by the Resource Conservation and Recovery (b) hazardous waste generator has added a Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6905, (3) Records and results of waste biodegradable absorbent material to the 6912(a) and 6926). analysis peformed as specified in waste in the container. § § 264.13, 264.17, 264.314 (c) and (d), and 9. Section 265.73 is amended by 13. Section 271.1(j) is amended by 264.341. revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as adding the following entry to Table I in follows: chronological order by date of 6. Section 264.314 is amended by publication: §265.73 Operating record. revising paragraph (d) to read as § 271.1 Purpose and scope. follows: * • • * * • (b) * * § 264.314 Special Requirements for bulk Table 1.-Regulations Implementing the (3) Records and results of waste and containerized liquids. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments • • * * • analyses and trial tests performed as of 1984 (d)(1) Containers holding free liquids specified in §§ 265.13, 265,193, 265.225, must not be placed in a landfill unless: 265.252, 265.273, 265.314 (c) and (d), Oate Title of regulation (i) The 265.341, 265.375, and 265.402. container is very small, such as • * * • * an ampule: or [insert date of Containerized Hazardous Liquids (it) The container is designed to hold 10. Section 265.302 is amended by publication in FR]. free liquids for use other than storage, revising the comment at the end of the -such as a battery or capacitor; or section to read as follows: (iii) The container is a lab pack as § 265.302 General operating requirements. [FR Doc. 86-28381 Filed 12-23-86; 8:45 am] defined in § 264.316 and is disposed of • * * * • BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

HeinOnline -- 51 Fed. Reg. 46836 1986