This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. 54452 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A. Definition of "Sorbents" On December 24, 1986 (51 FR 46824) AGENCY B. Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT) versus EPA proposed a rule that would prohibit Liquids Release Test (LRT) disposal of containerized liquids treated 40 CFR Parts 260, 264, 265, and 271 C. Biodegradability with sorbents that-had more than one D. Spill Cleanups percent total organic carbon or TOC (as [FRL-4506-3] E. Sorbent Pillows a measure of biodegradability). In the RIN 2050-AA34 F. Lab Pack and Other Exemptions preamble, EPA recommended that the G.Waste Analysis and Recordkeeping modified Mebius procedure (Page, A.L., H. Free-Standing Liquids Hazardous Waste Management; ed., 1982, Methods of Soil Analysis) be I. Implementation Uquids In Landfills used to determine the organic carbon V. State Authority AGENCY: Environmental Protection A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized content. EPA also proposed a Liquids Agency. States Release Test (LRT), a confined ACTION: Final rule. B. Effect on State Authorizations compression type test, to simulate the VI. Regulatory Requirements release of liquids from sorbed wastes SUMMARY: Under authority of the A. Economic Impact Analysis when compressed during landfill Resource Conservation and Recovery B. Regulatory Flexibility Act operations. The test relied on a device. Act (RCRA) as amended by the C. Paperwork Reduction Act known as the Zero-Headspace Extractor Hazardous and Solid Waste VII. Supporting Documents (ZHE), which was developed in Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), EPA is conjunction with the new Toxicity I. Authority promulgating this final rule regarding the Characteristic Leaching Procedure landfill disposal of containerized liquids These rules are being issued under (TCLP). Containerized sorbed wastes mixed with sorbents. This rule satisfies authority of section 3004(c) of the Solid that failed these tests could not be the statutory requirement that EPA issue Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the disposed of in landfills. The proposal a rule that prohibits the disposals in Resource Conservation and Recovery was intended to satisfy the section hazardous waste landfills of liquids that Act of 1976 and the Hazardous and 3004(c)(2) requirement that EPA have been sorbed in materials that "prohibit Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; 42 the disposal in landfills of biodegrade or that release liquids when liquids that have been absorbed in compressed as might occur during U.S.C. 6924(c). materials that biodegrade or that release routine landfill operations. This rule will I. Background liquids when compressed as might occur help assure the stability of materials in hazardous waste landfills. A. Regulatory Background during routine landfill operations." 1987 (52 FR 23695) EPA EFFECTIVE DATE: May 18, 1993. On June 24, Section 3004(c)(2) of HSWA requires issued a supplemental proposal ADDRESSES: The public docket for this EPA to issue final rules, by February 8, regarding the definition of final rule is docket reference code F-92- 1986, that "minimize the disposal of biodegradable in response to comments CLIF-FFFFF, and the public dockets for containerized liquid hazardous waste in received on the one percent TOC the four proposals and supplemental landfills," that "minimize the presence requirement and on the recommended notices are docket reference codes F- of free liquids in containerized 86-CLIP-FFFFF, F-87-CLLN-FFFFF, F- modified Mebius procedure. In this hazardous waste to be disposed of in EPA recommended two 91-CLLA-FFFFF, and F-92-CCLA- notice, landfills," and that "prohibit the additional tests to determine FFFFF. These dockets are in room disposal in landfills of liquids that have M2427, U.S. EPA, 401 M St. SW, biodegradability: ASTM Method G21-70 been absorbed in materials that (1984a)-Standard Practice for Washington, DC 20460, and are open biodegrade or that release liquids when from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through Determining Resistance of Synthetic compressed as might occur during Polymer Materials to Fungi, and ASTM Friday, excluding holidays. Call 202- routine landfill operations." 260-9327 for an appointment to review Method G22-76 (1984b)-Standard docket materials. Up to 100 pages may On April 30, 1985 (50 FR 18370) EPA Practice for Determining Resistance of be copied free of charge from any one issued a final rule requiring the use of Plastics to Bacteria. The Agency also regulatory docket. Additional copies are the Paint Filter Liquids Test (PFT), proposed to regulate sorbent pillows in $0.15 per page.' Method 9095, to determine the presence a manner similar to lab packs. of free liquids in either bulk or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. On October 29, 1991 (56 FR 55646) The RCRA/Superfund Hotline at 1-800- containerized waste. Wastes that fail EPA issued another supplemental 424-9346 (toll free], or 703-920-9810 in the PFT-i.e., that contain free liquids- notice, seeking comments on single and the Washington, DC area. For cannot be disposed of in landfills. This multi-laboratory test results on a revised information on technical aspects of this satisfied the requirement that EPA issue Liquids Release Test device (also a rule, contact Ken Shuster, Office of Solid regulations minimizing the disposal of confined compression type test). Finally, Waste (OS-340), U.S. EPA, 401 M St. containerized liquid hazardous waste in in response to further comments, EPA on SW, Washington, DC 20460, 202-260- landfills and minimizing the presence of May 1, 1992 (57 FR 18853) issued a 2214. free liquids in containerized hazardous notice of supplemental information SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: waste to be disposed of in landfills.' seeking comment on use of the PFT versus the LRT for containerized Preamble Outline Section 3004{c)(1) of HSWA prohibits the sorbents. placement of bulk or noncontainerized liquid I. Authority In today's rule, EPA is taking final II.Background hazardous waste in landfills, and section 3004(c)(3) prohibits the placement of liquids which are not action on these proposals and notices of A. Regulatory Background hazardous wastes in Subtitle C landfills unless B. Role of Sorbents in Liquid Hazardous additional information, and is certain demonstrations are made. The PFT is completing EPA's regulatory Waste Disposal required to determine the presence of liquids or free I1. Summary of Today's Rule liquids to comply with these prohibitions. 40 CFR responsibilities under RCRA section IV. Detailed Discussiop of the Final Rule 264.314(c) and 40 CFR 265.314(d). 3004(c)(2).

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54452 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54453 Federal Register I Vol. 57, No. 223 I Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54453 B. Role of Sorbents in Liquid Hazardous potential by-products of combustion rule sets minimum standards regarding Waste Disposal (e.g., polyvinyl chloride which produces biodegradation and release of liquids HC1 upon incineration or materials with that containerized wastes mixed with Dozens of sorbents are on the market before they can be today. These sorbents are used to sorb heavy metals may be less desirable sorbents must meet free liquids in wastes before land despite their Btu content, but peanut landfilled. EPA did not attempt to disposal, thereby reducing the amount of shells, shredded paper, or corn cobs evaluate the effectiveness of various leachate likely to be generated after may be desirable). Or, if the sorbed sorbents beyond these minimums, nor efficient disposal, or to sorb free liquids from a material is to go to a recycling facility did EPA attempt to identify spill before they migrate. Some sorbents (where it will be squeezed out and the sorbate/sorbent combinations. Instead, are by-products of other production oil, gasoline, solvent, or other material today's rule allows the selection of the processes which are typically discarded, recovered), then squeezeability/ most effective sorbent for a specific such as fly ash from coal-burning, releasability, without the sorbent situation, as long as it meets the rule's cement kiln dust from. cement breaking down, is desirable. minimum standards. production, shredded and ground rubber Some sorbents are more effective, i.e., III. Summary of Today's Rule from tires, shredded paper and sawdust, have greater capacity and retention efficiencies and are faster, than others Today's rule adopts the Paint Filter and corn cobs, peanut shells, and rice Liquids Test, Method 9095, for the hulls from crop harvesting. They tend to in soaking up liquids (some soak up considerably larger amounts of liquids testing of containerized liquids to which be relatively cheap and are often readily added before land available. Other sorbents are derived per volume orweight of sorbent; some sorbents have been from mined natural minerals, such as are structurally more stable and retain disposal; lists classes of bentonite or montmorillonite clays, more liquids under pressure; and some nonbiodegradable sorbents, and gives diatomaceous earth, volcanic ash, lime actually react chemically with, liquids, examples in each class; and identifies sometimes irreversibly, to form a two tests, either of which may be used and limestone, silicates, and vermiculite. to determine the nonbiodegradability of Other common sorbents are synthetic nonliquid mass that further ensures stabilization). The effectiveness of a sorbents not within a class on the list. It organic polymers such as polyethylene,,. also requires the use of polypropylene, polyurethane, and given sorbent often depends on the polystyrene. Many commercial sorbents properties of the liquid to be sorbed. nonbiodegradable sorbents in lab packs. are mixtures of sorbent materials. Often This liquid is referred to as the sorbate. IV. Detailed Discussion of the Final Rule these materials, especially the natural Some sorbents are considerably more minerals, are treated by heat, grinding, effective with some sorbates than with A. Definition of 'Sorbents" sifting, or use of additives to enhance others. For example, sorbents that are In RCRA section 3004(c)(2), Congress their sorptive capacities. both hydrophobic and less dense than requires EPA to establish special Sorption can be viewed in two ways: water can be very effective in sorbing standards for "liquids that have been First, as the soaking up of liquid or fluid oils on water (oil spills) where they can absorbedin materials that biodegrade or material so that the material no longer be readily skimmed off the surface, that release liquids * * " (emphasis flows, and second, as the rendering of whereas other sorbents would soak up added). Several commenters on EPA's hazardous constituents immobile or less more water and less oil, and would sink proposals stated that Congress misused mobile, via attenuation, chemical where they are not readily recoverable. the term absorbed, and should have reactions or fixation, ion exchange, Some sorbents substantially raise the used the term adsorbed, or perhaps both precipitation, neutralization,'or flash points of solvents, decreasing terms. "Adsorbeate" are materials that encapsulation (also referred to as flammability concerns. Some sorbents retain liquids on the surface of their chemisorption). Some sorbents act in are ineffective because they are broken particles by capillary action and surface both ways to one degree or another. The down or dissolved by certain sorbates tension. "Absorbents" retain liquids focus of today's rule is on the first view (e.g., hydrofluoric acid breaks down within the void spaces between of sorbents. Even so, the ultimate silicates or glass). That is, chemical particles and within the inner structure selection cf a sorbent is usually based degradation of the sorbent can occur as of the sorbing material. Discussion of on both aspects, as well as on a number well as biodegradation. Sorbent/sorbate the issue in the legislative history of ' of other factors discussed below. properties that affect sorbency include: HSWA clearly indicates that Congress Two very important, interrelated pH, porosity, surface area, potential meant adsorbents, as defined above, as considerations in the selection of a capillarity and surface tension or well as absorbents. To reflect this clear sorbent are: (1) Stability (in terms of affinity for a sorbate, polarity, and Congressional intent, EPA uses the both maintaining liquids in an immobile viscosity, Thus, there are technical terms "sorbent" and "sorb" in today's matrix and immobilizing hazardous factors affecting sorbent selection as rule, instead of the terms "absorbent" constituents), and (2) ultimate use or well as economic and other practical and "absorb." These terms are defined disposal of the sorbed material. If the factors, such as availability (especially in § 260.10. "Sorbent" means a material sorbed material is to be disposed of in a timeliness in the case of a spill or that is used to soak up free liquids by landfill, the first consideration, long- emergency), cost, sorbent capacity either adsorption, or both. "Sorb" means term stability, is of paramount (sorbate to sorbent ratio or percent, by to either adsorb or absorb, or both. importance. Thus, nonbiodegradable volume and by weight, which affects sorbents able to hold up under pressure total volume and weight and therefore B. PaintFilter Liquids Test (PET) Versus are desirable. If the sorbed material is to cost to transport and use or dispose), Liquids Release Test (LRT) go to an incinerator, then such factors as and distance to site of use or disposal. In its December 24, 1986, October 29, energy content (Btu's), heavy metal EPA considered these factors in 1991, and May 1, 1992 Federal Register content, and products of combustion are developing today's rule, which is notices, EPA proposed and solicited important; long-term stability is not. designed to facilitate technological comment on a Liquids Release Test Thus, for incineration, organic sorbents, advances and to allow flexibility for the (LRT) specifically designed to simulate whether biodegradable or not, are treaters of liquids to select the most the behavior or sorbed materials under generally desirable, depending on effective and practical solutions. The compression that might occur during

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54453 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. 54454 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

routine landfill operations. In December amount, pressure application rate, test The only concern with the PFT is its 1986, EPA proposed use of the Zero duration, temperature, and lack of test performance where oily;based wastes Head-Space Extractor (ZHE) device, data on a numiber of sorbent/sorbate are the sorbates. Test data on oily-based which EPA was developing in combinations). sorbates show that the LRT is more conjunction with the new Toxicity (4) The PFT is a simpler test, more conservative than the PFT for this Characteristic Leaching Procedure easily conducted, and simpler to clean category. EPA, however, notes that this (TCLP). Because of technical concerns up after (the LRT device is especially issue is not particular to sorbed wastes. raised by commenters on the ZHE, EPA difficult and time consuming to clean For all oily wastes-not merely sorbed subsequently developed and tested a after testing materials like Imbiber oily wastes-there are wastes that may different compression type device. In the Beads ®, whereas the PFT device is not); flow as a liquid but that do not filter October 1991 proposal, EPA published it involves a significantly cheaper within the 5 minute test and, therefore, the results of single and multi-laboratory testing process (equipment and labor); are not defined as "liquids" under the tests using the new LRT device at 50 psi its use eliminates the need for facilities PFT. Thus, this issue is beyond the to simulate worst-case landfill to stock .two types of test apparatus for scope of today's rulemaking. EPA pressures. The 50 psi was based on a similar purposes and to train personnel recognizes that testing procedures for 100 ft landfill depth and an overlying in the use of the LRT; and its use avoids oily waste that can flow in the material bulk density of 70 lbs/cu ft. A potentially significant delays in safe environment, whether sorbents have survey conducted by EPA before the disposal of wastes, since the PFT set-up, been added or not, may need to be December 1986 proposal showed that test, and clean-up time (10-15 minutes/ improved. EPA is now studying this most landfill depths were less than 60 ft, sample) is significantly less than the issue and is considering possible and the maximum depth was 100 ft. LRT (25-75 minutes/sample). revisions of test procedures, which may Commenters continued to raise (5) Use of the PFT for containerized be as simple as extending the duration concerns about the practicality of the sorbed waste would result in consistent of the PFT and/or using a pressure plate revised LRT noticed in October 1991, environmental performance testing of all in the PFT for oily wastes. At the same about perceived technical flaws with the materials going into a landfill (whether time, EPA recognizes that such test, and about the test's performance containerized or not, whether treated improvements may be' unnecessary or of relative to the Painter Filter Liquids Test with sorbents or not) in terms of the low priority, given that land disposal of (PFT). In response, EPA published a potential for releasing liquids. oily hazardous wastes is or will soon be supplemental notice in May 1992 (6) The major source of liquids in strictly controlled by the land disposal soliciting comment on whether the PFT landfills is precipitation; relative to this, restrictions. should be used in lieu of the LRT to the environmental significance of any For these reasons, EPA is today satisfy the statutory requirements of difference between the PFT and the LRT retaining the PFT, or Method 9095, as the section 3004(c)(2). is very small (even without test to be used to determine if liquids The overwhelming majority of consideration of the additional will be released from containerized commenters on EPA's May 1, 1992 notice protection afforded by the land disposal sorbed wastes. This will simplify the as well as on earlier notices supported restrictions and double liners/leachate proposed testing requirements since the use of the PFT over the LRT for all collection requirements for landfills). PFT is already required for all treated for the technical questions landfilled hazardous wastes, including Except and nontreated, sorbed and nonsorbed, raised in point (3) above, EPA agrees containerized sorbed liquid wastes. The containerized and bulk wastes. That is, with these comments, concluding that major reasons commenters gave for waste the PFT is generally a more appropriate no wastes disposed in hazardous preferring the PF'T were: liquids, as the PFT does not involve test than the LRT for the statutory landfills can contain free (1) Although determined by the PFT. This approach compression of the sorbed waste, it purpose. By comparing the LRT test results to thePFT test results, EPA has provides equal treatment for all nonetheless reasonably simulates adopting the will be released under been able to use the LRT to show that landfilled wastes. Also, by whether liquids Agency does EPA's test data show the PFT reasonably simulates and PFT instead of the LRT, the pressure. In fact, situation that in,the case of sorbed water-based serves as a surrogate for a 50 psi not have to address the special wastes the PFT gave results that were pressure test for water-based wastes. of various sorbent materials that cause more conservative than the LRT Therefore, the additional cost, difficulty, problems in the LRT device (e.g., "pressure" test (i.e., samples failed the and time for the LRT are unjustified. Imbiber Beads®). Since-the PFT is PFT at lower moisture contents than in At the same time, EPA disagrees that already required, no changes to the samples that failed the LRT at 50 psi). the LRT reproducibility/technical issues existing regulations are needed for this (2) The LRT does not work well for raised by the commenters (see 3 above) requirement. testing samples sorbed with Imbiber pose major problems, since sufficient Chemical Fixation/Stabilization. Beads ® and similar sorbents. Such test data exist either to justify the Several commenters argued that materials, which are compressible and current specification or a modified chemically stabilized wastes should be elastic, tend to be extruded through the specification. Further, in developing test exempted from the LRT, primarily small openings in the LRT device, methods, EPA need not test every because the device either is ruined or indicating failure. Such extrusions, possible matrix at every concentration/ does not work well with these materials. however, are not releases of liquids and saturation level to demonstrate that the Commenters also argued that chemically should not be so interpreted. This "false method is reproducible and valid. For fixed wastes should not be classified as positive" problem does not exist with the LRT, developmental and validation sorbed wastes, even though some the PFT. tests were performed on a set of sorption might take place. Since EPA is (3) The PFT has been required and sorbent/sorbate- combinations spanning not adopting the LRT, this issue is moot. used since June 1985, whereas the array of materials expected to be C. Biodegradability commenters raised a number of subject to the test method. This is technical questions with the LRT (e.g., consistent with the approach EPA has Many commenters discussed EPA's reproducibility, sample size, sample taken in developing and validating other proposals regarding how to define preparation and placement, pressure RCRA hazardous waste test methods. biodegradable sorbents, a!1d suggested

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54454 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations. 54455

that EPA provide a combination of (1) inorganic minerals (e.g., clay, degraded. EPA is aware of research lists or categories of acceptable and diatomaceous earth), (2) man-made efforts to develop biodegradable unacceptable sorbents, (2) tests that can inorganic materials, which are often polymers and to enhance be used to determine biodegradability, modified natural minerals (e.g., calcined biodegradation of synthetic polymers. In and (3) other criteria (e.g., montmorillonite, cement kiln dust, fly most cases, this effort has been based environmental stability data). ash), and (3) elemental carbon (e.g., on biopolymers, or materials of Commenters argued that a combination activated charcoal). biological origin, e.g., cellophane. These of options is needed because no one test The second class comprises high materials are explicitly excluded from or definition would be universally molecular-weight synthetic organic the definition of nonbiodegfadable in applicable (e.g., for inorganic materials polymers (e.g., high density today's rule. Also included in the final with no carbon, the ASTM tests'are not polyethylene). rule is a restriction that the synthetic necessary), and a list alone would not The third class is made up of mixtures polymers not be specifically designed to be all inclusive. Commenters in of the nonbiodegradable sorbent biodegrade, since plastics can be particular discussed what tests and/or materials within the first or second designed to be relatively biodegradable criteria EPA should establish, which classes. by adding prooxidants, biodegradable sorbents EPA should list, when and by EPA has concluded that these additives (e.g., starch), and other whom the'different tests should be materials are nonbiodegradable because additives that help initiate chemical performed, and the number of tests that (1) the inorganic minerals and other degradation which make the polymers would be necessary. inorganic materials do not contain more susceptible to biological attack. "Biodegradation' is the process by carbon, they contain only inorganic or EPA has also included in today's rule which bacteria and fungi elemental carbon, or they contain the stipulation that only "high molecular (microorganisms) consume (metabolize insignificant amounts of organic carbon, weight" polymers be classified or decompose) an organic material. and (2) the high-molecular weight automatically as noubiodegradable. Low Generally, materials that do not contain synthetic organic materials (i.e., molecular weight polymers-e.g., with carbon, and inorganic materials that polymers) have proved to be highly average molecular weights of less than a contain carbon, such as calcium resistant to biodegradation. few thousand-may in certain comments carbonate (CaCO3 ), are considered to be EPA received numerous circumstances be biodegradable. While nonbiodegradable for the purposes of that synthetic polymeric materials, or such materials are generally not suitable this rule. Commenters pointed out that specific polymers, should be excluded as sorbents because of their physical biodegradation potential exists where a from the definition of biodegradable. properties, EPA nonetheless believes material contains organic carbon, but While sorbents derived from natural that they should be excluded from the not all organic carbon is readily polymeric materials such as cellulose classification in today's rule. At the available to microorganisms. In fact, and starch are generally readily same time, EPA does not believe it is very little biodegradation, if any, occurs biodegradable, by comparison, high necessary or appropriate to draw a over periods of many years with some molecular weight synthetic organic specific line defining "high" molecular materials containing organic carbon. For polymers generally resist weight. Effective polymeric sorbents example,, commenters presented biodegradation. Biodegradability of currently in use today generally have information demonstrating that high- synthetic polymers decreases as molecular weights in the 10's or 100's of molechlar weight synthetic organic molecular weight increases. This is thousands, or even in the millions. because the long chains of high polymers such as high density partly These are clearly high molecular polyethylene and polypropylene are molecular weight synthetic polymers to provide relatively few places for weights. Below these levels, as polymers nonbiodegradable. In addition, as EPA tend approach the low 1000's in molecular noted in its June 24, 1987 proposal, degradation to occur since only able weight, professional judgment must several laboratory tests have been used microorganisms are generally a attack at the ends of the come into play in assessing successfully to determine whether a to effectively substance's degradability. material is biodegradable. chains. That is, the microbial enzymes In response to public comments, are unable to break the backboce For each category of acceptable today's rule allows two options, in linkage of the long polymer chains into sorbents, EPA has listed specific § § 264.314(e) and 265.314{f), for defining smaller molecules, attacking, instead, examples in the rule. The materials nonbiodegradability. The rule (1) only the terminal ends and any listed as examples in the rule are not provides descriptions of classes of amorphous parts of the polymer chains. intended to be all-inclusive, but merely sorbent materials, and lists of sorbent Other characteristics of synthetic to exemplify and help clarify the classes materials as examples in each class, polymers thougfit to contribute to their of acceptable sorbents. EPA recognizes that are nonbiodegradable and therefore resistance to biodegradation include: that some of the examples are generic acceptable without further testing; and Many are hydrophobic or water (e.g., clays, smectites) that include a (2) provides two tests for sorbents not repellant (microorganisms need water); number of materials, some of which are listed or not falling within one of the they resist enzymatic attack because of also listed separately; that some of the classes listed. A sorbent that passes their density, orientation, degree of terms are to a certain extent redundant either of these tests is nonbiodegradable crystallization, and bonding or overlapping; and that some are very and is therefore acceptable for landfill characteristics; and some contain specific chemicals. The materials cited disposal in containers (providing, of antioxidants or biocidal additives. are types of nonbiodegradable materials course, that the sorbed waste passes the Whatever the mechanisms, test data most commonly used as sorbents and PFT). and environmental experience show most frequently referred to in the public Lists of NonbiodegradableMaterial. these synthetic polymers to be resistant comments and literature. This use of In the first option. EPA has listed three to biodegradation. Even where there is lists, the examples listed, and the classes of nonbiodegradable sorbent evidence that plasticizers and other classes described, are consistent with materials. additives to polymer products are the legislative history. which states: The first class consists of three types degraded, the synthetic polymeric "Examples of absorbents that are likely of materials: (1) Naturally occurring materials themselves generally are not to be found to be acceptable (for both

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54455 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. .54456 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

nonbiodegradation and pressure "contamination" or mixing that would Society of Agronomy, Inc. Madison). stability reasons) are the chemical render an inorganic, carbon, or synthetic Commenters were generally opposed to reagents discussed above (cement- or organic polymeric material ineligible. this approach, in part because EPA's lime-based materials, pozzolanic Commenters, however, provided a proposed TOC level (1%) would materials,'and thermoplastic or organic significant amount of information on eliminate many high-performing binders) and fine-grained earthen total organic carbon content of materials sorbents (e.g., pozzolanic materials and materials (e.g., bentonite, generally recognized as synthetic polymers), and in part because montmorillionite (sic), kaolinite, and nonbiodegradable. For example, rice of technical issues related to the Fuller's earth)" (July 25, 1984, hull ash generally contains 2-6% total appropriateness of the test (e.g., it does CongressionalRecord-Senate, S9177). orgahic carbon; fly ash suitable as a not distinguish between elemental EPA has not attempted to define or sorbent or stabilizer may contain 2-8%. carbon and organic carbon). Therefore, list biodegradable, or unacceptable, EPA, therefore, concludes that sorbents EPA has not included in today's rule a sorbent materials in the rule. Since the otherwise meeting the criteria of today's TOC criterion. Nevertheless, EPA notes Agency has defined nonbiodegradable rule should not be excluded or require that the modified Mebius test might be material, it believes that defining testing because of organic carbon used to demonstrate that a material fits biodegradable materials would be content within these ranges. For on the list as an inorganic with less than redundant. However, EPA notes that mixtures above these ranges (i.e., above 8% TOC i.e., that it is acceptable as a certain materials are well known to be 8%), the mixture sorbent would have to sorbent under § § 264.314(e)(1)(i) and biodegradable and wouldnot be be tested or'demonstrated that it is 265.314(f)(1)(i). acceptable under today's rule. For nonbiodegradable. Alternative Demonstrations/Testsof example, cellulosic or biosynthesized Tests of BiodegradableMaterial. In Biodegradability.A number of materials are clearly biodegradable (e.g., the second option, if a sorbent is not in a commenters encouraged EPA to accept sawdust, wood fiber or pulp, shredded class listed.in the regulations, then a test alternative tests, or engineering paper, straw, ground corncobs, ground must be conducted or a demonstration judgment in addition to the identified peanut hulls, municipal waste). These made. The tests/demonstrations are: (1) tests. EPA agrees that other tests exist, materials do not fall into any of the The sorbent material is shown to be but has decided to limit the final rule to acceptable categories of sorbents, and nonbiodegradable using ASTM Method those tests EPA proposed since specific they would clearly fail any test of G21-70 (1984a)-Standard Practice for alternatives were not discussed. Also, nonbiodegradability..Consequently, they Determining Resistance of Synthetic some flexibility for engineering may not be used to sorb liquids in Polymer Materials to Fungi; or (2) the judgment has been provided in the lists Wastes which are subsequently disposed sorbent material is shown to be and descriptions in § § 264.314(e)(1) and of in a landfill (except as noted below). nonbiodegradable using ASTM Method 265.314(f)(1). Therefore, EPA has not This is consistent with the legislative G22-76 (1984b)-Standard Practice for gathered and reviewed data on other history of section 3004(c), which listed Determining Resistance of Plastics to tests and proposed them for inclusion in sawdust, municipal waste, and shredded Bacteria. today's rule. Instead, EPA decided to paper as examples of biodegradable The ASTM tests, identified in EPA's require that such demonstrations be sorbents, and therefore unacceptable June 24, 1987 proposal, are already ,made under the already established Part (ibid). These biodegradable sorbents required by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 260 petition process. may, however, be used to sorb liquids in Commission for radioactive wastes to Spill Cleanups wastes which are then treated in prove their resistance to biodegradation. D. accordance with RCRA treatment The ASTM tests are 21-day tests, using Numerous commenters recommended standards. In this case, the residual may specific bacteria and fungi cultures. that EPA exempt (from the be landfilled, provided it meets all After the 21-day incubation period, the biodegradability and liquids release applicable requirements, e.g., it is no test'material is inspected for growth, requirements in the proposed rule) longer a liquid. For example, wastes which is evidence of biological activity sorbents used in emergency spill mixed with biodegradable sorbents may and an indication of biodegradation. cleanups. One commenter, however, be incinerated and then the residual or Although commenters supported use of. suggested exempting only sorbents used ash, which is no longer liquid, no longer these tests, at least one commenter for true emergency spills, as contrasted sorbed waste, and no longer warned of the possibility to routine spills at locations where .biodegradable, of false may be landfilled. positives (i.e., a nonbiodegradable sorbents are (or should be) routinely EPA recognizes that some inorganic material might show up in the test as stockpiled. The basis of this materials or elemental carbon could biodegradation). EPA agrees that this is commenter's suggestions was that contain some level of organic carbon. possible. In these cases, the additional sorbents that meet the proposed LRT EPA does not intend that these ASTM chemical, electrical, and physical and nonbiodegration criteria are readily materials necessarily be classified as tests regarding structural changes listed available on this market and therefore biodegradable or necessarily be in the bacterial and fungal test methods should be used where a spill can be required to be tested for can be used to determine whether there expected. The commenter, however, biodegradability. At the same time, EPA is indeed biodegradation or not; or the also suggested exempting from the LRT wants to make it clear that inorganic tests can be rerun. the hydrophobic sorbents that are used materials are considered to be In the December 24, 1986 notice, EPA to clean up oil spills on water, because biodegradable if they have been mixed proposed to define biodegradability on sorbents currently available for oil spills with significant amounts of the basis of total organic carbon on water do not meet the proposed biodegradable materials (e.g., with .content, and the Agency suggested that criteria. sawdust or ground corncobs), or if they use of the modified Mebius procedure to In today's rule EPA has not provided are significantly "contaminated" with determine that content (Page, A.L., ed., an exemption for either routine spills or organic soils or materials. 1982, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, emergencies. Most of the commenters In today's rule, EPA has not attempted Chemical and Microbial Properties, supporting an exemption for specifically to define the degree of Second Edition, No. 9.Part 2, American emergencies argued that the LRT

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54456 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline.

Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18,1992 / Rules and Regulations 54457

and chemical reagents (cement- or lime- duration could cause delays and disrupt as it was generated. Thus, the soil is not a sorbent, and the question of its based materials, pozzolanic materials, proper cleanups. Also, commenters were and thermoplastic or organic binders) concerned that many sorbents biodegradability does not arise. Landfilling of the soil, however, would and fine-grained materials (e.g., commonly used in cleanups (e.g., bentonite, montmorillonite, kaolinite, Imbiber Beads* and sorbent pillows) of course remain subject to the land disposal restrictions. and Fuller's Earth). All of these cannot be effectively tested in the LRT. materials are used to treat large and might not meet EPA's definition of E. Sorbent Pillows quantities of liquids or to soak up nonbiodegradability (as originally the December 24, 1986 relatively large quantities of spills. Rags rule, however, Commenters on proposed). Today's proposal argued that EPA should and wipes on the other hand are used to requires the simpler and faster PFT, used to control clean off soiled or wet surfaces. Thus, should exempt sorbent pillows which is already required and spills and leaks, primarily so that LRT today's rule does not change the not cause such delays. Furthermore, would not impede such efforts regulatory treatment under Subtitle C of materials testing Imbiber Beads* and similar because of the difficulties in getting rags and wipes used in the traditional would generally qualify as and time delays manner; however, if rags and wipes are as representative samples nonbiodegradable under today's rule, to do the testing. In the June 24, 1987 used like sorbents, e.g., by putting them they are made of high-molecular-weight supplemental notice, EPA proposed to in a drum to soak up free-standing synthetic polymers. EPA, therefore, exempt sorbent pillows used to control liquids, then they need to comply with agrees with the commenter that an spills or leaks, including socks, wipes. the nonbiodegradability requirements. exemption should not be provided for a manner similar to lab and rags, in F.Lab Packs and Other Exemptions routine spill situations, where sorbents packs. Under this proposal, the sorbent can are stockpiled, since response teams pillows would have to be The current rules exempt lab packs, stockpile and use nonbiodegradable nonbiodegradable, be surrounded by very small containers such as ampules, EPA believes sorbents. Furthermore, enough additional unused , and products that contain liquids for that a special exemption for sorbent material to 'emergency" spill cleanups nonbiodegradable uses other than storage (e.g., batteries) is sorb any releases, and be placed in liquids in landfills prohibition. place, EPA from the inappropriate. In the first certain specified containers of 110 gallon These exemptions are consistent with range of sorbents notes that a wide capacity or less. Further, the sorbent the "minimize liquids in containers" acceptable under today's rules- pillows would still need to pass the PFT language in the statute, and they are including most now commonly in use- and only sorbent pillows could be by the legislative history. Lab emergency spill supported are available for placed in the same container. packs are small containers of liquids cleanups. In the second place, it is not Since the PFT rather than the LRT is (typically of one gallon or less), most clear that the statute provides EPA the required in today's rule, the exemption used for laboratory wastes, sorbents commonly authority to exempt certain for sorbent pillows from the LRT is no that are placed in a drum and from the requirements of § 3004(c)(2), longer needed. In fact, the proposed by sufficient sorbent for surrounded and in any case an exemption exemption, imposing the lab pack material to sorb the liquids should the certain (but not all) cleanup situations requirements in lieu of the LRT, would fail. EPA agrees with the be difficult to implement and containers would not be more restrictive than the commenters who said the rules should enforce. approach in today's rule. Imposing the continue to allow the lab pack, ampule, EPA, however, emphasizes that lab pack requirements would now treat and product container exemptions, with today's rule does not prohibit the use of sorbent pillows more stringently than the exception that the rules should be biodegradable sorbents (e.g., sawdust, other sorbed wastes, would complicate revised to require that lab pack-sorbents fact, corn cobs, etc.) in spill cleanups. In remediations, would add to the waste be nonbiodegradable, for the same many commenters pointed out that such volume to be disposed, would be vague liquids in containers should in reasons that materials have an important role (how much additional sorbent is be sorbed With nonbiodegradable where sorbed and cleanups, particularly enough). and difficult to enforce, sbrbents. Nonbiodegradable sorbents wastes will be recycled or incinerated. would be generally unnecessary, given will not degrade, and therefore will not The rule, instead, merely prohibits the land disposal restrictions help to produce subsidence and release landfilling of such wastes after the requirements. Therefore, the Agency is drums fail. Lab for sorbent of liquids when the cleanup; incineration, recycling, or other not providing an exemption packs are planned management treatment, would remain as options. In pillows in today's rule. it is practical to use also raised questions activities in which fact, direct landfilling of these wastes Commenters nonbiodegradable sorbents, and a wide would already be prohibited, in most about the status of rags and wipes. After and variety of such sorbents are readily cases, by the land disposal restrictions. reviewing the descriptions available. Therefore, today's rule is unlikely to examples given in the legislative history, have significant effect on cleanups. EPA has concluded that rags and wipes G. Waste Analysis and Recordkeeping are not the types of materials Congress I One commenter asked EPA to clarify In its December 24, 1986 notice, EPA that contaminated soils cleaned up had in mind and sliould not be considered to be sorbents in the context proposed to amend the waste analysis during a spill response would not be section (§§ 264.13(b)(6) and 265.13(b)(6)) subject to today's rule affecting of today's rule. In discussing sorbent materials Congress did not include rags and the riecordkeeping sections sorbents. EPA agrees that contaminated (§ § 264.73(b)(3) and 265.73(b)(3)) to add soils are not subject to today's rule. The and wipes nor materials that rags or wipes are made from in the lists of references to the specific paragraphs rule covers sorbents added to liquid within §§ 264.314 or 265.314 that contain hazardous wastes for the purpose of sorbent materials Congress anticipates EPA will find to be acceptable and the PFT and the proposed LRT and TOC solidifying or stabilizing the wastes. For test requirements. EPA also proposed contaminated soils, the situation is unacceptable. The legislative history lists sawdust, municipal waste, that a landfill facility's waste analysis different. The soils are not added to include procedures that the owner/ the shredded paper, and certain plan wastes to eliminate liquids; rather, operator of an offsite landfill will use to contaminated soil is, in effect, the waste vermiculites as unacceptable sorbents,

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54457 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. 54458 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

determine whether a generator added, a appropriate and sufficient. Consistent Therefore, it will become effective in biodegradable sorbent to containerized with today's rule, however, EPA RCRA-authorized 'nd nonauthorized hazardous waste (§§ 264.13(c)(3) and believes that the specific procedures are States six months from the publication 265.13(c)(3)). best addressed on a site-by-site basis. of this notice. EPA received numerous comments on Today's rule provides the flexibility for Interim status facilities will be subject these requirements, many addressing such an approach. to today's rule on its effective'date. the broader issue of who is responsible H. Free-StandingLiquids Therefore, these facilities should modify for waste analysis. In particular, their waste analysis plans and commenters expressed concern that Section 264.314(d) states: "Containers procedures appropriately by that date. EPA was requiring duplicative testing on holding free liquids must not be placed On the other hand, under EPA's the part of landfill owner/operators, and in a landfill unless: (1) All free-standing regulations, RCRA permits generally that the responsibility for testing should liquid: (i) Has been removed by provide a shield against new regulatory fall on the generator, the treater, or the decanting, or other methods; (ii) has requirements (§ 270.4). Therefore, sorbent manufacturer rather than the been mixed with absorbent or solidified permitted facilities may continue to landfill owner/operator. A number of so that free-standing liquid is no longer operate under their existing permits commenters, for example, recommended observed; or (iii) has been otherwise (and their waste analysis plans) until that EPA require sorbent manufacturers eliminated" (emphasis added). The same EPA modifies the permit in accordance to-certify that a sorbent is requirement appears in § 265.314(c). with § 270.41 or as part of a 5-year land nonbiodegradable, and that the manifest Sections 264.314(c) and 265.314(d) state disposal permit review, or until the should be amended to require that the that "To demonstrate the absence or permit terminates and a new permit is certification be attached. presence of free liquids in either a issued. EPA understands the concerns of the containerizedor a bulk waste, the commenters, but it believes that the rule following test must be used: Method V. State Authority 9095 (Paint Filter Liquids Test)" as proposed is sufficiently flexible to A. Applicability of Rule in Authorized accommodate them. Therefore, in (emphasis added). States today's rule EPA has made only limited In the December 24, 1986, proposal, changes to the proposal. EPA stated that it saw an inconsistency Under section 3006 of RCRA, EPA First, EPA has eliminated the between these two requirements-on may authorize qualified States to proposed language added to the one hand, containerized wastes administer and enforce the RCRA §§ 264.13(b)(6), 265.13(b)(6), 264.73(b)(3), containing free liquids could be placed program within the State. Following and 265.73(b)(3) because these already in a landfill, if the liquids were removed authorization, EPA retains enforcement refer to § § 264.314 or 265.314. It is not (e.g., decanted, § 264.314(d)), and on the authority under sections 3008, 3013, and necessary to identify the specific other hand, containerized wastes 7003 of RCRA, although authorized paragraphs in these sections that refer containing free liquids (as defined by States have primary enforcement to the PFT and the biodegradation the Paint Filter Test) were prohibited responsibility. The standards and standards. from placement in a landfill requirements for authorization are found Second, EPA has retained'the (§ 264.314(c)). Consequently, EPA in 40 CFR part 271. proposed requirements of § § 264.13(c)(3) proposed to delete §§ 264.314(d)(1) and Prior to the Hazardous and Solid and 265.13(c)(3) for off-site landfills, 265.314(c)(1), making it clear that wastes Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), a with slight rewording to clarify that off- placed in landfills cannot contain free State with final authorization site treaters as well as generators may liquids, as defined by the PFT. waste were received on this administered its hazardous be adding sorbents. These sections No comments program in lieu of EPA's administering ensure that commercial off-site landfill proposal. However, after reexamining State. EPA has reached the the Federal program in that owner/operators specify in their Waste the regulations, EPA could not issue permits for any facilities Analysis Plans the procedures they plan conclusion that they are not inconsistent. Instead, the regulations that the State was authorized to permit. to use to assure compliance. When new, more stringent Federal In response to the commenters spell out two different requirements: (1) the wastes meet the PFT, requirements were promulgated, described above, EPA emphasizes the That landfilled State was obliged to enact equivalent flexibility of its approach toward and (2) that free-standing liquids in wastes be decanted or authority within specified time frames. biodegradability in today's rule. The rule containerized New Federal requirements did not take otherwise eliminated before land does not prescribe how a landfill effect in an authorized State until the owner/operator must verify that disposal. Containerized wastes must State adopted the requirements as State requirements. EPA sees no sorbents are nonbiodegradable-.only meet both for the or eliminate the law and was authorized that the Waste Analysis Plan describe reason to modify requirements. the procedures the landfill owner/ independent prohibition on free- operator will use to determine standing liquids, on the grounds that it is In contrast, under RCRA section compliance. For on-site disposal, this inconsistent or redundant. In fact, EPA 3006(g), new requirements imposed by requirement will be easy to meet. For has found the requirement a useful HSWA take effect in authorized States off-site disposal, EPA expects that the enforcement tool, and has no evidence at the same time that they take effect in landfill operator will generally rely on that the regulated community has been non-authorized States. EPA is directed information provided by the generator confused by it. Therefore, EPA has to carry out these requirements in or treater. For example, a landfill decided not to finalize the proposed authorized States, including the issuance operator might require generator change. of permits, until the State is granted notification where sorbents have been authorization to do so. While States Implementation used, and certifications that the specific I. must still adopt HSWA-based sorbent used meets the criteria of As discussed in Section V.A. of this provisions as State law to retain § § 264.314(e) or 265.314(fl, along with preamble, today's rule is promulgated authorization, the HSWA-based confirmatory data. EPA generally * under the authority of the Hazardous requirements apply in authorized States believes such an approach would be and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA). in the interim.

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54458 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54459

Today's final rule for containerized rule. These State regulations have not unacceptable on the biodegradables list liquids in landfills Is issued under RCRA been assessed against the Federal provided as guidance in the preamble. section 3004(c), which was added by *regulations being finalized today to The rest need be tested only once per HSWA. These HSWA-based determine whether they meet the tests sorbent type for nonbiodegradability (it requirements are being added to Table I for authorization. Thus, a State is not is the sorbents that are tested for in 40 CFR 271.1(j), which identifies the authorized to implement these biodegradation, not the wastes). For Federal program requirements that are requirements in lieu of EPA until the those sorbents that are currently used promulgated pursuant to HSWA and State program modification is approved. that are unacceptable, there are readily take effect in all States, regardless of Of course, States with existing their authorization status. As noted available sorbents of comparable costs standards may continue to administer and efficiencies so that the economic above, EPA will implement these and enforce their standards as a matter impact of such substitutions are HSWA-based sections in today's rule in of State law. In implementing the authorized States until the State Federal program, EPA will work with minimal. programs are modified to adopt these States under agreements to minimize This rule has been reviewed by the rules and the modification is approved duplication of efforts. In many cases, Office of Management and Budget in by EPA. Because these requirements are EPA will be able to defer to the States in accordance with Executive Order 12291. finalized pursuant to HSWA, a State their efforts to implement their programs submitting a program modification may rather than take separate actions under B. RegulatoryFlexibility Act apply to receive either interim or final Federal authority. authorization under RCRA section States that submit official applications The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 3006(g)(2) or 3006(b), respectively, on the for final authorization less than 12 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires Federal basis of State requirements that are months after the effective date of these regulatory agencies to prepare a equivalent or substantially equivalent to regulations are not required to include Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA) EPA's. The procedures and schedule for standards equivalent to these for all regulations that have "a State program modifications for either regulations in their application. States significant economic impact on a interim or final authorization are that submit official applications for final substantial number of small entities." described in 40 CFR 271.21. The authorization 12 months or more after Today's rule, as EPA's economic deadline by which the States must the effective date of these regulations analysis indicates, will involve only a modify their programs to adopt today's must include standards equivalent to trivial increase in costs for regulated rule is (July 1, 1994). these regulations in their application. industry. Therefore, EPA certifies that B. Effect on State Authorizations The requirements a State must meet today's regulation will not have a when submitting its final authorization Section 40 CFR 271.21(e)(2) requires significant economic impact on a States that have final authorization to application are set forth in 40 CFR 271.3. substantial number of small entities. As modify their programs to reflect Federal VI. Regulatory Requirements a result, no Regulatory Flexibility program changes and to submit Analysis is needed. the A. Economic modification to EPA for approval. The Impact Analysis deadline by which the State must Executive Order 12291 (Section 3(b)) C. PaperworkReduction Act modify its program to adopt this requires regulatory agencies to prepare regulation is determined by the Regulatory Impact Analyses for all The information collection "major" requirements in this rule have promulgation date in accordance with 40 rules. Today's rule Is not a been CFR 271.21(e). These deadlines can be major rule because it will not result in: approved by the Office of Management extended in certain cases (40 CFR an annual effect on the economy of $100 and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 271.21(e)(3)). Once EPA approves the million or more; a major increase in Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and modification, the State requirements costs or prices for consumers, individual have been assigned control number become Subtitle C RCRA requirements. industries, Federal, State, and local 2050-0125. Authorized States are only required to government agencies, or geographic The public reporting burden for this' modify their programs when EPA regions; or significant adverse effects on collection of information is estimated to promulgates Federal regulations that are competition, employment, investment, average 3.6 hours per response for the more stringent or broader in scope than productivity, innovation, or first year and 0.8 hours per response in the existing Federal regulations. For international trade. Therefore, the subsequent years. This burden includes •Federal program changes that are less Agency has not prepared a Regulatory time for reviewing the regulations, stringent or reduce the scope of the Impact Analysis for today's rule. searching existing data sources, Federal program, States are not required EPA did, however, review costs gathering and maintaining the required to modify their programs. This is a result associated with this rule in "Economic data, and completing and reviewing the of RCRA section 3009, which allows Impact Analysis of Liquids in Landfills collection of information. States to impose regulations in addition Rule Regarding Containerized to those in the Federal program. EPA Sorbents." The total additional Send comments regarding the burden has determined that today's annualized costs of implementing this estimate or any other aspect of this containerized liquids in landfills rule is rule are estimated to be under $1 collection of information, including more stringent than the current Federal million. The implementation costs are suggestions for reducing this burden, to regulations; Therefore, authorized States minimal because hazardous waste Chief, Information PolicyBranch, PM- are required to modify their programs if landfills must already use the Paint 223Y, U.S. Environmental Protection needed to adopt regulations that are Filter Test (for all wastes, not just Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington. equivalent or substantially equivalent to sorbed wastes), and most sorbents DC 20460 and to the Office of today rule. currently in use need not be tested for Information and Regulatory Affairs. States with authorized RCRA biodegradability because they are Office of Management and Budget, programs may already have clearly identified as acceptable on the Washington, DC 20503, marked requirements similar, to those in today's nonbiodegradables lists in the rule or as "Attention: Jonathan Gledhill",

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54459 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. 54460 Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations

VII. Supporting Documents PART 264-STANDARDS FOR montmorillonite, kaolinite, micas (illite), The following document has been OWNERS AND OPERATORS OF vermiculites, zeolites; calcium carbonate prepared in support of this rulemaking HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT, (organic free limestone); oxides/ and placed in docket F-92-CLLF-FFFFF. STORAGE, AND DISPOSAL hydroxides, alumina, lime, silica (sand), FACILITIES "Economic Impact Analysis of Liquids diatomaceous earth; perlite (volcanic in Landfills Rule Regarding 1. The authority citation for part 264 glass); expanded volcanic rock; volcanic Containerized Sorbents," EPA, October continues to read as follows: ash; cement kiln dust; fly ash; rice hull 23, 1992. ash; activated charcoal/activated Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924, and carbon); or 6925. List of Subjects (ii) High molecular weight synthetic 40 CFR Part260 2. Section 264.13 is amended by polymers (e.g., polyethylene, high adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as density polyethylene (HDPE), Administrative practice and follows: polypropylene, polystyrene, procedure, Confidential business polyurethane, polyacrylate, information, Hazardous waste. § 264.13 General waste analysis. * . * * • polynorborene, polyisobutylene, ground • 40 CFR Part264 (c) * * synthetic rubber. cross-linked allylstyrene and tertiary butyl Air pollution control, (3) The procedures that the owner or Hazardous copolymers). waste, Insurance, Packaging and operator of an off-site landfill receiving This does not include containers, Reporting and recordkeeping containerized hazardous waste will use polymers derived from biological requirements, Security measures, Surety to determine whether a hazardous waste material or polymers specifically bonds. generator or treater has added a designed to be degradable; or biodegradable sorbent to the waste in (iii) Mixtures of these 40 CFR Part265 the container. nonbiodegradable materials. Air pollution control, Hazardous (2) Tests for nonbiodegradable waste, Insurance, Packaging and 3. Section 264.314 is amended by sorbents. (i) The sorbent material is containers, Reporting and recordkeeping redesignating paragraph (e) as (f), deternined to be nonbiodegradable requirements, Security measures, Surety revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and under ASTM Method G21-70 (1984a)--. bonds, Water supply. (d)(1)(ii), and adding new paragraph (e) Standard Practice for Determining to read as follows: Resistance of Synthetic Polymer 40 CFR Part 271 § 264.314 Special requirements for bulk Materials to Fungi; or Administrative practice and and containerized• Hqulds. (ii) The sorbent material is determined procedure, Confidential business (a) * * to be nonbiodegradable under ASTM information, Hazardous materials (2) Before disposal, the liquid waste or Method G22-76 (1984b)-Standard transportation, Hazardous waste, Indian waste containing free liquids is treated Practice for Determining Resistance of lands, Intergovernmental relations, or stabilized, chemically or physically Plastics to Bacteria. Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping (e.g., by mixing with a sorbent solid), so requirements, Water pollution control, that free liquids are no longer present. by Water supply. (b) Effective May 8, 1985, the 4. Section 264.316 is amended revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read Dated: October 30, 1992. placement of bulk or non-containerized as follows: William K. Reilly, liquid hazardous waste or hazardous Administrator. waste containing free liquids (whether § 264.316 Disposal of small containers of or not sorbents have been added) in any hazardous waste Inoverpacked drums (lab For the reasons set forth in the landfill is prohibited. preamble, 40 CFR parts 260, 264, 265, packs). and 271 are amended as follows. {d • * * (d)* * * (b) The inside containers must be PART 260-HAZARDOUS WASTE overpacked in an open head DOT- (ii) has been MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: GENERAL mixed with sorbent or specification metal shipping container solidified so that free-standing liquid is 1. The authority citation for part 260 no longer observed; or (49 CFR parts 178 and 179) of no more continues to read as follows: than 416-liter (110 gallon) capacity and surrounded by, at a minimum, a Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921- (e) Sorbents used to treat free liquids sufficient quantity of sorbent material, 6927, 6930. 6934, to be disposed of in landfills 6935, 6937, 6938, 6939, and must be determined to be nonbiodegradable in 6974. - nonbiodegradable. Nonbiodegradable sorbents are: materials listed or accordance with § 264.314(e), to 2. Section 260.10 is amended by described in paragraph (e)(1) of this completely sorb all of the liquid contents adding the definition of "sorbent" in section; materials that pass one of the of the inside containers. The metal outer alphabetical order, to read as follows: tests in paragraph (e)(2) of this section; container must be full after it has been packed with inside containers and § 260.10 Definitions or materials that are determined by EPA • * . * * to be nonbiodegradable through the part sorbent material. 260 petition process. (c) The sorbent material used must not Sorbent means a material that is used (1) Nonbiodegradable sorbents. (i) be capable of reacting dangerously with, to soak up free liquids by either Inorganic minerals, other inorganic being decomposed by, or being ignited adsorption or absorption, or both. Sorb materials, and elemental carbon (e.g., by the contents of the inside containers, means to either adsorb or absorb, or aluminosilicates, clays, smectites, in accordance with § 264.17(b). both. * * * • • Fuller's earth, bentonite, calcium bentonite, montmorillonite; calcined

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54460 1992 This information is reproduced with permission from HeinOnline, under contract to EPA. By including this material, EPA does not endorse HeinOnline. Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 223 / Wednesday, November 18, 1992 / Rules and Regulations 54461

PART 265-INTERIM STATUS (ii) has been mixed with sorbent or (ii) The sorbent material is determined STANDARDS FOR OWNERS AND solidified so that free-standing liquid is to be nonbiodegradable under ASTM OPERATORS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE no longer observed; or Method G22-76 (1984b)-Standard TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND * * * - * * Practice for Determining Resistance of DISPOSAL FACILITIES (fl Sorbents used to treat free liquids Plastics to Bacteria. to be disposed of in landfills must be * * * * * 1. The authority citation for Part 265 nonbiodegradable. Nonbiodegradable 4. Section 265.316 is amended by continues to read as follows: sorbents are: materials listed or revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6924. described in paragraph (f)(1) of this as follows: 6925, 8935, and 6936. section; materials that pass one of the tests in paragraph (f)(2) of this section; § 265.316 Disposal of small Containers of 2. Section 265.13 is amended by or materials that are determined by EPA hazardous waste In overpacked drums (lab adding paragraph (c)(3) to read as to be nonbiodegradable through the Part packs). follows: 260 petition process. * * * * * (1) Nonbiodegradable sorbents. (i) (b) The inside containers must be § 265.13 General waste analysis. Inorganic minerals, other inorganic * * * * * overpacked in an open head DOT- materials, and elemental carbon (e.g., specification metal shipping container (c)* * * aluminosilicates, clays, 6mectites, (49 CFR parts 178 and 179) of no more -(3) The procedures that the owner or Fuller's earth, bentonite, calcium than 416-liter (110 gallon) capacity and operator-of an off-site landfill receiving bentonite, montmorillonite, calcined surrounded by, at a minimum, a containerized hazardous waste will use montmorillonite, kaolinite, micas (illite], sufficient quantity of sorbent material, to determine whether a hazardous waste vermiculites, zeolites; calcium carbonate determined to be nonbiodegradable in generator or treater has added a (organic free limestone); oxides/ accordance with § 265.314(f), to biodegradable sorbent to'the waste in hydroxides, alumina, lime, silica (sand), completely sorb all of the liquid contents diatomaceous earth; perlite (volcanic the container. of the inside containers. The metal outer glass; expanded volcanic rock; volcanic container must be full after it has been ash; cement kiln dust; fly ash; rice hull packed with inside containers and 3. Section 265.314 is amended by ash; activated charcoal/ activated sorbent material. redesignating paragraph (f0 as (g), carbon); or (c) The sorbent material used must not revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b), and (ii) High molecular weight synthetic be capable of reacting dangerously with, (c)(1)(ii), and adding new paragraph {f polymers (e.g., polyethylene, high being decomposed by, or being ignited to read as follows: density polyethylene (HDPE), by the contents of the inside container's § 26&314 Special requirements for bulk polypropylene, polystyrene, in accordance with § 265.17(b). polyurethane, polyacrylate, * * * * * and containerized liquids. polynorborene, polysobutylene, ground * * * (a) synthetic rubber, cross-linked PART 271-REQUIREMENTS FOR (2) Before disposal, the liquid waste or allylstyrene and tertiary butyl AUTHORIZATION OF STATE waste containing free liquids is treated copolymers). This does not include HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS or stabilized, chemically or physically polymers derived from'biological (e.g., by mixing with a sorbent solid), so material or polymers specifically 1. The authority citation for Part 271 that free liquids are no longer present. designed to be degradable; or continues to read as follows: (iii) Mixtures of these (b) Effective May 8,1985, the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a) and 6926. placement of bulk or non-containerized nonbiodegradable materials. liquid hazardous waste or hazardous (2) Tests for nonbiodegradable 2. Section 271.1(j) is amended by sorbents. (i) The sorbent material is adding the following entry to Table 1 in waste containing free liquids (whether determined to be nonbiodegradable or not sorbents have been added) in any chronological order by date of under ASTM Method G21-70 (1984a)- publication: landfill is prohibited. Standard Practice for Determining (c) * * * Resistance of Synthetic Polymer § 271.1 Purpose and scope. * * * * 1} * * Materials to Fungi; or *

TABLE 1.-REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING THE HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984

Promulgation date Title of regulation Federal Register reference Effective date

Nov. 18. 1992 ...... Containerized Liquids In Landfills ...... 57 FR [Insert Federal Register page numbers] ...... May 18, 1992.

[FR Doc. 92-27289 Filed 11-17-92; 8:45 am] BLLING CODE 650-I-M

HeinOnline -- 57 Fed. Reg. 54461 1992