View Rule

Statement of Need: Land disposal of hazardous wastes can result in the contamination of groundwater and surface water and the emission of hazardous constituents to the air. Studies have indicated that these hazardous constituents can cause adverse human health and environmental effects. In addition, land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes can have significant economic effects, as demonstrated in the high costs of cleaning up past land disposal sites. ^PAs a result of these problems, Congress, in section 3004 of RCRA, mandated that land disposal of hazardous waste is prohibited, unless the waste is treated to minimize threats to human health and the environment. In the phase IV final rule, EPA is targeting the potential risks of leaks and air emissions from surface impoundments that are part of wastewater treatment systems. Primary treatment surface impoundments and other surface impoundments that precede the biological treatment surface impoundment may pose a particular risk that untreated organic constituents could leak to groundwater. There is also a chance that hazardous constituents could be emitted into the air from an uncovered surface impoundment, thus this risk will also be addressed. In addition, EPA is satisfying its statutory mandate to promulgate treatment standards for wood preserving, toxicity characteristic metal, and mineral processing hazardous wastes.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Portions of the rule are subject to a consent decree that requires promulgation of final treatment standards for wood preserving and toxicity characteristic metal wastes, and hazardous mineral processing wastes.

Alternatives: In a final rule issued on May 8, 1990, EPA allowed certain hazardous wastes to be diluted rather than treated to meet the land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standards when they were managed in surface impoundments regulated by the Clean Water Act (CWA). This approach was taken in order to harmonize the requirements of RCRA and CWA. EPA was sued on the 1990 final rule ( Chemical Waste Management, Inc. et al. (CWM) v. EPA)T1. In CWM v. EPA, the court held that these diluted wastes may be placed in a surface impoundment only if the underlying hazardous constituents in the waste are treated to the same extent as they would be under RCRA, such that threats to human health and the environment are minimized. As a direct result of the court decision, EPA entered into a settlement agreement which required EPA to examine whether treatment in a CWA (and CWA-equivalent) wastewater treatment surface impoundment is equivalent to treatment under RCRA LDR requirements. The Agency examined edquivalency under the two programs by looking at the potential for cross-media transfers of hazardous constituents in CWA and CWA-equivalent surface impoundments in the Phase IV proposal. It will be necessary to identify the Agency's final approach in the Phase IV final rule. ^PThe Phase IV final rule will finalize EPA's decision on three proposed options to address the issue of whether EPA should establish RCRA controls for releases of hazardous constituents through air emissions, leaks to groundwater, and sludges from CWA and CWA-equivalent wastewater treatment surface impoundments. The proposal neutrally presented two options for addressing potential cross-media transfers. The first option was to rely on existing Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions to address air emissions, and on State programs and the RCRA industrial nonhazardous waste control mechanisms to address leaks and sludges. The second option was to rely on existing controls, but also establish LDR regulations to fill the gaps that were identified in existing regulations. As compliance alternatives for this option, EPA proposed a de minimis exclusion, and an approach for giving credit for pollution prevention activities that reduced the mass loadings of hazardous wastes to the environment. A third option, presented for completeness but believed to be inappropriate and costly, was to require that facilities comply with LDR treatment standards before placing their wastes in the wastewater treatment surface impoundments. If LDR standards were met before land disposal in the surface impoundment, then the issue of equivalency would be moot. ^PFuthermore, under RCRA, the Agency was instructed to promulgate treatment standards for a waste within six months of the Agency determining that it is a hazardous waste. The Agency missed this deadline in a number of cases and was sued. The Phase IV final rule is subject to a consent decree that requires the establishment of treatment standards for wood preserving and toxicity characteristic metal wastes, and for hazardous mineral processing wastes. The treatment standards for hazardous mineral processing wastes will be proposed in a supplemental rule to be issued in December, 1995. ^PTreatment standards for wood preserving and toxicity characteristic metal wastes, as well as for hazardous mineral processing wastes, are based upon the performance of best demonstrated available technologies (BDAT). Section 3004(m) of RCRA requires that the treatment standards ensure substantial reductions in hazardous waste toxicity and mobility, such that threats to human health and the environment arising form subsequent land disposal are minimized. Variances from these treatment standards may be granted if a petitioner can show EPA that the waste is different from the waste EPA used to set the treatment standard or that the treatment is unavailable on a waste. In addition, if treatment is unavailable on a nationwidebasis, or on a case-by-case basis, EPA may postpone the effective date of the treatment standards for up to four years.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Agency's analysis of the cost of addressing cross-media transfers indicates that under Option 1, no impacts would occur because the Agency proposed to defer to other regulations. For Option 2, annual compliance costs to facilities would range from an estimated $10 to $65 million. Estimated annual compliance costs to facilities under Option 3 would range from $200 to $300 million. ^PThe Agency estimates annual incremental compliance costs of treating wood preserving wastes to be $9.5 million. Costs to treat metal toxicity characteristic wastes to comply with the revised standards are expected to be minimal. ^PEPA estimates that cancer risks from leaks to groundwater at wastewater treatment systems range up to one in one thousand. In one-fifth of samples with volatile organic constituents at the point of generation, concentrations exceeded the risk-based regulatory threshold established in the RCRA Subpart CC rule to control air emissions.

Risks: Please see the previous section titled "Anticipated Costs and Benefits" for a discussion on risks.