View Rule

Statement of Need: Land disposal of hazardous wastes can result in the contamination of groundwater and surface water. 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 threats to human health and the environment are minimized. In the phase III final rule, EPA is targeting the potential risks of discharges from surface impoundments that are part of wastewater treatment systems. Biological treatment surface impoundments may not treat all underlying hazardous constituents in RCRA characteristic wastes (that are diluted to remove the hazardous characteristic) to the same extent as those constituents would be treated using other technologies to achieve LDR treatment standards. In addition, characteristic wastes are often diluted and injected into deep wells, without actually being treated to minimize the potential threat of underlying hazardous constituents in that waste. These risks will be addressed by establishing LDR treatment standards that apply at the point of discharge from the impoundment or into an underground injection well (i.e., at "end-of-pipe"). In addition, EPA is promulgating treatment standards for carbamate wastes and spent aluminum potliners.

Summary of the Legal Basis: The end-of-pipe treatment standards are subject to a consent decree that mandates that this rule be finalized by January, 1996.

Alternatives: In a final rule issued on May 8, 1990, EPA allowed certain hazardous wastes to be diluted rather than treated to meet the 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). 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, in such a way 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 establish treatment standards for any underlying hazardous constituents reasonably expected to be present in characteristic (i.e., ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic) hazardous wastes that are diluted to remove the hazardous characteristic, that must be met at the point the waste is discharged to the water or the land, or injected into a deep well. ^PThe phase III final rule will introduce two new LDR compliance options for deep injection wells: a de minimis exclusion for very small-volume hazardous waste streams that are mixed with other nonhazardous waste streams; and a pollution prevention option that allows facilities to reduce the mass loadings of underlying hazardous constituents to the same extent as they would be reduced by meeting the LDR treatment standards. ^PFurthermore, under RCRA, the Agency was instructed to promulgate treatment standards for a waste within 6 months of the Agency determining that it is a hazardous waste. The Agency missed this deadline in a number of cases. The phase III rule will promulgate treatment standards for two "newly listed" categories of hazardous wastes: wastes from carbamate production, and spent aluminum potliners. ^PAll of the treatment standards in the phase III rule 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, in such a way 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 inappropriate for the waste. In addition, if treatment is unavailable on a nationwide basis, or on a case-by-case basis, EPA may postpone the effective date of the treatment standards for up to 4 years.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The Agency's analysis of the estimated one-time cost of establishing end-of-pipe treatment standards for characteristic wastes that are diluted and placed in treatment surface impundment is $0.9 - $2.9 million. The estimated cost for treating characteristic hazardous wastes that are diluted and injected into UIC wells is $9.2 - $13.2 million for on-site treatment and $486.5 - $805.3 million for off-site treatment. The estimated annual cost for treating carbamate wastes and spent aluminum potliners is $11.9 - $47.3 million. ^PBenefit estimates for surface impoundments include loadings reductions between 36 and 407 tons/year for direct discharges, and between 1,490 and 24,391 tons/year for indirect discharges. In addition, cancer risks for two constituents, aniline and acrylamide will be reduced. EPA estimates that cancer risks from leaks to groundwater from deep injection wells are below regulatory concern. It is estimated that between 100,000 and 118,000 tons of spent aluminum potliners are generated annually. Improper management of these wastes has caused many serious past damage incidents. However, data are limited with regard to current management practices and risk levels. Because the quantity of waste is very small, benefits for newly listed carbamate wastes are expected to be minimal.

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