[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3008-3051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1037]
[[Page 3007]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Parts 136 and 445
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category; Final
Rule
FederalRegister / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 3008]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 136 and 445
[FRL-6503-5]
RIN 2040-AC23
Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule represents the culmination of the Agency's
effort to develop Clean Water Act (CWA) national effluent limitations
guidelines and pretreatment standards for wastewater discharges from
certain landfills. The final regulation establishes technology-based
effluent limitations for wastewater discharges associated with the
operation and maintenance of new and existing hazardous and non-
hazardous landfill facilities regulated, respectively, under Subtitle C
and Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Sources of landfill wastewater include, but are not limited to,
landfill leachate and gas collection condensate. Today's final rule
does not establish pretreatment standards for the introduction of
pollutants into Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) from the
operation of new and existing landfills regulated under Subtitle C or
Subtitle D of RCRA.
The rule does not apply to wastewater discharges from ``captive''
landfills--those landfills associated with other industrial or
commercial activities, in most circumstances. For example, it does not
apply to captive landfills that only receive wastes generated by the
industrial operation directly associated with the landfill. In
addition, the rule does not apply to captive landfills that receive
both wastes generated by the industrial operation directly associated
with the landfill as well as other wastes, so long as the other wastes
are similar in nature to the wastes generated by the industrial
operation directly associated with the landfill. Further, the
regulation does not apply to wastewater discharges associated with
treatment of contaminated ground water from hazardous and non-hazardous
landfills.
The final effluent limitations guidelines will benefit the
environment by removing 900,000 pounds of pollutants per year at an
estimated annualized cost of $7.6 million.
DATES: This regulation shall become effective February 18, 2000.
ADDRESSES: For additional technical information write to Mr. Michael
C. Ebner, Engineering and Analysis Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or send E-mail to:
[email protected] or call at (202)260-5397. For additional economic
information contact Mr. William Anderson at the address above or send
E-mail to: [email protected] or call (202) 260-5131.
The complete record (excluding confidential business information)
for this Clean Water Act rulemaking is available for review at EPA's
Water Docket, Room EB57; 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. For
access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30
p.m. for an appointment. The record for this rulemaking has been
established under docket number W-97-17, and includes supporting
documentation, but does not include any information claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI). The EPA public information
regulation (40 CFR Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For additional technical information
call Mr. Michael Ebner at (202) 260-5397. For additional information on
the economic impact analyses contact Mr. William Anderson at (202) 260-
5131.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Judicial Review
In accordance with 40 CFR 23.2, this rule will be considered
promulgated for purposes of judicial review at 1:00 p.m. Eastern time
on February 2, 2000. Under section 509(b)(1) of the Act, judicial
review of this regulation can be obtained only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of Appeals within 120 days after the
regulation is considered final for purposes of judicial review. Under
section 509(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements in this regulation may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA
to enforce these requirements.
Regulated Entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.......................... Landfills regulated under Subtitle C
or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect
and discharge landfill generated
wastewater to surface waters of the
U.S., unless the landfills are
directly associated with other
industrial or commercial
facilities.
State, municipal or tribal Landfills regulated under Subtitle C
Government. or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect
and discharge landfill generated
wastewater to surface waters of the
U.S., unless the landfills are
directly associated with other
industrial or commercial
facilities.
Federal Government................ Landfills regulated under Subtitle C
or Subtitle D of RCRA that collect
and discharge landfill generated
wastewater to surface waters of the
U.S., unless the landfills are
directly associated with other
industrial or commercial
facilities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The preceding table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 445.1 of the final rule. If
you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult one of the persons listed in the preceding
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Compliance Dates
The compliance date for NSPS is the date the new source commences
discharging. Compliance deadline for BPT, BCT, and BAT for a facility
is immediately upon issuance or reissuance of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
Supporting Documentation
Several major documents further describe the technical and economic
basis for the regulations promulgated today. These include:
1. ``Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Landfills Point Source
[[Page 3009]]
Category'' (EPA 821-R-99-019). Hereafter referred to as the Technical
Development Document, it presents EPA's technical conclusions
concerning the rule. EPA describes, among other things, the data
collection activities in support of the rule, the wastewater treatment
technology options, wastewater characterization, and the estimation of
costs to the industry.
2. ``Economic Analysis for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category'' (EPA 821-B-99-
005).
3. ``Statistical Support Document for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category'' (EPA
821-B-99-007).
4. ``Environmental Assessment for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Point Source Category'' (EPA
821-B-99-006).
EPA made drafts of these documents available for comment at
proposal and revised the materials where warranted in response to the
comments. EPA did not submit the documents for peer review because the
Agency concluded that additional review was not required because the
scientific and technical methodologies being used are not significantly
different from those used in the development of past effluent
guidelines.
How to Obtain Supporting Documents:
The Technical and Economic Development Documents can be obtained
through EPA's website on the Internet, located at www.epa.gov/OST/guide/2lndfls. All of the supporting documents are also available from
the Office of Water Resource Center, RC-4100, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D.C., 20460; telephone (202) 260-7786 for the voice
mail publication request.
Table of Contents
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
C. Brief History of Landfill Industry and Proposed Guidelines
III. The Final Landfills Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
A. Overview of Final Rule
B. Applicability and Scope of the Final Rule
C. Subcategorization
D. Profile of the Landfills Industry
E. Technology Basis for Final Rule
F. Development of Effluent Limitations
G. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation
IV. Assessment of Costs and Impacts
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions
Achieved by Treatment Technologies
B. Costs of Compliance
C. Pollutant Reductions
V. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction and Overview
B. Summary of Economic Impacts
VI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. Introduction
B. Methodology Used for Estimating Water Quality Impacts and
Benefits
C. Estimated National Water Quality Impacts and Results
VII. Non-water Quality Environmental Impacts
A. Air Pollution
B. Solid Waste Generation
C. Energy Requirements
VIII. Regulatory Implementation
A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
C. Variances and Modifications
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and
Monitoring Requirements
E. Implementation for Facilities With Landfills in Multiple
Subcategories
F. Implementation for Contaminated Ground Water Flows and
Wastewater from Recovering Pumping Wells
G. Implementation for Subtitle D Landfills Which Received Newly
Listed Hazardous Wastes in the Past
H. Implementation for Superfund Response Actions at Landfills
I. Implementation for TSCA landfills
J. Implementation for Landfills Located at Centralized Waste
Treatment Facilities
K. Determination of Similar Wastes for Captive Landfill
Facilities
L. Analytical Methods
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
X. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
I. Legal Authority
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is promulgating these
regulations under the authority of Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,
1318, 1342, and 1361.
II. Background
A. Clean Water Act
Congress adopted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters'' (Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). To achieve this
goal, the CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters except in compliance with the statute. The Clean Water Act
confronts the problem of water pollution on a number of different
fronts. Its primary reliance, however, is on establishing restrictions
on the types and amounts of pollutants discharged from various
industrial, commercial, and public sources of wastewater.
Congress recognized that regulating only those sources that
discharge effluent directly into the nation's waters would not be
sufficient to achieve the CWA's goals. Consequently, the CWA requires
EPA to promulgate nationally applicable pretreatment standards which
restrict pollutant discharges for those who discharge wastewater
indirectly through sewers flowing to publicly-owned treatment works
(POTWs) (Section 307(b) and (c), 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) and (c)). National
pretreatment standards are established for those pollutants in
wastewater from indirect dischargers which may pass through or
interfere with POTW operations. Generally, pretreatment standards are
designed to ensure that wastewater from direct and indirect industrial
dischargers are subject to similar levels of treatment. In addition,
POTWs are required to implement local pretreatment limits applicable to
their industrial indirect dischargers to satisfy any local requirements
(40 CFR 403.5).
Direct dischargers must comply with effluent limitations in
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (``NPDES'') permits;
indirect dischargers must comply with pretreatment standards. These
limitations and standards are established by regulation for categories
of industrial dischargers and are based on the degree of control that
can be achieved using various levels of pollution control technology.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)--Sec.
304(b)(1) of the CWA
In the regulations for an industry category, EPA defines BPT
effluent limits for conventional, priority,\1\ and
[[Page 3010]]
nonconventional pollutants. In specifying BPT, EPA looks at a number of
factors. EPA first considers the cost of achieving effluent reductions
in relation to the effluent reduction benefits. The Agency also
considers the age of the equipment and facilities, the processes
employed and any required process changes, engineering aspects of the
control technologies, non-water quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements), and such other factors as the Agency
deems appropriate (CWA 304(b)(1)(B)). Traditionally, EPA establishes
BPT effluent limitations based on the average of the best performances
of facilities within the industry of various ages, sizes, processes or
other common characteristic. Where existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, EPA may require higher levels of control than currently in
place in an industrial category if the Agency determines that the
technology can be practically applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the initial stages of EPA CWA regulation, EPA efforts
emphasized the achievement of BPT limitations for control of the
``classical'' pollutants (e.g., TSS, pH, BOD5). However,
nothing on the face of the statute explicitly restricted BPT
limitations to such pollutants. Following passage of the Clean Water
Act of 1977 with its requirement for point sources to achieve best
available technology limitations to control discharges of toxic
pollutants, EPA shifted its focus to address the listed priority
pollutants under the guidelines program. BPT guidelines continue to
include limitations to address all pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)--Sec. 304(b)(4)
of the CWA
The 1977 amendments to the CWA required EPA to identify effluent
reduction levels for conventional pollutants associated with BCT for
discharges from existing industrial point sources. In addition to other
factors specified in Section 304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that EPA
establish BCT limitations after consideration of a two part ``cost-
reasonableness'' test. EPA explained its methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July 1986 (51 FR 24974).
Section 304(a)(4) designates the following as conventional
pollutants: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform, pH, and any additional
pollutants defined by the Administrator as conventional. The
Administrator designated oil and grease as an additional conventional
pollutant on July 30, 1979 (44 FR 44501).
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)--Sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA
In general, BAT effluent limitations guidelines represent the best
economically achievable performance of plants in the industrial
subcategory or category. The factors considered in assessing BAT
include the cost of achieving BAT effluent reductions, the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the process employed, potential
process changes, and non-water quality environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded these factors. BAT limitations may
be based on effluent reductions attainable through changes in a
facility's processes and operations. As with BPT, where existing
performance is uniformly inadequate, BAT may require a higher level of
performance than is currently being achieved based on technology
transferred from a different subcategory or category. BAT may be based
upon process changes or internal controls, even when these technologies
are not common industry practice.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)--Sec. 306 of the CWA
NSPS reflect effluent reductions that are achievable based on the
best available demonstrated control technology. New facilities have the
opportunity to install the best and most efficient production processes
and wastewater treatment technologies. As a result, NSPS should
represent the most stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available control technology for all pollutants
(i.e., conventional, nonconventional, and priority pollutants). In
establishing NSPS, EPA is directed to take into consideration the cost
of achieving the effluent reduction and any non-water quality
environmental impacts and energy requirements.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES)--Sec. 307(b) of
the CWA
PSES are designed to prevent the discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere-with, or are otherwise incompatible with the
operation of publicly-owned treatment works (POTW). The CWA authorizes
EPA to establish pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass
through POTWs or interfere with treatment processes or sludge disposal
methods at POTWs. Pretreatment standards for existing sources are
technology-based and analogous to BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment Regulations, which set forth the framework
for the implementation of categorical pretreatment standards, are found
at 40 CFR Part 403. Those regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather than national instances of
pass-through and establish pretreatment standards that apply to all
non-domestic discharges. See 52 FR 1586, January 14, 1987.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)--Sec. 307(b) of the
CWA
Like PSES, PSNS are designed to prevent the discharges of
pollutants that pass through, interfere-with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of POTWs. PSNS are to be issued at the
same time as NSPS. New indirect dischargers have the opportunity to
incorporate into their plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the same factors in promulgating
PSNS as it considers in promulgating NSPS.
B. Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304(m) of the CWA, added by the Water Quality Act of 1987,
requires EPA to establish schedules for (1) reviewing and revising
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards (``effluent
guidelines'') and (2) promulgating new effluent guidelines. On January
2, 1990, EPA published an Effluent Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80) that
established schedules for developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry categories. One of the industries for
which the Agency established a schedule was the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Industry.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Public Citizen,
Inc. filed suit against the Agency, alleging violation of Section
304(m) and other statutory authorities requiring promulgation of
effluent guidelines (NRDC et al. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)).
Under the terms of the consent decree in that case, as amended, EPA
agreed, among other things, to propose effluent guidelines for the
``Landfills and Industrial Waste Combusters'' category by November 1997
and final action by November 1999. Although the Consent Decree lists
``Landfills and Industrial Waste Combusters'' as a single entry, EPA is
publishing separate regulations for Industrial Waste Combusters and for
Landfills.
C. Brief History of Landfills Industry and Proposed Guidelines
The growth of the landfills industry is a direct result of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and subsequent EPA and
State regulations that establish the conditions under which solid waste
may be disposed. The implementation of the increased control measures
required by RCRA has had a number of ancillary effects on the landfill
industry. On the one hand, it has forced many landfills to close
because they lacked adequate on-site controls to protect against
migration of hazardous constituents
[[Page 3011]]
from the landfill, and it was not economical to upgrade the landfill
facility. As a result, a large number of landfills, especially
facilities serving small populations, have closed rather than incur the
significant expense of upgrading.
Conversely, large landfill operations have taken advantage of
economies of scale by serving wide geographic areas and accepting an
increasing portion of the nation's solid waste. For example, responses
to EPA's Waste Treatment Industry Survey indicated that 75 percent of
the nation's municipal solid waste is deposited in large landfills
representing only 25 percent of the landfill population.
EPA has identified several trends in the waste disposal industry
that may increase the quantity of leachate produced by landfills. More
stringent RCRA regulation and the restrictions on the management of
wastes have increased the amount of waste disposed at landfills as well
as the number of facilities choosing to send wastes off-site to
commercial facilities in lieu of pursuing on-site management options.
This will increase treated leachate discharges from the nation's
landfills, thus potentially putting at risk the integrity of the
nation's waters. Further, as a result of the increased number of
leachate collection systems, the volume of leachate requiring treatment
and disposal has greatly increased.
On February 6, 1998, EPA proposed Clean Water Act (CWA) national
effluent limitations guidelines and pretreatment standards for
wastewater discharges from landfill facilities regulated under Subtitle
C or Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
63 FR 6425.
The proposed regulation divided the landfills industry into two
subcategories: (1) RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill
Subcategory, and (2) RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill
Subcategory. For the RCRA Subtitle C subcategory, EPA proposed BPT,
BAT, BCT, and NSPS concentration-based limitations for 15 pollutants:
BOD5, TSS, ammonia, arsenic (total), chromium (total), zinc
(total), alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzene, benzoic acid, naphthalene,
p-cresol, phenol, pyridine, and toluene; EPA also proposed limitations
for pH. For PSES and PSNS for the hazardous waste landfill subcategory,
EPA proposed pretreatment standards for six pollutants: ammonia, alpha-
terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and toluene.
For the RCRA Subtitle D subcategory, EPA proposed BPT, BAT, BCT,
and NSPS concentration-based limitations for nine parameters. These
were BOD5, TSS, ammonia, zinc (total), alpha-terpineol,
benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, toluene; EPA also proposed limitations
for pH. EPA did not propose PSES or PSNS for the RCRA Subtitle D
subcategory.
As proposed, the guidelines would not apply to wastewater
discharges from captive landfills located at industrial facilities
under certain conditions. The guidelines did not apply if the
industrial facility commingled landfill process wastewater with non-
landfill process wastewater for treatment, provided that the landfill
received only waste generated on-site or waste generated from a similar
activity at another facility under the same corporate structure.
Further, the proposed regulation did not apply to wastewater discharges
associated with treatment of contaminated ground water from hazardous
and non-hazardous landfills.
EPA solicited public comment on the proposed rule; the comment
period was open from February 6 to May 7, 1998. Section [X] describes
the major comments on the proposed rule and EPA's responses. The public
record includes a comment summary and response document for this
rulemaking.
III. The Final Landfills Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
This section discusses the applicability of the final rule, the
landfill wastewater flows subject to the rule, regulatory options
considered, and the rationale for the selected technology options.
A. Overview of Final Rule
Today EPA is promulgating technology-based effluent limitations for
wastewater discharges to navigable waters associated with the operation
of new and existing hazardous and non-hazardous landfill facilities
regulated under Subtitle C or Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA decided to promulgate effluent limitation
guidelines using the same subcategorization approach outlined in the
proposal. For the RCRA Subtitle C subcategory, EPA is promulgating BPT,
BAT, BCT, and NSPS (BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS) limitations for fourteen
parameters. These are BOD5, TSS, ammonia, arsenic (total),
chromium (total), zinc (total), alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid,
naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, pyridine, and pH. For the RCRA Subtitle
D subcategory, EPA is promulgating BPT/BCT/BAT/NSPS limitations for
nine parameters. These are BOD5, TSS, ammonia, zinc (total),
alpha-terpineol, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, and pH. Chapter 7 of
the Technical Development Document describes in detail EPA's selection
of pollutants to regulate. The final rule does not establish PSES or
PSNS for either subcategory.
B. Applicability and Scope of the Final Rule
Today's final effluent limitations guidelines and standards cover
pollutants in wastewater discharges associated only with the operation
and maintenance of those landfills regulated under Subtitles C and D of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).\2\ The rule applies
to wastewater generated at active landfills subject to Subtitle C of
RCRA and Subtitle C landfills that closed after November 19, 1980, the
effective date of 40 CFR Part 265. The guidelines do not apply to
discharges of landfill wastewater associated with hazardous landfills
that went into a permanently inactive status (i.e., they were not
receiving any more waste) before the effective date of 40 CFR Part 265.
Similarly, the rule applies to wastewater generated at active landfills
subject to Subtitle D of RCRA and Subtitle D landfills that closed
after October 15, 1979, the effective date of 40 CFR Part 257. The
guidelines do not apply to discharges of landfill wastewater associated
with non-hazardous landfills that went into a permanently inactive
status (i.e., they were not receiving any more waste) before the
effective date of 40 CFR Part 257.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ EPA's Subtitle C and Subtitle D regulations define
``landfill''. See 40 CFR 257.2, 258.2 (``municipal solid waste
landfill'') and 260.10. Permitted Subtitle C landfills are
authorized to accept hazardous wastes as defined in 40 CFR Part 261.
Subtitle D landfills are authorized to receive municipal, commercial
or industrial waste that is not hazardous (as well as hazardous
waste excluded from regulation under Subtitle C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, this rule does not apply to wastewater discharges
associated with the operation and maintenance of land application or
treatment units, surface impoundments, underground injection wells,
waste piles, salt dome or bed formations, underground mines, caves or
corrective action units.\3\ Additionally, this guideline does not apply
to waste transfer stations, or any wastewater not directly attributed
to the operation and maintenance of Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill
units. Consequently, wastewater such as that generated in off-site
washing of vehicles used in landfill operations is not within the scope
of this guideline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These terms are defined at 40 CFR 257.2 and 260.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3012]]
1. Captive Landfills
In developing the proposed guidelines, an important question EPA
addressed was how to treat landfill leachate generated at a landfill
that is associated with an industrial or commercial operation--so-
called ``captive'' landfills. Currently, in the case of wastewater
sources that are not subject to effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, NPDES permit writers must impose limitations on discharges
of these wastewater sources that are developed on a case-by-case, best
professional judgment (BPJ) basis. Similarly, an indirect discharger
may not introduce any pollutants to a POTW from these sources that will
pass through or interfere with the POTW's operations. Generally, each
POTW is required to develop a pretreatment program and enforce the
prohibition on pass through and interference through specific local
limits.
EPA initially considered development of effluent guidelines to
address any landfill discharging directly to surface waters of the
United States or introducing pollutants into a POTW. Consequently,
EPA's technical evaluation for the proposal included an assessment of
virtually all landfill facilities which collect wastewater as a result
of landfilling operations. EPA proposed to exclude wastewater
discharges from captive landfills located at industrial facilities in
specific circumstances. In the proposal, a captive landfill would not
have been subject to the guidelines (1) if it commingled landfill
process wastewater with non-landfill process wastewater for treatment,
and (2) the landfill received only waste generated on-site or waste
generated from a similar activity at another facility under the same
corporate structure.
EPA now determined that these requirements are too restrictive and
therefore the Agency has decided not to include captive landfills
within the scope of this guideline except in a limited number of
circumstances. The Agency wants to stress, however, that the effect of
today's decisions is not to allow these wastewater sources to escape
treatment. Landfill wastewater at captive facilities is and will remain
subject to treatment and controls on its discharge. The CWA requires
wastewater discharges to meet technology-based effluent limitations on
the discharge whether the mechanism for imposing these limitations is
EPA-established national effluent limitations guidelines or a permit
writer's imposition on a case-by-case basis of BPJ limitations. In like
manner, in order to prevent pass through or interference, indirect
dischargers must limit their introduction of pollutants to a POTW
whether EPA has established national categorical pretreatment standards
for the discharge or a POTW has established local limits.
The following describes the applicability of the final rule to
captive landfills. The final rule does not apply to discharges of
landfill wastewater from captive landfills so long as one or more of
the following conditions are met:
--The captive landfill is operated in conjunction with other
industrial or commercial operations, and it only receives wastes
generated by the industrial or commercial operation directly associated
with the landfill.
--The landfill is operated in conjunction with other industrial or
commercial operations and it receives both wastes generated by the
industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the
landfill as well as other wastes and the other wastes received for
landfill disposal are generated by a facility that is subject to the
same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the receiving facility
directly associated with the landfill.
--The landfill is operated in conjunction with other industrial or
commercial operations and it receives wastes generated by the
industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the
landfill as well as other wastes and the other wastes are similar in
nature to the wastes generated by the industrial or commercial
operation directly associated with the landfill.
--The landfill is operated in conjunction with a Centralized Waste
Treatment (CWT) facility subject to 40 CFR Part 437 so long as the CWT
facility commingles the landfill wastewater with other non-landfill
wastewater for treatment. If a CWT facility discharges landfill
wastewater separately from other CWT wastewater or commingles the
wastewater from its landfill only with wastewater from other landfills,
then the landfill discharge is subject to this part.
--The landfill is operated in conjunction with other industrial or
commercial operations, and it receives wastes from public service
activities (as defined in Appendix A) and the landfill does not receive
a fee or other remuneration for the disposal service.
For the final rule, EPA has modified the proposal to remove the
requirement that a facility must commingle its wastewater from a
captive landfill with the facility's non-landfill process wastewater
for treatment in order not to be subject to the landfills effluent
guideline, in most circumstances. For the reasons described in detail
below, EPA did not remove the commingling requirement for CWTs. In
addition, EPA also changed the conditions under which captive landfills
may accept off-site wastes and not be subject to this guideline.
In the proposal, EPA stated that the commingling requirement
ensures that wastewater from captive landfills will undergo adequate
treatment (treatment that is comparable to the level of treatment that
would be required by the landfills effluent guideline) prior to
discharge. EPA determined that the commingling of landfill wastewater
with industrial wastewater for treatment was an unnecessary requirement
to impose in nationally applicable regulations for the reasons
discussed below. Permit writers are establishing appropriate limits on
these discharges by either applying the effluent limitations guidelines
applicable to the associated industrial activity to the discharge or
developing other BPJ limitations. EPA recommends that permit writers
use this guideline when developing these BPJ limitations.
From the information developed by the Agency for this rulemaking
and confirmed by comments on the proposal, EPA has concluded that
landfill wastewater generated by captive landfills operated in
conjunction with and receiving the bulk of their waste from an
industrial or commercial operation will have a similar pollutant
profile to the wastewater generated in the industrial or commercial
operation. EPA has further concluded that the wastewater generated by
landfill operations at most of the captive facilities are already
subject to effluent guidelines. In the circumstances in which the
wastewater is not expressly subject to effluent guidelines, EPA has
determined that permit writers generally impose BPJ limitations on the
discharge of landfill wastewater that are similar to the limitations
applicable to the discharge of industrial process wastewater whether
commingled or not. EPA has compared the wastewater treatment
technologies employed at many of the industrial facilities operating
landfills in conjunction with the industrial or commercial operations
to the treatment technologies that EPA used as the basis for the BPT/
BAT limits in this effluent guideline. The Agency's review of such
situations shows that the landfill wastewater receives treatment that
is comparable or better than the level of treatment that would be
required by the landfills effluent guideline.
[[Page 3013]]
Consequently, EPA has decided to eliminate the requirement of
commingling as a condition for a captive landfill not to be subject to
landfill limitations and standards (except in the case of CWTs). EPA
has concluded that landfill wastewater at captive landfills is now and
will continue to receive adequate treatment because the landfill
wastewater generally must meet the same effluent limitations that would
have been required had the waste streams been commingled. In cases
where the permit writer is establishing BPJ limitations for the
discharge of captive landfill wastewater that is not commingled for
treatment, the permit writer should look at the effluent guidelines
applicable to the associated industrial operation and the effluent
guidelines being promulgated today for potential guidance in setting
those limitations.
Because of the nature of most CWTs, EPA determined that the reasons
that generally supported exclusion of other captive landfills would not
apply in the case of CWTs. As explained above, EPA concluded that a
captive landfill which only received wastes generated in an industrial
or commercial operation directly associated with the landfill or
similar wastes would generate a leachate with a similar pollutant
profile to the other wastewater streams produced at the industrial
operation. In such circumstances, the data reviewed by EPA showed that
the landfill wastewater and other industrial wastewater are generally
commingled for treatment and subject to the same discharge limitations.
In these circumstances, it was appropriate not to subject the landfill
wastestream to this guideline.
Because a CWT, by its very nature, may generate a wide array of
different solid wastes for landfill disposal, it may generate a
leachate that varies significantly from other streams being treated at
the CWT at the time the leachate is collected. Therefore, EPA concluded
that the basis for the exclusion--the similarity in wastewater--would
not necessarily apply in the case of CWTs. EPA decided that, in order
to ensure that the CWT landfill wastewater is treated adequately, that
the landfill wastewater from a CWT landfill should be commingled with
other CWT wastewater for treatment.
Based on comments received, the Agency also determined that the
requirement in the proposal that solid wastes deposited in the captive
landfill must either be generated on-site or from an off-site facility
under the same corporate structure was too restrictive and could often
prohibit a company from safely and properly disposing of solid wastes
accepted from tolling, remediation, product stewardship, and public
service activities.
In the proposal, EPA narrowly limited the universe of captive
landfills that fall outside the scope of this rule to captive landfills
that only accepted wastes from on-site or from off-site facilities
under the same corporate structure. The reason for this was essentially
to ensure that the captive landfills were only accepting wastes that
would be similar to those wastes generated on-site. This in turn would
provide some degree of assurance that the leachate generated from these
wastes would be compatible with the on-site industrial wastewater
treatment. However, from the comments submitted on this issue, EPA
determined this waste acceptance criterion for the captive exclusion
was too restrictive. Those commenting on this issue identified several
waste acceptance practices that are commonly used by captive landfills
that would not meet the proposed exclusion criteria but are consistent
with EPA's objective that landfill leachate receive treatment
compatible with its expected constituents. Many of these current waste
disposal practices are activities that EPA encourages, and therefore
EPA has revised the exclusion criteria pertaining to waste acceptance
for captive/intracompany landfills in order to accommodate these
disposal practices.
Specifically, several commenters requested that EPA broaden the
criteria for determining those captive landfills that fall outside the
scope of this rule to include waste acceptance from tolling and
contract manufacturers, product stewardship, company partnerships, and
remediation activities. EPA concluded that waste disposal at captive
landfills from these types of activities will, in most cases, result in
leachate that will be adequately controlled through the implementation
of categorical or BPJ limitations at the facility. However, EPA remains
concerned that there are circumstances in which inter-company waste
products deposited in the landfill may result in contaminants in the
leachate that may not be compatible with the existing industrial
wastewater treatment system or may not be covered adequately by the
existing industrial effluent guideline. Therefore, one of the
alternative conditions for the revised applicability provisions of the
guideline described above for captive landfills provides that waste
accepted at the captive landfill must be of a similar nature to the
wastes generated at the operation with the associated landfill. Thus,
the permitting authority must determine that wastes accepted for
disposal at a captive landfill are of a similar nature to the waste
generated at the facility directly associated with the captive
landfill. Factors that the permit writer should consider in determining
whether a waste is similar are described at Section [VIII].
In addition, commenters also requested that EPA include the
acceptance of wastes for disposal as a public service as a category of
landfill practices that qualify for the captive exclusion. EPA agrees
and has included such a provision. EPA applauds the efforts of
manufacturing facilities who provide members of their communities with
a cost effective and environmentally safe means for disposing of their
solid waste. Therefore, in the final rule, EPA determined that this
rule shall not apply to those landfills operated in conjunction with
other industrial or commercial operations which receive other wastes
from public service activities so long as the company owning the
landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration for the disposal
service. EPA's decision not to subject captive landfills that accept
off-site wastes for disposal as a public service is not inconsistent
with its decision generally to condition non-applicability on the
similarity of wastes accepted for disposal. Based on its review of data
collected for this guideline and comments received, EPA concluded that
the quantity of wastes accepted for disposal as a public service would
not in any measurable way affect the pollutant profile of the leachate
generated by the landfill even if dissimilar. Of course, these
wastewater flows still remain subject to treatment to achieve BPJ
permit limits reflecting the landfill contribution to the facility
discharge.
The Agency has determined that whether captive landfills accepting
wastes from off-site or from a company not within the same corporate
structure on a non-commercial basis should be subject to the landfills
effluent guideline should hinge on the ability of the captive landfill
to handle the waste in an appropriate manner. Therefore, the Agency
concluded that waste acceptance criterion for determining those captive
landfills that fall outside the scope of this rule should be based on
the similarity of the waste accepted for disposal from another facility
to the waste generated by the industrial or commercial operation
directly associated with the landfill. In the case of captive landfills
treating similar
[[Page 3014]]
wastes, the permit writer should base permit limits on limitations for
the guideline to which the industrial or commercial operation is
subject or establish BPJ limitations. Again, the permit writer, if
developing BPJ limitations, should consider today's guidelines as
guidance in this effort.
2. Landfill Wastewater--The wastewater covered by the rule includes
leachate, gas collection condensate, drained free liquids, laboratory-
derived wastewater, contaminated storm water and contact washwater from
truck exteriors and surface areas which have come in direct contact
with solid waste at the landfill facility. However, ground water and
wastewater from recovery pumping well operations which have been
contaminated by a landfill and are collected and discharged are
excluded from this guideline and covered by BPJ limitations. This
section later discusses the exclusion from the rule for contaminated
ground water flows and Section [VIII] of today's final rule addresses
implementation issues associated with contaminated ground water. The
wastewater associated with the landfills industry is described below.
a. Leachate, as defined in 40 CFR 258.2, is liquid that has passed
through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or
miscible materials removed from such waste. Over time the potential for
certain pollutants to move into the wider environment increases. As
water passes through the landfill, it may ``leach'' pollutants from the
disposed waste moving them deeper into the soil. This presents a
potential hazard to public health and the environment through ground
water contamination and other means. One measure used to prevent the
movement of toxic and hazardous waste constituents from a landfill is a
landfill liner operated in conjunction with a leachate collection
system. Leachate is typically collected from a liner system placed at
the bottom of the landfill. Leachate also may be collected through the
use of slurry walls, trenches or other containment systems. The
leachate generated varies from site to site based on a number of
factors including: the types of waste accepted; operating practices
(including shedding, daily cover and capping); the depth of fill;
compaction of wastes; annual precipitation; and landfill age. Landfill
leachate accounts for over 95 percent of the wastewater covered by this
rule.
b. Gas Collection Condensate is liquid which has condensed in a gas
collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill. Gases
such as methane and carbon dioxide are generated due to microbial
activity within the landfill and must be removed to avoid hazardous,
explosive conditions. In gas collection systems, gases containing high
concentrations of water vapor condense in traps staged throughout the
gas collection network. The gas condensate may contain volatile, semi-
volatile, and metal compounds and usually accounts for a relatively
small percentage of flow from a landfill.
c. Drained Free Liquids are aqueous wastes drained from waste
containers (e.g. drums, trucks) or wastewater resulting from waste
stabilization prior to landfilling. Landfills which accept
containerized waste may generate this type of wastewater. Wastewater
generated from these waste processing activities is collected and
usually combined with other landfill generated wastewater for treatment
at the wastewater treatment plant.
d. Truck/Equipment Washwater is generated during either truck or
equipment washes at landfills. During routine maintenance or repair
operations, trucks and/or equipment used within the landfill (e.g.,
loaders, compactors, or dump trucks) are washed and the resultant
wastewater is collected for treatment. In addition, it is common
practice for many facilities to wash the wheels, body, and
undercarriage of trucks used to deliver the waste to the open landfill
face upon leaving the landfill. On-site wastewater treatment equipment
and storage tanks are also periodically cleaned.
e. Laboratory-Derived Wastewater is generated from on-site
laboratories which characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-
site treatment performance.
f. Contaminated storm water is storm water which comes in direct
contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment areas,
or wastewater that is subject to the limitations and standards. Some
specific areas of a landfill that may produce contaminated storm water
include (but are not limited to) the open face of an active landfill
with exposed waste (no cover added), the areas around wastewater
treatment operations, trucks, equipment or machinery that has been in
direct contact with the waste, and waste dumping areas.
g. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water which does not
come in direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and
treatment areas, or wastewater that are subject to the limitations and
standards. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water which
flows off the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily cover, and/or final
cover of the landfill.
EPA received extensive comments on its proposal to include
contaminated storm water as a regulated waste stream under the
landfills effluent guidelines. Several commenters stated that
contaminated storm water (storm water that comes into contact with
solid waste at the landfill site) should not be subject to the
landfills effluent limitations guidelines because this is already
covered by the Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Storm Water Multi-sector General Permit (MSGP) for Industrial
Activities (60 FR 50803).
The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required by the
storm water MSGP or an authorized State's equivalent general permit
requires landfill facilities to identify all of the sources of storm
water contamination at the landfill and then implement measures and
controls (such as good housekeeping for materials storage, sediment and
erosion controls--particularly from intermediate and final covers) in
an effort to prevent storm water contamination. EPA believes that the
storm water MSGP (or an authorized State's equivalent general permit)
adequately controls pollutants from storm water runoff from covered
areas of the landfill.
Covered areas of the landfill include the following: capped, final
cover, intermediate cover, and daily cover areas. The Agency believes
that the SWPPP and the monitoring requirements in the storm water MSGP
provide adequate controls for reducing the level of pollutants in storm
water from these areas of landfills.
EPA recognizes that there may be some incidental contact with
wastes when storm water flows over a daily or intermediate cover.
However, EPA concluded that such contact will not lead to any
meaningful ``contamination'' of the storm water so long as the landfill
complies with the requirements of the storm water MSGP or an authorized
State's equivalent general permit. For example, the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) outlined in Table L-1 and L-2 of the storm water MSGP
(60 FR 50940) and the monitoring requirements in Table L-5 and L-6 for
TSS and total recoverable iron (60 FR 50943) provide adequate controls
for the pollutants that would most likely be associated with runoff
from covered areas of non-hazardous landfills.
Similarly, for hazardous landfills, BMPs and monitoring
requirements outlined in Table K-2 (60 FR 50935) and Table K-3 (60 FR
50936), respectively, also require controls for pollutants associated
with runoff from covered areas of a landfill. In EPA's
[[Page 3015]]
view, BMPs provide a fair degree of control of these pollutants and the
monitoring requirements of the MSGP provide a tool for evaluating the
effectiveness of the pollution prevention plan.
As part of the Agency's continuing effort to improve its
environmental and pollution control programs, EPA has concluded that,
although the MSGP provides some control for contaminated storm water
runoff, the landfills effluent limitations guidelines provide a more
comprehensive level of control for storm water runoff that has come in
direct contact with solid waste, waste handling and treatment areas, or
wastewater flows that are controlled under this rule. Although the
storm water MSGP considered circumstances in which untreated leachate
may be incidently commingled with storm water, the Agency explicitly
acknowledged in the MSGP that insufficient data were available to
establish numeric limits for storm water that might be contaminated
based on best available technology for municipal solid waste landfills
(MSWLFs) (60 FR 50942), non-hazardous industrial landfills (60 FR
50943), and hazardous landfills (60 FR 50935).
However, EPA has now concluded that the data collected in support
of the landfills effluent limitations guidelines provide the basis for
establishing appropriate numeric limitations for contaminated storm
water. EPA specifically noted in the preamble for the storm water MSGP
that it was developing these guidelines and that where the guidelines
applied to discharges, facilities must comply with them. (60 FR 50942).
In addition, EPA intends to propose a reissuance of the storm water
MSGP which would include the promulgated landfills effluent limitations
for contaminated storm water (as defined by these guidelines).
EPA fully explains its rationale for including contaminated storm
water as a regulated wastewater for the landfills effluent guideline in
the Comment Response document found in the Landfills Public Record.
h. Contaminated ground water is water below the land surface in the
zone of saturation which has been contaminated by landfill leachate.
For the final rule, EPA has not included within the scope of regulated
flows ground water which has been contaminated by a landfill and is
collected and discharged. The reasons for this decision are as follows.
During development of the rule, EPA considered whether it should
also include contaminated ground water flows within the scope of this
guideline. Historically, many landfill operations have caused the
contamination of local ground water, mostly as a result of leakage from
unlined landfill units in operation prior to the minimum technology
standards for landfills established by RCRA Subtitle C and D
regulations. Subsequently, State and Federal action under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) has required facilities to clean up contaminated ground water.
In many cases this has resulted in the collection, treatment and
discharge of treated ground water to surface waters. In addition, in
the case of RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfills and municipal
solid waste landfills (MSWLFs), applicable regulatory standards require
ground water monitoring and post-closure care and, in the event of
ground water contamination, corrective action measures. These
requirements may also result in treatment of contaminated ground water
by such landfill facilities.
EPA evaluated flows, pollutant concentrations, treatment in place,
and current treatment standards for discharges of contaminated ground
water from landfills. From this evaluation, EPA concluded that
pollutants in contaminated ground water flows are often very dilute or
are treated to very low levels prior to discharge. EPA concluded that,
whether as a result of corrective action measures taken pursuant to
RCRA authority or State action to clean up contaminated landfill sites,
landfill discharges of treated contaminated ground water are being
adequately controlled. Consequently, further regulation under this rule
would be redundant and unnecessary.
EPA is aware that there are landfill facilities that collect and
treat both landfill leachate and contaminated ground water flows. In
the case of such facilities, EPA has concluded that decisions regarding
the appropriate discharge limits should be left to the judgment of the
permit writer. As indicated above, contaminated ground water may be
very dilute or may have characteristics similar in nature to leachate.
In cases where the ground water is very dilute the Agency is concerned
that contaminated ground water may be used as a dilution flow. In these
cases, the permit writer should develop BPJ permit limits based on
separate treatment and/or discharge of the ground water flows or
develop BPT/BAT limits based on a flow-weighted building block approach
in order to prevent dilution of the regulated leachate flows. However,
in cases where the ground water may exhibit characteristics similar to
leachate, commingled treatment is appropriate because it is more cost
effective and environmentally beneficial than separate treatment. EPA
recommends that the permit writer consider the characteristics of the
contaminated ground water before making a determination if commingling
ground water and leachate for treatment is appropriate. See Section
[VIII].
i. Recovering Pumping Wells wastewater is generated as a result of
the various ancillary operations associated with ground water pumping
operations. These operations include construction and development, well
maintenance, and well sampling (i.e., purge water). The wastewater will
have very similar characteristics to contaminated ground water.
Therefore, for the same reasons that EPA did not include contaminated
ground water as a regulated wastewater, these regulations do not apply
to wastewater from recovering pumping well operations.
C. Subcategorization
EPA proposed to divide the landfills point source category into two
subcategories and to develop different limitations and standards for
RCRA Subtitle C landfills and RCRA Subtitle D landfills. After
reviewing comments on the subcategorization approach, EPA decided to
promulgate effluent limitations guidelines using the same
subcategorization approach outlined in the proposed rule.
For today's final rule, EPA decided that a single set of effluent
limitations were not appropriate for the landfills industry and thus
EPA developed different limitations for subcategories within the
industry. In reaching its decision that subcategorization is required,
EPA considered various factors. In developing effluent limitation
guidelines, the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires EPA to assess a number
of factors, including manufacturing processes, products, the size and
age of a site, water use, and wastewater characteristics. The landfills
industry is not typical of many other industries regulated under the
CWA. Therefore, EPA looked at additional factors specifically tailored
to the characteristics of landfill operations in deciding what
limitations were appropriate for landfills. The factors considered for
subcategorization included RCRA classification, types of wastes
received, wastewater characteristics, facility size, age, ownership
status, location, economic impacts, treatment technology
[[Page 3016]]
employed, energy requirements, and non-water quality environmental
impacts. Based on an evaluation of these factors, EPA determined that
there was a notable distinction between wastewater associated with
Subtitle C landfills and that from Subtitle D landfills. A wider range
of toxic organic pollutants and higher concentration of metals were
found at the Subtitle C landfills. Thus, the most significant
differences observed in wastewater characteristics at landfills are
directly related to the wastes received at the landfill, which, in
turn, is most obviously linked to the landfill's RCRA status.
Therefore, EPA concluded that the most appropriate basis for
subcategorization is by landfill classification under RCRA.
Additionally, the Agency believes that this subcategorization
approach has the virtue of being easiest to implement because it
follows the same classification previously established under RCRA and
currently in use (and widely understood) by permit writers and
regulated entities. The Agency believes that any subcategorization at
odds with existing RCRA classification approaches would potentially
create unnecessary confusion to the regulated community.
Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 445, ``RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste
Landfill Subcategory,'' applies to wastewater discharges from a solid
waste disposal facility subject to the criteria in 40 CFR Part 264
Subpart N--Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities and 40 CFR Part 265 Subpart
N--Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Hazardous waste landfills
are subject to requirements outlined in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 that
include the requirement to maintain a leachate collection and removal
systems during the active life and post-closure period of the landfill.
For a discussion of these criteria, see the preamble to the proposed
landfill guideline at 63 FR 6426, 6430-31. (February 6, 1998).
Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 445, ``RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste
Landfill Subcategory,'' applies to wastewater discharges from all
landfills classified as RCRA Subtitle D non-hazardous landfills subject
to either of the criteria established in 40 CFR Parts 257 (Criteria for
Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices) or 258
(Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills). For a discussion of
these criteria, see the preamble to the proposed landfill guideline at
63 FR 6426, 6431-32. (February 6, 1998).
EPA received a number of comments requesting that EPA further
subdivide Subtitle D landfill facilities according to the specific type
of waste received. These commenters claimed that the differences in
wastewater characteristics between municipal solid waste landfills and
monofills warranted further subcategorization. In addition, a group
representing utility ash monofills suggested EPA develop separate
limitations for such landfills. The group asserted that the organic
content in ash monofill wastewater was so low that it would not sustain
biological treatment, which EPA used as the basis for BPT, BCT, BAT and
NSPS limitations. EPA did consider subcategorizing the Non-Hazardous
subcategory further but chose not to based on several factors explained
in detail in Section [X]. EPA decided to include monofills in the Non-
Hazardous subcategory and concluded that, based on the available raw
wastewater data, such facilities can meet the BPT/BAT limitations using
technologies that are available at costs no greater than those
technologies EPA evaluated (and determined to be economically
achievable) for the universe of Subtitle D facilities.
D. Profile of the Landfills Industry
At proposal, EPA stated that there were approximately 11,000
landfill facilities located throughout the country in 1992. EPA has
determined that the vast majority of these facilities either closed
prior to the enactment of Subtitle C or Subtitle D regulations or do
not generate wastewater covered by this regulation. Based on survey
responses, EPA believes that the final guidelines will affect 143
facilities.
In the case of landfills subject to regulation under Subtitle D,
EPA projects that there are 143 stand-alone landfill facilities that
discharge in-scope wastewater directly to receiving streams. EPA
estimates that there are 756 stand-alone Subtitle D landfill facilities
that collect in-scope wastewater but discharge indirectly to a POTW.
These facilities will not be affected by this final rule because EPA is
not establishing pretreatment standards for non-hazardous, Subtitle D
landfills. EPA determined that these discharges did not generally pass
through or interfere with POTW operations so as to require national
pretreatment standards. There are an additional 338 Subtitle D
facilities that collect in-scope wastewater but do not discharge to
surface waters or to POTWs and are also not affected by today's rule.
These facilities dispose of their wastewater by hauling off-site to a
centralized waste treatment facility, evaporation, recirculation back
to the landfill, or land application.
With respect to landfills subject to regulation under Subtitle C,
EPA estimates that there are no hazardous stand-alone landfill
facilities discharging directly to surface waters. It is possible,
however, that EPA's data collection efforts did not identify an
existing, stand-alone direct discharging hazardous landfill facility or
that an indirect (or zero discharging), stand-alone hazardous landfill
facility may become a direct discharger. Consequently, EPA is
establishing effluent limitations for direct discharging hazardous
landfills. EPA estimates that there are six stand-alone hazardous
landfill facilities that discharge indirectly to POTWs. In response to
comments on the proposal, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment
standards for hazardous Subtitle C landfills again because it decided
national standards were not required. EPA estimates that there are 139
hazardous landfills which collect in-scope wastewater but do not
discharge wastewater to surface waters or to a POTW. Methods of
wastewater disposal include hauling wastewater off-site to a
centralized waste treatment facility, underground injection, and
solidification. Additionally, EPA estimates that there are more than
150 industrial facilities which contain landfills but would be excluded
from this regulation as a result of the factors discussed at Section
[III.B].
E. Technology Basis for Final Rule
This section explains how EPA selected the technologies that form
the basis for effluent limitations and standards being promulgated
today for the Hazardous Landfill and Non-Hazardous Landfill
subcategories. For both the proposed and final rule, EPA developed
information to evaluate the performance of various systems for treating
landfill wastewater. EPA's database consisted of daily effluent data
collected from the Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire and EPA's
Wastewater Sampling Program. (EPA's data gathering efforts are
explained in detail in the preamble to the proposal at 63 FR 6433-35.)
EPA has revised the database since the proposal for a number of
reasons. First, the regulatory status for some landfills in the
database has changed. EPA excluded from the analysis landfills that
were no longer considered in the scope of the rule (for example, some
captive landfills). Second, some landfills in the database have changed
discharge status. EPA had inadvertently included two landfill
facilities as direct
[[Page 3017]]
dischargers in the analyses for the proposal when the facilities were
actually indirect dischargers. Third, in the loadings reduction
analysis for the proposed rule, EPA included removals of volatile
organic compounds associated with biological treatment. However, for
the final rule, EPA determined that removals of volatile organic
compounds should not be included because the biological and chemical
treatment options being considered did not provide treatment for the
volatile compounds. Fourth, for the final rule, EPA also revised the
long-term averages for several pollutants to reflect more accurately
the pollutant removals achieved by the technology options. The Agency
based these revisions on re-analysis of the dataset used for proposal.
The effluent limitations EPA is establishing today are based on
well-designed, well-operated systems. EPA based the final limitations
on treatment achieved by landfill facilities employing the selected
technologies. A landfill operator may, however, use any wastewater
treatment technology and/or waste management practices to meet the
numerical wastewater discharge limitations.
1. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)
In today's rulemaking, EPA is establishing BPT effluent limitations
for the two discharge subcategories for the Landfills Point Source
Category. The BPT effluent limitations promulgated today will control
identified conventional, priority, and nonconventional pollutants when
discharged from landfill facilities. For further discussion of the
basis for the limitations, technologies selected, and the factors EPA
considered in its decision, see the Technical Development Document and
the preamble to the proposed rule at 63 FR 6441.
a. BPT Options Considered and Selected for the RCRA Subtitle D
Landfills Subcategory. The BPT options analyzed for today's final rule
are identical to those evaluated for the proposal. In the Agency's
engineering assessment, EPA first considered three technologies
commonly in use by landfills and other industries as options for BPT.
These technology options were chemical precipitation, biological
treatment, and multimedia filtration.
For its evaluation of chemical precipitation, EPA collected raw
wastewater and treated effluent data from several non-hazardous
landfills employing this treatment. Based on this data, EPA removed
chemical precipitation from further consideration as a BPT treatment
option. While chemical precipitation is an effective treatment
technology for the removal of metals, non-hazardous landfills typically
have low concentrations of metals in treatment system influent
wastewater. Observed metals concentrations were typically not found at
levels that would inhibit biological treatment or that would be
effectively removed by a chemical precipitation unit. Therefore, EPA
considered only the following two options for BPT.
Option I--Biological Treatment. EPA first assessed the
pollutant removal performance of biological treatment. EPA selected
this as Option I due to its effectiveness in removing the large organic
loads commonly associated with leachate. BPT Option I consists of
aerated equalization followed by biological treatment. EPA included
various types of biological treatment such as activated sludge, aerated
lagoons, and anaerobic and aerobic biological towers or fixed film
reactors in calculating limits for this option. The Agency based the
costs for Option I on the cost of aerated equalization followed by an
extended aeration activated sludge system and clarification, including
sludge dewatering. Approximately 30 percent of the direct discharging
municipal solid waste landfills employed some form of biological
treatment, and 13 percent had a combination of equalization and
biological treatment.
Option II--Biological Treatment and Multimedia Filtration.
The second technology option considered for BPT treatment of non-
hazardous landfill wastewater was aerated equalization and biological
treatment as described in Option I, followed by multimedia filtration.
Approximately 10 percent of the direct discharging municipal solid
waste facilities used the technology described in Option II.
EPA is promulgating BPT effluent limitations for the Non-Hazardous
Landfills subcategory based on Option II because of the demonstrated
ability of biological treatment systems in controlling organic
pollutants and the effectiveness of multimedia filtration in removing
TSS. EPA is maintaining its decision at proposal to base BPT on Option
II level of control. EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option
II treatment reflects primarily two factors: (1) The degree of effluent
reductions attainable and (2) the total cost of the treatment
technologies in relation to the effluent reductions achieved.
No basis could be found for developing different BPT limitations
based on age, size, process or other engineering factors. EPA responds
to comments regarding the development of separate BPT limitations for
monofills and BPT limitations based on the age of the landfill at
Section [X].
EPA has selected Option II based on the comparison of the two
options in terms of total costs of achieving the effluent reductions,
pounds of pollutant removals, economic impacts, and general
environmental effects of the reduced pollutant discharges. BPT Option
II removed 142,000 more pounds of conventional pollutants than Option
I. EPA estimated that Option I would have cost approximately $7.30
million per year (1998$, after-tax) while EPA estimated that Option II
will cost only slightly more--$7.64 million per year (1998$, after-
tax).
Finally, EPA also looked at the costs of all options to determine
the economic impact that today's rule would have on the landfill
industry. EPA's assessment showed that under either option there were
significant economic impacts on only two facilities. Further discussion
on the economic impact analysis can be found in Section [V] of today's
notice.
EPA is today promulgating effluent limitations for the following
pollutants under BPT for direct discharging non-hazardous landfills:
BOD5, TSS, pH, ammonia, alpha terpineol, benzoic acid, p-
cresol, phenol, and zinc (total).
b. BPT Technology Options Considered and Selected for the RCRA
Subtitle C Landfill Subcategory. EPA's survey of the hazardous
landfills industry identified no in-scope landfill facilities that
discharge directly to surface water. All of the hazardous landfills
within the scope of today's rule are either indirect or zero/
alternative dischargers. EPA consequently could not evaluate any
treatment systems in place at direct discharging hazardous landfills
for establishing BPT effluent limitations. Therefore, EPA relied on
information and data from widely available treatment technologies in
use at hazardous landfill facilities discharging indirectly and at non-
hazardous landfills discharging directly--so-called ``technology
transfer.'' EPA concluded that the technology in place at some indirect
hazardous landfills is appropriate to use as the basis for regulation
of direct dischargers because the pollutant profile of the leachate
generated at hazardous waste landfills discharging directly would be
similar in character to that from indirect discharge hazardous waste
landfills.
For the final rule, EPA considered the following three potential
technology options for establishing BPT effluent
[[Page 3018]]
limitations for the Hazardous Landfill subcategory:
Option I--Aerated equalization followed by chemical
precipitation with primary clarification and multimedia filtration.
Option II--Aerated equalization followed by chemical
precipitation with primary clarification, biological treatment with
secondary clarification and multimedia filtration.
Option III--Zero or alternative discharge.
EPA evaluated the same treatment options for establishing
limitations that it had evaluated at proposal. As previously noted, in
developing the proposed limitations, EPA relied, in part, on data from
non-hazardous direct dischargers employing well-operated treatment
systems. In the case of the proposed TSS limitations, EPA relied on
data from two facilities that followed chemical precipitation and
biological treatment with multimedia filtration. While the proposal did
not specifically discuss filtration as a final treatment step, the
Development Document for the proposal fully explained the treatment
system, including multimedia filtration, in place at the two facilities
used to develop the proposed TSS limitation.
EPA evaluated chemical precipitation as a treatment technology
because of metals concentrations typically found in hazardous landfill
leachate and the efficient metals removals achieved through chemical
precipitation. EPA also evaluated biological treatment as an
appropriate technology because of its ability to remove organic loads
present in the leachate. The Agency also considered multimedia
filtration to be an appropriate technology for consideration. In the
first two options listed above, multimedia filters are effective in
removing TSS that might remain after primary or secondary
clarification. Finally, EPA considered a zero or alternative discharge
option as a potential BPT requirement because a significant segment of
the industry is currently not discharging wastewater to surface waters
or to POTWs. The zero or alternative disposal option would require
facilities to dispose of their wastewater in a manner that would not
result in wastewater discharge to a surface water or a POTW.
EPA eliminated Option I from consideration because it did not
control organic pollutants effectively. As was the case in the
proposal, EPA also decided to eliminate Option III because, for the
industry as a whole, zero or alternative discharge options are either
not viable or the cost is wholly disproportionate to the pollutant
reduction benefits and thus it is not ``practicable.'' Methods of
achieving zero or alternative discharge currently in use by hazardous
landfills are deep well injection, solidification, and contract hauling
of wastewater to a Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facility or to a
landfill wastewater treatment facility. Thirty seven facilities are
estimated to inject landfill wastewater underground on-site; 103
facilities send their wastewater to a CWT or landfill treatment system;
and one facility solidifies wastewater.
The commenters' submissions support EPA's decision to reject zero
or alternative discharge as the technology basis for BPT (or BAT)
limitations for hazardous landfills. While EPA supports the use of zero
or alternative discharges particularly where it does not result in
media transfer of pollutants, many of the available zero discharge
options have identifiable shortcomings such as transfer of waste
residuals to another media or the availability of an alternative
disposal option only in certain geographic locations.
For example, one demonstrated alternative disposal option for large
wastewater flows is underground injection. However, this is not
considered a practically available option on a nationwide basis because
it is not allowed in many geographic regions of the country where
landfills may be located. These restrictions may preclude underground
injection at a given landfill. In such circumstances, landfills would
need to resort to contract hauling to a Centralized Waste Treatment
(CWT) facility. Unless the CWT itself were a zero discharge facility,
the ultimate result would be treatment and discharge to surface waters
or a POTW following waste treatment that may be no more effective than
that which could have been provided on-site. This might result in
substantial transportation costs for the landfill and associated non-
water quality, environmental impacts (e.g., truck emissions) resulting
in no net reduction in the discharge of pollutants. EPA's survey
demonstrated that only landfills with relatively low flows (under 500
gallons per day) currently contract haul their wastewater to a CWT. The
costs of contract hauling are directly proportional to the volume of
wastewater and distance over which it must be transported, generally
making it excessively costly to send large wastewater flows to a CWT,
particularly if it is not located nearby.
EPA evaluated the cost of requiring all hazardous landfills to
achieve zero or alternative discharge status. For the purposes of
costing, EPA assumed that a facility would have to contract haul
wastewater off-site because it may be impossible to pursue other zero
or alternative discharge options. EPA concluded that the cost of
contract hauling off-site for high flow facilities was unreasonably
high and disproportionate to the removals potentially achieved. In
addition, EPA concluded that the wastewater shipped to a CWT will
typically receive treatment equivalent to that promulgated today, and
that zero/alternative discharge requirements would result in additional
costs to discharge without greater removals for hazardous landfill
wastewater.
Based on the characteristics of hazardous landfill leachate and on
an evaluation of appropriate technology options, the Agency selected
Option II (aerated equalization followed by chemical precipitation and
biological treatment with secondary clarification followed by
multimedia filtration) as BPT technology for the Hazardous subcategory.
EPA's decision to base BPT limitations on Option II treatment reflects
primarily two factors: (1) the degree of effluent reductions attainable
and (2) the total cost of the treatment technologies in relation to the
effluent reductions achieved.
Although EPA did not identify any existing hazardous landfill
facilities that discharged directly to surface waters, EPA estimated
the cost of treatment and pollutant removal for a medium-sized
facility. EPA estimates that for a facility with a wastewater flow of
25,000 gallons per day, the selected technology option would result in
the removal of over 200,000 pounds of pollutants at an annualized cost
of $192,400. EPA has determined that the selected technology option
costs are reasonable in light of the projected pollutant removals.
Because EPA did not identify any existing hazardous landfill facilities
that discharged directly to surface waters, EPA's compliance costs for
BPT for this subcategory are zero.
As previously noted, EPA relied on data from both hazardous and
non-hazardous facilities to develop the limitations for this
subcategory. Because there are currently no hazardous landfills
discharging directly, EPA used data from indirectly discharging
facilities to develop the limitations.
EPA identified three Subtitle C landfills that discharge to POTWs.
The wastewater flow from one of the three facilities was very small
(less than 1,000 g.p.d.) and consisted of only gas collection
condensate and required only minimal treatment (neutralization using
ammonia) prior to discharge to the POTW. Consequently, EPA did not
consider this facility as appropriate for
[[Page 3019]]
establishing BPT limitations. The two remaining facilities both had
treatment systems in place that achieved very good pollutant
reductions. The treatment at one facility consisted of equalization and
chemical precipitation followed by activated sludge biological
treatment with secondary clarification. The second facility utilized
equalization followed by three ``sequencing batch reactor'' biological
treatment units operated in parallel. The treatment systems in place at
these indirect hazardous facilities achieved low effluent
concentrations with average removals of 88 to 98 percent of organic
toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80 percent of metal pollutants. Thus, EPA
concluded that it should use both facilities in the development of the
Hazardous subcategory BPT limitations for nonconventional and toxic
pollutants.
However, for the ammonia, BOD5, and TSS limitations, EPA
concluded that establishing BPT limits based solely on two indirect
discharging treatment systems was not appropriate because indirect
dischargers often do not operate their treatment systems to achieve
optimal control of these pollutants. In the case of BOD5 and
TSS, POTWs do not often establish local standards because the POTWs
install treatment designed specifically to treat these pollutants. In
the case of ammonia, some POTWs do not establish standards because they
have installed advanced treatment for ammonia control. Other POTWs may
establish ammonia standards based on local water quality concerns. EPA
supplemented the Hazardous subcategory data for these three pollutants
with data from non-hazardous landfill facilities. For BOD5,
EPA used data from both of the Hazardous subcategory BPT facilities and
the Non-Hazardous subcategory BPT facilities to calculate the
limitations. Because neither of the Hazardous subcategory BPT
facilities used a multimedia filter (which is part of the selected BPT
Option), EPA based the TSS limitation on the two Non-Hazardous
subcategory BPT facilities that employed multimedia filtration.
In the case of ammonia, EPA concluded that it was not appropriate
to establish limits using the performance of only indirect discharging
facilities because only one of these facilities in the Hazardous
subcategory demonstrated good ammonia control. Many POTWs with advanced
or tertiary treatment units for nutrient control may not establish
stringent local limits for ammonia. Therefore, basing ammonia limits
only on indirect discharging landfills may not appropriately reflect
the effluent discharge concentration of ammonia achieved by well-
operated direct discharging landfills. Since EPA considered only one
indirectly discharging hazardous facility to be a good performer for
the treatment of ammonia, EPA chose to supplement the hazardous data
for this facility with data from two non-hazardous BPT facilities, one
of which was a direct discharger.
2. Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT)
In today's rule, EPA is establishing BCT effluent limitations
guidelines equivalent to the BPT guidelines for the conventional
pollutants for both subcategories. (For an explanation of how EPA
determines BCT, see the preamble to the proposed rule at 63 FR 6442.)
In developing BCT limits, EPA considered whether there are technologies
that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than selected
for BPT, and whether those technologies are cost-reasonable according
to EPA's test. In each subcategory, EPA identified no technologies that
can achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants than selected
for BPT that are also cost-reasonable, and accordingly EPA is
promulgating BCT effluent limitations equal to the BPT effluent
limitations guidelines.
3. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
EPA today is establishing BAT effluent limitations for both
subcategories in the Landfills Category based on the same technologies
selected for BPT. The BAT effluent limitations promulgated today would
control identified priority and nonconventional pollutants discharged
from facilities. EPA finds that the selected technology options are
economically achievable. EPA has not identified any more stringent
treatment technology option which it considered to represent BAT level
of control applicable to facilities in this industry.
a. Rationale for Setting BAT Equivalent to BPT for the Non-
Hazardous Landfill Subcategory. EPA evaluated reverse osmosis
technology as a potential option for establishing BAT effluent limits
more stringent than BPT for the control of toxic pollutants. The Agency
selected reverse osmosis for evaluation because of its effective
control of a wide variety of toxic pollutants in addition to
controlling conventional and nonconventional parameters.
EPA evaluated BAT treatment options as an increment to the baseline
treatment technology used to develop BPT limits. Therefore, the BAT
Option III consisted of BPT Option II (biological treatment followed by
multimedia filtration) followed by a single stage reverse osmosis unit.
After an assessment of costs and pollutant reductions associated
with reverse osmosis, EPA has concluded that it should not establish
BAT limits based on more stringent treatment technology than the BPT
technology. EPA concluded that a biological system followed by
multimedia filtration would remove the majority of toxic pollutants,
leaving the single-stage reverse osmosis to treat the very low levels
of pollutants that remained. In the Agency's analysis, BPT removed
170,000 pounds of toxic pollutants per year whereas BAT Option III (BPT
followed by single-stage reverse osmosis) removed 172,000 pounds of
toxic pollutants per year. As stated in the proposal, EPA's economic
assessment showed that BAT Option III had significantly higher annual
compliance costs than the other options evaluated and resulted in six
additional facilities experiencing moderate economic impacts. (63 FR
6451).
In addition, establishment of BAT Option III would not result in
effluent limitations significantly more stringent than those
established under BPT, which is currently achieving very low long-term
average (LTA) effluent concentrations. Therefore, the Agency questioned
whether the small additional removal of pounds of toxic pollutants
achieved by BAT Option III justified the large incremental cost for the
reverse osmosis treatment system. It should be noted that reverse
osmosis was much more effective at removing the often high quantities
of dissolved metals such as iron, manganese and aluminum. These
pollutants, however, are added to the wastewater in treatment chemicals
to promote more effective precipitation and are not regulated. For this
reason, EPA does not include them in the calculation of pounds of toxic
pollutants and does not take credit for their subsequent removal .
Several commenters on the proposal supported EPA's decision to
reject reverse osmosis as the selected technology option. While EPA
rejected reverse osmosis as the basis for BAT limitations because it
was very expensive and achieved very little additional removal of
pollutant, other technical factors also supported this decision. EPA
agrees with the commenters that there may be additional site-specific
costs associated with the operation of reverse osmosis systems at
landfills that it could not directly factor into its cost analysis. EPA
found that it was difficult to evaluate potential operating and
concentrate
[[Page 3020]]
disposal problems and the associated potential increase in the cost of
operating a reverse osmosis system at a landfill. The fact that reverse
osmosis is a technology that concentrates rather than destroys
pollutants is an important consideration. These concentrates still need
to be treated and disposed, and, as noted by one commenter, some states
may not allow them to be recycled back into the landfill. Further,
recirculation may inhibit rather than stimulate anaerobic decomposition
of the landfilled wastes. While the sludges generated by chemical
precipitation and biological treatment require minimal treatment prior
to disposal, reverse osmosis concentrates may require additional costly
treatment steps prior to final disposal.
b. Rationale for Setting BAT Equivalent to BPT for the Hazardous
Landfill Subcategory. As stated in the BPT analysis, EPA's survey of
the hazardous landfills industry identified no in-scope respondents
which were classified as direct dischargers. All of the hazardous
landfills in the EPA survey were indirect or zero or alternative
dischargers. Therefore, the Agency based BPT limitations on technology
transfer and treatment systems in place for indirect dischargers in the
Hazardous subcategory and on treatment systems in place for BPT
facilities in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. In EPA's engineering
assessment of possible BAT technologies for direct discharging
hazardous facilities, EPA evaluated the same three potential technology
options it had evaluated when it was developing BPT limitations for the
Hazardous Landfill subcategory. EPA determined that it should establish
BAT limits based on the same technology evaluated for BPT limits. The
Agency finds that the selected technology is economically achievable.
EPA has identified no other technologies that would represent BAT level
of control for this industry.
As explained in the BPT analysis, EPA eliminated Option I
(equalization, chemical precipitation, and multimedia filtration) from
consideration because it did not control organic pollutants
effectively. In addition, EPA concluded that zero or alternative
discharge is not an available alternative treatment technology for this
industry. As explained above, zero or alternative discharge is not
broadly applicable to landfills or may result in the transfer of waste
residuals to other media.
4. New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
a. Introduction. As previously noted, under Section 306 of the Act,
new industrial direct dischargers must comply with standards which
reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through
application of the best available demonstrated control technologies.
Congress envisioned that new treatment systems could meet tighter
controls than existing sources because of the opportunity to
incorporate the most efficient processes and treatment systems into
plant design. Therefore, Congress directed EPA, in establishing NSPS,
to consider the best demonstrated process changes, in-plant controls,
operating methods, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies that reduce
pollution to the maximum extent feasible.
b. Rationale for Setting NSPS Equivalent to BPT/BCT/BAT for Both
Subcategories. Today, EPA is establishing New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) that would control the same conventional, priority,
and nonconventional pollutants regulated by the BPT/BCT/BAT effluent
limitations guidelines. The conventional treatment technologies used to
control pollutants at existing facilities are fully applicable to new
facilities. Furthermore, EPA has not identified any other technologies
or combinations of technologies that are demonstrated for new sources
that are different from those used to establish BPT/BCT/BAT for
existing sources. In the proposed rule, EPA solicited comments and data
on other technologies that may be appropriate for the treatment of
landfill leachate from new sources. One commenter urged EPA to consider
reverse osmosis as an appropriate technology for the treatment of
leachate. While EPA acknowledges that reverse osmosis can treat
landfill leachate to levels equivalent to and even lower than the BAT
limitations promulgated today, EPA concluded that the reverse osmosis
treatment system and the BAT treatment system achieved essentially the
same removals because reverse osmosis did not remove significantly more
pounds of toxic pollutants than the treatment option selected as BAT.
Moreover, as previously explained, there may be potential operating and
disposal problems associated with a reverse osmosis system. Therefore,
EPA concluded that it should adopt NSPS limitations that are identical
to those in each subcategory for BPT/BCT/BAT.
5. Pretreatment Standards For Existing Sources (PSES)
Section 307(b) of the Act requires EPA to promulgate pretreatment
standards for pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment by POTWs
or which would interfere with the operation of POTWs. After a thorough
analysis of indirect discharging landfills in the EPA database, EPA has
decided not to establish PSES for either subcategory in the Landfills
Point Source Category. For the proposal, EPA proposed not to establish
pretreatment standards for indirectly discharging landfills in the Non-
Hazardous subcategory. However, for the Hazardous subcategory, EPA
proposed effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for six
pollutants. In response to its proposal, EPA received a number of
comments supporting the decision not to propose pretreatment standards
for Subtitle D landfills. In addition, a number of commenters suggested
that EPA should also reconsider whether Subtitle C landfills require
national categorical pretreatment standards. As a result of these
comments, EPA took a second look at its data and determined that
pretreatment standards were not necessary for the Landfills Point
Source Category.
For both subcategories, EPA looked at a number of factors in
deciding whether a pollutant was not susceptible to treatment at a POTW
or would interfere with POTW operations--the predicate to establishment
of pretreatment standards. First, EPA assessed the pollutant removals
achieved at POTWs relative to those achieved by landfills using BAT
treatment systems. Second, EPA estimated the quantity of pollutants
likely to be discharged to receiving waters after POTW removals. Third,
EPA studied whether any of the pollutants introduced to POTWs by
landfills interfered with or were otherwise incompatible with POTW
operations. EPA, in some cases, also looked at the costs and other
economic impacts of pretreatment standards and the effluent reduction
benefits in light of treatment systems currently in-place at POTWs. The
result of EPA's evaluation showed that POTWs could adequately treat
discharges of landfill pollutants. Therefore, EPA is not establishing
pretreatment standards for either subcategory in this point source
category.
As noted above, among the factors EPA considers before establishing
pretreatment standards is whether the pollutants discharged by an
industry pass through a POTW or interfere with the POTW operation or
sludge disposal practices. One of the tools traditionally used by EPA
in evaluating whether pollutants pass through a POTW, is a comparison
of the percentage of a pollutant removed by POTWs with the percentage
of the pollutant removed by discharging facilities applying BAT. In
most cases, EPA has concluded that a
[[Page 3021]]
pollutant passes through the POTW when the median percentage removed
nationwide by representative POTWs (those meeting secondary treatment
requirements) is less than the median percentage removed by facilities
complying with BAT effluent limitations guidelines for that pollutant.
For a full explanation of how EPA performs its removal analysis, see
Chapter 7 of the Technical Development Document.
In developing the final guidelines, EPA has made a number of
modifications to its calculations of pollutant removal used to compare
POTW operations with BAT treatment. These changes are explained in
greater detail in this preamble as well as the Technical Development
Document and EPA responses to individual comments received on the
proposal. For example, the primary source of POTW percent removal data
used for removal comparisons is an EPA document, ``Fate of Priority
Pollutants in Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (EPA 440/1-82/303)
commonly referred to as the ``50-POTW Study''. The 50-POTW Study
presents data on 50 well-operated POTWs with secondary treatment in
removing toxic pollutants. For its removal comparison for this
guideline, EPA eliminated influent values that were close to the
detection limit, thereby minimizing the possibility that low POTW
removals might simply reflect low influent concentrations instead of
being a true measure of treatment effectiveness.
After revising the database, EPA calculated POTW-specific percent
removals for each pollutant based on its average influent and average
effluent values. The POTW percent removal used for each pollutant for
the comparison is the median value of all the POTW-specific percent
removals for that pollutant. EPA then compared the median POTW percent
removal to the median percent removal for the BAT option treatment
technology in order to determine pass through.
a. Rationale for Not Promulgating PSES for the Non-Hazardous
Landfill Subcategory. The Agency today is not establishing pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) for the Non-hazardous Landfill
Subcategory. The Agency decided not to establish PSES for this
subcategory after an assessment of the effect of landfill leachate on
receiving POTWs and the cost of pretreatment standards.
EPA looked at three measures of effects on POTWs: biological
inhibition levels, contamination of POTW biosolids and a comparison of
BAT and POTW removals. For the proposed rule, following procedures
outlined above, the removal comparison suggested that one pollutant,
ammonia, would pass through in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. However,
EPA concluded that ammonia was susceptible to treatment and did not
interfere with POTW operations. Therefore, the Agency did not propose
to establish national pretreatment standards for ammonia.
Following the proposal, EPA reviewed the data available in the
proposed record for both the POTW percent removal calculations and the
BAT percent removal calculations and made a number of adjustments. For
the proposal, EPA calculated the BAT percent removals using data from
well-operated biological treatment facilities in EPA's database.
However, some of these facilities did not pass the editing criteria for
selection as a BPT/BAT facility. For the revised removal comparison,
EPA calculated percent removals using data from only those seven
facilities that passed the BPT/BAT editing criteria. In addition, in
the proposal, EPA inadvertently neglected to use selected BAT
facilities in the calculation of percent removals for several
pollutants even though the data for the facility passed the editing
criteria.
The result of this revised comparison of removal for the Non-
Hazardous subcategory suggested that BAT removal would be greater than
POTW removal for four pollutants: ammonia, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and
phenol. However, as explained below, EPA concluded that these
pollutants do not pass through or interfere with POTW operations on a
national basis and therefore has not established national categorical
pretreatment regulations for these pollutants. Moreover, as discussed
later in this section, EPA notes that adoption of PSES would result in
the removal of only a small quantity of pollutants, approximately 14
toxic pound equivalents per facility per year. Such a reduction is low
relative to that seen in other categorical pretreatment standards
promulgated by EPA. (See 64 FR 45077).
(i.) Pretreatment Standards for Ammonia. EPA has decided not to
establish ammonia pretreatment standards for several reasons. First,
while EPA's removal comparison suggests that ammonia in landfill
leachate is not as amenable to POTW treatment as to pretreatment, in
reality, EPA has concluded that ammonia is susceptible to POTW
treatment on a national basis. Further, landfill discharges will not
result in POTW upsets or interfere with POTW operations. The record
indicates that POTWs are not currently experiencing any difficulty in
adequately treating ammonia discharges from Subtitle D landfills. No
POTWs commenting on the proposal cited any persistent POTW upsets
associated with landfill leachate discharges. Finally, EPA has
determined that pretreatment standards for ammonia for landfill
indirect dischargers would be extremely costly. In these circumstances,
EPA has concluded that ammonia is susceptible to treatment by POTWs and
national pretreatment standards are not required.
Ammonia Removals. In the case of ammonia, the median BAT percent
removal for the landfills industry is 99 percent compared to the median
POTW percent removal which is 39 percent. \4\ This comparison suggests
that ammonia is not susceptible to treatment at a POTW and passes
through. However, as discussed below, most subtitle D landfills
discharging to POTWs are discharging small quantities of leachate with
an ammonia concentration comparable to that observed in raw sewage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For the proposed rule, EPA calculated the POTW percent
removal for ammonia to be 60 percent. However, upon applying the
revised data editing procedures to the 50-POTW Study, EPA has now
determined that ammonia POTW percent removal is 39 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's data show that over 75 percent of indirectly discharging
landfills discharge fewer than 10 pounds of ammonia per day at a
concentration similar to that observed in raw sewage. Because many
POTWs are designed and operated to treat ammonia (and other pollutants)
in raw sewage, a POTW will adequately control landfill discharges of
ammonia so long as the ammonia loadings to a POTW did not significantly
differ from that typically observed. In those circumstances, ammonia
will not pass through such POTWs.
Moreover, some POTWs have installed additional treatment to control
ammonia. The data on POTW removal used for EPA's comparison does not
reflect this fact. POTWs that have installed additional ammonia
treatment (or modified existing treatment) typically achieve removals
in excess of 95 percent--much higher than the 39 percent removal
observed for the POTWs in the comparison analysis. Thus, ammonia does
not pass through POTWs with nitrification even in cases where
significant loadings of ammonia are discharged to a POTW.
In these circumstances, EPA has concluded ammonia at levels
discharged by Subtitle D landfills is generally susceptible to POTW
treatment. Therefore, EPA concluded that ammonia limits are best
established
[[Page 3022]]
by local POTWs based on site specific conditions in accordance with the
POTW's design treatment capacity and existing mass loadings.
Upset and Interference. EPA also assessed the ammonia
concentrations and loads received by POTWs from Subtitle D leachate
discharges to evaluate potential upsets or interference with POTW
treatment systems. EPA concluded that national pretreatment standards
were not required to prevent interference with POTW operations.
In terms of landfill leachate ammonia concentrations discharged to
POTWs, only one of the Subtitle D landfill facilities in EPA's database
is currently discharging (i.e. after treatment, if treatment is in
place) wastewater to a POTW which contains more than 105 mg/L of
ammonia. The remainder of the indirect discharging Subtitle D landfills
discharged an average concentration of 37 mg/L of ammonia to POTWs,
with one-half of the facilities discharging less than 32 mg/L. Typical
ammonia concentrations in raw domestic sewage range from 12 to 50 mg/L
(``Operation of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: Manual of
Practice, Volume II,'' Water Pollution Control Federation).
The one facility in EPA's database that was discharging more than
105 mg/L of ammonia to a POTW was discharging 1,018 mg/L of ammonia to
a 114 MGD POTW which currently has ammonia control (nitrification) in
place. EPA also received influent ammonia data from several POTWs that
commented on the proposed rule. The average ammonia influent
concentration to POTWs ranged from 14 mg/L to 35 mg/L with an average
concentration of 17 mg/L. Therefore, with the exception of the one
outlier, the average concentration of ammonia in leachate discharged to
POTWs (37 mg/L) noted in EPA's data closely parallels POTW experience
(35 mg/L). However, it should be noted that the upper ranges of
leachate concentrations were higher than the upper ranges observed in
domestic sewage. Nevertheless, in most instances, observed ammonia
discharge levels to POTWs fall within a POTW's treatment capabilities.
Thus, EPA determined that the vast majority of Subtitle D landfills are
discharging ammonia to POTWs at levels comparable to that which POTWs
in the ordinary course of operations receive and treat in raw domestic
sewage.
No POTWs commenting on the proposal cited any specific incidents
where POTW acceptance of landfill leachate containing high levels of
ammonia caused persistent upsets at the POTW. The data are consistent
with that supplied by commenters and further supported EPA's
understanding prior to the proposal of no documented persistent
problems at POTWs due to ammonia concentrations in landfill leachate.
EPA also analyzed the effects that ammonia concentrations found in
landfill leachate can have on the biological treatment systems at
POTWs. In this analysis, EPA compared the concentrations of ammonia
found in leachate with the activated sludge biological minimum
threshold toxicity value (or inhibition value). With respect to
ammonia, the inhibition value for activated sludge systems is 480 mg/L
(Guidance Manual on the Development and Implementation of Local
Discharge Limitations Under the Pretreatment Program, Volume 1. EPA,
November 1987). The average raw wastewater concentration of ammonia
found in Subtitle D landfills in EPA's database was 199 mg/L for
direct, indirect and zero dischargers. In addition, all of the average
and median ammonia concentration values observed in the data submitted
to EPA in comments were below the activated sludge inhibition value.
EPA has consequently determined that ammonia does not represent a
threat to biological treatment systems that would require establishment
of pretreatment standards.
Effect on Receiving Streams. Subsequent to the proposal, EPA
evaluated total wastewater flows and loads of ammonia to receiving
streams associated with non-hazardous landfill indirect dischargers (an
estimated 756 facilities). EPA estimated that the non-hazardous
landfill industry discharges 2.7 million pounds per year of ammonia to
POTWs, which results in 1.6 million pounds per year being discharged to
receiving streams, assuming that the POTWs have secondary treatment
achieving 39 percent removal but do not have additional treatment for
ammonia control. However, as mentioned above, EPA is aware that many
POTWs have installed additional treatment specifically for the control
of ammonia and typically achieve removals in excess of 95 percent. A
review of EPA's 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and its Permit Compliance
System database indicates that approximately 20 percent of the POTWs in
the U.S. employ some sort of ammonia control. Over 75 percent of the
Subtitle D landfills in EPA's database discharge less than 10 pounds
per day to the POTW (3,500 pounds/year), which results in discharging
less than six pounds per day (2,100 pounds/year) to receiving streams,
again assuming secondary treatment only and no additional POTW ammonia
controls. In light of existing ammonia control in place at POTWs,
actual discharges to receiving streams are likely to be even smaller.
Cost of Pretreatment Standards. EPA has evaluated the economic
costs of ammonia pretreatment standards. EPA's economic assessment of
these options demonstrated very high removal costs with low associated
pollutant removals. Given the high cost, EPA concluded that it is not
appropriate to establish national pretreatment standards to address the
limited circumstances in which POTW removal might not match BAT removal
performance.
EPA evaluated the costs of pretreatment standards in terms of the
toxic pound equivalents. Pounds-equivalent is a term used to describe a
pound of pollutant weighted by its toxicity relative to copper. These
weights are known as toxic weighting factors. The Agency calculates
pounds-equivalents by multiplying the pounds of a pollutant discharged
from a landfill by the toxic weighting factor for that pollutant. The
use of pounds-equivalent reflects the fact that some pollutants are
more toxic than others.
The first treatment option that EPA evaluated for pretreatment of
ammonia from non-hazardous landfills is biological treatment. EPA
evaluated PSES Option I equivalent to BPT/BAT Option I, which was
equalization plus biological treatment. (EPA did not evaluate a
multimedia filter for PSES because the levels of TSS in landfill
leachate will be adequately controlled by a POTW.) This option had a
total annualized cost of $34.6 million (1998 dollars). Biological
treatment removed 10,650 pound-equivalents annually, or an average of
14 pound equivalents per facility per year. This represents a cost of
removal of $1,900/lb-equivalents (1981 dollars) and represents the cost
of removing all of the pound-equivalents removed, not just ammonia. If
EPA took credit only for the pound-equivalents of ammonia removed, the
annual removal cost for this option is $7,100/lb-equivalents (1981
dollars). Moreover, these calculations are based on the assumption that
POTWs will only remove 39 percent of the ammonia discharged to it. If
POTWs remove more ammonia than that assumed, then the cost of each
pound of pollutant removed by the industrial user raises. Given the
installation of additional ammonia controls at many POTWs, actual
ammonia removal by POTWs will be greater than assumed.
The second technology option EPA evaluated for the control of
ammonia is ammonia stripping with appropriate air pollution controls.
However, according
[[Page 3023]]
to EPA's survey of the landfills industry, only two percent of survey
respondents use this technology for the treatment of landfill leachate.
In addition, air or steam stripping is more commonly used for treatment
of wastewater containing concentrations of ammonia that are several
orders of magnitude greater than those typically found in landfill
wastewater. Therefore, EPA concluded that biological treatment systems
are more appropriate for the treatment of the ammonia concentrations
found in landfill leachate. In addition, air stripping for ammonia
removal generally requires warm climates, and therefore this may not be
a viable treatment option for all landfills located in the United
States. In these circumstances, effluent levels associated with air
stripping may not be attainable in all cases and thus not broadly
available in the landfill industry. In addition, the air stripping
option for the treatment of ammonia has an estimated annualized cost of
$15.1 million (1998 dollars, pre-tax costs). The cost-effectiveness for
this option is also high, $4,400/lb-equivalents (1981 dollars).
As explained above, EPA concluded that the vast majority of POTWs
experience no difficulty in treating the ammonia loads received from
landfill indirect dischargers and that as a result there is generally
no pass through of ammonia from landfill leachate on a national basis.
Moreover, the cost of pretreatment is not warranted by the limited
circumstances where pretreatment would result in reduced ammonia to
surface water. But there are POTWs without additional controls for
ammonia that may not be equipped to handle landfill leachate ammonia
discharges. Consequently, in the proposal, EPA requested comments on
requiring ammonia pretreatment standards for those landfills
discharging to POTWs that do not have ammonia controls in place.
Several commenters supported no pretreatment standard because of their
conclusion that ammonia loads from landfills made up an insignificant
amount of the total ammonia loads discharged to POTWs. Others favored
pretreatment standards because of smaller POTWs that do not employ
nutrient removal systems. EPA, however, is not convinced that national
ammonia pretreatment standards are warranted even where landfills are
discharging to POTWs without ammonia controls given the high cost of
pretreatment and current ammonia concentrations in landfill leachate
discharged to POTWs that are generally consistent with values observed
in raw sewage. Special ammonia situations are best addressed by the
local POTW based on site specific conditions in accordance with the
POTW's design treatment capacity and existing mass loadings.
All of these factors discussed above confirm EPA's decision not to
establish national ammonia pretreatment standards. EPA has concluded
that landfills typically discharge wastewater to POTWs containing
ammonia concentrations that can be adequately treated by POTWs.
Further, in cases where ammonia loading rates are at levels which may
be of concern or where ammonia discharges are a water quality concern,
POTWs retain the ability to establish local limits on ammonia.
(ii.) Pretreatment Standards for Benzoic Acid-- Benzoic Acid Pass-
through Analysis. As stated above, for the proposal, benzoic acid was
not one of the pollutants EPA determined would pass through. However,
after the proposal, EPA reviewed the BAT facilities and the
representative POTW facilities used for the removal comparison and
determined that it had not used the appropriate editing rules. As a
result of these revisions, the comparison showed that the median
percent removal for benzoic acid at the landfills BAT facilities was 99
percent compared to the median POTW percent removal which was
determined to be 81 percent. Because the 50-POTW database does not
contain information on the percent removal of benzoic acid, EPA used
the National Risk Management Research Laboratory database (formerly
known as the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) database) to
estimate the percent removal. (For more information on EPA's use of the
RREL database, see Chapter 7 of the Technical Development Document.)
Despite the difference in the BAT and POTW percent removals,
further analysis of the data showed that both systems were achieving
the same level of treatment of benzoic acid. That is, both the RREL
database facilities representing POTWs and the landfills BAT facilities
were treating benzoic acid down to non-detect levels (50 g/L).
Therefore, the smaller percent removal achieved by facilities in the
RREL database (used to represent the POTW percent removal) is a
function of lower influent concentrations at those facilities and is
not necessarily indicative of inferior treatment at POTWs. EPA
concluded that benzoic acid in these circumstances is susceptible to
treatment at the POTW and does not pass through.
Benzoic acid loads discharged to POTWs. In addition, EPA also
evaluated the total flows and loads of benzoic acid discharged from
non-hazardous landfills to POTWs. EPA compared the current discharge
loads to the loads that would be anticipated after the implementation
of pretreatment standards. As was explained above, EPA evaluated Option
I (biological treatment) as the appropriate treatment technology and
has analyzed the costs and benefits of pretreatment standards for the
Non-Hazardous subcategory for this option. According to EPA's
estimates, non-hazardous landfills currently discharge approximately
4,700 pounds of benzoic acid to POTWs per year resulting in an annual
discharge of 900 pounds to receiving streams. PSES Option I (biological
treatment) would reduce this annual discharge to receiving streams to
400 pounds per year. The average non-hazardous facility discharges only
6.4 pounds of benzoic acid annually (less than 0.02 pounds per day),
and the median discharge is only 1.9 pounds per year. Furthermore,
benzoic acid has a toxic weighting factor of only 0.0003. Therefore,
for the entire indirect discharging non-hazardous landfills population
(approximately 756 facilities), Option I would only remove an
additional 0.16 pound-equivalents per year.
As a result of the above analysis, EPA determined that national
pretreatment standards for benzoic acid are not necessary because
benzoic acid is susceptible to treatment by POTWs. POTWs and landfill
BAT facilities both treat benzoic acid down to non-detect levels. In
addition, EPA determined that the pounds of benzoic acid currently
being discharged by landfills are compatible with POTW treatment and
that pretreatment standards would result in little further reduction of
benzoic acid.
(iii.) Pretreatment Standards for p-cresol--p-Cresol Pass-through
Analysis. Like benzoic acid, p-cresol also did not pass-through POTWs
according to EPA's pass-through analysis at proposal. However, the
result of its revised removal comparison showed some difference in
removal. The landfills median BAT percent removal for p-cresol is 99
percent, while the estimated median POTW percent removal is 68 percent.
(Again, because the 50-POTW database does not contain percent removal
data for p-cresol, EPA used the RREL database to determine POTW
removal.)
p-Cresol concentrations and loads discharged to POTWs. EPA also
analyzed the flows and loads of p-cresol being discharged from non-
hazardous
[[Page 3024]]
landfills to POTWs. According to EPA's estimates, non-hazardous
landfills currently discharge approximately 2,730 pounds of p-cresol to
POTWs per year resulting in an annual discharge of 870 pounds to
receiving streams. PSES Option I (biological treatment) would reduce
this discharge to receiving streams to 130 pounds/year. Furthermore, p-
cresol has a toxic weighting factor of only 0.0024. Therefore, the
implementation of Option I results in an additional reduction of only
3.0 pound-equivalents per year across the entire Subtitle D indirect
discharge population. On average, non-hazardous landfill facilities
discharge only 3.4 pounds of p-cresol annually (or 0.01 pounds per
day), and the median discharge load is only 0.7 pounds per year.
Based on the data shown above, EPA concluded that the
implementation of pretreatment standards for p-cresol would result in
only minimal reductions in the pounds of p-cresol discharged to surface
waters. In addition, p-cresol is found in non-hazardous landfill
leachate at concentrations which will not cause upsets at POTWs nor
should POTWs have difficulty effectively treating such concentrations.
The median raw wastewater concentration for p-cresol at municipal
landfills is 75 g/L. This concentration is well below the
Universal Treatment Standard (UTS) of 770 g/L established for
F039 wastes (multi-source leachate) in 40 CFR 268.48.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ EPA bases UTS on the Best Demonstrated Available Treatment
Technology (BDAT) for each listed hazardous waste. BDAT represents
the treatment technology that EPA concludes is the most effective
for treating a particular waste that is also readily available to
generators and treaters.
(iv.) Pretreatment Standards for Phenol.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv.) Pretreatment Standards for Phenol. Although phenol appeared
to pass through, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment standards
for phenol based on the fact that phenol is highly biodegradable and is
treated by POTWs to the same degree as the landfill direct dischargers.
Furthermore, the Agency concluded that the differences in influent
concentrations caused the apparent difference in removal performance
between landfill direct dischargers and POTWs. As a result, the
performance across the landfills direct dischargers showed higher
removals than the performance at the POTWs.
In EPA's landfills database, raw wastewater concentrations of
phenol at the BAT facilities in the Non-Hazardous subcategory were much
higher than the influent concentrations at the POTWs used in the
determination of the POTW percent removal. The average influent
concentrations for phenol for the three non-hazardous BAT facilities
used in the pass-through analysis ranged from 350 g/L to 5,120
g/L. All three of the facilities treated phenol down to the
analytical minimum level (10 g/L), corresponding to a median
percent removal of 97.5 percent. For POTW performance, EPA used a total
of eight POTWs in the analysis for POTW percent removal of phenol. The
average influent concentration for phenol at these eight POTWs was 387
g/L, and six of the eight effluent values were below the
analytical minimum level and therefore assigned values of 10
g/L. Thus, the average percent removal for the POTWs was 95.3
percent. In this case, EPA concluded that the differences in removals
for POTWs (95.3 percent) and BAT facilities (97.5 percent) is an
artifact of the differing influent concentrations and does not
necessarily reflect a real difference in treatment performance.
Therefore, EPA concluded that phenol is treated to essentially the same
level by direct dischargers and POTWs and, therefore, does not pass
through.
c. Technology Options Considered for PSES for Hazardous Landfill
Subcategory. In the proposed rule, EPA proposed pretreatment standards
for six pollutants that EPA determined to pass through in the Hazardous
subcategory. However, after reviewing the comments received and re-
evaluating the pollutant loads in the Hazardous subcategory, EPA has
decided not to establish national pretreatment standards for Subtitle C
landfills.
As previously explained, EPA establishes pretreatment standards for
pollutants that are not susceptible to treatment at a POTW or for
pollutants that may interfere with POTW operations. As explained at
Part 1.b. of this section, for the Hazardous subcategory, EPA
identified only three Subtitle C landfills, all of them indirect
dischargers. EPA used data from two of these hazardous landfills to
develop the BPT/BAT limitations for toxic pollutants because these
landfills were using the treatment systems for their leachate that EPA
determined was the BPT/BAT treatment technology.
EPA also performed an analysis for this subcategory in order to
compare POTW removals with BAT treatment systems. As was the case for
the Non-Hazardous subcategory, EPA revised the pass-through analysis
data editing procedures after the proposal and as a result EPA's
removal results have changed. The result of the revised comparison show
BAT removals greater than POTW removals for the following eight
pollutants: ammonia, alpha-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid,
naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, and pyridine. For its removal comparison
for ammonia, EPA compared the nation-wide median percentage of ammonia
removed by well-operated POTWs to the percentage of ammonia removed by
BAT treatment systems from both the Hazardous and Non-Hazardous
subcategories. (For the reasons explained at Part 1.b of this section,
in the case of ammonia, EPA supplemented the Hazardous subcategory data
with data from non-hazardous landfill facilities.) For all other toxic
pollutants, in determining whether a pollutant would pass through a
POTW, the Agency compared the nation-wide median percentage of a
pollutant removed by well-operated POTWs with secondary treatment to
the percentage of a pollutant removed by BAT treatment systems from
only the Hazardous subcategory. For the proposal, EPA proposed
pretreatment standards that were equivalent to the BPT/BAT limitations
for the pollutants that passed through. EPA has reconsidered its
decision that it should promulgate national pretreatment standards for
hazardous landfills. The reasons for this decision are explained in
more detail below.
Two of the indirect discharging landfills have treatment technology
in place that EPA considers to be BAT, and currently discharge very low
concentrations of pollutants to their local POTWs. The third and only
other indirectly discharging Subtitle C landfill for which EPA has data
discharged less than 1,000 gal/day of landfill gas collection
condensate to a POTW. In addition to the low wastewater flow at this
landfill, the facility has relatively low raw wastewater pollutant
concentrations and employs neutralization with ammonia followed by
settling prior to discharge to the POTW.
Several commenters on the proposal questioned EPA's rationale for
developing ammonia pretreatment standards for the Hazardous subcategory
while not establishing ammonia pretreatment standards for the Non-
Hazardous subcategory. EPA's database indicate that the median raw
wastewater ammonia concentration for hazardous landfills is 268 mg/L as
compared to the raw wastewater ammonia concentration for Subtitle D
landfills which is 199 mg/L.\6\ EPA has current information on
[[Page 3025]]
ammonia concentration in wastewater discharges for two of the three
Subtitle C landfills in EPA's database. One of the landfills employs
biological treatment and discharges an average of 4.9 mg/L of ammonia
to the POTW. The other landfill employs chemical precipitation prior to
biological treatment and discharges ammonia at an average concentration
of 156 mg/L. This discharge level presents no apparent problem to the
receiving POTW. According to discussions with this facility and the
POTW, the POTW has not set local pretreatment standards for ammonia for
this landfill, and the POTW does not perform nitrification nor is there
an ammonia limit in the POTW's NPDES permit. Since 1995, the POTW has
seen the ammonia concentration at its headworks increase from 13 mg/L
to 20 mg/L and has experienced some upsets at the POTW. However, the
POTW explained that it was unsure whether the upsets are a result of
the increased ammonia concentrations or due to some other constituent
in the wastewater. In addition, the POTW is not sure if the landfill
leachate discharge is contributing at all to the upsets. As was the
case in the Non-hazardous subcategory, EPA concluded that national
pretreatment standards for ammonia are not warranted by the small
quantity of ammonia being discharged to POTWs from landfills in this
subcategory and due to the site specific water quality and POTW
nitrification issues associated with ammonia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the comments received on the proposal, some commenters
referred to the Hazardous subcategory median ammonia raw wastewater
concentration referred to in Table 6-8 on page 6-44 of the Proposed
Landfills Development Document (EPA-821-R-97-022). This table lists
the median ammonia raw wastewater concentration of 8.6 mg/L.
However, this median concentration included numerous CERCLA
facilities with discharges that consisted primarily of ground water.
After proposal, EPA recalculated the median ammonia raw wastewater
concentration for the Hazardous subcategory using only data from
Subtitle C landfills in EPA's database. This results in a median raw
wastewater ammonia concentration of 268 mg/L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the removal comparison suggests that phenol may pass
through, EPA decided not to establish pretreatment standards for it
because it is highly biodegradable and is, in fact, treated by POTWs to
the same degree as the landfill direct dischargers. The Agency
concluded that any apparent difference in removals in the removal
comparison is an artifact of differing influent concentrations rather
than any difference in performance between landfill direct dischargers
and POTWs.
In EPA's landfills database, raw wastewater concentrations of
phenol at the two BAT facilities in the Hazardous subcategory were much
higher than the influent concentrations at the POTWs used in the
determination of the POTW percent removal. The average influent
concentrations for phenol for the two hazardous BAT facilities used in
the pass-through analysis ranged from 5,120 g/L to 98,500
g/L, and the average effluent concentrations ranged from 10
g/L to 814 g/L corresponding to an average percent
removal of 99.8 percent. For POTW performance, EPA used a total of
eight POTWs in the analysis for POTW percent removal of phenol. The
average influent concentration for phenol at these eight POTWs was 387
g/L, and six of the eight effluent values were below the
analytical minimum level and therefore assigned values of 10
g/L. Thus, the average percent removal for the POTWs was 95.3
percent, and therefore EPA determined that the pollutant passed
through. In this case, EPA concluded that the pass-through
determination is an artifact of the differing influent concentrations
and does not necessarily reflect a real difference in removals.
Therefore, EPA concluded that phenol is treated to essentially the same
level by direct dischargers and POTWs and, therefore, does not pass
through.
Further review of the comparison for alpha-terpineol, aniline,
benzoic acid, naphthalene, and pyridine under the revised analysis
showed that all of these pollutants were treated down to non-detect
levels in both the landfill's BAT treatment option and in the RREL
facilities representing POTWs. That is, both BAT facilities and POTWs
achieve the same level of treatment for these pollutants, and the
differences in removal once again were simply a function of smaller
influent concentrations at facilities representing POTWs. (Alpha-
terpineol and benzoic acid are compounds for which a high removal
efficiency would be expected at a POTW due to their relatively high
biodegradability.) Therefore, the Agency determined that, not only are
the current pollutant loads not a problem for POTWs, but also all of
these pollutants are present in concentrations that are treated down to
non-detect levels in a well-operated POTW. Thus, given the small
loadings and low concentrations of these pollutants, EPA concluded that
these five pollutants are susceptible to treatment at the POTW and do
not pass through.
Furthermore, EPA has concluded that while the removal comparison
suggests that two pollutants, naphthalene and aniline, may not be
susceptible to POTW treatment, in fact, they will receive equivalent
treatment. First, the median untreated wastewater concentration
observed in EPA's data collection effort for these pollutants is less
than the Universal Treatment Standards (UTS) EPA has developed for
these pollutants in F039 wastes (multi-source leachate) in 40 CFR
268.48. The UTS for naphthalene is 0.059 mg/L which is slightly greater
than the median concentration found in hazardous landfills (0.049 mg/
L). The UTS standard for aniline is 0.81 mg/L while the median
concentration in hazardous landfills is 0.237 mg/L. Second, aniline and
naphthalene (as well as p-cresol and pyridine) will be removed from
wastewater through attachment to the biosolids in the POTW's biological
treatment system and then undergo subsequent biodegradation while
entrained in the biosolids.
In addition, as noted above, the revised comparison shows a lower
POTW removal for p-cresol than that achieved by BAT treatment. However,
as was the case in the Non-Hazardous subcategory, EPA has concluded
that the concentrations of p-cresol and the associated loadings
discharged to POTWs from landfills in the Hazardous subcategory would
be insignificant compared to the total loads received at the POTW. The
median Subtitle C raw wastewater concentration for p-cresol is 144
g/L (this includes only Subtitle C landfills and not the
CERCLA data included in the median on page 6-44 of the Proposed
Landfills Development Document) which is less than the UTS developed
for p-cresol in F039 wastes which is 770 g/L (40 CFR 268.48).
Therefore, based on the small quantity of pollutants involved and
low pollutant concentrations discharged from landfills in the Hazardous
subcategory, EPA concluded that national pretreatment standards for
landfills in the Hazardous subcategory are unnecessary. In addition,
EPA concluded that local limits are adequately controlling wastewater
discharges from Subtitle C landfills.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS)
a. Introduction. Section 307 of the Act requires EPA to promulgate
both pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) and new source
performance standards (NSPS). New indirect discharging facilities, like
new direct discharging facilities, have the opportunity to incorporate
the best available demonstrated technologies including: process
changes, in-facility controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
b. Rationale for Setting PSNS Equivalent to PSES for Both
Subcategories. In today's rule, EPA has
[[Page 3026]]
decided not to establish pretreatment standards for new sources for
both subcategories for many of the same reasons that EPA did not
establish PSES limits. As stated in the PSES discussions above, EPA
concluded that the typical concentrations of pollutants in landfill
leachate are not at levels that will cause problems for POTWs. In
addition, EPA determined that the relatively small wastewater flows
from landfills coupled with the concentrations of pollutants typically
found results in a small pollutant loading rate discharged to POTWs
from landfills. Finally, in site-specific cases where a particular
pollutant may be found at concentrations that are of concern to the
POTW, EPA concluded that local pretreatment standards are the most
appropriate means for controlling such discharges.
F. Development of Effluent Limitations
EPA based the final effluent limitations in today's notice on
widely-recognized statistical procedures for calculating long-term
averages and variability factors. The following presents a summary of
the statistical methodology used in the calculation of effluent
limitations.
EPA bases effluent limitations for each subcategory on a
combination of long-term average effluent values and variability
factors that account for variation in day-to-day treatment performance
within a treatment plant. The long-term averages are average effluent
concentrations that have been achieved by well-operated treatment
systems using the processes described in the following section
(Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation). The variability
factors are the results of a calculation of the ratio of a high
effluent value that would be expected to occur only rarely relative to
long-term average effluent values. The purpose of the variability
factor is to allow for normal variation in effluent concentrations. A
facility that designs and operates its treatment system to achieve a
long-term average on a consistent basis should be able to comply with
the daily and monthly limitations in the course of normal operations.
EPA developed the variability factors and long-term averages from a
data base composed of individual measurements on treated effluent. The
Agency uses a combination of EPA sampling data and industry supplied
data. While EPA sampling data reflect the performance of a system over
a five day period, industry supplied data (collected through the
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire) reflect up to three years worth of
monitoring data. EPA used a combination of EPA and industry supplied
data whenever possible in order to better account for the variability
of leachate over time. For further information on the calculation of
effluent limitations, see Chapter 11 of the Technical Development
Document.
G. Treatment Systems Selected for Basis of Regulation
1. Non-Hazardous Subcategory BPT Facility Selection
There were 46 in-scope landfill facilities in the EPA database that
employed various forms of biological treatment considered for BPT/BAT
for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA evaluated these facilities
selected as potential BPT/BAT candidates to determine the performance
across the various types of biological treatment systems. In order to
determine the best performers for biological treatment EPA established
a number of criteria. The first criterion used in the selection of the
best facilities was effective treatment of BOD5. Under this
criterion, there were several reasons why a facility might be
eliminated from the selection of BPT/BAT facilities. First, EPA
required that both influent and effluent BOD5 data be
available so that the Agency could evaluate the effectiveness of the
biological treatment system at the facility. In addition, EPA
eliminated those facilities whose BOD5 influent data were
less than 100 mg/L because EPA did not consider the wastewater at these
facilities to be representative of the landfills population as a whole.
Because EPA based BPT/BAT limitations on the effectiveness of
biological treatment, the Agency eliminated facilities that used
additional forms of treatment (other than biological treatment) for
BOD5 removal. The final requirement for BPT/BAT selection in
the Non-Hazardous landfill subcategory was that the biological
treatment system at the facility had to achieve a BOD5
effluent concentration less than 50 mg/L. EPA determined that
facilities not able to maintain an effluent concentration below 50 mg/L
were not operating their biological systems effectively.
After applying the criteria above, EPA identified seven facilities
that met all of the BPT/BAT criteria. These seven facilities employed
various types of biological treatment systems including activated
sludge, a sequencing batch reactor, aerobic and anaerobic biological
towers or fixed film, and aerated ponds or lagoons. Most of the
facilities employed equalization tanks in addition to the biological
treatment while several facilities also employed chemical precipitation
and neutralization in their treatment systems. Clarification or
sedimentation stages followed the biological treatment systems. EPA
used data from all seven facilities employing well-operated biological
treatment systems to calculate the effluent limitations for
BOD5. (For those BPT facilities that employed both chemical
precipitation as well as biological treatment, EPA determined that the
biological treatment systems, and not the chemical precipitation
systems, were removing the BOD5 from the landfill
wastewater. Therefore, EPA used these facilities for the calculation of
BOD5 limitations.) The average influent BOD5
concentrations to these seven treatment systems ranged from 150 mg/L to
7,600 mg/L, and as mentioned above, all of the average effluent
concentrations for these seven facilities were below 50 mg/L.
EPA used the data from the seven facilities identified as having
good biological treatment systems to calculate the limits for
additional pollutant parameters, including alpha terpineol, ammonia,
benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, and zinc. Because one facility employed
air stripping, EPA did not use its data for determining the limit for
ammonia. In addition, EPA did not use facilities that operated chemical
precipitation systems in addition to biological treatment for the
calculation of the zinc limitation. Many of the facilities selected as
BPT/BAT did not provide data for all the pollutants identified for
regulation by EPA. In these cases, EPA based the effluent limitations
on the BPT/BAT facilities for which data were available.
While the BOD5 edits discussed above ensure good
biological treatment and a basic level of TSS removal, treatment
facilities meeting this level may not necessarily be operated for
optimal control of TSS. To ensure that the effluent limitation
developed for TSS reflects proper control, EPA established additional
editing criteria for TSS. The primary factor in addition to achieving
the BOD5 criteria cited above was that the facility had to
employ technology sufficient to ensure adequate control of TSS, that
is, a sand or multimedia filtration system. The Agency eliminated
facilities that used additional forms of treatment (other than a sand
or multimedia filter) for TSS removal. The second factor EPA considered
was whether the treatment system achieved an effluent TSS concentration
less than or equal to 100 mg/L. EPA selected treatment facilities
meeting these criteria as the average best existing performers for TSS.
Two of the seven
[[Page 3027]]
BPT/BAT facilities employed a sand or multimedia filtration system and
achieved an effluent TSS concentration far less than 100 mg/L. EPA used
the TSS effluent data from these two facilities to calculate the TSS
limitation for the Non-Hazardous subcategory.
2. Hazardous Subcategory BPT/BAT Facility Selection
As previously noted, EPA's statistical analysis of the facility
identification and survey data suggests that there are no Subtitle C
landfill facilities that discharge directly to navigable water and six
that discharge to POTWs. However, EPA has specifically identified only
three Subtitle C landfills that discharge to POTWs. EPA is transferring
data from these facilities to establish BPT/BAT limitations. The
wastewater flow from one of the three facilities was very small (less
than 1,000 gallons per day) and consisted of only gas collection
condensate and required only minimal treatment (neutralization using
ammonia) prior to discharge to the POTW. Consequently, EPA did not
consider this facility as appropriate for establishing BPT/BAT
limitations. The two remaining facilities both had treatment systems in
place that achieved very good pollutant reductions. The treatment at
one facility consisted of equalization and chemical precipitation
followed by activated sludge biological treatment. The second facility
utilized equalization followed by three sequencing batch reactor
biological treatment units operated in parallel. The treatment systems
in place at these indirect hazardous facilities achieved low effluent
concentrations with average removals of 88 to 98 percent of organic
toxic pollutants, and 55 to 80 percent of metal pollutants. Thus, EPA
concluded that it should use both facilities in the development of the
Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT limitations for nonconventional and toxic
pollutants.
However, for the ammonia, BOD5, and TSS limitations, EPA
concluded that establishing BPT/BAT limits based solely on two indirect
discharging treatment systems was not appropriate because indirect
dischargers often do not operate their treatment systems to achieve
optimal control of these pollutants. In the case of BOD5 and
TSS, POTWs do not establish local standards because the POTWs install
treatment designed specifically to treat these pollutants. In the case
of ammonia, some POTWs do not establish standards because they have
installed advanced treatment for ammonia control. Other POTWs may
establish ammonia standards based on local water quality concerns. EPA
supplemented the Hazardous subcategory data for these three pollutants
with data from non-hazardous landfill facilities. For BOD5,
EPA used data from both of the Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT facilities
and the Non-Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT facilities to calculate the
limitations. Because neither of the Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT
facilities used a multimedia filter, EPA based the TSS limitation on
the two Non-Hazardous subcategory BPT/BAT facilities that employed
multimedia filtration.
In the case of ammonia, EPA concluded that it was not appropriate
to establish limits using the performance of only indirect discharging
facilities because only one of these facilities in the Hazardous
subcategory demonstrated good ammonia control. Many POTWs with advanced
or tertiary treatment units for nutrient control may not establish
stringent local limits for ammonia. Therefore, basing ammonia limits
only on indirect discharging landfills may not appropriately reflect
the effluent discharge concentration of ammonia achieved by well-
operated direct discharging landfills. Since only one indirect
discharging hazardous BPT/BAT facility achieved BPT/BAT ammonia
removals, EPA chose to supplement the hazardous data with data from two
non-hazardous BPT/BAT facilities, one of which was a direct discharger.
IV. Assessment of Costs and Impacts
A. Methodology for Estimating Costs and Pollutant Reductions Achieved
by Treatment Technologies
The methodology EPA used for the final rule for estimating costs
and pollutant reductions achieved by the various treatment technologies
is the same as the methodology used by EPA for the proposal. However,
there are differences in the estimated costs and pollutant reductions
from the proposed rule. These differences are a result of several
revisions EPA made when reviewing the costs and loads reductions after
proposal. These changes are explained in detail in the Technical
Development Document at Chapter 9.
The Agency calculated pollutant reductions for each of the
questionnaire recipients that would potentially be subject to this rule
and then modeled the national population by using statistically
calculated survey weights. EPA estimated pollutant reductions by taking
the difference in the current performance of the landfill industry and
the expected performance after installation of the treatment
technology. The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for each
pollutant of interest at each questionnaire facility. EPA determined
the current performance discharge concentrations from data supplied by
the facility, or in cases where the facility did not supply current
wastewater discharge data for a particular pollutant, the Agency based
the current discharge concentration on data supplied from similar
treatment systems at similar landfills. EPA determined the discharge
concentrations expected to be achieved for a particular technology
option from EPA sampling data or from industry supplied data at
facilities selected as the best performers.
B. Costs of Compliance
The Agency has estimated the cost for landfill facilities to
achieve the effluent limitations promulgated today. Table IV.B-1
summarizes the estimated costs and the Technical Development Document
discusses them in more detail. All of the cost estimates in this
section are expressed in terms of 1998 dollars.
The only costs associated with this final rule are for direct
discharging landfills in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA did not
identify any commercial hazardous landfills in the United States that
discharged directly to surface waters, and thus, the Agency did not
estimate any costs of compliance for direct dischargers from hazardous
landfills. In addition, there are no costs associated with PSES for
either subcategory because the Agency is not establishing PSES for the
Landfills Point Source Category.
[[Page 3028]]
Table IV. B-1.--Capital and Annual Costs of BPT
[In millions of 1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Capital Annual O&M
Subcategory facilities costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Hazardous Direct Dischargers 143 18.87 6.50
(BPT)...........................
Hazardous Direct Dischargers 0 0 0
(BPT)...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated pollutant reductions for landfill facilities
achieving each of the effluent limitations promulgated today. Table
IV.C-1 summarizes the estimated reductions and the document
``Environmental Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations and Standards
for the Landfills Category'' discusses them in more detail.
All of the pollutant reductions realized by this regulation are a
result of the effluent limitations promulgated for direct dischargers
in the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA did not identify any commercial
hazardous landfills in the United States that discharged directly to
surface waters, and thus, the Agency did not evaluate pollutant
reductions for direct dischargers from hazardous landfills.
Furthermore, there are no pollutant reductions associated with PSES
for either subcategory because the Agency is not establishing PSES
limitations for the Landfills Point Source Category.
Table IV.C-1.--Pollutant Reductions Achieved by Implementing BPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conventional Toxic
Number of pollutant pollutant
Subbcategory facilities removals removals
(pounds) (pounds)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT).......................... 143 600,000 323,150
Hazardous Direct Dischargers (BPT).............................. 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Economic Analysis
A. Introduction and Overview
This section summarizes EPA's analysis of the economic impacts of
the final regulation. EPA describes the economic impact assessment in
detail in the ``Economic Analysis for the Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category'' (hereafter
``EA''). The EA estimates the economic effect on the industry of
compliance with the regulation in terms of facility closures (severe
impacts) and financial impacts short of closure (moderate impacts) for
privately-owned landfill facilities. For publicly-owned landfill
facilities, the report estimates financial impacts short of closure.
The report also includes an analysis of the effects of the regulation
on new landfill facilities and an assessment of the impacts on small
businesses and other small entities.
EPA estimated the economic impacts of final regulatory options in
each subcategory for BPT and NSPS. The technical evaluation and
description of each option and the rationale for selecting the final
option is discussed in Section [III] of today's notice. EPA has based
its BPT/BCT/BAT limitations for the Non-Hazardous subcategory on
technology Option II, which EPA estimates will have a total annualized
cost of $ 7.64 million (1998$). (For privately-owned facilities, EPA
evaluated costs in terms of after-tax costs.) Table V. A-1 summarizes
the costs associated with the Option II.
Table V. A-1.--Total Costs of Selected Regulatory Option
[In millions of 1998 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax
Selected option for the non- Total Total O & total
hazardous landfill subcategory capital M costs annualized
costs costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option II........................ 18.87 6.50 7.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Economic Impacts
1. Cost Reasonableness and Economic Impacts of BPT
As discussed above in Section [II.A], in establishing BPT
limitations, EPA considers the cost of the limitations in relation to
the effluent reduction benefits achieved. EPA compares these costs and
benefits by first calculating pre-tax total annualized costs and total
removals of TSS and BOD5 in pounds. EPA then compares the
ratio of the costs to the removals for an option to the range of ratios
in previous regulations to gauge the option's relative cost. Table V.B-
1 presents the results of the cost and removal comparison. In the Non-
Hazardous subcategory, Option II has a ratio of $ 14 per pound. Option
II is within the historical bounds of BPT cost comparisons.
[[Page 3029]]
Table V. B-1.--BPT Cost Reasonableness Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-tax total Average cost
Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill subcategory annualized costs Removals (lbs) reasonableness
(million 1998$) (1998 $/lb)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II........................................................ 8.57 598,579 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is promulgating BPT limitations based on Option II for both
privately-and publicly-owned facilities. The impact analysis for Option
II projects two facility closures as a result of compliance. The EA
projects no additional economic impacts beyond these two severe
impacts. The direct job losses associated with the projected closures
are 20 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Table V.B-2 summarizes the
economic impacts for BPT.
Table V. B-2.--Economic Impacts of BPT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax total
Selected option for the non-hazardous landfill annualized Severe Moderate Direct
subcategory costs (mil impacts impacts employment
1998$) losses (FTEs)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option II....................................... 7.64 2 0 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Economic Analysis of Final NSPS limitations
EPA is establishing NSPS limitations equivalent to the limitations
that are established for BPT/BCT/BAT for the Non-Hazardous and
Hazardous subcategories. In general, EPA believes that new sources will
be able to comply at costs that are similar to or less than the costs
for existing sources, because new sources can apply control
technologies more efficiently than sources that need to retrofit for
those technologies. EPA has determined that BPT/BCT/BAT limitations are
economically achievable and, therefore, NSPS limitations will not
present a barrier to entry for new facilities.
3. Firm Level Impacts
Firms differ from facilities in that firms are business entities or
companies, which may operate at several physical locations. Facilities
are individual establishments defined by their physical location,
whether or not they constitute an independent business entity on their
own. Some of the surveyed facilities are single-facility firms. In
these cases, the firm-level impact depends only on the facility-level
impact. In other cases, though, facilities are owned by multi-facility
firms, so that the impact on the parent firm depends not only on that
facility, but also on the impacts on and characteristics of other
facilities owned by the same firm.
In this analysis, the test for significant adverse impacts on firms
is whether firm-level compliance costs exceed five percent of firm
revenues. Using this criterion, EPA finds no significant adverse
impacts on affected firms and therefore determines that the effluent
guideline will not impose unreasonable economic burdens on firms that
own in-scope landfills.
4. Community Impacts
EPA assesses community impacts by estimating the expected change in
employment in communities with landfills that are affected by the final
regulation. Possible community employment effects include the
employment losses in the facilities that are expected to close because
of the regulation and the related employment losses in other businesses
in the affected community. In addition to these estimated employment
losses, employment may increase as a result of facilities' operation of
treatment systems for regulatory compliance. It should be noted that
job gains will mitigate community employment losses only if they occur
in the same communities in which facility closures occur.
EPA projects that the final regulation will result in two post-
compliance closures, with the direct loss of 20 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) positions. EPA estimates secondary employment impacts based on
multipliers that relate the change in employment in a directly affected
industry to aggregate employment effects in linked industries and
consumer businesses whose employment is affected by changes in the
earnings and expenditures of the employees in the directly and
indirectly affected industries.
The EA projects an estimated community impact of between 49 and 89
FTE losses as the result of the final rule. The direct and secondary
job losses are not expected to be significant in terms of employment
impacts to affected counties. EPA estimates that the regulation will
result in employment gains of an additional 79 FTEs as a result of the
operation of control equipment associated with treatment systems at
landfill facilities.
5. Foreign Trade Impacts
EPA does not project any foreign trade impacts as a result of the
effluent limitations guidelines. International trade in landfill
services for the disposal of hazardous and nonhazardous wastes is
virtually nonexistent.
VI. Water Quality Analysis and Environmental Benefits
A. Introduction
EPA evaluated the environmental benefits of controlling priority
and nonconventional pollutant discharges to surface waters and
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). Pollutant discharges into
freshwater and estuarine ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats,
adversely affect aquatic biota, and may adversely impact human health
through the consumption of contaminated fish and water. Furthermore,
pollutant discharges to a POTW may interfere with POTW operations by
inhibiting biological treatment or by contaminating POTW biosolids.
Many pollutants commonly found in landfill wastewater have one or
more toxic effects (e.g., the pollutant may be a human health
carcinogen or toxic to either some human system or to aquatic life). In
addition, several of these pollutants bioaccumulate in aquatic
organisms and persist in the environment.
The Agency's analysis focused on the effects of toxic pollutants
but did not evaluate the effects of two conventional
[[Page 3030]]
pollutants and five nonconventional pollutants. The pollutants not
assessed included total suspended solids (TSS), five-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total
dissolved solids (TDS), total organic carbon (TOC), hexane extractable
material, and total phenolic compounds. Although the Agency is not able
to monetize the benefits associated with reductions of non-toxic
parameters, discharges of these parameters may have adverse effects on
human health and the environment. For example, suspended particulate
matter may degrade habitat by reducing light penetration and thus
primary productivity and can alter benthic spawning grounds and feeding
habitats by accumulation in streambeds. High COD and BOD5
discharges may deplete oxygen levels, which can result in mortality or
other adverse effects on fish.
B. Methodology Used for Estimating Water Quality Impacts and Benefits
A report prepared for this rule, ``Environmental Assessment of the
Final Effluent Guidelines for the Landfill Category,'' presents the
Agency's analyses of these environmental and human health risk concerns
and of the water quality-related benefits resulting from the final
effluent guidelines. This assessment both qualitatively and
quantitatively evaluates the potential: (1) Ecological benefits; (2)
human health benefits; and (3) economic productivity benefits of
controlling discharges from direct discharging non-hazardous landfills
based on site-specific analyses of current conditions and the
conditions that would be achieved by compliance with the limitations
being established today. EPA estimates in-stream pollutant
concentrations from direct discharges using stream dilution modeling,
and from these models, EPA estimates the potential impacts and benefits
of the final rule.
EPA projects ecological benefits by comparing the steady-state in-
stream pollutant concentrations, predicted after complete immediate
mixing with no loss from the system, to EPA published water quality
criteria guidance. Or, for those chemicals for which EPA has not
published water quality criteria, EPA compares the steady-state in-
stream pollutant concentrations to documented toxic effect levels
(i.e., lowest reported or estimated toxic concentration). In performing
these analyses, EPA used guidance documents published by EPA that
recommend numeric human health and aquatic life water quality criteria
for numerous pollutants. States often consult these guidance documents
when adopting water quality criteria as part of their water quality
standards. However, because those State-adopted criteria may vary, EPA
used the nationwide criteria guidance as the most representative value.
EPA used the findings from the analysis of reduced occurrence of
pollutant concentrations in excess of both aquatic life and human
health criteria or toxic effect levels to assess improvements in
recreational fishing habitats and, in turn, to estimate, if applicable,
a monetary value for enhanced recreational fishing opportunities. EPA
expects such benefits to manifest as increases in the value of the
fishing experience per day fished or the number of days anglers
subsequently choose to fish the cleaner waterways. These benefits,
however, do not include all of the benefits that are associated with
improvements in aquatic life, such as increased assimilation capacity
of the receiving stream, improvements in taste and odor, or
improvements to other recreational activities such as swimming and
wildlife observation.
EPA projects human health benefits by: (1) comparing estimated in-
stream concentrations to health-based water quality toxic effect levels
or EPA published water quality criteria; and (2) estimating the
potential reduction of carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard
from consuming contaminated fish or drinking water. EPA estimates
upper-bound individual cancer risks, population risks, and non-cancer
hazards (systemic) using modeled in-stream pollutant concentrations and
standard EPA assumptions regarding ingestion of fish and drinking
water. The Agency then used the modeled pollutant concentrations in
fish and drinking water to estimate cancer risk and non-cancer hazards
(systemic) among the general population, sport anglers and their
families, and subsistence anglers and their families.
Due to the hydrophobic nature of one chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
(CDD) congener and one chlorinated dibenzofuran (CDF) congener being
evaluated, EPA projected human health benefits for these pollutants by
using the Office of Research and Development's Dioxin Reassessment
Evaluation (DRE) model to estimate the potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and non-carcinogenic hazard from consuming
contaminated fish. The DRE model estimates fish tissue concentrations
of the CDD/CDF congeners by calculating the equilibrium between the
pollutants in fish tissue and those adsorbed to the organic fraction of
sediments suspended in the water column. EPA did not establish effluent
limitations for the dioxins and furans that it detected at hazardous
and non-hazardous landfills. EPA discusses the reasons for not
establishing limitations for these congeners in the preamble to the
proposed rule (63 FR 6438-6439) and in Chapter 6 of the Final Technical
Development Document.
Of these health benefit measures, the Agency is able to monetize
only the reduction in carcinogenic risk using estimated willingness-to-
pay values for avoiding premature mortality. The values used in this
analysis are based on a range of values from a review of studies
quantifying individuals' willingness to pay to avoid increased risks to
life. In 1998 dollars, these values range from $2.5 to $13.1 million
per statistical life saved.
EPA evaluated the potential aquatic life and human health impacts
of direct wastewater discharges on receiving stream water quality at
current levels of treatment and at final BAT treatment levels. EPA
performed this analysis for a representative sample set of 37 direct
non-hazardous landfills discharging 26 pollutants to 35 receiving
streams. EPA extrapolated the results to 143 non-hazardous landfills
discharging 26 pollutants to 139 receiving streams. EPA based this
extrapolation on the same statistical methodology used for estimated
costs, loads, and economic impacts.
C. Estimated National Water Quality Impacts and Results
The Agency estimates that the final regulation will reduce loadings
of priority and nonconventional pollutants into receiving streams by 39
percent. The model also indicates that excursions of acute aquatic life
criteria or toxic effect levels due to one pollutant in two receiving
streams will be eliminated at BAT discharge levels. EPA estimates that
the final regulation will reduce excursions of chronic aquatic life
criteria or toxic effect levels due to the discharge of ammonia in two
receiving streams. EPA projects that a total of 36 excursions in 34
receiving streams at current conditions would be reduced to 34
excursions in 34 streams. Since the final rule would not reduce the
estimated number of stream reaches with excursions, EPA estimates there
would be no increase in value of recreational fishing to anglers based
on the baseline value of the fishery and the estimated incremental
benefit values associated with freeing the fishery from contaminants.
EPA modeled cancer cases and systemic health effects resulting from
the ingestion of fish and drinking water contaminated by non-hazardous
landfill
[[Page 3031]]
wastewater. EPA estimates that current wastewater discharges from
landfills result in far less than one (0.003) annual cancer case per
year for all populations evaluated. Final treatment options would
reduce this value to 0.002 annual cancer cases per year, which would
result in negligible monetized benefits ($2,100 to $11,000 per year).
EPA projects systemic health effects from one pollutant (disulfoton) in
two receiving streams at both current and final BAT discharge levels
affecting a total population of 643 subsistence anglers and their
families.
EPA's survey of hazardous landfills in the United States indicated
that there were no in-scope respondents which were classified as direct
dischargers. Therefore, the Agency did not evaluate potential aquatic
life and human health impacts of direct wastewater discharges from
hazardous landfills.
VII. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts
The elimination or reduction of one form of pollution may create or
aggravate other environmental problems. Therefore, Sections 304(b) and
306 of the Act require EPA to consider non-water quality environmental
impacts of effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Accordingly,
EPA has considered the effect of these regulations on air pollution,
solid waste generation, and energy consumption. While it is difficult
to balance environmental impacts across all media and energy use, the
Agency has determined that the impacts identified below are justified
by the benefits associated with compliance with the limitations and
standards.
A. Air Pollution
The primary source of air pollution from landfills is due to the
microbial breakdown of organic wastes from within the landfill.
Landfills are known to be major sources of greenhouse gas emissions
such as methane and carbon dioxide. These emissions are now regulated
under the Clean Air Act as a result of the ``Standards of Performance
for New Stationary Sources and Guidelines for Control of Existing
Sources: Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,'' promulgated by EPA on March
12, 1996. (61 FR 9905). Many municipal solid waste landfills are
required to collect and combust the gases generated in the landfill.
Wastewater collected from within the landfill contains organic
compounds which include volatile organic compounds (VOC) and hazardous
air pollutants (HAP). This wastewater must be collected, treated and
stored in units which are often open to the atmosphere and may result
in the volatilization of certain compounds. The regulations promulgated
today are based on the performance of an aerated biological system.
Wastewater aeration may increase the volatilization of certain organic
compounds, a potential environmental concern. However, indications are
that the potential increase in air emissions due to this regulation
will be minimal. VOCs in hazardous waste landfill leachate are being
steadily minimized due to the RCRA land disposal restriction rules,
which typically require aggressive destructive treatment of organics in
hazardous wastes before the waste can be landfilled (see 40 CFR 268.40
and 268.48).\7\ VOC levels in historic landfill leachate (from both
hazardous and non-hazardous waste landfills dating from the 1930s to
the mid-1990s) are also at levels which are low enough as not to call
into question EPA's determination to base these rules on the
performance of aerated biological systems. Tables 6-9, 6-10, and 6-13
in Technical Development Document show the concentrations of VOCs found
in landfill wastewater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ There are certain exceptions to these treatment requirements
for hazardous wastewater which is disposed in surface impoundments.
RCRA section 3005 (j) (11). However, if this wastewater contains
VOCs above a designated concentration level, then the impoundments
are subject to rules requiring control of the resulting air
emissions. 40 CFR 264.1085 and 263.1086.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is currently
evaluating the air emissions from wastewater generated at municipal
solid waste landfills, and intends to take today's rule into account in
determining whether further controls under section 112 of the Clean Air
Act (which requires technology-based standards for hazardous air
pollutants emitted by major sources of emissions of those pollutants)
are justified. (Preliminary indications are that hazardous air
pollutant emissions from aeration would be a minor fraction of those
from other landfill emission sources such as landfill gas emissions.)
In addition, EPA is addressing emissions of VOCs from industrial
wastewater through a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) under Section
110 of the Clean Air Act. In September, 1992, EPA published a draft
document entitled ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from
Industrial Wastewater'' (EPA-453/0-93-056). This document addresses
various industries, including the hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal industry, and outlines emissions expected from their
wastewater treatment systems and methods for controlling them.
B. Solid Waste Generation
Solid waste will be generated due to a number of the treatment
technologies selected as BPT/BAT for this regulation. These wastes
include sludge from biological treatment systems and chemical
precipitation systems. Solids from treatment processes are typically
dewatered and disposed in the on-site landfill. Therefore, the
increased amount of sludge created due to this regulation will be
negligible in comparison with the daily volumes of waste processed and
disposed of in a typical landfill.
C. Energy Requirements
EPA estimates that the attainment of these standards will increase
energy consumption by a very small increment over present industry use.
The selected treatment technologies are not energy-intensive, and the
projected increase in energy consumption is primarily due to the
incorporation of components such as power pumps, mixers, blowers, power
lighting and controls. The costs associated with these energy costs are
included in EPA's estimated operating costs for compliance with the
final rule.
VIII. Regulatory Implementation
The purpose of this section is to provide assistance and direction
to permit writers to aid in their implementation of this regulation.
This section also discusses the relationship of upset and bypass
provisions, variances and modifications, and analytical methods to the
final limitations.
A. Implementation of Limitations and Standards
Upon the promulgation of these regulations, all new and reissued
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers in the
landfills industry must include the effluent limitations for the
appropriate subcategory. Permit writers should be aware that EPA has
proposed revisions to 40 CFR Part 122 and is currently addressing
public comments on its proposal. One of several aspects of the proposal
which could be particularly relevant to the development of NPDES
permits for the Landfills Point Source Category is the proposed
revisions of Section 122.44(a). In EPA's current thinking, the
revisions would require that permits have limitations for all
applicable guideline-listed pollutants but allows for the waiver of
sampling requirements for guideline-listed pollutants on a case-by-case
basis if the
[[Page 3032]]
discharger can certify that the pollutant is not present in the
discharge or present in only background levels from intake water with
no increase due to the activities of the discharger. EPA anticipates
that new sources and new dischargers will not be eligible for this
waiver on their first permit term, and monitoring can be re-established
through a minor modification if the discharger expands or changes its
process. Further, the permittee will not need to reapply for the waiver
each permit term, but only needs to notify the permit writer of any
modifications that have taken place over the course of the permit term
and, if necessary, monitoring can be reestablished through a minor
modification.
B. Upset and Bypass Provisions
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance
with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors
beyond the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations
concerning bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41 (m) and
(n).
C. Variances and Modifications
The CWA requires application of the effluent limitations
established pursuant to Section 301 or the pretreatment standards of
Section 307 to all direct and indirect dischargers. However, the
statute provides for the modification of these national requirements in
a limited number of circumstances. Moreover, the Agency has established
administrative mechanisms to provide an opportunity for relief from the
application of national effluent limitations guidelines and
pretreatment standards for categories of existing sources for priority,
conventional and nonconventional pollutants.
1. Fundamentally Different Factors Variances
EPA will develop effluent limitations or standards different from
the otherwise applicable requirements if an individual existing
discharging facility is fundamentally different with respect to factors
considered in establishing the limitation or standards applicable to
the individual facility. Such a modification is known as a
``fundamentally different factors'' (FDF) variance.
Early on, EPA, by regulation, provided for FDF modifications from
BPT effluent limitations, BAT limitations for priority and
nonconventional pollutants and BCT limitation for conventional
pollutants for direct dischargers. For indirect dischargers, EPA
provided for FDF modifications from pretreatment standards for existing
facilities. FDF variances for priority pollutants were challenged
judicially and ultimately sustained by the Supreme Court. (Chemical
Manufacturers Ass'n v. NRDC, 479 U.S. 116 (1985)).
Subsequently, in the Water Quality Act of 1987, Congress added new
Section 301(n) of the Act explicitly to authorize modification of the
otherwise applicable BAT effluent limitations or categorical
pretreatment standards for existing sources if a facility is
fundamentally different with respect to the factors specified in
Section 304 (other than costs) from those considered by EPA in
establishing the effluent limitations or pretreatment standard. Section
301(n) also defined the conditions under which EPA may establish
alternative requirements. Under Section 301(n), an application for
approval of an FDF variance must be based solely on (1) information
submitted during the rulemaking raising the factors that are
fundamentally different or (2) information the applicant did not have
an opportunity to submit. The alternate limitation or standard must be
no less stringent than justified by the difference and not result in
markedly more adverse non-water quality environmental impacts than the
national limitation or standard.
EPA regulations at 40 CFR 125 Subpart D, authorizing the Regional
Administrators to establish alternative limitations and standards,
further detail the substantive criteria used to evaluate FDF variance
requests for existing direct dischargers. Thus, 40 CFR 125.31(d)
identifies six factors (e.g., volume of process wastewater, age and
size of a discharger's facility) that may be considered in determining
if a facility is fundamentally different. The Agency must determine
whether, on the basis of one or more of these factors, the facility in
question is fundamentally different from the facilities and factors
considered by EPA in developing the nationally applicable effluent
guidelines. The regulation also lists four other factors (e.g.,
infeasibility of installation within the time allowed or a discharger's
ability to pay) that may not provide a basis for an FDF variance. In
addition, under 40 CFR 125.31(b)(3), a request for limitations less
stringent than the national limitation may be approved only if
compliance with the national limitations would result in either (a) a
removal cost wholly out of proportion to the removal cost considered
during development of the national limitations, or (b) a non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements)
fundamentally more adverse than the impact considered during
development of the national limits. EPA regulations provide for an FDF
variance for existing indirect dischargers at 40 CFR 403.13. The
conditions for approval of a request to modify applicable pretreatment
standards and factors considered are the same as those for direct
dischargers.
The legislative history of Section 301(n) underscores the necessity
for the FDF variance applicant to establish eligibility for the
variance. EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 125.32(b)(1) are explicit in
imposing this burden upon the applicant. The applicant must show that
the factors relating to the discharge controlled by the applicant's
permit which are claimed to be fundamentally different are, in fact,
fundamentally different from those factors considered by EPA in
establishing the applicable guidelines. The pretreatment regulation
incorporates a similar requirement at 40 CFR 403.13(h)(9).
An FDF variance is not available to a new source subject to NSPS or
PSNS.
2. Permit Modifications
Even after EPA (or an authorized State) has issued a final permit
to a direct discharger, the permit may still be modified under certain
conditions. (When a permit modification is under consideration,
however, all other permit conditions remain in effect.) A permit
modification may be triggered in several circumstances. These could
include a regulatory inspection or information submitted by the
permittee that reveals the need for modification. Any interested person
may request modification of a permit be made. There are two
classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public notice
requirements. Major modifications require public notice while minor
modifications do not. Virtually any modification that results in less
stringent conditions is treated as a major modification, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that would
necessitate a major modification of a permit are described in 40 CFR
122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-substantive changes. The
conditions for minor modifications are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
D. Relationship of Effluent Limitations to NPDES Permits and Monitoring
Requirements
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control the
discharges of pollutants to waters of the United
[[Page 3033]]
States. These limitations are applied to individual facilities through
NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized States under Section 402 of
the Act.
The Agency has developed the limitations for this regulation to
cover the discharge of pollutants for this industrial category. In
specific cases, the NPDES permitting authority may elect to establish
technology-based permit limits for pollutants not covered by this
regulation. In addition, if State water quality standards or other
provisions of State or Federal Law require limits on pollutants not
covered by this regulation (or require more stringent limits on covered
pollutants) the permitting authority must apply those limitations.
Working in conjunction with the effluent limitations are the
monitoring conditions set out in a NPDES permit. An integral part of
the monitoring conditions is the point at which a facility must monitor
to demonstrate compliance. The point at which a sample is collected can
have a dramatic effect on the monitoring results for that facility.
Therefore, it may be necessary to require internal monitoring points in
order to ensure compliance. Authority to address internal waste streams
is provided in 40 CFR 122.44(i)(1)(iii) and 122.45(h). Permit writers
may establish additional internal monitoring points to the extent
consistent with EPA's regulations.
E. Implementation for Facilities With Landfills in Multiple
Subcategories
According to the ``1992 Waste Treatment Industry: Landfills
Questionnaire,'' there are several facilities which operate both
Subtitle C hazardous landfills and Subtitle D non-hazardous landfills
on-site. Generally, for determination of effluent limits where there
are multiple categories and subcategories, the effluent guidelines are
applied using a flow-weighted combination of the appropriate guideline
for each category or subcategory. Thus, the normal practice would be to
develop flow-weighted limitations for the combined Subtitle C and
Subtitle D wastestreams, a flow-weighted combination of the BAT limits
for the Landfills Category. However, EPA's RCRA regulations require
management of mixtures of hazardous and non-hazardous waste under RCRA
hazardous waste regulations. Consequently, a commingled flow of
hazardous and nonhazardous waste is a hazardous waste. Therefore, if a
facility commingles wastewater from a Subtitle C hazardous landfill and
a Subtitle D non-hazardous landfill for treatment, then the effluent
from that facility is subject to the limitations promulgated today for
the Hazardous subcategory.
F. Implementation for Contaminated Ground Water Flows and Wastewater
From Recovering Pumping Wells
As discussed in Section [III], ground water flows and wastewater
flows from recovering pumping wells (which have very similar
characteristics to contaminated ground water) are not subject to the
effluent limits established in today's rule. These terms are defined in
Section [III] of this preamble. According to the ``1992 Waste Treatment
Industry: Landfills Questionnaire,'' there are a number of facilities
which collect contaminated ground water in addition to flows regulated
under this rule, and many facilities commingle these flows for
treatment. In the Agency's analysis of contaminated ground water at
landfills, EPA found that contaminated ground water may be very dilute
or may have characteristics similar in nature to leachate. Due to this
site-to-site variability, the Agency is not able to determine how the
guidelines should be implemented for commingled flows of ground water
and regulated wastewater.
In the case of such facilities, EPA believes that decisions
regarding the appropriate discharge limits should be left to the
judgment of the permit writer. As indicated by data collected through
the questionnaires and EPA sampling, ground water characteristics are
often site-specific and may contain very few contaminants or may,
conversely, exhibit characteristics similar in nature to leachate.
In cases where the ground water is very dilute the Agency is
concerned that contaminated ground water may be used as a dilution
flow. In these cases, the permit writer should develop BPJ permit
limits based on separate treatment of the flows, or develop BPJ limits
based on a flow-weighted building block approach, in order to prevent
dilution of the regulated leachate flows. However, in cases where the
ground water may exhibit characteristics similar to leachate,
commingled treatment may be appropriate, cost effective and
environmentally beneficial. EPA recommends that the permit writer
consider the characteristics of the contaminated ground water before
making a determination if commingling ground water and leachate for
treatment is appropriate. EPA recommends that the permit writer refer
to the leachate characteristics data in Chapter 6 of the Technical
Development Document in order to determine whether contaminated ground
water at a landfill has characteristics similar to leachate.
G. Implementation for Subtitle D Landfills Which Received Newly Listed
Hazardous Wastes in the Past
There are situations where a Subtitle D landfill received wastes
that, at the time, were not classified as hazardous, but since disposal
of the waste, EPA now classifies that type of waste as hazardous. In
these situations, leachate that is derived from the treatment, storage,
or disposal of listed hazardous wastes is classified as a hazardous
waste by virtue of the ``derived-from'' rule in 40 CFR 261.3(c)(2). The
Agency has been very clear in the past on the applicability of
hazardous waste listings to wastes disposed of prior to the effective
date of a listing, even if the landfill ceases disposal of the waste
when the waste becomes hazardous. 53 FR 31147 (August 17, 1988). EPA
also has a well-established interpretation that listings likewise apply
to leachate derived from the disposal of listed hazardous wastes,
including leachate derived from wastes (which meet the listing
description) disposed before a listing effective date. Id. EPA's
interpretations were upheld by the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit in Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. EPA, 869 F.2d
1526, 1536-37 (D.C. Cir. 1989). (These points are restated here to
provide context. EPA is not reconsidering or in any other way reopening
these principles for comment or review.)
This does not mean that landfills holding wastes which are now
listed as hazardous become subject to Subtitle C regulation. However,
previously disposed wastes now meeting the listing description,
including residues such as leachate and gas collection condensate which
are derived from such wastes and are actively managed (i.e., collected
for discharge), do become subject to Subtitle C regulation. 53 FR
31149. Thus, in these types of situations, a non-hazardous Subtitle D
landfill will produce a leachate that is subject to Subtitle C
regulation. In many cases, however, as discussed at 64 FR 6807, no
significant regulatory consequences under RCRA result from leachate
management.
As discussed at Section [III] above, EPA established two different
sets of effluent limitations for the landfills point source category
based on the RCRA classification of the landfill, and not the RCRA
classification of the leachate. Therefore, according to the
subcategorization scheme adopted by EPA in today's rule, a hazardous,
Subtitle C leachate generated from a
[[Page 3034]]
non-hazardous, Subtitle D landfill is subject to the effluent
limitations for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA concluded that such
an approach was appropriate because EPA's Non-Hazardous subcategory
landfill database reflects those facilities that may, as a result of
future RCRA hazardous waste listings, generate a hazardous leachate in
the future. However, due to both pollutant-specific and site-specific
factors in these types of situations, EPA determined that the local
permit writer may need to require monitoring of pollutants in addition
to those required by this rule for the Non-Hazardous subcategory in
order to ensure appropriate treatment of the hazardous, Subtitle C
leachate.
EPA does not believe that these types of situations are very
common, and therefore EPA concluded that the determination of effluent
limitations for additional pollutant parameters will have only a
minimal impact on the permit writer. Since the majority of Subtitle D
landfills discharge indirectly to POTWs, and since EPA did not
establish pretreatment standards for either non-hazardous or hazardous
landfills, the local control authority will not need to make the
determination in these cases.
EPA recommends that the permit writer refer to the leachate
characteristics data in Chapter 6 of the Technical Development Document
in order to determine whether the leachate resembles Subtitle C or
Subtitle D leachate and whether monitoring requirements in addition to
those for the Non-Hazardous subcategory are necessary.
H. Implementation for Superfund Response Actions at Landfills
This section addresses compliance with the landfills effluent
limitations promulgated today when CERCLA response action is taken at a
landfill. In cases where a Subtitle C or Subtitle D landfill is also
subject to response action under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, also known
as Superfund, it is possible that the landfills effluent guideline may
be an applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement (ARAR) for the
Superfund site.
CERCLA directed EPA to identify abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous
waste sites and to clean up the worst of these sites. The Agency
carries out these responsibilities through the Superfund response
process, according to procedures outlined in the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Section
121(d)(1) of CERCLA as amended by the 1986 Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires that on-site remedial actions must
attain (or waive), at completion of the action, federal or more
stringent state applicable or relevant and appropriate (ARARs)
environmental law. The 1990 National Contingency Plan (NCP) requires
compliance with ARARs during remedial actions as well as at completion
and compels attainment of ARARs during removal actions whenever
practicable. See 40 CFR 300.415(j) and 300.435(b)(2). Therefore, CWA
limitations, such as those promulgated today, may be applicable or
relevant and appropriate to hazardous substances discharged on-site
into surface water from a Superfund site.
CWA requirements are intimately connected to CERCLA as all 126 CWA
priority toxic pollutants are CERCLA hazardous substances (CERCLA
Section 101(14)). EPA thus has the authority under Superfund to respond
to releases of priority toxic pollutants. EPA also must adhere to or
waive ``applicable'' or ``relevant and appropriate'' CWA standards
during on-site response actions.
``Applicable'' requirements are those cleanup standards, standards
of control, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal or
timely identified state law that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant, remedial action, location, or
other circumstance at a Superfund site (40 CFR 300.5). Basically, to be
applicable, a requirement must directly and fully address a CERCLA
activity. For example, the Hazardous subcategory landfill effluent
limitations could be considered applicable for a CERCLA landfill that
collects and discharges landfill leachate (or other wastewater
regulated by the landfills guideline) on-site to a surface water.
Because the landfill effluent guidelines did not establish pretreatment
standards, today's rule would not be ``applicable'' for a CERCLA
landfill discharging indirectly to a POTW. Determining which standards
will be applicable to a Superfund response is similar to determining
the applicability of any law or regulation to any chemical, action, or
location. The lead or support agency must examine federal and state
statutes and regulations to identify those which directly govern
response activities.
CERCLA, in addition to incorporating ``applicable'' environmental
laws and regulations into the response process, requires compliance
with (or waiver of) other ``relevant and appropriate'' standards. A
requirement which is not applicable may be relevant and appropriate if
it addresses problems or pertains to circumstances similar to those
encountered at a Superfund site. ``Relevant and Appropriate''
requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, or
other substantive environmental provisions that while not applicable
address sufficiently similar situations or problems to those
encountered at a Superfund site such that their use is well-suited to
the particular site. 40 CFR 300.5 and 300.400(g)(2). A requirement may
be ``relevant'' in that it covers situations similar to that at the
site, but may not be ``appropriate'' to apply for various reasons and,
therefore, not well-suited to the site.
The types of legal requirements applying to Superfund responses
will differ to some extent depending upon whether the activity in
question takes place on site or off site. In the case of CERCLA
actions, a direct discharge of Superfund wastewater would be considered
on site if the receiving water body is in the area of contamination or
is in very close proximity to the site and necessary for implementation
of the response action (even if the water body flows off site).
``CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual'' Chapter 3, ``Guidance for
Compliance with Clean Water Act Requirements,'' (EPA, August 8, 1988).
For response actions that are on-site, the site must comply with or
waive both ``applicable'' as well as ``relevant and appropriate
requirements.'' However, EPA does not need to comply with procedural
environmental requirements on site. In addition, CERCLA Section
121(e)(2) states that no Federal, State or local permit (e.g., a permit
for a direct discharge to surface waters) is required for the portion
of any removal or remedial action conducted entirely on-site.
Therefore, Superfund sites are not required to obtain permits for on-
site actions. For off site actions, a CERCLA response generally must
comply only with all applicable law.
Therefore, administrative NPDES standards, such as the permit and
certification requirements required by today's rule, are applicable to
CERCLA discharges to off-site surface water. Because only surface water
that is within or in very close proximity to an area of contamination
is considered on site, most CERCLA response actions will trigger
administrative NPDES standards.
Also see ``CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual'' at p. 1-65
(EPA,
[[Page 3035]]
August 8, 1988); Final NCP, 59 FR 47416 (Sept. 15, 1994).
I. Implementation for TSCA Landfills
Concern over the toxicity and persistence in the environment of
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) led Congress in 1976 to enact
Sec. 6(e) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that included
among other things, prohibitions on the manufacture, processing, and
distribution in commerce of PCBs. Thus, TSCA legislated true ``cradle
to grave'' (i.e., from manufacture to disposal) management of PCBs in
the United States. Today's guidelines do not apply to landfills that
are only permitted under TSCA as Chemical Waste Landfills. Rather, it
applies only to those landfills subject to the requirements under
Subtitle C or Subtitle D of RCRA. However, landfills that are subject
to Subtitle C or D of RCRA and are also permitted under TSCA will be
subject to the landfills effluent limitations guidelines promulgated
today. In fact, at least one of the landfills sampled by EPA (and
selected as BAT) for the Hazardous subcategory, is a Chemical Waste
Landfill permitted under TSCA and is also a Subtitle C landfill under
RCRA.
J. Implementation for Landfills Located at Centralized Waste Treatment
Facilities
EPA is in the process of developing guidelines for Centralized
Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities which will be promulgated next year.
As previously explained at Section [III], this part does not apply to
landfills operated in conjunction with CWT facilities that will be
subject to 40 CFR Part 437 (when issued) so long as the CWT facility
commingles the landfill wastewater with other non-landfill wastewater
for discharge. A landfill directly associated with a CWT facility is
subject to this part if the CWT facility discharges landfill wastewater
separately from other CWT wastewater or commingles the wastewater from
its landfill only with wastewater from other landfills.
For example, under current thinking, following promulgation of the
CWT guidelines, a landfill treatment system that accepts wastewater
from a non-landfill source for treatment would be a CWT and subject to
the CWT guidelines and standards to be codified at 40 CFR Part 437.
However, a landfill treatment system that only accepted wastewater for
treatment generated off-site from off-site landfills would be subject
to the landfill guidelines.
K. Determination of Similar Wastes for Captive Landfill Facilities
As discussed at Section [III] above, the Agency concluded that
discharges from captive landfills should not be subject to the
guidelines if the captive landfills only accepted waste for disposal
from another facility that was similar to the waste generated by the
industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the
landfill. This section offers guidance to permit writers for
determining whether a solid waste received for disposal in a captive
landfill is similar to those wastes generated by the facility directly
associated with the landfill.
According to EPA's database, many of the industrial or commercial
facilities that operate captive landfills are subject to effluent
limitations guidelines in 40 CFR Subchapter N. For the most part,
facilities subject to a particular industrial category effluent
guideline produce similar types of wastes. Therefore, EPA decided that
this rule does not apply to landfills operated in conjunction with
other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill receives
wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation directly
associated with the landfill and also receives other wastes generated
by a facility that is subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR
Subchapter N as the waste-receiving facility.
However, there are cases where a captive landfill is directly
associated with an industrial or commercial operation that is not
subject to an effluent guideline. Or, a facility, subject to an
effluent guideline, may operate a landfill in conjunction with
industrial or commercial operations, but may also accept other wastes
from facilities that are not subject to the same effluent guideline or
not subject to an effluent guideline at all. In these cases, the permit
writer must determine whether the other wastes received for disposal
are of similar nature to the wastes generated by the industrial or
commercial operation directly associated with the landfill. In cases
where the permit writer determines that the other waste accepted by the
captive landfill is not similar to the waste generated by the
industrial or commercial activity directly associated with the
landfill, then the landfill wastewater will be subject to the landfills
effluent limitations. However, if the permit writer determines that the
wastes are similar, then the wastewater from the captive landfill
should be subject to the same categorical effluent guideline (or BPJ
limitations) as the industrial or commercial facility.
A permit writer should consider the following factors in deciding
whether other wastes received by a captive landfill are similar to
those wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation
directly associated with the landfill:
1. Are the other wastes received from facilities that are subject
to the same provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N as the facility directly
associated with the captive landfill?
If so, then the landfills effluent guidelines do not apply to
this captive landfill. If not, then the permit writer should
consider the other factors listed below.
2. Are the other wastes received from facilities that are part of
the same effluent guidelines ``grouping'' as described in Chapter 2 of
the Landfills Technical Development Document?
If so, it is likely that the wastes are similar and the
landfills effluent guidelines do not apply. In the Landfills
Technical Development Document, EPA grouped the industrial
categories under Subchapter N into six groups: Organics, Metals,
Inorganics and Non-metals, Pesticides, Explosives, and Asbestos. It
is likely that industries within the same industrial effluent
guideline ``grouping'' will generate similar types of constituents
in the solid wastes, and the leachate resulting from the disposal of
these wastes will be controlled adequately by the effluent
limitation for the industrial or commercial facility directly
associated with the captive landfill. However, this may not always
be the case, and therefore EPA left to the local control authority
the determination of whether the landfills effluent guideline should
apply to a captive landfill that accepts wastes from other
facilities that are not subject to the same provisions in 40 CFR
Subchapter N. The local permitting authority will determine whether
a captive landfill which accepts wastes from other industrial
activities apart from those directly associated with the landfill is
subject to today's guidelines based on the similarity of the other
wastes and the likelihood that these wastes will result in leachate
that is compatible with the wastewater treatment technology used to
treat the landfill leachate.
3. In the case of hazardous captive landfills, do the other wastes
being received have the same hazardous waste codes as those generated
at the facility directly associated with the landfill?
If so, it is possible that the wastes are similar. However, this
may not always be the case, and therefore EPA left to the local
control authority the determination of whether the landfills
effluent guideline should apply to a captive landfill that accepts
wastes from other facilities that are not subject to the same
provisions in 40 CFR Subchapter N.
4. Is a significant portion of the waste deposited in the landfill
from the industrial or commercial operation that
[[Page 3036]]
is directly associated with the captive landfill?
The control authority should analyze the number of customers and
the amount of the off-site or inter-company waste deposited relative
to the quantity of on-site or intracompany waste placed in the
captive landfill. Again, the main reason for the exclusion for
captive landfills is that their leachate should resemble the
industrial wastewater of the operation directly associated with the
landfill, and therefore, the landfill leachate will be adequately
controlled by the applicable industrial effluent guidelines.
However, this logic is only applicable when the bulk of the waste
placed in the landfill is of similar content to that being produced
by the industrial facility directly associated with the landfill.
Therefore, when applying the captive exclusion, the control
authority should analyze the volume and characteristics of waste
received from inter-company waste transfers in determining whether
the leachate generated by the captive landfill will have similar
characteristics to the industrial wastewater generated by the
company owning the landfill.
5. Is the facility that is directly associated with the captive
landfill deriving revenues from waste disposal at the landfill?
In developing the exclusion for captive landfills, EPA's intent
was to exclude those non-commercial landfills that are directly
associated with an industrial or commercial operation and whose
leachate is currently being adequately addressed by the facility's
categorical or BPJ limitations. EPA believes that where revenues are
being derived from the collection of fees for solid waste disposal
at a captive landfill, the facility is accepting wastes on a
commercial basis--wastes that may well be dissimilar to that being
disposed of at the landfill. The captive exception is premised on
the fact that in most cases leachate from a landfill associated with
an industrial operation will resemble the industrial process
wastewater generated by the industrial operation, and therefore, the
landfill leachate will be adequately controlled by the applicable
industrial effluent guidelines or BPJ limitations. However, this is
a reasonable assumption only in circumstances where the waste placed
in the landfill is of similar content to that being produced by the
industrial operation directly associated with the landfill. It is
likely that a commercial landfill may accept significant volumes of
waste that are not similar to the wastes generated by the industrial
operation directly associated with the landfill.
6. Is the industrial or commercial facility directly associated
with the captive landfill accepting wastes for disposal as part of
public service activities?
If so, and the facility does not receive a fee or other
remuneration for the disposal service, the captive landfill is not
subject to this rule. EPA defines public service activities in
Appendix A of this preamble.
L. Analytical Methods
Section 304(h) of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate
guidelines establishing test methods for the analysis of pollutants.
These methods are used to determine the presence and concentration of
pollutants in wastewater, and are used for compliance monitoring and
for filing applications for the NPDES program under 40 CFR 122.21,
122.41, 122.44 and 123.25, and for the implementation of the
pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.10 and 403.12. To date, EPA has
promulgated methods for conventional pollutants, toxic pollutants, and
for some nonconventional pollutants. The five conventional pollutants
are defined at 40 CFR 401.16. Table I-B at 40 CFR 136 lists the
analytical methods approved for these pollutants. The 65 toxic metals
and organic pollutants and classes of pollutants are defined at 40 CFR
401.15. From the list of 65 classes of toxic pollutants EPA identified
a list of 126 ``Priority Pollutants.'' This list of Priority Pollutants
is shown, for example, at 40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A. The list
includes non-pesticide organic pollutants, metal pollutants, cyanide,
asbestos, and pesticide pollutants. Currently approved methods for
metals and cyanide are included in the table of approved inorganic test
procedures at 40 CFR 136.3, Table I-B. Table I-C at 40 CFR 136.3 lists
approved methods for measurement of non-pesticide organic pollutants,
and Table I-D lists approved methods for the toxic pesticide pollutants
and for other pesticide pollutants. Dischargers must use the test
methods promulgated at 40 CFR 136.3 or incorporated by reference in the
tables, when available, to monitor pollutant discharges from Landfills,
unless specified otherwise by the permitting authority.
The final rule establishes limitations for BOD5, TSS,
pH, ammonia, arsenic (total), chromium (total), zinc (total), alpha
terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol, naphthalene, and
pyridine. Except for aniline, benzoic acid, p-cresol, and pyridine,
there are methods specified for these pollutants at 40 CFR 136.3.
Although these four pollutants are not directly covered in the list of
approved methods, EPA has successfully used Methods 625 and 1625 to
measure these semivolatile pollutants. EPA has collected analytical
data for these four pollutants and for other pollutants of interest in
the wastewater program using Methods 625 and 1625. One of the
pollutants, alpha terpineol, is currently an analyte in Method 1625 but
not in Method 625. EPA has also collected data for alpha terpineol
using Method 625 to provide greater flexibility in the selection of an
analytical method for monitoring discharges. As part of today's final
rule, EPA is amending 40 CFR Part 136.3, Appendix A, to add attachments
to EPA Methods 625 and 1625 with method performance criteria for
additional pollutants, including the pollutants of concern for
Landfills. The modified versions of Methods 625 and 1625 will allow the
analysis of all semivolatile organic pollutants in today's final rule.
EPA proposed to amend Methods 625 and 1625 to include additional
pollutants as part of the Centralized Waste Treatment proposal last
year (64 FR 2345). Since then, EPA has gathered data on additional
analytes. The attachments to Methods 625 and 1625 consist of text,
performance data, and quality control (QC) acceptance criteria for the
additional analytes. This information will allow a laboratory to
practice the methods with the additional analytes as an integral part.
The QC acceptance criteria for the additional analytes were determined
in single-laboratory studies. The collected data are summarized in a
report in the docket for today's rulemaking.
IX. Regulatory Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is a not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
[[Page 3037]]
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business that has
annual revenues less than $6 million (i.e., the definition for SIC
4953, Refuse Systems); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. EPA prepared
a detailed assessment of the impacts of today's rule on small entities.
This assessment is included in the ``Economic Analysis of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfill Category,'' which
is summarized in Section [V], above, and is part of the Record for
today's rule. Today's rule establishes requirements applicable to
landfill facilities owned by both small businesses and small
governmental jurisdictions. We determined that, of the 138 facilities
expected to incur costs, only 39 facilities are small entities. Of
these two are privately owned and 37 are government owned. The
projected costs for these entities are low--in all cases less than one
percent of revenues. Further, EPA projects that only two facilities
owned by small entities will incur economic impacts such as facility
closure. Further, EPA's assessment project no economic impacts, such as
plant closure, for these small entities, Although this final rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to reduce the impact of this rule
on small entities. The Agency considered various technology options in
establishing a basis for today's effluent limitations. The Agency's
analysis specifically included economic impacts to the regulated
community. While complying with the statute, EPA also reduced
regulatory impacts by selecting economically achievable and cost-
reasonable options.
C. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective February 18, 2000.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection requirements.
Therefore, this rule is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA has estimated total annualized costs of the
rule as $ 7.64 million (1998$, post-tax). Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of Sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA determined that no small governments are significantly
affected by this rule as discussed in Part B. of this section. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of Section 203 of the
UMRA.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian Tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that
[[Page 3038]]
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's Rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments because EPA determined that no
communities of Indian tribal governments are affected by this rule.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule will not impose
substantial costs on States and localities. The rule establishes
effluent limitations imposing requirements that apply to landfills when
they discharge wastewater. The rule does not apply directly to States
and applies to localities only when they operate a municipal landfill
that discharges wastewater. The rule will only affect States when they
are administering CWA permitting programs. The final rule, at most,
imposes minimal administrative costs on States if the States have an
authorized NPDES programs. (These States must incorporate the new
limitations in new and reissued NPDES permits). Similarly, local
governments operating directly discharging landfills will not
experience substantial cost. The cost of complying with this guideline
will not be significantly greater than current costs of meeting
existing NPDES permit limits. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of
the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, under Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995, (Pub L. No.
104-113 Sec. 12(d) 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), explanations when the Agency decided
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Today's final rule requires dischargers to monitor for 3 metals, 7
organic pollutants, BOD5, TSS, ammonia and pH. EPA performed
a search of the technical literature to identify any applicable
analytical test methods from industry, academia, voluntary consensus
standard bodies and other parties that could be used to measure the
analytes in today's final guideline. EPA's search revealed that there
are consensus standards for many of the analytes already specified in
40 CFR Part 136.3. Pollutants in today's rule with consensus methods
already specified in 40 CFR Part 136.3 include the metals,
BOD5, TSS, ammonia, pH, phenol, and naphthalene. Pollutants
without consensus methods include alpha terpineol, aniline, pyridine,
p-cresol, and benzoic acid. EPA did not identify applicable consensus
methods for these five pollutants. EPA may promulgate consensus methods
for these pollutants in a future rulemaking if such methods become
available.
I. Executive Order 13045 and Protecting Children's Health
The Executive Order ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that is determined to be (1) ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is
not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866.
X. Summary of Proposal Comments and Responses
The following section describes the major comments on the proposed
rule, and EPA's responses. The public record includes a full comment
summary and response document for this rulemaking.
Forty-eight commenters provided detailed comments on the February
6, 1998 proposal. In all, the comments dealt with 32 separate aspects
of the proposal. The following responds to the most significant of the
comments.
Comment: EPA's selection of biological treatment as BPT/BAT for all
non-hazardous landfills is inappropriate because the technology is not
effective at utility ash monofills whose leachate does not contain
sufficient biologically degradable organic material to sustain a
biological treatment system.
Response: EPA agrees that there are certain landfill facilities in
the Non-Hazardous subcategory, such as utility ash monofills, that
would have difficulty operating biological treatment systems due to the
low organic content of the wastewater. In these circumstances, such
facilities may need to install different treatment systems to ensure
compliance with the promulgated limits. However, one of the several ash
monofill facilities sampled by EPA currently meets these limitations
and therefore will not need to install any additional treatment
technologies in order to comply with the landfills rule.
For the final rule, EPA re-evaluated available technology for
reducing pollutant discharges from landfills with low organic content
wastewater. EPA's data on ash monofills showed that two regulated
pollutants (ammonia and phenol) could be found at concentrations which
do not meet the BPT/BAT limitations. In addition, because various
metals may be expected to be present in ash monofill
[[Page 3039]]
wastewater, EPA also considered the treatment of zinc (the only metal
for which EPA promulgated a limitation for the Non-Hazardous
subcategory) in evaluating the treatment technologies for monofills
with low organic content.
EPA concluded that breakpoint chlorination would likely be the most
practicable and economic alternative technology for the removal of
ammonia at non-hazardous facilities that cannot sustain or chose not to
install biological treatment. For landfill facilities that require
removal of both phenol and zinc, EPA evaluated granular activated
carbon as a non-biological alternative treatment technology. EPA also
looked at the cost of these alternate treatment technologies to meet
the final limits. For the final rule, EPA costed two ash monofill
facilities for treatment of ammonia, phenol, and zinc using a
combination of breakpoint chlorination and granular activated carbon.
Based on this assessment, EPA has concluded that there are viable
alternative technologies available to facilities with low
BOD5, such as ash monofills, to treat ammonia, phenol, and
zinc that are comparable to those biological treatment systems found to
be economically achievable for the landfill industry generally. These
treatment systems may be installed at costs comparable to those for
biological treatment. In these circumstances, EPA has concluded that it
should not develop separate limitations for utility ash monofills.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that EPA further develop its
database to assess adequately the influence of age-related changes on
the concentrations and quality of pollutants in Subtitle D landfill
leachate.
Response: EPA considered whether age-related changes in leachate
concentrations of pollutants necessitate different discharge limits for
different age classes of landfills. Several considerations lead to the
conclusion that age-related limits are not appropriate.
First, a facility's wastewater treatment system typically receives
and commingles leachate from several landfills or cells of different
ages. The Agency has not observed any facility which has found it
advantageous or necessary to treat age-related leachates separately.
The Agency did, however, sample two landfill facilities that had only
one cell. One of the facilities had been receiving wastes for nine
years in its landfill cell, while the other facility had only been
receiving waste for one year. EPA compared the raw wastewater
concentrations of the constituents in these two cells and found the
concentrations to be very similar. In addition, most of the
constituents in both cells were close to the median raw wastewater
concentration for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. Second, based on
responses to the questionnaire, discussions with landfill operators and
historical data, EPA understands that leachate pollutant concentrations
appear to change substantially over the first two to five years of
operation but then change only slowly thereafter.
These two observations imply that treatment systems must be
designed to accommodate the full range of concentrations expected in
influent wastewater. EPA concluded that the BPT/BAT/NSPS treatment
technologies are able to treat the variations in landfill wastewater
likely to occur due to age-related changes. EPA has taken into account
the ability of treatment systems to accommodate age-related changes in
leachate concentrations, as well as short-term fluctuations by
promulgating effluent limitations which reflect the variability
observed in monitoring data spanning up to three years.
Additionally, EPA addressed age-related effects on treatment
technologies, costs, and pollutant loads by utilizing data collected
from a variety of landfills in various stages of age and operation
(e.g., closed, inactive, active). EPA sampled landfills of various ages
and stages of operation (active, inactive, closed), lined and unlined,
and concluded that the landfill database used to develop the effluent
limitations represents leachate typically found at Subtitle D
landfills. In addition, EPA received comments from several commenters
stating that the leachate characterization data presented in the
proposal was consistent with their own monitoring data.
In response to comments, EPA evaluated the data from non-hazardous
landfill facilities of different ages to compare general raw leachate
characteristics. When EPA compared landfills of various ages from EPA's
landfill effluent guidelines database, it was difficult to pinpoint any
particular trends (i.e. organic pollutant concentrations decrease
significantly with age). The absence of any particular trend associated
with pollutant concentrations across landfill facilities of various
ages may be due to the fact that most of the older landfill facilities
in EPA's database have newer landfill cells whose leachate is
commingled for treatment with the leachate from the older landfill
cells. For example, a landfill facility that may have opened prior to
1980 may have landfill cells that opened since 1991 which contribute a
large portion of the leachate flow. EPA acknowledges that age-related
changes in landfill leachate characteristics would be expected from
individual landfill cells. Most of the older landfill cells have lower
concentrations of BOD5, COD, and most organic pollutants
indicating a smaller amount of degradable compounds from the aged
waste. \8\ In addition, aged leachates contain high levels of
chemically reduced compounds, such as ammonia, and high chlorides
because of the anaerobic environment of the landfill. These trends tend
to be true for individual landfill cells. However, when looking at a
landfill facility as a whole (where a facility commingles leachates
from several cells of various ages for treatment), the landfills
effluent guidelines database does not fully support such a trend. In
EPA's data collection efforts, EPA did not identify any landfill
facilities that treated leachate from different aged cells separately.
Based on the fact that landfill facilities commingle leachate from
cells of various ages for treatment, EPA concluded that its leachate
effluent database appropriately represents the landfills industry
covered by this guideline, and that the pollutant concentrations found
at landfill facilities of various ages did not vary significantly as to
warrant different treatment technologies for landfills of different
ages. As mentioned above, the Agency sampled raw wastewater at two
landfill cells of different ages and found the concentrations of
constituents to be very similar. EPA concluded that neither the age nor
the size of the landfill facility will directly affect the treatability
of the landfill wastewater. For the non-hazardous landfills, the most
pertinent factors for establishing the limitations are costs of
treatment and the level of effluent reductions obtainable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Eckenfelder, Welsey. Industrial Pollution Control, New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA's sampling data may not be a true reflection of
Subtitle D leachates as a result of the time at which EPA collected its
sampling data. Between the years of 1992 and 1995, when most of EPA's
data collection activities were underway, most of the lined Subtitle D
landfills had only recently begun accepting waste. As a result, EPA's
data reflect relatively new landfills that tend to have less
concentrated leachate since it usually takes 9-15 months after opening
a new cell before the leachate begins to strengthen. In addition, EPA's
sampling included leachate being collected from unlined landfills that
could be diluted by the influence of ground water and, therefore, was
not representative of
[[Page 3040]]
more concentrated leachates found in lined Subtitle D landfills.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' conclusions. EPA
sampled landfills of various ages and stages of operation (active,
inactive, closed), lined and unlined, and is confident that the
landfill database represents leachate typically found at Subtitle D
landfills. A number of commenters also share this view. These
commenters stated that the leachate characterization data presented in
the proposal was consistent with the results of their own monitoring.
EPA characterized wastewater from non-hazardous landfills based on
data from several different sources including industry responses to
EPA's detailed questionnaires, monitoring reports, industry supplied
data, and data from landfills sampled by EPA. Several non-hazardous
landfill facilities responding to the ``Waste Treatment Industry
Questionnaire Phase II: Landfills, Part I, Technical Information,
1994'' (Detailed Questionnaire) began accepting waste prior to 1931.
The majority of the landfill facilities responding to the
questionnaire, however, began receiving wastes after 1971. Only sixteen
of the 204 non-hazardous landfills in EPA's Detailed Questionnaire
database began accepting waste as recently as 1992. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that landfill facilities of all ages were well represented in
EPA's Detailed Questionnaire database.
In addition, EPA sampling episodes comprised a large portion of the
wastewater characterization data for Subtitle D landfills. EPA sampled
twelve different non-hazardous landfill facilities during a two year
period from 1993 to 1995. The period of years in which the landfills
sampled by EPA began accepting wastes ranged from 1962 to 1994.
Grouping the sampled facilities according to the year the facility
began accepting waste and by regulatory history, there are four pre-
1980 landfill facilities (before 1980 Section 3001 of RCRA); one
landfill facility that falls in the 1980 to 1983 range (before the 1984
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment to RCRA); five landfill facilities
that fall in the 1984 to 1988 range (before Land Disposal Restrictions
(LDR)); and three landfill facilities that are post-1988 (after LDR).
EPA sampled only one ``new'' landfill facility. It opened in 1994 and
EPA sampled the following year. All other landfill facilities sampled
by EPA were between four years and 32 years of age at the time of
sampling. EPA agrees with the commenter that relatively new landfill
facilities tend to have less concentrated leachates. However, EPA
combined the data from the one new facility sampled with
characterization data from 12 other landfill facilities that have an
average age of 13 years. In addition, for the most part, these other
landfill facilities commingled leachates from cells of differing ages
and stages of operation. The Agency did not identify any landfill
facilities which found it advantageous or necessary to treat leachates
from landfill cells of different ages separately. Most landfill
leachates sampled by EPA were composite samples of several cells.
Therefore, EPA concluded that the landfills sampled and the resulting
data in the EPA database adequately represent Subtitle D leachates.
The commenters also claim that during the years EPA collected data,
most lined landfill cells were just being constructed or had just begun
operating. Although this may be true, all of the landfills (and cells)
chosen by EPA for sampling were lined, with the exception of one
facility and one landfill at another facility. EPA specifically
selected lined landfills with leachate collection systems for sampling
visits because these facilities would be more likely to employ advanced
leachate treatment, and facilities with advanced treatment were under
consideration as BAT. Even though federal regulations for Subtitle D
landfills are fairly recent, several states were already implementing
requirements similar to the current Subtitle D regulations prior to the
enactment of the federal regulations. Therefore landfills in many
states (e.g., CA, NY, NJ, and PA) incorporated lining and leachate
collection systems in advance of federal requirements.
Another commenter also stated that leachate from unlined landfills
may be diluted by ground water, and therefore, would not be
representative of more concentrated leachates found in lined Subtitle D
landfills. EPA collected leachate data from only two unlined landfills
out of the 13 sampled. EPA has determined that the leachate from one of
the unlined landfills sampled by EPA was unlikely to be diluted by
ground water because the leachate is collected by two gravity flow
sumps located well above the water table. The other unlined landfill
sampled by EPA is also unlikely to be diluted by ground water since the
collection system is located 12 feet above the water table. In
addition, this facility commingled the leachate collected from the
unlined landfill with the leachate from the lined landfill at the
facility. In these circumstances, EPA determined that these data
adequately represent the concentrations of leachate found at Subtitle D
landfills.
Comment: EPA should further subcategorize the Subtitle D landfills
because it is not appropriate to have the same effluent limitations for
both municipal solid waste landfills and non-municipal solid waste
landfills (or monofills).
Response: EPA decided to include non-municipal solid waste
landfills (including monofills) in the same Non-Hazardous subcategory
as municipal solid waste landfills and concluded that, based on the
available raw wastewater data, such facilities can meet the BPT/BAT
limitations using available technologies. EPA did consider
subcategorizing the Non-Hazardous subcategory further but chose not to
be based on several factors.
EPA did not choose to further subcategorize Subtitle D landfill
facilities because the leachate characteristics from monofills,
ashfills, construction and demolition landfills, sludge landfills, and
non-municipal solid waste co-disposal sites were comparable to the
leachate characteristics from municipal solid waste landfills. EPA
found that the pollutants present in dedicated monofills were a subset
of those pollutants found at municipal solid waste landfills, at
comparable concentrations, with many parameters found at lower
concentrations than typically found at municipal solid waste landfills,
as shown in Table 5-3 in the Technical Development Document.
EPA evaluated data from monofills in the EPA database and from
commenters submitting monofill data, as presented in Chapter 5 in the
Development Document, and determined that there are differences in
wastewater characteristics between different types of monofills. Most
of these differences result from the fact that not all monofills accept
the same types of waste. The greatest difference observed was between
monofills that accept organic wastes and those that do not. EPA
concluded that monofills that accepted wastes containing organic
material could meet the promulgated limitations using biological
treatment and, therefore, were similar enough to other landfills in the
subcategory to warrant inclusion. For those monofills that do not
accept organic wastes, EPA found that many of the facilities could meet
the subcategory limitations without treatment, and for those that could
not, alternative technologies were available at cost no greater than
those technologies EPA evaluated (and determined) to be economically
achievable for the subcategory as a whole. EPA included the costs
associated with these alternate
[[Page 3041]]
technologies in the final cost impact analysis.
As a result of its study of the various types of monofills, EPA
determined that a single subcategory for all monofills would still not
address the situation where a certain class of constituents is
regulated even though not all types of monofills contain those
constituents (e.g., a utility ash monofill with low raw wastewater
BOD5 concentrations would still be in the same subcategory
as a sludge monofill which may contain moderate levels of
BOD5 ). Therefore, EPA would need to establish a separate
subcategory for each type of monofill to address the differences among
monofills. Rather than develop multiple monofill subcategories, EPA
decided that because the types of pollutants and concentrations of
pollutants found at monofills were, for the most part, equivalent to or
less than those found at municipal solid waste landfills, a single
subcategory would be appropriate for Subtitle D landfills.
Comment: One commenter, a wastewater treatment technology vendor,
submitted two sets of comments concerning EPA's evaluation of BAT
Option III (reverse osmosis following biological treatment). The
commenter disagreed with the BAT Option III stating that the Pall
Rochem Disc Tube\TM\ technology does not require biological
pretreatment.
Response: EPA agrees that the Pall Rochem Disc Tube\TM\ technology
may effectively treat landfill leachate without prior biological
treatment. EPA sampled the Rochem unit at a landfill that did not
employ biological treatment and the Rochem unit was very effective at
treating the landfill leachate. The data from EPA sampling is contained
in the regulatory record for this rule.
However, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the methodology used
to evaluate BAT was incorrect. As discussed in the preamble to the
proposed rule (63 FR 6443), EPA evaluated BAT treatment options as an
increment to the baseline treatment technology used to develop BPT
limits. Therefore, the BAT Option III consisted of BPT Option II
(biological treatment followed by multimedia filtration) followed by a
single stage reverse osmosis unit. For the analysis, EPA concluded that
a biological system followed by multimedia filtration would already
remove the majority of toxic pollutants, leaving the single-stage
reverse osmosis to treat the very low levels of pollutants that
remained. Additionally, EPA concluded that the limits under BAT would
not be significantly more stringent than BPT because the BPT technology
was already treating most pollutants to very low levels.
Additionally, the selection of the BAT treatment options took into
consideration the fact that many of the existing direct discharging
landfills already employed some sort of biological treatment system.
While EPA acknowledges that the referenced Disc Tube\TM\ reverse
osmosis technology does not require pretreatment using biological
treatment, EPA concluded that it was more cost effective to upgrade
existing biological treatment systems than to add on a reverse osmosis
system (or to replace the existing biological system with a reverse
osmosis system). EPA determined it has reasonably evaluated and
rejected reverse osmosis treatment as a BAT option. However, the
regulation, of course, does not require the installation of a
particular technology, only that the discharger comply with the
limitations. Therefore, if a discharger determines that reverse osmosis
will achieve the effluent limitations established in this rule, then
the discharger is free to install a reverse osmosis treatment system to
treat its landfill wastewater.
Comment: One commenter questioned how a facility will achieve such
low zinc limits using biological treatment without employing a metals
removal technology. The commenter also stated that zinc levels in
landfills typically tend to be in the range of 2 to 7 mg/L.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's claim. The record
supports EPA's determination that the promulgated zinc limitations
levels can be achieved through well-operated biological treatment
systems without metals removal technology. In establishing zinc limits
for the Non-Hazardous subcategory, EPA used zinc data from three of the
seven BPT/BAT facilities for the Non-Hazardous subcategory. EPA did not
use the data from the other four BPT/BAT facilities because all four
employed chemical precipitation in addition to biological treatment,
and chemical precipitation was not part of the selected BPT/BAT option.
All three of the facilities used to calculate the zinc limitations
operated a biological treatment system. Because one of these three
facilities supplied two separate sets of data, EPA used four data
sources from the three BPT/BAT facilities to calculate the limitations
for zinc. The average raw wastewater zinc concentrations for these four
data sets ranged from 0.31 mg/L to 0.995 mg/L with average effluent
concentrations ranging from 0.05 mg/L to 0.21 mg/L. The percent
removals of zinc for these BPT/BAT facilities ranged from 58 percent to
94 percent.
Since the proposed rule, EPA has recalculated the final zinc
effluent limitations for the Non-Hazardous subcategory using the
effluent data discussed above from the four data sources along with
variability factors developed for zinc discharges from these landfills.
EPA calculated a zinc monthly average limit of 0.11 mg/L and a daily
maximum limit of 0.20 mg/L. (EPA explains the statistical methods used
to develop these limitations more thoroughly in the Statistical Support
Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for
the Landfills Point Source Category and in Chapter 11 of the final
Technical Development Document.)
The commenter expressed concern about the ability of biological
treatment systems to achieve the zinc removals EPA had proposed for
landfills without metals removal technology. The commenter stated that
landfill concentrations of zinc are normally in the 2 mg/L to 7 mg/L
range. However, the raw wastewater data submitted by the commenter did
not support that claim. The commenter submitted zinc raw wastewater
data from three Subtitle D landfills with concentrations of 0.065 mg/L
and 0.569 mg/L for one landfill, and 0.165 mg/L and 0.59 mg/L for the
other two landfills. These concentrations are consistent with the raw
wastewater zinc concentrations at the BPT/BAT facilities that EPA used
for the calculation of the effluent limitations for zinc. EPA has
concluded that concentrations such as those submitted by the commenter
are representative of concentrations typically found in Subtitle D
landfill leachate. According to EPA's database, EPA determined that the
mean raw wastewater concentration of zinc in Non-Hazardous subcategory
was 1.2 mg/L and 75 percent of Subtitle D facilities in the database
had zinc concentrations below 0.27 mg/L. Therefore, the EPA Landfills
database does not reflect the commenter's claim that zinc levels at
non-hazardous landfills typically range from 2 mg/L to 7 mg/L.
In addition, all of the influent zinc concentrations at the BPT/BAT
facilities used to develop the non-hazardous BAT limitations for zinc
were above the 75th percentile concentration of 0.27 mg/L, and one
influent zinc concentration is above the 90th percentile concentration
of 0.93 mg/L. Therefore, since the BPT/BAT facilities used in the
calculation of the zinc limitations had zinc raw wastewater
concentrations above 75 percent of other landfills in the Non-Hazardous
subcategory, EPA concluded that the BPT/BAT technology will adequately
treat zinc concentrations
[[Page 3042]]
found in raw waste loads at Subtitle D landfills. Additional
information supporting EPA's determination is provided in the Comment
Response Document and in Chapter 11 of the Technical Development
Document.
While EPA acknowledges that if an individual non-hazardous landfill
has higher zinc raw leachate concentrations than observed for virtually
all of the landfills EPA sampled that the facility may not achieve the
BPT/BAT discharge limitations for zinc using biological treatment and
multi-media filtration alone. EPA's data show, however, that virtually
all of non-hazardous landfills have raw leachate zinc concentrations
that would be amenable to these two technologies. In fact, the one
facility in EPA's database that had an average raw wastewater zinc
concentration of 32 mg/L already has chemical precipitation in place.
EPA determined that all other facilities in the database had raw
wastewater zinc concentrations that could be treated adequately by a
biological treatment system. While they are not designed to remove
zinc, EPA has found that biological treatment systems achieve
incidental removals of zinc through sorption into the biomass. It
should be noted, that although EPA developed the non-hazardous
landfills effluent limitations based on the performance of biological
treatment followed by filtration, EPA does not require the use of the
BPT/BAT technology to treat landfill wastewater. Landfill facilities
have the freedom to choose any technology available to meet the
promulgated effluent limitations.
Comment: One commenter, a manufacturer of insulation and fiberglass
products, stated that monofills do not have the same leachate
characteristics as municipal solid waste landfills. The commenter
points out that parameters such as alpha terpineol, benzoic acid, p-
cresol, and toluene would not normally be anticipated in the leachate
from their monofill wastes and, therefore, should be excluded from the
monitoring protocol.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that there will be cases
where a monofill (i.e., lime, construction and demolition, fly ash,
etc.) will not have the same leachate characteristics as municipal
solid waste landfills. EPA concluded there was sufficient similarity
across these landfills so that subcategorization (and development of
separate limitations) was not warranted as explained earlier in this
section. EPA's permitting regulations require permit applications to
supply the permit writer with information on a wide variety of
pollutants which the permit writer must evaluate for possible limits in
addition to guideline limitations. However, all federally regulated
pollutants are required to be monitored, and the permitting authority
may not alter the list of pollutants regulated as established under
federal guidelines, except to require the monitoring of additional
pollutants in specified circumstances. At a minimum, the final list of
pollutants to be monitored must include all pollutants listed in the
effluent limitations guidelines. The permit authority, however, can
vary the monitoring frequency of the regulated pollutants, but must
require no fewer than once per year for direct discharging facilities.
In addition, as explained in Section [III], EPA has decided not to
set limitations for toluene. See Section [VIII] for information
regarding proposed changes to the monitoring requirements under NPDES
permits.
Appendix A: Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations
Agency: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
BAT: The best available technology economically achievable,
applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July 1, 1984,
for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by Sec.
304(b)(2)(B) of the CWA.
BCT: The best conventional pollutant control technology,
applicable to discharges of conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources, as defined by Sec. 304(b)(4) of the CWA.
BPT: The best practicable control technology currently
available, applicable to effluent limitations to be achieved by July
1, 1977, for industrial discharges to surface waters, as defined by
Sec. 304(b)(1) of the CWA.
Clean Water Act (CWA): The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), as amended by
the Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-217), and the Water Quality
Act of 1987 (Pub. L. 100-4).
Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 308 Questionnaire: A questionnaire
sent to facilities under the authority of Section 308 of the CWA,
which requests information to be used in the development of national
effluent guidelines and standards.
Closed: A facility or portion thereof that is currently not
receiving or accepting wastes and has undergone final closure.
Commercial Facility: A facility that treats, disposes, or
recycles/recovers the wastes of other facilities not under the same
ownership as this facility. Commercial operations are usually made
available for a fee or other remuneration. Commercial waste
treatment, disposal, or recycling/recovery does not have to be the
primary activity at a facility for an operation or unit to be
considered ``commercial''.
Contaminated Ground Water: Water below the land surface in the
zone of saturation which has been contaminated by landfill leachate.
Contaminated ground water occurs at landfills without liners or at
facilities that have released contaminants from a liner system.
Ground water may also become contaminated if the water table rises
to a point where it infiltrates the landfill or the leachate
collection system.
Contaminated Storm Water: Storm water which comes in direct
contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment
areas, or wastewater that is subject to the limitations and
standards. Some specific areas of a landfill that may produce
contaminated storm water include (but are not limited to): the open
face of an active landfill with exposed waste (no cover added); the
areas around wastewater treatment operations; trucks, equipment or
machinery that has been in direct contact with the waste; and waste
dumping areas.
Conventional Pollutants: Constituents of wastewater as
determined by Sec. 304(a)(4) of the CWA, including pollutants
classified as biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, oil
and grease, fecal coliform, and pH.
Deep Well Injection: Disposal of wastewater into a deep well
such that a porous, permeable formation of a larger area and
thickness is available at sufficient depth to ensure continued,
permanent storage.
Detailed Monitoring Questionnaire (DMQ): Questionnaires sent to
collect monitoring data from 27 selected landfill facilities based
on responses to the Section 308 Questionnaire.
Direct Discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge
treated or untreated wastewater into waters of the United States.
Drained Free Liquids: Aqueous wastes drained from waste
containers (e.g., drums, etc.) prior to landfilling. Landfills which
accept containerized waste may generate this type of wastewater.
Effluent Limitation: Any restriction, including schedules of
compliance, established by a State or the Administrator on
quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point
sources into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or
the ocean. (CWA Sections 301(b) and 304(b).)
Existing Source: Any facility from which there is or may be a
discharge of pollutants, the construction of which is commenced
before the publication of the proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance under Sec. 306 of the CWA.
Facility: All contiguous property owned, operated, leased or
under the control of the same person or entity.
Gas Condensate: A liquid which has condensed in the landfill gas
collection system during the extraction of gas from within the
landfill. Gases such as methane and carbon dioxide are generated due
to microbial activity within the landfill, and must be removed to
avoid hazardous conditions.
Ground Water: The body of water that is retained in the
saturated zone which tends to move by hydraulic gradient to lower
levels.
Hazardous Waste: Any waste, including wastewater, defined as
hazardous under RCRA (40 CFR 261.3).
[[Page 3043]]
Inactive: A facility or portion thereof that is currently not
treating, disposing, or recycling/recovering wastes.
Indirect Discharger: A facility that discharges or may discharge
wastewater into a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW).
Landfill: An area of land or an excavation in which wastes are
placed for permanent disposal, that is not a land application or
land treatment unit, surface impoundment, underground injection
well, waste pile, salt dome formation, a salt bed formation, an
underground mine or a cave.
Landfill Generated Wastewater: Wastewater generated by landfill
activities and collected for treatment, discharge or reuse, include:
leachate, contaminated ground water, storm water runoff, landfill
gas condensate, truck/equipment washwater, drained free liquids,
floor washings, and wastewater from recovering pumping wells.
Leachate: Leachate is a liquid that has passed through or
emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or
miscible materials removed from such waste. Leachate is typically
collected from a liner system above which waste is placed for
disposal. Leachate may also be collected through the use of slurry
walls, trenches or other containment systems.
Leachate Collection System: The purpose of a leachate collection
system is to collect leachate for treatment or alternative disposal
and to reduce the depths of leachate buildup or level of saturation
over the low permeability liner.
Liner: The liner is a low permeability material or combination
of materials placed at the base of a landfill to reduce the
discharge to the underlying or surrounding hydrogeologic
environment. The liner is designed as a barrier to intercept
leachate and to direct it to a leachate collection.
Long-Term Average (LTA): For purposes of the effluent
guidelines, average pollutant levels achieved over a period of time
by a facility, subcategory, or technology option. LTAs are used in
developing the limitations and standards in the landfill regulation.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit:
A permit to discharge wastewater into waters of the United States
issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system,
authorized by Section 402 of the CWA.
New Source: As defined in 40 CFR 122.2, 122.29, and 403.3(k), a
new source is any building, structure, facility, or installation
from which there is or may be a discharge of pollutants, the
construction of which commenced (1) for purposes of compliance with
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) established under CWA
section 306, after the promulgation of today's standards; or (2) for
the purposes of compliance with Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS), after the publication of proposed standards under
CWA section 307(c), if such standards are thereafter promulgated in
accordance with that section.
Nonconventional Pollutants: Pollutants that are neither
conventional pollutants listed at 40 CFR Part 401.16 nor priority
pollutants listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 423.
Non-Contaminated Storm Water: Storm water which does not come in
direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and
treatment areas, or wastewater that is subject to the limitations
and standards. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water
which flows off the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily cover,
and/or final cover of the landfill.
Non-Hazardous Subcategory: For the purposes of this report, Non-
Hazardous Subcategory refers to all landfills regulated under
Subtitle D of RCRA.
Non-Water Quality Environmental Impact: Deleterious aspects of
control and treatment technologies applicable to point source
category wastes, including, but not limited to air pollution, noise,
radiation, sludge and solid waste generation, and energy usage.
NSPS: New Sources Performance Standards, applicable to new
sources of direct dischargers whose construction is begun after the
promulgation of effluent standards under CWA section 306.
OCPSF: Organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers
manufacturing point source category. (40 CFR Part 414).
Off-Site: Outside the boundaries of a facility.
On-Site: The same or geographically contiguous property, which
may be divided by a public or private right-of-way, provided the
entrance and exit between the properties is at a crossroads
intersection, and access is by crossing as opposed to going along
the right-of-way. Non-contiguous properties owned by the same
company or locality but connected by a right-of-way, which it
controls, and to which the public does not have access, is also
considered on-site property.
Pass Through: A pollutant is determined to ``pass through''
POTWs when the nationwide median percentage removed by well-operated
POTWs achieving secondary treatment is less than the percentage
removed by the industry's direct dischargers that are using the BAT
technology.
Point Source: Any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance
from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
Pollutants of Interest (POIs): Pollutants commonly found in
landfill generated wastewater. For the purposes of this rulemaking,
a POI is a pollutant that is detected three or more times above a
treatable level at a landfill, and must be present at more than one
facility.
Priority Pollutant: One hundred twenty-six compounds that are a
subset of the 65 toxic pollutants and classes of pollutants outlined
in Section 307 of the CWA and listed in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part
423. The priority pollutants are specified in the NRDC settlement
agreement (Natural Resources Defense Council et al. v. Train, 8
E.R.C. 2120 [D.D.C. 1976], modified 12 E.R.C. 1833 [D.D.C. 1979]).
PSES: Pretreatment standards for existing sources of indirect
discharges, under Sec. 307(b) of the CWA.
PSNS: Pretreatment standards for new sources of indirect
discharges, applicable to new sources whose construction has begun
after the publication of proposed standards under CWA section
307(c), if such standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance
with that section.
Public Service: The provision of landfill waste disposal
services to individual members of the general public, publicly-owned
organizations (schools, universities, government agencies,
municipalities) and not-for-profit organizations for which the
landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW): Any device or system,
owned by a state or municipality, used in the treatment (including
recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage or industrial wastes
of a liquid nature that is owned by a state or municipality. This
includes sewers, pipes, or other conveyances only if they convey
wastewater to a POTW providing treatment (40 CFR 122.2).
RCRA: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
(42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.), which regulates the generation,
treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling of solid and hazardous
wastes.
Subtitle C Landfill: A landfill permitted to accept hazardous
wastes under Sections 3001 and 3019 of RCRA and the regulations
promulgated pursuant to these sections, including 40 CFR Parts 260
through 272.
Subtitle D Landfill: A landfill permitted to accept only non-
hazardous wastes under Sections 4001 through 4010 of RCRA and the
regulations promulgated pursuant to these sections, including 40 CFR
Parts 257 and 258.
Surface Impoundment: A natural topographic depression, man-made
excavation, or diked area formed primarily of earthen materials
(although it may be lined with man-made materials), used to
temporarily or permanently treat, store, or dispose of waste,
usually in the liquid form. Surface impoundments do not include
areas constructed to hold containers of wastes. Other common names
for surface impoundments include ponds, pits, lagoons, finishing
ponds, settling ponds, surge ponds, seepage ponds, and clarification
ponds.
Toxic Pollutants: Pollutants declared ``toxic'' under Section
307(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
Truck/Equipment Washwater: Wastewater generated during either
truck or equipment washes at the landfill. During routine
maintenance or repair operations, trucks and/or equipment used
within the landfill (e.g., loaders, compactors, or dump trucks) are
washed and the resultant washwaters are collected for treatment.
Variability Factor: The daily variability factor is the ratio of
the estimated 99th percentile of the distribution of daily values
divided by the expected value, median or mean, of the distribution
of the daily data. The monthly variability factor is the estimated
95th percentile of the distribution of the monthly averages of the
data divided by the expected value of the monthly averages.
Zero Discharge: No discharge of pollutants to waters of the
United States or to a POTW. Also included in this definition are
alternative discharge or disposal of pollutants by way of
evaporation, deep-well injection, off-site transfer, and land
application.
[[Page 3044]]
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 136
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Water pollution control.
40 CFR Part 445
Environmental protection, Waste treatment and disposal, Water
pollution control.
November 30, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 136--TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE ANALYSIS OF POLLUTANTSI111. The
authority citation for Part 136 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 301, 304(h), 307, and 501(a) Pub. L. 95-217,
91 Stat. 1566, et seq. (33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.) (The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 as amended by the Clean
Water Act of 1977).
Appendix A [Amended]
2. Appendix A to Part 136 is amended to add text at the end of
Method 625 as an attachment and to add text at the end of Method 1625
as an attachment, reading as follows:
Appendix A To Part 136--Methods For Organic Chemical Analysis of
Municipal and Industrial Wastewater
* * * * *
Method 625--Base/Neutrals and Acids
* * * * *
Attachment 1 to Method 625
Introduction
To support measurement of several semi-volatile pollutants, EPA
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 625 \1\. EPA Method 625
(the Method) involves sample extraction with methylene chloride
followed by analysis of the extract using either packed or capillary
column gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment
addresses the addition of the semivolatile pollutants listed in
Tables 1 and 2, to all applicable standard, stock, and spiking
solutions utilized for the determination of semivolatile organic
compounds by EPA Method 625.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 625: Base/Neutrals and Acids, 40 CFR Part 136,
Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 EPA METHOD 625 MODIFICATION SUMMARY
The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other
solutions utilized in the determination of base/neutral and acid
compounds by EPA Method 625. The instrument is to be calibrated with
these compounds, using a capillary column, and all procedures and
quality control tests stated in the Method must be performed.
2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS
Note: All section and figure numbers in this Attachment
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 625 unless noted
otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.
Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions described in this section
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the
Method.
Section 7.2 The calibration standards described in this section are
modified to include the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this
attachment.
Section 8.2 The precision and accuracy requirements are modified to
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Additional performance criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this
attachment.
Section 8.3 The matrix spike is modified to include the analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 8.4 The QC check standard is modified to include the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment. Additional
performance criteria are supplied in Table 5 of this attachment.
Section 16.0 Additional method performance information is supplied
with this attachment.
Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone................................................ 98-86-2
Alpha-terpineol............................................. 98-55-5
Aniline..................................................... 62-53-3
Carbazole................................................... 86-74-8
2,3-Dichloroaniline......................................... 608-27-5
o-Cresol.................................................... 95-48-7
n-Decane.................................................... 124-18-5
n-Docosane.................................................. 629-97-0
n-Dodecane.................................................. 112-40-3
n-Eicosane.................................................. 112-95-8
n-Hexadecane................................................ 544-76-3
n-Octadecane................................................ 593-45-36
n-Tetradecane............................................... 629-59-4
Pyridine.................................................... 110-86-1
1-Methylphenanthrene........................................ 832-69-9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry
Table 2.--Acid Extractables
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parameter CAS No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
benzoic acid................................................ 65-85-0
p-cresol.................................................... 106-44-5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS = Chemical Abstracts Registry
Table 3.--Chromatographic Conditions,\1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Base/
Neutral Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention MDL ( g/L) --------------------------------------
\2\ Primary Secondary Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pyridine...................................... 4.93 4.6 79 52 51
N-Nitrosodimethylamine........................ 4.95 ............ 42 74 44
Aniline....................................... 10.82 3.3 93 66 65
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether....................... 10.94 ............ 93 63 95
n-Decane...................................... 11.11 5.0 57 ........... ...........
1,3-Dichlorobenzene........................... 11.47 ............ 146 148 113
1,4-Dichlorobenzene........................... 11.62 ............ 146 148 113
1,2-Dichlorobenzene........................... 12.17 ............ 146 148 113
o-Cresol...................................... 12.48 4.7 108 107 79
Bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether................... 12.51 ............ 45 77 79
Acetophenone.................................. 12.88 3.4 105 77 51
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine..................... 12.97 ............ 130 42 101
Hexachloroethane.............................. 13.08 ............ 117 201 199
Nitrobenzene.................................. 13.40 ............ 77 123 65
Isophorone.................................... 14.11 ............ 82 95 138
[[Page 3045]]
Bis(2-chloroethoxy)methane.................... 14.82 ............ 93 95 123
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene........................ 15.37 ............ 180 182 145
n-Dodecane.................................... 15.45 3.0 57 ........... ...........
Alpha-terpineol............................... 15.55 5.0 59 ........... ...........
Naphthalene................................... 15.56 ............ 128 129 127
Hexachlorobutadiene........................... 16.12 ............ 225 223 227
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene..................... 18.47 ............ 237 235 272
2,3-dichloroaniline........................... 18.82 2.5 161 163 90
n-tetradecane................................. 19.21 1.7 57 ........... ...........
2-Chloronaphthalene........................... 19.35 ............ 162 164 127
Dimethyl phthalate............................ 20.48 ............ 163 194 164
Acenaphthylene................................ 20.69 ............ 152 151 153
2,6-Dinitrotoluene............................ 20.73 ............ 165 89 121
Acenaphthene.................................. 21.30 ............ 154 153 152
2,4-Dinitrotoluene............................ 22.00 ............ 165 63 182
n-hexadecane.................................. 22.49 3.0 55 ........... ...........
Diethylphthalate.............................. 22.74 ............ 149 177 150
4-Chlorophenyl phenyl ether................... 22.90 ............ 204 206 141
Fluorene...................................... 22.92 ............ 166 165 167
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine........................ 23.35 ............ 169 168 167
4-Bromophenyl phenyl ether.................... 24.44 ............ 248 250 141
Hexachlorobenzene............................. 24.93 ............ 284 142 249
n-octadecane.................................. 25.39 2.0 57 ........... ...........
Phenanthrene.................................. 25.98 ............ 178 179 176
Anthracene.................................... 26.12 ............ 178 179 176
Carbazole..................................... 26.66 4.0 167 ........... ...........
Dibutyl phthalate............................. 27.84 ............ 149 150 104
1-methylphenanthrene.......................... 27.94 2.7 192 191 165
n-eicosane.................................... 27.99 3.0 55 ........... ...........
Fluoranthene.................................. 29.82 ............ 202 101 100
Benzidine..................................... 30.26 ............ 184 92 185
n-docosane.................................... 30.43 2.0 57 ........... ...........
Pyrene........................................ 30.56 ............ 202 101 100
Butyl benzyl phthalate........................ 32.63 ............ 149 91 206
3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine........................ 34.28 ............ 252 254 126
Benzo(a)anthracene............................ 34.33 ............ 228 229 226
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate.................... 34.36 ............ 149 167 279
Chrysene...................................... 34.44 ............ 228 226 229
Di-n-octyl-phthalate.......................... 36.17 ............ 149 ........... ...........
Benzo(b)fluoranthene.......................... 37.90 ............ 252 253 125
Benzo(k)fluoranthene.......................... 37.97 ............ 252 253 125
Benzo(a)pyrene................................ 39.17 ............ 252 253 125
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene........................ 44.91 ............ 278 139 279
Indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene....................... 45.01 ............ 276 138 277
Benzo(ghi)perylene............................ 46.56 ............ 276 138 277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
Column--30+/-5 meters x 0.25+/-.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl, bonded phase fused silica
capillary column (DB-5).
Temperature program--Five minutes at 30 deg.C; 30-280 deg.C at 8 deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280 deg.C
until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
Gas velocity--30+/-5 cm/sec at 30 deg.C.
\2\ Retention times are from Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
consistent for all analytes in Tables 4 and 5 of this attachment.
Table 4.--Chromatographic Conditions, \1\ Method Detection Limits (MDLs), and Characteristic m/z's for Acid
Extractables
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention MDL (g/L) --------------------------------------
(min) Primary Secondary Secondary
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phenol........................................ 10.76 ............ 94 65 66
2-Chlorophenol................................ 11.08 ............ 128 64 130
p-Cresol...................................... 12.92 7.8 108 107 77
2-Nitrophenol................................. 14.38 ............ 139 65 109
2,4-Dimethylphenol............................ 14.54 ............ 122 107 121
Benzoic acid.................................. 14.85 3.0 105 122 77
2,4-Dichlorophenol............................ 15.12 ............ 162 164 98
4-Chloro-3-methylphenol....................... 16.83 ............ 142 107 144
[[Page 3046]]
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol......................... 18.80 ............ 196 198 200
2,4-Dinitrophenol............................. 21.51 ............ 184 63 154
4-Nitrophenol................................. 21.77 ............ 65 139 109
2-Methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol.................... 22.83 ............ 198 182 77
Pentachlorophenol............................. 25.52 ............ 266 264 268
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the following conditions:
Column--30 +/-5 meters x 0.25 +/-.02 mm i.d., 94% methyl, 5% phenyl, 1% vinyl silicone bonded phase fused
silica capillary column (DB-5).
Temperature program--Five minutes at 30 deg.C; 30-280 deg.C at 8 deg.C per minute; isothermal at 280 deg.C
until benzo(ghi)perylene elutes.
Gas velocity--30+/-5 cm/sec at 30 deg.C.
\2\ Retention times are from EPA Method 1625, Revision C, using a capillary column, and are intended to be
consistent for all analytes in Tables 3 and 4 of this attachment.
Table 5.--QC Acceptance Criteria
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test Limits for
conclusion s (g/ m>g/L) (g/ P, Ps (%)
L) L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone............................................. 100 51 23-254 61-144
Alpha-terpineol.......................................... 100 47 46-163 58-156
Aniline.................................................. 100 71 15-278 46-134
Carbazole................................................ 100 17 79-111 73-131
2,3-Dichloroaniline...................................... 100 13 40-160 68-134
o-Cresol................................................. 100 23 30-146 55-126
Benzoic acid............................................. 100 24 ns-ns ns-ns
p-Cresol................................................. 100 22 11-617 76-107
n-Decane................................................. 100 70 D-651 D-ns
n-Docosane............................................... 100 10 52-155 49-163
n-Dodecane............................................... 100 36 13-103 10-359
n-Eicosane............................................... 100 28 57-133 72-117
n-Hexadecane............................................. 100 37 44-135 69-105
n-Octadecane............................................. 100 10 52-147 65-123
n-Tetradecane............................................ 100 8 75-100 47-113
Pyridine................................................. 100 ns 7-392 33-158
1-Methylphenanthrene..................................... 100 16 39-240 60-161
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s=Standard deviation for four recovery measurements, in g/L (Section 8.2)
X=Average recovery for four recovery measurements in g/L (Section 8.2)
P,Ps=Percent recovery measured (Section 8.3, Section 8.4)
D=Detected; result must be greater than zero.
ns=no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.
* * * * *
Method 1625--Revision B--Semivolatile Organic Compounds by Isotope
Dilution GC/MS
* * * * *
Attachment 1 to Method 1625
Introduction
To support measurement of several semivolatile pollutants, EPA
has developed this attachment to EPA Method 1625B.\1\ EPA Method
1625B (the Method) employs sample extraction with methylene chloride
followed by analysis of the extract using capillary column gas
chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS). This attachment addresses
the addition of the semivolatile pollutants listed in Tables 1 and 2
to all applicable standard, stock, and spiking solutions utilized
for the determination of semivolatile organic compounds by EPA
Method 1625B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA Method 1625 Revision B, Semivolatile Organic Compounds
by Isotope Dilution GC/MS, 40 CFR Part 136, Appendix A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 EPA METHOD 1625 REVISION B MODIFICATION SUMMARY
The additional semivolatile organic compounds listed in Tables 1
and 2 are added to all applicable calibration, spiking, and other
solutions utilized in the determination of semivolatile compounds by
EPA Method 1625. The instrument is to be calibrated with these
compounds, and all procedures and quality control tests described in
the Method must be performed.
2.0 SECTION MODIFICATIONS
Note: All section and figure numbers in this Attachment
reference section and figure numbers in EPA Method 1625 Revision B
unless noted otherwise. Sections not listed here remain unchanged.
Section 6.7 The stock standard solutions described in this section
are modified such that the analytes in Tables 1 and 2 of this
attachment are required in addition to those specified in the
Method.
Section 6.8 The labeled compound spiking solution in this section
is modified to include the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and
6 of this attachment.
Section 6.9 The secondary standard is modified to include the
additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 6.12 The solutions for obtaining authentic mass spectra are
to include all additional analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this
attachment.
Section 6.13 The calibration solutions are modified to include the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.14 The precision and recovery standard is modified to
include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the
[[Page 3047]]
labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 6.15 The solutions containing the additional analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment are to be analyzed for
stability.
Section 7.2.1 This section is modified to include the analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables
5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 7.4.5 This section is modified to include the analytes
listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed in Tables
5 and 6 in the calibration.
Section 8.2 The initial precision and recovery (IPR) requirements
are modified to include the analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and
the labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Additional IPR performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of this
attachment.
Section 8.3 The labeled compounds listed in Tables 3 and 4 of this
attachment are to be included in the method performance tests.
Additional method performance criteria are supplied in Table 7 of
this attachment.
Section 8.5.2 The acceptance criteria for blanks includes the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.2 The labeled compound solution must include the
labeled compounds listed in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 10.1.3 The precision and recovery standard must include the
analytes listed in Tables 1 and 2 and the labeled compounds listed
in Tables 5 and 6 of this attachment.
Section 12.5 Additional QC requirements for calibration
verification are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.
Section 12.7 Additional QC requirements for ongoing precision and
recovery are supplied in Table 7 of this attachment.
Table 1.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
-------------------------
Compound CAS
registry EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone.................................. 98-86-2 758
Aniline....................................... 62-53-3 757
2,3-Dichloroaniline........................... 608-27-5 578
o-Cresol...................................... 95-48-7 771
Pyridine...................................... 110-86-1 1330
1-Methylphenanthrene.......................... 832-69-9 905
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS=Chemical Abstracts Registry
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division
Table 2.--Acid Extractable Compounds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant
-------------------------
Compound CAS
registry EPA-EGD
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benzoic acid.................................. 65-85-0 700
p-Cresol...................................... 106-44-5 1744
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAS=Chemical Abstracts Registry
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division
Table 3.--Gas Chromatography \1\ of Base/Neutral Extractable Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention time \2\ Minimum Level
EGD No. Compound ------------------------------------------------ \3\ (g/L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758..................... Acetophenone.......... 818 658 1.003-1.005 10
757..................... Aniline............... 694 657 0.994-1.023 10
578..................... 2,3-Dichloroaniline... 1160 164 1.003-1.007 10
771..................... o-Cresol.............. 814 671 1.005-1.009 10
1330.................... Pyridine.............. 930 1230 1.005-1.011 10
905..................... 1-Methylphenanthrene.. 1697 164 1.449-1.537 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to
Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
\2\ Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes
in EPA Method 1625B.
\3\ See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 3 of EPA Method 1625B.
Table 4.--Gas Chromatography \1\ of Acid Extractable Compounds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retention time \2\ Minimum level
EGD No. Compound ------------------------------------------------ (g/
Mean (sec) EGD Ref Relative L) \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1744.................... p-Cresol.............. 834 1644 1.004-1.008 20
700..................... Benzoic acid.......... 971 600 0.992-1.008 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division
\1\ The data presented in this table were obtained under the chromatographic conditions given in the footnote to
Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
\2\ Retention times are approximate and are intended to be consistent with the retention times for the analytes
in EPA Method 1625B.
[[Page 3048]]
\3\ See the definition in footnote 2 to Table 4 of EPA Method 1625B.
Table 5.--Base/Neutral Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeled Primary m/z
Compound analog \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetophenone............................ d5 105/110
Aniline................................. d7 93/100
2,3-Dichloroaniline..................... n/a 161
Pyridine................................ d5 79/84
o-Cresol................................ d7 108/116
1-Methylphenanthrene.................... n/a 192
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z=mass to charge ratio
\1\ native/labeled
Table 6.--Acid Extractable Compound Characteristic m/z's
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Labeled Primary m/z
Compound analog \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
p-Cresol................................ d7 108/116
Benzoic acid............................ d5 105/110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
m/z=mass to charge ratio
\1\ native/labeled
Table 7.--Acceptance Criteria for Performance Tests
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance criteria
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial precision and accuracy Labeled Calibration
EGD No. Compound section 8.2 (g/L) compound verification On-going
-------------------------------- recovery sec. sec. 12.5 accuracy sec.
s (g/ 8.3 and 14.2 P (g/ 12.7 R
L) X (percent) mL) (g/L)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
758................................. Acetophenone...................... 34 44-167 .............. 85-115 45-162
658................................. Acetophenone-d5................... 51 23-254 45-162 85-115 22-264
757................................. Aniline........................... 32 30-171 .............. 85-115 33-154
657................................. Aniline-d7........................ 71 15-278 33-154 85-115 12-344
700................................. Benzoic acid...................... ns ns-ns .............. ns-322 ns-ns
600................................. Benzoic acid-d5................... 24 ns-ns ns-ns 66-134 ns-648
578................................. 2,3-dichloroaniline............... 13 40-160 .............. 85-115 44-144
771................................. o-Cresol.......................... 40 31-226 .............. 85-115 35-196
671................................. o-Cresol-d7....................... 23 30-146 35-196 85-115 31-142
1744................................ p-Cresol.......................... 59 54-140 .............. 85-115 37-203
1644................................ p-Cresol-d7....................... 22 11-618 37-203 85-115 16-415
1330................................ Pyridine.......................... 28 10-421 .............. 83-117 18-238
1230................................ Pyridine-d5....................... ns 7-392 19-238 85-115 4-621
905................................. 1-Methylphenanthrene.............. 16 39-240 .............. 78-122 46-204
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s=Standard deviation of four recovery measurements.
X=Average recovery for four recovery measurements.
EGD=Effluent Guidelines Division.
ns=no specification; limit is outside the range that can be measured reliably.
Part 445 is added to read as follows:
PART 445--LANDFILLS POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
Sec.
445.1 General applicability.
445.2 General definitions.
445.3 General pretreatment standards.
Subpart A--RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill
445.10 Applicability.
445.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
445.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
445.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
445.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Subpart B--RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill
Sec.
445.20 Applicability.
445.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
445.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
445.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
445.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Authority: Secs. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402 and 501 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318,
1342 and 1361)
[[Page 3049]]
Sec. 445.1 General applicability.
(a) As defined more specifically in each subpart and except as
provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, this part
applies to discharges of wastewater from landfill units.
(b) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater
discharges from land application or land treatment units, surface
impoundments, underground injection wells, waste piles, salt dome
formations, salt bed formations, underground mines or caves as these
terms are defined in 40 CFR 257.2 and 260.10.
(c) The provisions of this part do not apply to wastewater
generated off-site of a landfill facility, including wastewater
generated off-site from washing vehicles or from waste transfer
stations.
(d) The provisions of this part do not apply to discharges of
contaminated ground water or wastewater from recovery pumping wells.
(e) This part does not apply to discharges of landfill wastewater
from landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or
commercial operations when the landfill only receives wastes generated
by the industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the
landfill.
(f) This part does not apply to discharges of landfill wastewater
from landfills operated in conjunction with other industrial or
commercial operations when the landfill receives wastes generated by
the industrial or commercial operation directly associated with the
landfill and also receives other wastes provided the other wastes
received for disposal are generated by a facility that is subject to
the same provisions in 40 CFR subchapter N as the industrial or
commercial operation or the other wastes received are of similar nature
to the wastes generated by the industrial or commercial operation.
(g) This part does not apply to landfills operated in conjunction
with Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT) facilities subject to 40 CFR
Part 437 so long as the CWT facility commingles the landfill wastewater
with other non-landfill wastewater for discharge. A landfill directly
associated with a CWT facility is subject to this part if the CWT
facility discharges landfill wastewater separately from other CWT
wastewater or commingles the wastewater from its landfill only with
wastewater from other landfills.
(h) This part does not apply to landfills operated in conjunction
with other industrial or commercial operations when the landfill
receives wastes from public service activities so long as the company
owning the landfill does not receive a fee or other remuneration for
the disposal service.
Sec. 445.2 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR 122.2, 257.2,
258.2, 264.10, 265.10, 401.11, and 403.3 the following definitions
apply to this part:
(a) Contaminated ground water means water below the land surface in
the zone of saturation which has been contaminated by activities
associated with waste disposal.
(b) Contaminated storm water means storm water which comes in
direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and treatment
areas, or landfill wastewater as defined in paragraph (f) of this
section. Some specific areas of a landfill that may produce
contaminated storm water include (but are not limited to): the open
face of an active landfill with exposed waste (no cover added); the
areas around wastewater treatment operations; trucks, equipment or
machinery that has been in direct contact with the waste; and waste
dumping areas.
(c) Landfill directly associated with an industrial or commercial
operation means:
(1) A landfill located on the same site as industrial or commercial
operations; and
(2) A landfill not located on the same site as the industrial or
commercial operations (off-site), but ``wholly-owned'' by the
industrial or commercial facility and primarily dedicated to receiving
waste from the related industrial or commercial facility.
(d) Facility means all contiguous property owned, operated, leased
or under the control of the same person or entity.
(e) Landfill unit means an area of land or an excavation in which
wastes are placed for permanent disposal, that is not a land
application or land treatment unit, surface impoundment, underground
injection well, waste pile, salt dome formation, a salt bed formation,
an underground mine or a cave as these terms are defined in 40 CFR
257.2, 258.2 and 264.10.
(f) Landfill wastewater means all wastewater associated with, or
produced by, landfilling activities except for sanitary wastewater,
non-contaminated storm water, contaminated ground water, and wastewater
from recovery pumping wells. Landfill wastewater includes, but is not
limited to, leachate, gas collection condensate, drained free liquids,
laboratory derived wastewater, contaminated storm water and contact
washwater from washing truck, equipment, and railcar exteriors and
surface areas which have come in direct contact with solid waste at the
landfill facility.
(g) Non-contaminated storm water means storm water which does not
come in direct contact with landfill wastes, the waste handling and
treatment areas, or landfill wastewater that is defined in paragraph
(f) of this section. Non-contaminated storm water includes storm water
which flows off the cap, cover, intermediate cover, daily cover, and/or
final cover of the landfill.
(h) Off-site means outside the boundaries of a facility.
(i) On-site means within the boundaries of a facility.
(j) Public service means the provision of landfill waste disposal
services to individual members of the general public, publicly-owned
organizations (schools, universities, government agencies,
municipalities) and not-for-profit organizations for which the landfill
does not receive a fee or other remuneration.
(k) The regulated parameters for this part, numbered (P) and listed
with approved methods of analysis in Table 1B at 40 CFR 136.3, are
defined as follows:
(1) Ammonia (as N) means ammonia reported as nitrogen. P4.
(2) BOD5 means 5-day biochemical oxygen demand. P9.
(3) Arsenic means total arsenic. P6.
(4) Chromium means total chromium. P19.
(5) Zinc means total zinc. P75.
(l) The regulated parameters for this part, numbered (P) and listed
with approved methods of analysis in Table 1C at 40 CFR 136.3, are as
follows:
(1) Naphthalene. P68.
(2) Phenol. P85.
(m) The regulated parameters for this part listed with approved
methods of analysis in the attachments to Methods 625 and 1625B in
Appendix A at 40 CFR Part 136 are as follows:
(1) Aniline.
(2) Benzoic acid.
(3) p-Cresol.
(4) Pyridine.
(5) a-Terpineol.
Sec. 445.3 General pretreatment standards.
Any source subject to this part that introduces wastewater
pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) must comply
with 40 CFR part 403.
Subpart A--RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste Landfill
Sec. 445.10 Applicability.
Except as provided in Sec. 445.1, this subpart applies to
discharges of
[[Page 3050]]
wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Part 264,
Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-(Landfills); and 40 CFR
Part 265, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities, Subpart N-
(Landfills).
Sec. 445.11 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations which represent the application of BPT:
Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Maximum daily \1\ Regulated monthly
parameter avg.\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................................ 220 56
TSS......................................... 88 27
Ammonia (as N).............................. 10 4.9
-Terpineol......................... 0.042 0.019
Aniline..................................... 0.024 0.015
Benzoic acid................................ 0.119 0.073
Naphthalene................................. 0.059 0.022
p-Cresol.................................... 0.024 0.015
Phenol...................................... 0.048 0.029
Pyridine.................................... 0.072 0.025
Arsenic..................................... 1.1 0.54
Chromium.................................... 1.1 0.46
Zinc........................................ 0.535 0.296
pH.......................................... (\2\) (\2\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm).
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.
Sec. 445.12 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations which represent the application of BCT:
Limitations for BOD5, TSS and pH are the same as the
corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.11.
Sec. 445.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations which represent the application of BAT:
Limitations for ammonia (as N), a-terpineol, aniline, benzoic acid,
naphthalene, p-cresol, phenol, pyridine, arsenic, chromium and zinc are
the same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.11.
Sec. 445.14 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
performance standards: Standards are the same as those specified in
Sec. 445.11.
Subpart B--RCRA Subtitle D Non-Hazardous Waste Landfill
Sec. 445.20 Applicability.
Except as provided in Sec. 445.1, this subpart applies to
discharges of wastewater from landfills subject to the provisions of 40
CFR part 258, Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; and 40 CFR
part 257, Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal
Facilities and Practices.
Sec. 445.21 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations which represent the application of BPT:
Effluent Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
Regulated parameter Maximum monthly avg.
daily \1\ \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD......................................... 140 37
TSS......................................... 88 27
Ammonia (as N).............................. 10 4.9
a-Terpineol................................. 0.033 0.016
Benzoic acid................................ 0.12 0.071
p-Cresol.................................... 0.025 0.014
Phenol...................................... 0.026 0.015
Zinc........................................ 0.20 0.11
pH.......................................... 2) (2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Milligrams per liter (mg/L, ppm)
\2\ Within the range 6 to 9.
[[Page 3051]]
Sec. 445.22 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the
best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations which represent the application of BCT:
Limitations for BOD5, TSS and pH are the same as the
corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.21.
Sec. 445.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30--125.32, any existing point
source subject to this subpart must achieve the following effluent
limitations which represent the application of BAT: Limitations for
ammonia (as N), a-terpineol, benzoic acid, p-cresol, phenol and zinc
are the same as the corresponding limitations specified in Sec. 445.21.
Sec. 445.24 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
performance standards: Standards are the same as those specified in
Sec. 445.21.
[FR Doc. 00-1037 Filed 01-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P